The Populist Manifesto

Obama Has Jumped The Oily Shark

2010-05-28T07:15:00.000-07:00

Karl Rove recently published an article claiming that the Gulf Oil Blow Out is Obama's Katrina. Through inaction and foot dragging, Obama made Rove correct. It didn't have to be.

Obama likes to think of himself as a master of politics, but he must have learned his moves from the WWII French. He surrenders practically as the battles are joined. He has never stood firm for any position he presented verbally. Instead we discover that behind the scenes he has done much to reverse that which he publicly proposes.

But to get back to Rove's assertion, the first clue that Obama had lost control of the message was the actions of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. In an attempt to do something for his state, he was proposing actions that should have already been underway under Federal guidance, and made Obama look more the fool and poltroon than anything else Obama has done (and that is already a lot).

Just to be fair, Jindal also made the Republican governors of Mississippi and Alabama look bad. Of all the affected Gulf states, only Florida's politicians have begun to act -however misguidedly- to defend their state from BP's mess. But I digress.

The real message beginning to emerge is that Obama has lost the little people. MSNBC is reporting that, for the first time since Bill Clinton left office after he disappointed the American people, small donors are giving more to the Republican Party than to the Democrats.

This indicates to me that the GOP can now claim justification for their obstructionist tactics, and they can be expected to continue to use these tactics if they ever lose control of the government again (Fat Chance!). Stalling until the other side screws up big time will guarantee the desired results.

This is not a good development for the nation. We have been started down the path to corporate dominance of the national affairs with the installation of George W Bush by the activist conservatives on the Supreme Court. We were continued down that path by Obama, both actively behind the scenes and through his incompetence in public. The people have had enough, and are seeking change from the only other (to their small minds, anyway) option.

The Democrats are finished, and Obama can take the credit for blowing the best opportunity to turn the nation onto a course which would have led to the future. Now, despite all of his protestations to the contrary, we are only going to look back instead of looking forward. The troglodytes of the Republican Party will insist.

Spill, Baby, Spill

2010-05-14T16:58:00.000-07:00

I've tried to refrain from talking about the BP / Transocean / Halliburton oil spill in the Gulf until I understood it well enough to comment on it. I'm still no expert on industrial engineering and oil drilling, but I think I've finally gotten a handle on the amazing screw up that continues unabated. What I find shocking is that we're now getting reports that the spill could be ten times bigger than we thought.

I can only begin to imagine the damage this spill is going to have over the long term. I'm sure the fishermen on the coast would be more than happy to tell us how this is destroying their lives. I'm sure we'll even see more signs of it soon, and not just tar balls either.

What really amazes me, although it doesn't surprise me, is that Republicans have blocked an effort to change the law to increase BP's liability for clean up and environmental damages. After all, that would be bad for BP and that makes it bad for their graft revenue.

The more I hear about this, the more I believe criminal charges need to be filed. I just don't know against whom they should be filed. There are memos and letters going back over a year discussing how dangerous the situation was. There are reports that hours before the explosion there was notification of system failure. Make no mistake, those men that died on that rig didn't need to. They died because BP, Transocean, and Halliburton are greedy, evil corporations that don't give a flying crap about the lives of the people who actually do the real work. MMS, and their criminally cozy relationship, with the oil industry needs to see some people go to jail too.

Yeah, off-shore drilling. What a great idea. How much more proof do people need to know that it is time to end our addiction to oil? It's time for an energy revolution, and that means stopping those bastards in Washington from lining their pockets with blood money.

More evidence of teabagger hypocracy and racism

2010-04-28T15:08:00.000-07:00

The University of Washington has published a poll that clearly shows that 2/3 of teabaggers support racial and religious profiling and other violations of civil rights, such as governmental wiretaps. The veneer of taxes and big government is rubbing off and the racism under the hood is beginning to shine through so clearly it's blinding.

Click here for the study.

Teabaggers, the jig is up.

2010-04-27T00:12:00.000-07:00

There is no longer any room for the teabaggers to hide from what they are. David Duke, former Klan leader and first rate jack ass, has posted a video on YouTube in support of the teabaggers. What's more, he's up to his old tricks again, claiming that the only reason they are being portrayed as racist is because the Jews run Hollywood. That's right, he said it again. Let me provide you with a few quotations from he latest screed of idiocy.

Duke: Tea Party people are called racist because the vast majority wants to stop the massive non-European immigration that will turn America into a crumbling tower of Babel. Most Tea Partiers believe that we in America have the right to preserve our heritage, language, and culture, just as every nation has that human right. The vast majority of Tea Party activists oppose affirmative action and diversity, which are nothing more than programs of racist discrimination against white people.

You see, for Duke and people like him, preserving America is about being white. People of color are a threat. They are dangerous and they will kill you and take your stuff. Don't mind the fact that all of this garbage isn't even good for fertilizer. According to Duke, being a teabagger is all about making white people the only people in America.

Duke: The Tea Party movement is made up of American people who have watched in silent anger while the nation of our forefathers has been destroyed.

You know, by letting other people come to America and bring their weird, foreign ways and languages. But the worst sin of all was those darn race traitors electing a black man president. That, right there, was the death knell for men like Duke and the predominantly white, militant, and racist teabaggers. Oh, so you still think that being a teabagger is about being white and scared? Tell me, where are the non-whites? Why is it that the people at your tea parties look like Alice and not Nelson Mandela? The insane majority of teabaggers, well over 90%, are white. This is something that Duke even admitted during is idiotic blathering. He even went so far as to advise teabaggers to drop the fake multiracial, multicultural façade and be proud it is a white people thing.

The jig is up. When the likes of David Duke are cheering you on, endorsing you, and telling the world at large that you are just a bunch of angry white people, it's time to rethink what you're doing. The only agenda you are serving is one of hatred and racism. It's time to stop acting like a bunch of petulant children and start acting like adults.

Here is Duke's video, watch at your own risk.

And that isn't even the worst of it. You should look at the gems for comments. Here are three, from the first page of comments on YouTube.

• The supporters of the Tea Party already are White and that is why the Judeo-Media calls them racist

• If the Tea Party is hijacked by Jews and Zionist Christians, (just like the Democrats and the Republicans were hijacked), it will become utterly useless. Keep the Tea Party for the Founders and it will continue to be effective.

• Whites must come to stark realization that if we let ourselves become a minority, small one at that, we are going to get a lot worse than even Obama! We must defend OUR heritage just as Forefathers did!

If you want to claim that this is all about sovereign rights and the Constitution, where the hell were these "patriots" when Bush was trampling on our civil liberties with warrantless wiretaps? Where were they when Bush intimately tied federal money to religious charities? Where were the armed mobs holding up signs with racist epithets for 8 years as the Right Wing moved this country closer to a fascist police state than we've ever been. Where are the teabaggers protesting the new law in Arizona that is clearly an attempt to marginalize all people of color and make them prove they are legal residents or citizens? They aren't there because being a teabagger is about being a racist pig. It's got a veneer of being about civil rights, but they only popped up after a black man became president. The rhetoric is eerily similar to the filth that spewed from the mouths of men like Duke and Timothy McVey. The vast majority are white, angry, and conservative. Why is that? The one thing that is good about Duke's video is that it lays to rest the idea that teabagging is about anything other than white people being scared and angry.

My Name Is Called Disturbance

2010-03-28T23:57:00.000-07:00

I've lately been reading a lot of commentary regarding the increasingly violent advocacy emanating from the people who still think Ozzie and Harriet represent the political and social norms of the United States. These are the people who now want to take William F. Buckley's philosophy of "standing athwart history yelling STOP!" and put it into practice through street violence in a misguided attempt to save the nation by destroying it.

From somewhere a memory stirred, inspired by the topic, and after reviewing it, I remembered exactly what it was. 1968. Vietnam. Civil rights. Economic disparity. And a great deal of unfocused outrage that would lead to the Weathermen. The Left seemed to be on the move, and the Rolling Stones captured the mood in their "Street Fighting Man":

Ev'rywhere I hear the sound of marching, charging feet, boy
'Cause summer's here and the time is right for fighting in the street, boy
. . .
Hey! Think the time is right for a palace revolution
'Cause where I live the game they play is compromise solution
. . .
Hey! Said my name is called disturbance
I'll shout and scream, I'll kill the king, I'll rail at all his servants

This mood was -in 1968- more propaganda than actuality despite the rise of the Weathermen, whose entire output of "revolution" is far exceeded by just one day's IED activity in Baghdad. But the threat was enough to motivate certain blocs of the Democratic Party base to shift allegiances and put Richard Nixon in power. These fearful actions seemed justified with the outrages committed by the Manson tribe, which itself helped to still the waters when upper-middle-class college students were gunned down by Nixon's "tin soldiers" at Kent State and Jackson State colleges. No one wanted to be the next one to die over a war lie. Everyone wanted to get back to where we once belonged, only that time had passed, never to return.

But the streets were again quiet, and society had allowed the violent suppression of protest to achieve this Potemkin Peace to become the norm. A state of calm seemed to return to the land, and we could again feel secure enough to dream big - even if the dream itself was a falsehood intended to cover a multitude of sins committed in the name of The Dream.

But like all pipe dreams, reality will intrude into the fantasy once the effects wear off. It always takes more substance to reach that same plateau in nirvana, and the cost of the trip soon becomes excessive. Those ensnared in the fantasy have trouble adapting to that revitalized reality, even fighting against their best interest to return to that relatively numb condition which is self-interpreted as idyllic.

It is thus with the Tea Baggers and their ilk. They want to return to a time when "people knew their place", when they knew that theirs was at the top of the heap. They see all the gains made by minorities as having been taken away from them and want to reverse those changes. The elections of 2006 and 2008 took away their governmental majority, leaving them impatient and worried that something might happen to change their perceptions of power and status before it could be regained. Not willing to wait to use the political process in that effort, they have adopted the tactics of the 1960's and are issuing calls for "a palace revolution". The call is answered with "the sound of marching, charging feet" as those who want the world BACK the way they thought it was (and they want it that way NOW) "shout and scream 'I'll kill the king'" and "rail at all his servants" who attempt to explain why those demands cannot or should not be met.

But to achieve power, the "game is called disturbance". Stage a raucous protest to stop the proper counting of ballots so that a partisan judiciary can decide who "really" won for the voters. Be obstructive in the passage of legislation and then scream that you weren't allowed to participate. Then attempt to make sure that no implementation of any change can happen. That attempt uses the implied threat of violence to turn the electorate once again as it did in 1968. Only like in 1968, the turn realized was not the turn intended.

The focus on the street violence of 1968 was intended to remove Lyndon Johnson's clique from power, not to facilitate the installation of Richard Nixon. It was a calamitous miscalculation. The threatened violence from the Tea Baggers (aided and abetted by the forces of social control in ways that the '60s radicals could only dream about) is intended only to remove Barack Obama and his clique from power, not to facilitate the rise of a fascist corporate state. It will prove to be a calamitous miscalculation if these people succeed.

Those out in the streets shouting about how Obama is a fascist/communist/socialist/Muslim extremist wouldn't know a real extremist if they met one in the mirror. They don't know for whom their efforts will directly benefit, choosing to believe the lies that they are the patriots saving their country from radicalism by being radicals. Should those who will benefit from the theocratic destruction of the expressions of popular democracy achieve their desired corporatist goals, these Tea Bagger fools don't think for one minute that the snake they ride will turn on them. They don't know about how Hitler turned on the Brown Shirts who made it possible for him to rise to power. The don't know how Lenin and Mao both purged the ranks of those deemed untrustworthy to the revolution once their usefulness had expired. It can't happen here! We're Americans!

It was so then, and so will be again if the Tea Bagger path is followed to its logical conclusion. No corporatist power elite is going to reward those who fought their fight by allowing them to realize any benefit from the effort. The Tea Baggers will be disarmed and put into the same place where everyone else landed. They won't have any of the rights they now think they are defending, as everyone of these is anathema to proper business management. Only then will they see the light, and their power will have been dissipated in creating their own prisons. They will be out of options.

Many current commentators express the opinion that the excesses of the Tea Baggers will work against them in the long run. I wish I could agree. While the historical norm is for radicalism to quickly die out, or to get so extreme that it loses popular support, sometimes that doesn't happen before the entire social norm is overthrown. The ensuing anarchy always produces totalitarianism. As there is evidence that big money is behind these "populist" protests and actions, one can only assume that anarchy is the strategy and totalitarianism the goal. And the more the Tea Baggers are whipped up to bring on socio-political Armageddon in America, the more likely that elitist totalitarianism is the outcome of the effort - no matter the alleged renunciation of the means of achieving that goal.

It CAN happen here, especially because we're Americans.

Well, I'll Be A Wealthy Monkey's Uncle!

2010-03-08T14:00:00.000-08:00

I think I have just discovered why it is that Republicans tend to prefer religious beliefs over evolution (or science in general for that matter - unless it involves killing or destroying). It would have to do with the fact that Republicans are not evolved themselves. Let's examine the data.

I had this flash of insight while reading about a study of bonobos and sharing published in Current Biology. Researchers discovered that bonobos will voluntarily share food -even surmounting difficulties to do so- rather than eat alone.

This was considered a human trait until someone noticed that when Republicans invite people to dinner, it's so that the guest can pay for it. The guest is usually quite willing to do so (if already wealthy), for then the Republican will return the favor in the form of some very generous government contract.

There is some evidence that Democrats share this trait as well, but maybe in smaller numbers due to it being a recessive gene. For instance, California Senator Dianne Feinstein was a reliable liberal vote up until her husband was awarded a Pentagon contract worth as much as $3.1 billion of YOUR MONEY even if the resulting heat caused her to resign her committee seat. There are other and far more lucrative allegations of mutual grooming-style economic corruption, but I'm already far afield from my simian premise.

Despite the evidence of voluntary sharing in bonobos, this trait of currying future favor might also be shared by them if a research question regarding the motive for sharing is borne out by further study. Male chimpanzees are known through study to give "gifts" of food to female chimps in trade for precedence when the female goes fertile (they would also throw in a movie after dinner if they cared about such things!). So if the suspicion about bonobos' motivations for sharing are determined to be a valid assessment, it would mean that bonobos -our nearest great ape relative after the chimpanzee- are no more evolved than are Republicans. This would not be a good sign, inferring that maybe humanity is not as evolved as we like to believe we are.

It would explain a lot!

A Proposal In Order To Save The Union

2010-03-07T11:38:00.000-08:00

If there is one thing that the Left and Right agree on, it’s that government is broken. The details of why are vastly different, but at least they agree that it needs to be fixed. What follows are just some of the major changes to government that I would make in an attempt to set right the huge mess we have today. What you won’t see is a partisan redesign that strongly favors any political party. I am not a member of any such organization, and I don’t believe there is one that represents my interests. What you will find is a common theme, one directed by the very principle that our Constitution is built upon, a government for the people, by the people.

Abolition of all political parties.

Political parties have demonstrated consistently that they do not represent the American people. They represent their own interests, predominantly the accumulation of power and wealth. The do not govern with the interest of the people in mind, only their own self-serving agenda. These are the very reasons George Washington himself advised against the rise of political parties at the outset. His wisdom was ignored, but it’s never to late to take heed and reverse course. The loss of political parties also means that an elected official must represent the people that elected them, not a powerful special interest group for elitist control.

Public funding for elections.

I know, I know, that’s a very high cost that has to be made up in some way. While there are details to work out, such as how to pay for it and how much everyone should get, the benefits outweigh the cost. You see, I’m not talking about additional funding for campaigns. I’m talking about strictly limiting funding for campaigns to only public funds. Candidates can not use their own personal wealth. They can not receive political donations from PACs or corporations. They can’t be bought by sweetheart deals from powers beyond. By eliminating the use of private wealth we also severely limit a wealthy elite from seizing control because everyone has the same amount of cash. A more level field has never existed.

Term limits for Congress.

I propose that term limits for the House be set to a maximum of four three-year terms and the Senate be limited to two six-year terms. Both Houses would potentially have longer service than any single president and could govern during three different presidencies. This gives the legislative body more consistency than any administration, but the nature of term limits prevents career politicians from becoming so entrenched that graft and corruption are practically a given. Also, extending the length of a term in the House by a year slows down the immediate drive to begin campaigning on the first day of the job.

Elected officials can not accept gifts from lobbyists.

This doesn’t mean that lobbyists are to be banned, only that special interest organizations cannot be permitted to unduly influence the course of legislation by bribing politicians with “gifts” or sending them on trips or other such nonsense. Additionally, lobbyists can’t be permitted to take them out for dinner or some other private meeting. When a lobbyist meets with an elected official, it must be in that official’s government office and during normal business hours. A public log of who they met with must all be kept and published so we, the people, can track who is trying to persuade our representatives.

Reverse Citizens United decision.

Corporations are not people, pure and simple. The idea of corporate personhood is preposterous and dangerous. Unfettered spending sprees by corporations, even indirectly, in support of one politician or another still permits undue influence. While I do believe organizations, including PACs, businesses, and unions, have a right to publish a statement of support or opposition to a candidate for office, the idea that they can spend as much money as they want in order to produce propaganda to sway the electorate is a terrifying proposal. We have already limited campaign funding, and now we must limit indirect support. Organizations are not people and therefore are not subject to the full application or support of the 1st Amendment. In order to maintain a government by and for the people, actual flesh and blood people need to be the deciding force, not businesses or other organizations.

There are other changes I would propose, but these tend towards operational details like reminding the Senate that their job is to represent their home state and its interests at the federal level while the House is to represent the people of a specific area in that state. As you can see, these are not small changes. They are big, big overhauls but I believe they would be the foundation upon which our government would be returned to us, the American people, and taken away from powerful, elite groups that care not one damn bit about what is good for us. We are the majority, we are the masses, and this is our country. It belongs to us and I want it back!

Raising Arizona Cain

2010-03-07T01:08:00.000-08:00

I often worry about people I know from Arizona. There seems in them to be a combination of extreme arrogance that would make a Texan jealous and a level of stupidity that would make the most ignorant Appalachian appear to be Einstein.

The New York Times offers an amazing assessment of what it takes to get an Arizonan riled. Using the tax payers' property as a cash cow doesn't faze them one little bit, nor does the arrival of those damn liberals from Jon Stewart's Daily Show to make fun of the situation.

No, it takes something far more important to get Arizonans upset. It takes not having any public outhouses on the Interstates anymore. That just chaps their hides!

NYT also reports that Arizona has the largest budget shortfall of any state when measured as a percentage of the total state budget. They don't cite a link or source to support this statement, but the state Department of Transportation allegedly has a $100 million dollar shortfall and had to take action. There was no reserve.

It seems that the Arizona Legislature was under a great deal of pressure to pass a budget which dealt with the state's $3 billion deficit and not include any additional taxes. They slashed aid for various needy children programs to facilitate this effort. Needy children don't vote, so who cares, right? So if they were willing to throw kids under the bus, you know they mean business! So sorry Arizona travelers! There just wasn't any money to keep these public conveniences available. We're only doing what California, Colorado, Georgia, Vermont and Virginia have done!

"Why don’t they charge a quarter or something?" whines one woman interviewed by the Times. “There was one rest stop between here (Pine, AZ) and Phoenix, and we really needed it.” But another woman reveals what is truly important to your typical Arizonan: “I honestly think they are setting us up because they want to do a tax increase, I think by shutting down things people want, they will give us one.”

Is it not ever thus? You get in financial trouble, and you are on your own. But when the big guys need assistance, they put you on the spot to bail them out with your tax money. But our second distaff dissenter ignores the forest for the trees. The government might well shut down valued assets like public highway convenience stops, but they cannot "give" the tax payers an increase unless the tax payers do nothing to stop them.

Here in California, anti-taxers are on the spot whenever a Sacramento politician even hints at a new tax. In fact, they are almost as fast as when the California Legislature in thinking about cutting a valued public service - like road maintenance. This state lives, thrives, or dies on its highways. Nothing infuriates a Californian more than to not be able to get their motor runnin' and head out on the highway lookin' for adventure,

Yet they aren't about to willingly pay for these highways to hell-raising. They blame the high costs of road maintenance on Cal-Trans workers for being so greedy by not working for Wal-Mart wages. I would love to see how many Californians would work on third shift with no fixed schedule, and have to work in foul weather conditions, amid dangerous and callous drivers who think it a game to see how close they can come to hitting a road worker while driving 80 miles an hour, and only accept whatever it is that Wal-Mart actually pays (It works out to less than minimum wage, I assure you!).

But California has a much larger population to distribute the road load. When the California cut our budget for roadside rest stops, no one really raised an eyebrow, because there are lots of gas stations and fast food restaurants into which a little rest must fall. Not so in Arizona. One can drive for hours and not see much except the sand and bushes along the side of the roads. It isn't too much different from when the stage coaches used to cross the desert; not an air conditioned 7-11 or a Circle K in sight for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles!

So the plight of our deprived Arizonans raises the much bigger issue of what we do about the economic reasons we are all about to have to make adjustments, not only in our standard of living, but in our standards generally. Closing the rest stops only means that we go back to squatting behind a bush and hope that there is no rattlesnake taking a nap in it.

Arizonans should be paying attention to what is happening in Colorado Springs. Up there, they have essentially eliminated ALL civic services because the people don't want to pay for them anymore. I haven't researched it in detail yet, but I suspect that the people there don't feel they use little things like street lights very much and don't want to have to pay for them. Public Safety? They think their Glock will protect them just fine, thank you very much, so who needs police or fire when the pioneers had neither?

All of these situations point out a sad truth about life in America today. There never was a free lunch, and it's now time to go over the list of where the money goes. Many things is going to have to come to an end and that is going to be that. You can't have it all. Only the people have yet to catch up with that reality. They still want the world and they want it now! Free! At No Cost!

I just wish there was enough wisdom in the people to do more than complain after the fact. This reckoning has been a long coming time, and people chose to believe economic fairy tales instead. Had earlier action been taken, these closings -and many other painful losses- could have been avoided if wisdom and foresight were common attributes. But venality and selfishness are the norm today. We can no longer pay to play, so we can just go shit on the roadsides.

You Want Obama?

2010-02-24T19:49:00.000-08:00

Read this and go after him.

According to The New York Times:

"Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying-Medicare rates...or controlled by the secretary of health and human services. 'We have an agreement with the White House that I'm very confident will be seen all the way through conference', one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter...Industry lobbyists say they are not worried [about a public option.] 'We trust the White House,' Mr. Kahn said."

I don't care if you are a Democrat, Republican, or an Independent. It doesn't matter if you are for or against a public option, or whether you care about health care reform or not. Maybe it's the lousy condition of the roads you care about, or the fact that your utility bills are shooting through the roof (have you forgotten Enron already?). What ever it is, some corporation is angling to make a big buck off of you. They are looking for the law to give them the power to take you to the cleaners. They go to the White House which is open for business (but not for you!) and is making deals with private entities long before the Congress even gets to pretend to deliberate on a bill as if they are making law. They are only going to rubber-stamp the decision made through the Oval Office. That's what they get paid handsomely to do. It has been this way for many years, and involves both parties. Where in this process is there any input from YOU, the voting taxpaying citizen of this nation?

Come November, if you vote for an incumbent, then you are voting to allow this sort of shady back room dealing to continue to erode your quality of life. Have you not lost enough already? Who is to say that this collusion between the public and private sectors won't be extended to limiting more of your freedoms and curtailing your liberty?

Many of you are gun owners. You fear that your guns will be confiscated. What if some corporation decides that you are a threat to them, or maybe decides that they can make big bucks if they convince the government that they can protect you better - For LESS! - than government entities like the police or the military can - as long as you are disarmed? How long do you think it would be before they come for your Glock? How are you going to fight them? And I don't mean with your little 9mm, either. I mean politically.

The Supreme Court just took all limits off corporate political contributions under a tortured definition of free speech, yet can you match the money it takes to turn your Congressperson dishonest if the corporation buys the necessary votes to take your guns away? Most of you don't make enough to have a very good life now, assuming that you are still employed! You know what talks and what walks, and if the last several elections have not yet convinced you that you are not important to the larger scheme of things, then you haven't been paying attention.

Maybe you were too busy trying to prove Obama was not a citizen, or that he was some kind of terrorist plant, or a Muslim. But while you were so distracted, he was at the center of a tug-of-war over which group of corrupt politicians was going to sell you out. He can do nothing without both groups agreeing on how they will divide the swag, nor can they do anything without him. Replace him with Sarah Palin, and what is really going to change besides the face speaking the lies? The purchasers of the law still win no matter which corrupt organization holds the reins. They just shift the money to one group when the other group pisses them off.

It's going on right now with the Wall Street banks now that they got almost $24 trillion of YOUR MONEY. Now that they are back in the plush, they are currently reported to have ceased donating to the Democrats and have shifted their support to the to the Republicans in order to keep what they were given, and using the money given to them from YOUR taxes which was intended to bail them out from their lousy gambling to do so. But you can be sure that YOU will be the loser.

The only way to fix this is to return control of the government to those who are supposed to be the government. That is you and I, the voters. This won't happen as long as a rich private entity representing some business, or industry, or some very wealthy individual can buy the law for their benefit under the mistaken legal notion that money speaks louder than the voice of the electorate. The Supreme Court Citizens United decision must be reversed, or else everything you hold dear about this nation will be taken away from you and sold to the highest bidder - and with your tax money loaned to them to do so. They can't be trusted to repay that loan, leaving you to have to pay the bill with your reduced quality of life one more time.

Are you going to let them?

Stronger together, but working individually.

2010-02-24T00:12:00.000-08:00

I'll put this question to you in hopes of inspiration. What do we do about it? In a nation that has always celebrated rugged individualism, how do we get people to realize that the Founding Fathers unified behind the thought that we all hang together or we all hang alone? To talk of the strength of the community acting together for mutual benefit is to surely raise the hackles of "every red-blooded true American" against the resurgent rise of "Communism, Marxism, Socialism, Maoism" and any other "-ism" that the Corporate Fascists can find in a dictionary. There isn't even a single unified front from the Left. We are a scattered gaggle, bereft of direction, vocation, and leadership. Progressives are left (if you'll excuse the pun) out in the cold for daring to be egalitarian in our goals, as "Liberals," so often in favor corporations and free trade as dearly as the wingnuts to the Right, hurl insults at us ala Rahm. Most of us would rather talk the talk than actually do something. I, myself, can be dreadfully guilty of this crime; held immobile by frustration and impotent rage. How, then, do we get people to listen to us when the facts bore the shit out of people and they'd rather drink a beer with a corporate fascist than listen to the rallying cries and wake up calls declaring our perilous situation? I'm at a loss, and I'm hoping you have some ideas. I'm just plain out of them.

It's Enough To Make You Sick!

2010-02-07T11:33:00.000-08:00

There's a good reason why there's been such a large gap in my postings this last couple of weeks, and I've got the Doctor's note to prove it!

Simultaneously, I developed a couple of unrelated medical conditions that required immediate attention. I was in my doctor's office a total of four times across two weeks, saw a specialist once, was in various labs for testing five times, and spent a morning in the ER. I also have a total of seven medications that were prescribed to me as I got to experience "the best medical care in the world" that the Republicans fight mightily to defend against reality and reform.

They should have to endure my travails. Then we'll see if they still believe that Americans have "the best medical care in the world".

As the first condition erupted, and I had to get in to see my doctor without waiting the six weeks it now takes to get an appointment, I ended up seeing the Nurse Practitioner. She prescribed some medication (which did nothing but make money for Amneal Pharmaceuticals) and sent me on my way.

That night, the second condition erupted, and I was back to see the N.P. again. This time, Amneal again benefited, only they had to share the wealth with the Watson and Glenmark companies. But wait! That's Not ALL! I was sent out for an MRI which was to be processed immediately, and the results provided to my doctor by the end of that day.

That didn't happen. The MRI lab was backed up because the scanner was acting up and not taking good images. Then, the radiologist who was supposed to read the images and write the report didn't do so for several days, leaving me hanging without any real relief from the pain I was experiencing. For this my insurance paid him a princely sum, I'm sure.

The next day, I had pain so bad that I had to go to the ER. They wanted to access the MRI files and could not (which is how I found out that they weren't processed yet). Their MRI "ran slow" and was always backed up with immediate needs being plugged in between the scheduled scannings, so they opted for a CT scan. They drew blood for lab tests to check my blood sugar and maybe a few other things, but they didn't tell my everything. I guess that one of these things was to see if there was any good reason I couldn't tolerate the contrast dye necessary for the CT scan. Unfortunately for me, they couldn't do that until my doctor said that the contrast dye wouldn't cause me to go into diabetic shock. So I had to wait, holding my cranium in an improvised vise made from my hands to quell the pain. I was also to go have an X-ray taken to back up the CT.

Finally, everything they wanted to do had been done, and they handed me a prescription for yet another pain killer (which made Squib some money this time), and sent me on my way. I was under orders to see my doctor as soon as possible, which was two days hence due to the weekend.

Back to see himself this time. He goes over all the reports from the scans and the lab work and what not, and hands me yet another prescription for yet another pain killer -which made Watson a little richer- and a referral to a specialist for my first condition.

The specialist checks me out, and hands me yet another prescription to replace an earlier one, which brought Eli Lilly onto the gravy train. He also orders more lab work (not yet completed, so it doesn't get included in my out-of-pocket tally below) and a follow-up visit.

I had a follow-up scheduled with my primary doctor to see how I was tolerating all the drug changes, and he told me that one of my sudden conditions was being caused by arthritis, and that there isn't much they can do for me (meaning that my insurance company isn't likely to be willing to pay for it).

At this point, out of my own pocket, I've spent over $400 in copays and deductibles, an amount that roughly matches my payroll deduction for the coverage in the first place. My insurance company had to have paid about ten times that amount, and I am no closer to having either condition successfully treated.

So much for "the best medical care in the world" !

Obama In The Year Two

2010-01-30T18:56:00.000-08:00

This was an important week for Barack Obama, one which defines where he goes from here. There is a contrast in this week's presidential activities which point out the choices.

First and most infamously, the State of the Union Address. As defined in Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, "{The President} shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

Obama failed to meet the Constitutional mandate as to the State of the Union to be presented to the Congress, instead presenting topics that dealt with the political differences between the parties and his version of where the blame lies.

As my partner pointed out in his last post, People often vote against their best interests and linked to an article which asks the question ignored mightily by the American Corporate Media: WHY?

It has been my contention that the difference lies in how the voters are approached, and some of this comes from personal empirical research. You can approach people prepared with facts and figures, and as you present your case you can watch them fall asleep. Think Al Gore.

Or, you can have some clown mount the rostrum and tell lots of frat party stories and everyone thinks he's a great guy and votes for him. Think Dubya.

To simplify this further, a candidate's message can resonate with the voters in one of two ways: You can appeal to logic, or you can appeal to emotion. Gore appealed to logic. Dubya to emotion.

The linked article comes to a conclusion that I consider close enough to my own thoughts so as to justify them (I'll crank my head back to its normal hat size later). The article quotes psychologist Drew Westen, author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, as finding that "There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots." This approach is too direct, too one way, and doesn't engage the minds of the voters.

Many candidates have won office through tales of their deeds, usually militaristic adventures heroically told. Through the retelling of such tales, a persona is generated in the minds of the voters which, if they create a favorable opinion, results in electoral victory. But not all successful story subjects were military men, nor did they allow others to completely create the persona to be sold and retold to the voting public.

One such was Abe Lincoln. He was very good at creating allegories and story metaphors for discussing the issues of his day, and through their use led the voters to think about these issues before they made their decision on the ballot.

Today's parties generally differ in their attempts at this effort. The Republicans learned immediately after Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter that running on one's record doesn't work against an unknown when that record is a poor one. So by the time that Ronald Reagan ran just four years later, the image machine was stoked and at full steam. Having Reagan draw upon his associations in Hollywood's star-making machinery didn't hurt any.

As notes Thomas Frank, the author of the best-selling book What's The Matter with Kansas, "The Republicans have learned how to stoke up resentment against the patronizing liberal elite, all those do-gooders who assume they know what poor people ought to be thinking. Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channeling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest."

The Democrats, however, didn't learn this lesson. They continued to attempt to use facts and figures to win over the voters while Ronnie would tell stories designed to inflame voter passions, such as the Cadillac Driving Welfare Queens. The nature of the story is intended to take advantage of prejudice, and promote through subtle means the party agenda (which would be available off-podium should someone want to peruse it). You know who won.

Barack Obama learned this lesson, somewhat, which was a factor in his victory. It also is a factor in the feelings of many independents and progressives that he failed them with his relative inactivity during his first year in office. The people of Virginia and New Jersey reflected this loss of faith through rejecting Democratic candidates for governor over a couple of guys who knew how to tell the sort of tale that the voters are conditioned to expect. This strategy worked once again in Massachusetts, where Scott Brown could drive his pickup truck around Massachusetts and earn believability with his tales. It worked so well that Coakley may well have lost even if she ran her campaign at least as well as Brown did his.

Based on post-election behaviors, this last loss finally got the message through to the Oval Office that they were in trouble. The first line of defense was to send out the spinmeisters to attempt to limit the damage, but the masterstroke was for Obama to make like Daniel and enter the Liars Den, otherwise known as the GOP issues retreat.

Due to illness, I wasn't following the news coverage as closely as I might have otherwise, but I suspect that it tended to lean in the direction of this confrontation copying a WWE cage match, but I suspect that it is going to prove to be more like a like-named episode of Outer Limits, in which an unexpected result occurs from the practice.

But it really is too soon to tell which, if either, outcome results from this meeting. Generally, the media - including the GOP-friendly New York Daily News - claim that Obama scored a knockout. Something significant did result, for the New York Daily News quoted Conservative Georgia Rep. Tom Price, head of the Republican Study Committee, who praised Obama "for his political skill" and for admitting that he broke an oath promising to negotiate all of health reform on C-SPAN. But since today's Republicans cannot lose graciously, Price launched his parting shots, calling the admission his "only moment of humility" and complained that Obama failed to answer the majority of the questions.

Only in his mind perhaps.

I haven't read through the entire transcript yet. It is so full of political boilerplate on both sides that it takes a while to find the real questions and answers. But I intend to do this and see just how well Obama really did. What I write next will determine how I treat him in my posts.

Right now, he can only go up.

Voting against our own interest and popular rage

2010-01-30T15:56:00.000-08:00

I was looking through several different websites today and I came across an article from the BBC that talks about why President Obama and the Democrats had such a miserable time selling health care insurance reform to Americans who are most in need of it. There are a couple of points in here that I think are slightly off, but over all it was a really good and eye opening article. I strongly encourage you to read it.

Why do people often vote against their own interests?

I have to digest this information for a bit, but I can see how the comments in it could influence my own rhetoric in how I talk to people, what I write, and generally argue for improving the lives of the American people. Once we understand why those who should be on our side are not, I think we can better construct our arguments to influence them. The facts may be on our side, but there is an old joke that applies as well. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. This is wise political advice and something to consider when trying to get our message across.

Obama The Franco-Italian Warrior

2010-01-25T17:53:00.000-08:00

One thing that never fails to swell the nationalist conservative breast is the victorious performance of the domestic military. Having a swelled breast enables one to hold one's head higher and one's back straighter, both physical displays of dominance and power.

In November of 2008, a lot of people who had nothing to boast about suddenly felt that they had a champion to lead them to the victory which enables pride and respect. With hopes raised, they looked forward to the day their leader would take up the reins and lead the charge to glory.

The day the president would take up the reins arrived. The day Obama led the charge to glory did not.

Instead, Barack Obama knelt in supplication before the conservative powers-that-be, fervently asking for a bit of help - not too much! - in doing a couple of things that might benefit the American people as the fee for rescuing the Wall Street gamblers while providing Corporate America with a mandatory program of generating profit through the liberal application of national legal power.

Now, having squandered his majority through his silly sitzkrieg, now he claims he's going to fight for us? Now he thinks he would rather fight than switch?

We are fools if we believe this. It's happened before, so if we know our history, we won't.

During WWII, after the commencement of hostilities initiated through the false flag operation of Germany pretending to repulse a Polish invasion of the German town of Gleiwitz, a large force of French and British troops greatly outnumbered the token force of German troops holding the western border of Germany. Yet despite this power, the French and British armies did almost nothing to ease the desperate burden of their entreated Polish allies, not even when the Russians (at that time a German ally) stabbed the Poles in the back by invading from the other direction, launching their attack when it became clear that the French and British would do nothing to aid Poland.

The Poles were led to believe by the French high command that the western attack was causing Germany to pull troops from Poland to oppose the new assault, but in reality, the French high command ordered that no meaningful contact with German forces be sought. Then, as the Poles were going down to defeat, the French troops were withdrawn and returned to their starting positions, where they remained until the following bloody spring.

It's my opinion that the French and British at that time had no stomach for war, at least not with the horrible memories of the slaughter of the previous war still haunting their dreams. Rather than return to that nightmare, they hoped that if Hitler took Poland without their opposition, then he would be satisfied and leave them alone. Why they would think so, when allowing Hitler to take Austria and Czechoslovakia didn't slake his thirst for Poland, is beyond me.

It was this aversion to waging war that caught the French short when Hitler turned his attention to the west after splitting Poland with Stalin. After watching the Wehrmacht take Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands (while absorbing Denmark with only the threat of invasion), the French next became the target, facing battle-hardened veterans with an army that spent its time playing at war. It only took 12 days for the German Army to conquer the French along just one front. The much weaker and less well-equipped Polish army lasted 36 days while fighting on two. The legacy of this poor performance on the part of the French Army remains alive today in the American Republican insult of "surrender monkey".

On the other side of the war, the Italian Army was never developed to become the powerful force that their numbers would lead one to believe that they should have been. Every time Mussolini launched attacks (usually against advice from the German high command and the wishes of Hitler), German forces were needed to rescue the Italian Army. Often, these German forces were not spared easily from the planned war effort, yet it was seen as necessary by the German high command lest an Italian defeat stiffen the resolve of those intended to become the serfs of the Third Reich, costing more young Aryans their blissful and prosperous futures as colonial plantation owners.

It was not until American forces entered the war in North Africa that the weakness of the Italian Army began to tell. Shorted economically by Mussolini's foolish fiscal policies and depleted by Italian donations to the Republican Army of Spain during the Spanish Civil War, the Italian Army held its own against the British Army, which shared similar deficiencies in their preparedness for similar reasons. But as American weapons and planes were supplied to the British forces, the Italians were out-gunned and on the run.

The German forces sent to bolster the Italian effort -the fabled Afrika Corps- were weakened by an extended and indefensible supply line, and could only do so much to help. Losses were not replaced easily, while American factories were pumping out the weapons and the means of transportation around the clock from locations largely safe from Axis attack. Through such ample military means, the British hammer drove the Axis forces back against the American anvil, culminating in the surrender of hundreds of thousands of Axis troops, many Italian.

Despite earning the respect of their opposition for their fighting prowess, the Italians were propagandized as being poor soldiers due to a small British army defeating a much larger Italian force early in the North African Campaign. Because Italian forces had few victories after this incident, the reputation stuck. The legacy of that lies in the joke about an Italian Army rifle being for sale. It's declared to be in great condition having only been dropped once (in surrender).

I told you those stories to explain why Obama is the Franco-Italian warrior. Despite having great power and ability, he surrendered practically from the moment he began. He was clearly poorly equipped and unprepared to serve as president, so rather than fight to do what he could, he gave in so as to not ruffle his own feathers. There is no fight in him, which means he's been a mistake considering the current times. In fact, tonight on MSNBC, he was quoted as being OK with being a "good" one term president rather than a poor two-termer. I suggest that the only person he's fooling with this platitude is himself, for his performance is so poor that he isn't going to come close to being good president even if he left office immediately after tomorrow's State of the Union Address.

His immediate surrender prior to the fight means that the Democrats will have to find a way to someday overcome their new reputation as being inept, incompetent, and easy. It could take generations -assuming that the Supreme Court ruling on corporate campaign contributions doesn't kill the Republic first- for the Democrats to return to some measure of respect. And without respect, who is going to vote for them?

I just hope that the Republicans turn their attention to conquering the world quickly before they can complete the collapse of this nation. It will prove that despite the advance of technology and the passage of time, the Hitlerian strategy seeking total global dominance will once again fall short of achieving that unrealistic goal.

The Stake of the Union

2010-01-24T18:09:00.000-08:00

Coming up this week will be President Obama's first year anniversary State of the Union speech. There has been a great deal of discussion in the media as to what Obama will discuss. But I suggest that the defeat of Martha Coakley in Massachusetts has thrown a monkey wrench into Obama's planned talk.

Tied together with the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling (which provided the means by which Corporate America will drown out the voice of the people), Obama has to scramble to save the Democratic party program. That program, created by Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council prior to Clinton's election in 1992, sought to make the Democratic Party be so corporate-friendly that the Republicans wouldn't be able to regain their prior dominance. The victory of Scott Brown put an end to the necessary control of the Congress meant to facilitate that lackey-hood just as it was finally geared up to do something. In this case, the Hare beat the Tortoise.

Now, the Democrats cannot provide the least benefit to the Main Street voters, which is intended to provide political cover to the Democrats as they serve their Wall Street masters. That least benefit was intended to be the justification for the claim that the Democrats are standing up against Wall Street for Main Street. The only problem is, we don't believe them already. There is plenty of reason not to.

Case in point: Susie Madrak of Crooks and Liars has put together a list of articles indicating that the Democrats are about to excise adults from the ban against using pre-existing conditions as a reason to refuse medical care. The selling point? Children will still be exempt from pre-existing refusals even though their parents are to be on their own. Somehow, they think that this will make the deal that provides passage of the Senate health insurance mandate bill.

Speaking as a parent, that's so nice - for my kids. What about me? I AM THE VOTER! What makes you think that covering my kids will be enough for me to fall for your BS and vote for any of you this fall? I guarantee you Democrats, it won't. Not by a long shot. I only promise that I won't vote for any Republicans either.

Some suggest that Obama will raise the unemployment issue during the SOTU speech. I say that all we will get out of him then will be lip service. For as I write this post, Wal-Mart is laying off over 11,000 low-wage workers. I can see them now, fighting against these ex-associates receiving unemployment - and getting an exemption from the law to allow this shoved through the Congress with the expenditure of about the same amount of money to buy votes that would have been enough to cover the unemployment expenses in the first place. Let them eat cake, Waltons? Or would you prefer to serve meadow muffins? Fresh and hot from your dainty derrières?

The same goes for the foreclosure fiasco. China is buying up everything in sight, so why mess with success? The banks are making a killing offloading foreclosed commercial properties to the Chinese, who are desperate to offload dollars for something of tangible worth before there is no value to the US Dollar. Why not make hay while the Bernanke sun shines rather than help those who are going to be stuck with the bill anyway?

Too late, the mainstream media is taking up the examination of Obama's shortcomings. This should have begun just about a year ago, but the non-"conservative" portion of the media was too busy protecting Obama from legitimate criticism along with the other crap being hurled by the ton from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. And what good did it do us?

No good at all. Obama is going to do what he wants no matter what we say. The fact that Obama is threatening retaliation if the renomination of Ben Bernanke is blocked speaks volumes. Tied to the SCOTUS ruling and Coakley's loss, Obama might as well be standing in front of the New York Stock Exchange and shouting that it will continue to be business as usual no matter what he says to the voters. The Democratic Party goal must be achieved through whatever means possible. If that requires asking America's corporate class to demand that the people support the postponement of the November elections (due to an arranged terrorist act of some variety?) in order to prevent the GOP from taking power, then why not? "If you can't beat them, be them," Rahm always says.

And they will. They have little reason not to. Not now. For as blogger Richard Power observes:

...in the weeks, months and years ahead, there will likely be no difference [between the parties] at all -- because of Citizens United...

At least not until one corporate-backed party gets so dominant that they can declare the other competitive corporate-backed party to be illegal. When they decide that there is no reason for a Congress or a Supreme Court anymore, and that the President can rule by decree as he sees fit, it will thus be necessary for you to decide now what you are willing to allow - and what you are willing to do to defend your position. Will you knuckle under for personal security, or will you stand for national principle?

Time is rapidly running out. You need to decide before a decision is thrust upon you by circumstance.

So listen carefully to the State of the Union speech. Just don't believe everything you hear him say - at least not as he intends you to believe it.

American Democracy: Bought and Sold

2010-01-21T11:48:00.000-08:00

The Supreme Court of the United States acted as expected. Early today they freed corporations from restrictions limiting the amount of money they can spend to buy politicians. This ruling wasn't unexpected, but that doesn't mean it isn't outrageous or damning. You see, the sheer volume of money businesses have to "lobby" our elected officials far exceeds our own. It was already bad enough. Just look at Joe "I'm in bed with the insurance companies" Lieberman. There is always John "I don't know anything about computers but I'm going to sell out the internet" McCain. These men don't care what the people want. They do what their corporate masters tell them to do.

Honestly, I'm far to angry over this to even try and be witty or funny. I'm nearly at a loss for words. I thought we weathered the storm of the Bush administration, even if we were hurting pretty badly. Then, in a matter of three days we see the voters of Massachusetts reject a Democrat and the loss of the voice of the people. It's said that terrible things happen in threes. I'm mortified at the idea of what will come next. After all, the third thing is always the worst.

Forgive the fact that this looks like melodrama or hyperbole. This isn't. You have just witnessed the death of democracy in America. When you are old and grey, you can tell your grandkids you were there the day they were sold back into servitude to the elitist bastards who want to worshipped as gods among men.

We Tried To Tell You, Barry!

2010-01-19T20:00:00.000-08:00

Now that Martha Coakley has croaked the Obama's administration's ambitions, you are going to see the GOP crow triumphant, the Tea Baggers encouraged to run amok, an increased amount of activity as dissatisfied voters band together to seek options other than these two, and a business community that has no need to fear real regulation any longer.

In other words, Obamastein's Monster is on the loose.

There are many potential outcomes of this night's conclusion of the Obama Era. Some might well have proved beneficial for the nation if there were respect and civility in our politics. But I doubt that will be the result. The Tea Baggers are on the move, and taking over the GOP and warping it to reflect their views will prove to be ridiculously simple. Then it really gets ugly.

Once accomplished, they will run Sarah Palin, maybe teamed up with Michele Bachmann, as the faces of their party. But the likes of Dick Armey (who gives the name "dick" an odious connotation) and Newt Gingrich (who never failed to chase and catch a mass movement leadership position from well behind the crowd's starting position) will be the ones actually running things. The membership will be the ones tasked with recruiting and/or "stressing" the opposition's members.

And that will prove only to be the beginning of the end of this nation as we've known it.

Heck of a job, Barry. Just stick to your game plan of ignoring the past and looking only forward. It's not a bad strategy now that you blew your chances, for as the late, great Satchel Paige once declared, "don't look back—something might be gaining on you."

It will smell like strong tea.

On The Edge Of Grateness

2010-01-18T18:47:00.000-08:00

The election in Massachusetts to select Ted Kennedy's replacement is generating a great deal of discussion. The portents are that Obama is about to take a serious hit to his power, squandered in an attempt to run the nation that he wished he had and not the nation that is.

The people of Massachusetts are now just as likely to select Scott Brown as Martha Coakley, yet the cognitive dissonance that the Obama Era may be at an end generates some interesting observations. One such is that of William Rivers Pitt, who in a recent op-ed written for Truthout opined that "The calamities of Republican rule are still too fresh in mind for people to turn on a dime and embrace their madness again."

Au contraire, mon frère! That condition ended four years ago, not last week! The Democrats were given majority power as of November 2006, and then had it strengthened in 2008. People have since been waiting with decreasing patience for Obama to deliver on promises made overtly or implied during the campaign, and the Republicans eagerly remind them of every one of these every chance they get.

Just what has Obama given the people of America using this record political firepower? He's given them a rescued banking system which continues to abuse them with high loan interest and low numbers of loan approvals. He's given them oppressive credit card rules and no relief from foreclosure. He's seeking to impose an expensive and mandatory medical insurance while jobs continue to be lost. And so very much more that isn't seen as being beneficial on Main Street.

So tell me again - why should the people stand with Obama?

Smarter politicians than Obama see the reality writing on the wall: they are going to be blamed for Obama's failures this fall. There is no one else available to feel the wrath of the people over these issues except those of the party which Obama leads.

One of the most vulnerable House Democrats, Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.), decided that he needed to spend more time with his family rather than run for re-election. Despite representing "the most Democratic-friendly district in Arkansas", Snyder apparently had no money to run a tough re-election campaign, and a SurveyUSA poll showed him trailing 17 percent behind his Republican challenger. Supporting Obama's agenda hurt him with the hometown voters. A majority of his constituents clearly disapproved of this.

Snyder just needed to sellout to those who have the money, as apparently Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski has. Sen. Murkowski is clearly in the pocket of Southern Co. ($38,000), Duke Energy ($22,550), CSX, Progress Energy, and other top utility and energy companies. The total of their generosity in donations since 2004 equals more than $124,500. In return, she did the bidding of these "customers" by introducing an amendment to the Clean Air Act as part of an energy industry campaign to limit the scope of greenhouse gas regulations. Such yeo(wo)manly service saved these companies millions, showing that she was an excellent investment.

There is clearly money in pay-to-play. There is nothing to match it coming from We, the People. We're far too poor. We work for a living, and we know that doesn't pay very well.

One thing that the ridiculous health care "reform" effort has exposed is just how much money is transferred between "our" elected representatives and the private commercial sector. It is seen by these firms as insurance against higher expenses imposed by law. Corporations will gladly contribute money for the right to craft a pending bill in ways that benefit the donor.

One such example is the "Safeway Amendment" which allows insurance premiums to be higher for employees who fail certain physical fitness tests. The current Senate bill also allows for this provision as of the bill's passage. What a coincidence! The American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society say this amendment breaks Obama's promise that people's health status would not affect the cost of their insurance premiums, but there isn't much hope that this provision will disappear from the final bill. It is supported both by Democrats and Republicans, and is one of the items that bought-and-paid-for President Obama himself desires to see in the final bill.

But the final bill's passage is anything but a sure thing. The race to fill Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts is giving the Republicans the opportunity they have sought since the beginning of Obama's term. That is to eliminate the possibility that they just might lose a major power-play cloture vote. They have largely been successful in peeling off Blue Dog votes when the issue is important enough, but this isn't always the case. For as the final Senate bill vote demonstrated Christmas Eve, even the Blue Dogs will heel when their leashes are tugged hard enough by the Oval Office. They just don't feel the pull very often, or very quickly.

In an interview with Paul G. Kirk Jr. -the 123rd person in the history of the Senate to serve six months or less- Kirk revealed that he was the 60th vote nine times to break Republican filibusters, including 4 regarding the Senate health care bill, out of 97 total votes he cast. That means that roughly ten percent of the time spent in the Senate was used putting down obstructive Republican recalcitrance. If Brown wins, that will come to a screaming halt.

That is what made the race between Democratic State Attorney General Martha Coakley and Republican State Senator Scott Brown such an important effort for the GOP. Winning that seat would eliminate the 60 vote filibuster-killer advantage of the Democrats, which would then force Majority Leader Harry Reid to resort to Senate rule trickery (as the Republicans often did during their tenure as the majority party under Dubya in order to eliminate Democratic party interference with their bills) and provide yet another free weapon for the Republicans to use in the fall campaign to retake the House. Maybe even the Senate, although that's a long shot according to experts. Obama will then be reduced to pursuing the "bipartisanship" he insisted upon from the beginning.

In order to enhance their prospects, the Republicans appear to be returning to their tried-and-true methods of winning: cheating. Daily Kos has posted an alert naming Erick Erickson of the RedState blog as the organizer of an attempt to tie up Coakley's phone bank. You can check this out for yourself at these links and decide if the charge is valid.

In addition to grass roots pranks, the Fat Wallets of Wall Street -freshly engorged with "record profits"- are opening to disgorge mass quantities of cash intended to aid Scott Brown's effort. Think Progress reports that Wall Street front groups FreedomWorks and Club for Growth are actively aiding Brown, whom they charge is "teaming up with Wall Street bankers to kill financial reform and preserve a system of Bush-era unfettered capitalism."

And then there is the use of Diebold machines to tally the ballots.

It's likely that these tactics will work, for this mostly white state is, in the words of New York Times columnist Charles Blow, bubbling with discontent regarding Obama.

Blow reports that after one year, Obama has the lowest approval rating in the 30 years among whites, differing from the other president of this period by 10 to 36 percent (New York Times and CBS News polls). To add insult to injury, a Quinnipiac University poll found that most whites think that Obama has been a worse president than George W. Bush. "Whites are now fuming at him," says Blow.

In the comment section to the William Rivers Pitt post, here are some examples of the anger people express:

Sat, 01/16/2010 - 04:17 — Anonymous (not verified)

The hoi polloi are energized. They know that Obama's so-called health "insurance" reform is not going to help them at all. The people are smart enough to realize that Obama and the Democrats (and, yes, I WAS a Democrat!), have sucked up to the corporatists, just the like Cheney/Bush regime. Face it. If Brown wins, it'll be a referendum on Obama and the Democratic Congress. Sad, but true. So, MA voters may well put Brown into the Senate. Well, we'll live through it. Maybe it'll be a wake-up call for the Dems and Obama who lift their proverbial middle finger at us.

Sat, 01/16/2010 - 15:00 — Anonymous (not verified)

A lot of the anger out there results from the Dems calling a subsidy to the insurance industry a health care reform measure. Most Obama voters took him at face value when he he argued for progress and change. These same people now have little left but 'faint hope'.

And the counter fire from the Democratic Party battery? Visits from Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in support of a candidate who isn't helping herself any. As if!

Too late, Democratic party officials are realizing their errors could very well hurt their prospects. And yet, Brown has been tossing them softballs to hit out of the park if the Democrats had bothered to pick up a bat!

Jonathan Chait of The New Republic looks at the consequences of Obama's failures and declares, "you did nothing on the issue that consumed most of your time" and implies that Democrats "wait for your November beating as a failed Congress running with a failed president."

Was this worth pursuing "bipartisanship", Barry? Heck of a job!

Win or lose, Obama now owns the health care bill. He would have been better served to have gotten involved a whole lot sooner than he did. Now, there really is no good alternative -especially if Coakley loses Tuesday- except to dump the health insurance reform bill.

BuzzFlash columnist Steven Jonas, MD, is especially scathing in his advocacy regarding dumping the Senate bill, saying "There are many reasons to hope that the current health care deform monstrosity doesn't get through Congress just so that Obama/Emmanuel can say that they have produced 'something.'"

Obama needs to cut his losses on health insurance reform, for the time has come to deal with other issues before the looming consequences are irreversible.

But in the fall, other problems lurk to plague Obama:

The Financial Times -a conservative business newspaper- supports Obama's effort to "tax the banks to cover the cost they have imposed on society" in bailing them out of their foolishness. He should have started with this position, not come to it too late to have any advantage.

There is restoring the balance between the economy and the consumers who see inflation rising as their wages fall.

There is the massive unemployment which plagues one of his most staunch blocs of support - minorities: 17.2% for African Americans and 13.9 for Latinos. Both groups overwhelmingly supported him in 2008.

The last problem Obama faces this fall is from his own camp. Can he afford for Harold Ford to slide in to New York from Tennessee and become the next Joe Lieberman? Ford will likely prove to be another reliably corporatist vote.

Obama will then at that point have nothing left but surrender to the inevitable: do the best he can in the last couple of years, then stand aside so that someone else can run. He will be as finished as LBJ after the Tet Offensive revealed to the American people that they were betrayed by liars - and for the same reason.

The Approaching Storm

2010-01-16T02:32:00.000-08:00

As of the moment I write this, my Southern California home region is awaiting a week-long dousing by Mother Nature. To put it into some kind of a perspective for those of you who have never experienced the Pineapple Express, a one-hit-wonder named Hammond Albert wrote a song entitled IT NEVER RAINS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, later covered by Barry Manilow if you're into his music.

Contained in the chorus are the following lines:

It never rains in California

But girl, don't they warn ya

It pours man it pours.

He isn't kidding. It can and does happen. It's about to happen.

We are told by the Weather Service that we can expect up to 8 inches of rain in Downtown Los Angeles and a foot or more in the mountains over the next seven days. What this will produce is a lot of entertainment for the disaster ghouls who are getting a little bored with the Haitian Earthquake. You will get to see more Hollywood lib'ruls lose their multimillion-dollar Malibu mansions as the ground beneath them collapses from the water. You might even get to see some serious flooding inland, which tends not to happen very often. This storm is likely to affect as many conservative Orange County Republicans who live out the same foolish residential fantasies as their much-maligned political rivals up the coast.

The Populist Manifesto is a political commentary website. I don't provide this report about the coming weather unless there is a connection. The connection is: this nation is facing away from the approach of metaphorical storms which will cause as much havoc (allowing for variances equaling orders of magnitude) as either the Haitian Earthquake or The Great Southern California Flush.

The United States is so deep in debt that there is a realistic expectation that it can never be fully repaid. But the biggest single expenditure of the government -the military budget- isn't about to be touched, for it is needed to conquer the rest of the world and put it all under our national control for the benefit of the owners of the government - the private commercial sector. Everything else is subject to curtailment or elimination in order to facilitate this insane goal. You ARE expendable in this effort.

But while the American armor appears to be strong and shiny on the outside, the inner portion suffers from malevolent neglect. Our industrial base -vital to any nation at war- has been shipped across indefensible oceans, something that isn't a good idea as our military planners should have learned from our success against Japan in WWII. Despite the much-vaunted abilities of the US Navy, they were seriously surprised by an undetected Chinese sub surfacing about one mile away from a US carrier -a guaranteed kill, according to experts- during the conduct of an anti-submarine exercise which should have detected it. This incident tells us two things: We cannot protect our lines of supply. We cannot protect our means to wage war.

Another vital item necessary to conduct global war is money. This nation is broke. The entire economic output of the US -estimated as of the end of the third quarter of 2009 at $14,242.1 billion- wouldn't completely cover the amount of money that has been promised to back up the Wall Street banks which put the world's economy on the skids. The Federal Reserve admits to some $2 trillion being supplied to the banks by the taxpayers, but we don't really know because they won't reveal the true numbers. MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan claimed on his 1/15/10 episode that the amount promised to the banks to be closer to $24 trillion.

That would put the GDP at only about 60% of the amount promised to the banks. Or, every dollar generated by the US economy for almost TWO years is now seen by the Wall Street banks as promised to them. Who cares if you eat! There are executive bonuses to be paid lest we lose their talents to competitors! You ARE expendable in this effort!

It isn't that simple, however, for we officially already owe over $12 trillion to various nations and private entities for our governmental and private sector debt. Of this, about $3 trillion is owed by the government. Of this, about 24% is owed to China, and another 20% is owed to Japan. Both nations are in the middle of adjusting their banking policies, and are expected to tighten their lending standards. Chinese banks have already been ordered to increase their reserves, which means they have fewer funds available to buy little things like US Treasury Bills. Japan is worrying about slipping back into the recession they endured for over 15 years due to their fiscal imprudence - a path the US seems intent on following. They aren't going to have much to invest in US debt.

We won't go into the amount of debt that is held by other economic rivals. I think the point of how vulnerable the US economy is to foreign action to be clear.

Just like our ocean supply lines being indefensible, what are we to do if our international ~~enablers~~ creditors stop funding our wars of conquest due to domestic necessity if not political disapproval? We could print money like it is going out of style, but that didn't work for Weimar Germany nor for Zimbabwe. Eventually, Israeli Arms, Beretta, and the National Armory of Taiwan will hesitate to accept greenbacks for cases of full metal jackets, and domestic sources already struggle to catch up to the relatively small emergency orders placed by the Pentagon. How does one wage war with unloaded weapons?

There is an important lesson that the most ardent American GI Joe wannabee needs to understand: John Wayne is dead. We no longer have the means to wage war with impunity. That ability has been sold out to the lowest bidder to ensure the maximum profit by those who need defending the most - the corporate sector. Those foreign banks who now control the purse strings will at some point become less willing to tolerate our excesses, and could very well cut off their contribution to our ongoing blood lust. It may well prove to be in the interests of their own survival to do so.

That is when the storm hits, for Our American Way of Life will be threatened. We Americans would rather fight than switch - no matter how good for us switching would be. We just won't have much to fight with, and a lot to fight against. We can't go on pissing on the world and expect them to do our bidding when it's becoming clear to them that we have had our day as King of the Hill. They are all getting ready for the time when we get challenged for the lead. Are we?

If one were a student of Sun-Tzu, one would realize just how foolish our warrior leaders are. But who is the bigger fool? The one who makes foolish war plans ensuring defeat, or the fool who follows him blindly?

I guess we get to provide the answer to that with our future. You ARE expendable in that effort.

A couple of things.

2010-01-15T18:16:00.000-08:00

First, I'd like to welcome Realist as a new contributor to this blog. I'm thrilled to have him here. When I started this project I was hoping to get others involved as well. The idea is to get people thinking and talking. The goal is to wake people up! I firmly believe that he will help in that goal. I've read some of his writings from other places and I am pleased that he wants to use this venue as another means of getting people thinking and acting. Plus, with a second writer, I expect that there will be more activity here.

And on that note we arrive to my second point on the agenda. You may have noticed that a pretty good deal of time has gone by without any activity at all. I'd like to blame it on a hectic life and too much work. While that is a factor, the major issue is a great deal more embarrassing. I locked myself out of the house. You see, for a while there I couldn't remember the log in info. As you might have guessed, I've fixed that. As such, there will be much more coming your way from me. Think of it as value added. Now you get articles from a couple of contributors for the same low price of free!

See you soon.

Populist

Greetings, Earthlings!

2010-01-14T17:06:00.000-08:00

Allow me to introduce myself. I blog as Realist on blogcritics.org, usually but not exclusively under the Politics section. I also occasionally write reviews of music and books there. But enough about that. You can look me up there when you decide to know more.

Why am I now writing on The Populist Manifesto? America as we all know it is in great danger. We all tend to agree on this. Where we differ is in the nature of the danger, what it means, and -most importantly- what to do about it.

Those who consider themselves conservatives feel that their traditional values are under assault. They aren't wrong in this belief. But because they aren't wrong, they have gone immediately into attack mode and are not interested in the subtle nuances of why their values are under assault, or by whom or what. They don't care about nuance. They want things the way they have always been and that is that. Either you stand with them against change, or you are the enemy. There is no in-between.

For those of us who consider ourselves anything OTHER than conservative, our values have been under assault for decades. We who believe in fairness and equality have had to watch powerless as privilege and social class connections dominate. We who believe in equality have watched as the defenders of privilege and connection coalesced into a quasi-white-power collection of "traditional" elitists. We who believe in the dignity of labor have endured repeated assaults both on our rights as labor and our economic opportunities, continuously pushed both by our employers and their elected lackeys into "voluntarily" surrendering our rights in order to remain employed. Yet we had too long trusted that this was still the America where differences in opinion and action were respected by those who disagree. We allowed ourselves to be made into lesser beings with diminished rights and power.

There is no need to recite the numerous instances which demonstrate that our particular traditional America is now merely a historical artifact. It is sufficient to note that the effects of this do not just affect the US. They also affect the world.

Because we have been eating ourselves and our nation from the inside, consuming our future in the contest for control, we have allowed our status as a world leader to deteriorate to the point that many nations are now vying to be our replacement. China is the dominant player in this game, but the others (with whom China is attempting for form more formal alliances) include Russia and India. China is the one rival which deserves much more attention from Americans, but our media doesn't present the issues in a sports-like format that would keep our attention long enough to learn something. That, however, isn't going to stop me from trying. China will be a regular topic here.

Domestic politics is going to also be a frequent subject. I do not belong to either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, for they are but two-faces of the American Corporatist Power Party, owned and operated by interchangeable and shifting rival factions of the American commercial interests. With the "debate" over the abomination that is presented to us as "health insurance reform", we all can see just how much control over events the corporations wield. They don't even bother to hide it anymore. They know they have the power and that there isn't much We, the People can do about it.

Where this is going to lead and what it will likely mean are going to be the themes of my posts here. I hope that you find them worthy of reading, commenting upon, and referring to others as you deem suitable.

Onward.

The Maverick Now Wears Lots of Brands

2009-10-25T00:18:00.000-07:00

I know I've been extremely quiet for a long time, and it's not for wont of things to say but due to not enough time. When I would find time, I would have said things so out of date to that it seemed pointless. Thanks to John McCain, that isn't the case today.

McCain has introduced a bill that would prevent the federal government from ensuring "net neutrality." For those who don't know, net neutrality is the idea that "all bits are created equal." (My thanks to Xeni Jardin of Boing Boing for such a great line.) The telecoms want to be able to limit your access to commercially disadvantageous content. They want to decide for you what content you should be interested in and what should matter. They want to take away your ability to publish your own content. Net neutrality means they can't do that. They provide service packages and then the speed you purchased applies to any site or point of interest you decide upon, not them.

Some of you may recall the days of AOL, CompuServe, and other content providers that provided the content and you didn't really get to decide what was available. This was back in the mid-1990s, so it wasn't all that long ago. Service was terrible and customers didn't have a choice in content or expression. This is what we'd get if the telecoms get their way, this is what we'd return to.

Think about it in terms of radio or television. With very few exceptions, where is the viewer / listener created content? It isn't there. The networks decide what is available and you just get to tune in. This is what would happen if the telecoms get their way, and that is what McCain is working to do.

I urge you to read Ms. Jardin's article at Boing Boing. She has a great summation of the issue there.

What I find so interesting is that back in 2008, when Sen. McCain was Presidential Candidate McCain, he admitted that he was completely computer illiterate. He admits to knowing nothing about computers. And now? Now he's completely bought and paid for by the telecoms. The Sunlight Foundation has identified McCain as the largest recipient of telecom lobbying money for the last two years. So, the man who knows nothing about computers and who has received an obscene amount of money from the telecoms, is now opposing net neutrality. He's selling us out on this as he has sold us out on so many other issues, including health insurance reform and Medicare for Everyone. After all, what is information and easy access to it, if not a threat to the elitist establishment? All in the name of profit, right?

Snowe Job

2009-09-11T14:31:00.001-07:00

Olympia Snowe believes that a public option for health care is divisive. You know what, she's right. It is divisive. It divides those who want to make things better for everyone from those who want to make a buck on your back at any cost. It divides the wealthy corporate elite from the common people they abuse. It divides those with a couple of brain cells to rub together from screaming idiots who act like feces flinging monkeys at the zoo. It divides the people from their enemies, and this is a good thing.

While it has been incredibly frustrating and even infuriating watching Town Hall thugs and Tea-bagger idiots scream nonsense at elected officials, it has also proven that elitists really do want to keep us in servitude. It has shown us that they lack any other method than to scream at the top of their lungs for as long as they can. They have no substance, and now we know it from empirical evidence.

So, why does it bother Olympia Snowe that 60% of the people of Maine want a public option and serious reform? Why does it drive Joe Wilson to expulsions of idiocy during a Presidential Address? Why does it compel John Shimkus walk out of the President's speech due to frustration? Why was John Boehner so dour while Eric Cantor played away on his BlackBerry?

The answer is really as simple as it seems. They have nothing left. They've spent it all and they've been humiliated by the President for doing it. They have lied through their teeth and the people know it. Karl Rove tried like hell to revise the history of "Death Panels" because people are seeing through it. Sean Hannity immediately goes into "Lie Like a Cheap Rug" mode at the conclusion of the speech, claiming that President Obama called insurance execs "bad people," even though we just watched him do exactly the opposite.

They have been driven mad because they have lost everything. The ultra right-wing neo-fascist Christian theocratic government that they have been working for was soundly repudiated in the last election. They no longer have control of Congress or the White House. They have no active roll in legislation and they don't understand why. Fanatics never understand why people don't agree with them.

Make no mistake, they are fanatics just like Al Qaeda, Hamas, or the Taliban. They represent a great threat to American democracy. They are the domestic enemy that we refuse to see. Freedom is not something they want us to share in. They want a religious state run by corporate masters that keep us shackled their their machines of industry. They want our blood, sweat, and tears to grease their cogs. They fight us on employee fair treatment, environmental responsibility, and health care in order to grind us down. To "break" Obama is their stated goal. To return to power and continue what they started under Reagan and W. is their ultimate desire. We are expendable to them and our lives are the currency of choice.

So, why does Olympia Snowe believe it is divisive? Because it would force those who want to keep us enslaved to do something they can't abide, lessen profits in order to provide more for the people. This is the woman that has been so openly courted by the Dems that some now refer to her as Queen Olympia. It's just sad that the Democrats don't see the problem in trying to recruit this so-called moderate Republican. The problem is she has bought into her own Snowe Job.

Obama Meets With Congress

2009-09-09T15:22:00.001-07:00

In less than two hours, President Obama will convene a joint session of Congress to address health care reform. I don't believe this will be good for the American people. I want to hold out hope that Obama isn't an 8 month lame duck. I want to hold out that the public option will become a reality. This is the minimum level of reform I can tolerate. I want to believe that the Progressive Caucus has made its point that a public option is a mandatory thing. I want to believe that Candidate Obama, who attended the AFL-CIO event will show up tonight and actually lead. I want to believe that Republicans will be made to sit down and shut up. I want to believe that real reform is coming.

I don't believe it will happen. I believe that tonight will be a dog and pony show where rhetoric will be spouted and warm fuzzies for Progressives will be sold. Then, a few weeks from now, the public option will fall by the wayside. Obama will become a failed president to be opposed by his own party.

This is what I expect. Obama was caught with his pants down by the Republicans in August. Obama was all over the map on the public option. He sold out single payer reform from the very beginning. Progressives have threatened serious rebellion. Blue Dogs have proven to be DINOs. Max Baucus has proven to be in the pocket of the For Profit Health Insurance Industry and not a friend of the American people.

Mr. President, please surprise me. Please, do the right thing and tell the Republicans to go to Hell. Do the moral thing and make real reform a reality.

An interesting editorial

2009-09-03T18:02:00.001-07:00

I was emailed this editorial piece from the Commonweal Institute's Progressive Op-Ed Program

Maybe We Really Do Want Government to Make the Decisions
By: Dave Johnson, Fellow
Aug. 31, 2009

Do we really want government making decisions? I hear the same question repeated a number of different ways: “Do we really want government making decisions about our health care?” “Do we really want government deciding how banks should be run?” “Do we want government making decisions on whether drug companies can release new products?” “Do we want government telling businesses what they can and can’t do?”

The immediate, emotional reaction is, “Of course not!” But what happens when these questions are examined more closely?

read more...

Mr. Johnson has written an eloquent article on why we need national health care and I strongly urge you to read it and give his argument some very serious thought.

"A Lost Decade"

2009-09-03T17:48:00.001-07:00

The AFL-CIO has released the results of a new survey that shows that one third of workers under 35 live with their parents and are less likely to have health insurance provided by their employers. They are also less like to have more job insecurity than they were ten years ago. One quarter of these workers don't earn enough money to even pay their bills.

Richard Trumka said in a press conference:

"We're calling the report "A Lost Decade" because we're seeing 10 years of opportunity lost as young workers across the board are struggling to keep their heads above water and often not succeeding. They've put off adulthood - - put off having kids, put off education - and a full 34 percent of workers under 35 live with their parents for financial reasons. Thirty-five percent are significantly less likely to have health care than older workers, only 31 percent make enough money to pay their bills while putting anything aside in savings, and almost half are more worried than hopeful about their economic future."

Conservatives Abuse the Sick

2009-09-03T17:34:00.001-07:00

Why doesn't it surprise me that Michael Steele insults a young woman who lost her mother to cancer?

Why doesn't it surprise me that Conservatives at a Town Hall meeting berate and insult a handicapped woman?

What has gone so very wrong with Conservatives? What happened to the "Compassionate Conservative?" The reality of it is that these people have sided with their oppressors in a way that can only be explained as Stockholm Syndrome.

It seems to me that the truly lasting effect of the Bush Administration is the death of civil discourse in America. The Conservatives have managed to follow the best advice of Sun Tzu, divide and conquer.

The New American Dream?

2009-08-12T21:31:00.000-07:00

Are you working harder for less? According to the Department of Labor, the answer is probably yes. For details on this, please read this article from MSNBC.

So, the corporate fat cats that run this country are doing their damnedest to take everything they can from us. They want us to work longer hours, do more in those hours, and receive less for our time and effort. Is this the new American Dream?

More nonsense from those trying to keep you sick

2009-08-12T21:09:00.000-07:00

Recently an editorial in Investor's Business Daily claimed that health care reform would lead to a rationing of care that would have deemed the life of Dr. Stephen Hawking not worth saving. They claim care like the British National Health Service would determine that his body was too sickly to spend money on treating him.

"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

Now, Dr. Hawking has entered the discussion. The Huffington Post has a great article on this.

Dr. Hawking told The Guardian "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

You see, Dr. Hawking is British. He lives there now and he grew up there. He suffers from ALS, or Lou Gehrig's Disease. It would seem Dr. Hawking would know a lot better than those idiots of IBD about the quality of care and access to care in the UK. It is worth noting that the UK has a single payer system. Had Dr. Hawking been under the "care" of the For Profit Health Care bastards, I have no doubt that he'd be dead now.

Since Dr. Hawking disproved those morons idiocy they have since "corrected" (you should read that as edited) their insipid editorial to sanitize it. They still refuse to acknowledge that the NHS is responsible for the care that kept Dr. Hawking alive.

Gov. Palin's Death Panels

2009-08-12T20:19:00.000-07:00

From the Anchorage Daily News: Troubled Alaska Health Programs Face Federal Restriction

Honestly, can you even say you're surprised? Under Palin's administration, the Alaskan program set up to help the elderly and ill with every-day things like making dinner, getting dressed, or going to the bathroom is so poorly run that people are actually dying from the pathetic "care" they are supposed to be receiving. The Federal government has had to force the state to stop signing up new patients for care until they can fix the situation. The program is funded by Medicaid. I wonder how much the For Profit Health Pirates would charge you for this and how much more quickly they would kill the old and sick.

So very true.

2009-08-07T21:21:00.001-07:00

Rush compares Democrats to Nazis.

2009-08-07T07:37:00.000-07:00

I'm sorry, what? This can't be serious. Sadly, it is. Rush Limbaugh has decided to hit a new level of low. I know I really shouldn't be surprised by this. The man (and I use the term loosely) has a long history of unsavory behavior and offensive commentary that any thinking, rational mind would be appalled to hear. Having watched the footage of his little diatribe I can honestly say that I believe he's walked right off the diving board and sunk to the bottom of the deep end. He's a wacko to begin with, and spends a lot of time in Looney Land. But this was just amazing. Not only is he factually wrong on every single point, his frothing at the mouth like a rabid animal is just spooky.

It offended me when Liberals and Democrats called Republicans Nazis and compared Bush to Hitler. It disgusts me now when it is even less accurate. There is no legitimate reason to play the Nazi card, ever. Except, of course, when dealing with real Nazis. This kind of political rabble-rousing ends any kind of legitimate discussion and causes people to start screaming at each other.

Then again, that's the point, isn't it Rush? You don't want people to talk to each other. You don't want people taking the time to consider the issues and decide for themselves that there is good to be had with Health Care Reform. No, you and your corporate masters want us at each other's throats. You want us fighting each other so we can't fight you.

You see, that's the real goal here. Divide and conquer. In order to keep us controlled and funding their lavish lifestyles they need us disorganized and in disarray. In order for the Corporate States of America to continue unabated they need us to hate each other and to work at odds. They need to keep us from realizing what is good for us and demanding it. They need us tired, ignorant, and hungry. They want us too sick to resist but not so sick as to punch a time clock. They want us poor. They need us to be this. And they need people like Rush Limbaugh to make us hate each other.

Go here for the video clip.

Cash For Clunkers

2009-08-05T06:51:00.000-07:00

Politics just amazes me. Republicans and their Fox News flapping-heads are already declaring the Cash for Clunkers program a failure. Why? Because it's overwhelming success has required more money to keep it going. What happened is that the money allocated to the recovery program was designed to last for 90 days. It ran out in a much shorter time. Here's the real question; why? The program that offered up to $4500 in government aid for a new car has been so successful that sales are through the roof. Auto sales, which has been in the toilet, is currently sky high because of this program. Interest exceeded expectation. The American People are more than happy to part with their money in times of economic distress and save the ailing auto industry, the auto dealers, and put money into active circulation. All of this results in a much needed boost to the economy.

So, should we be mad that the program that is seeing American auto sales boosted to a high not seen in ages needs more funds? After all, the Obama administration did underestimate demand. The truth is that we should be thrilled that the program needs more funding. It needs more funding because it's working. In order to save our economy we need to put money into the programs that produce results. The expectations for sales were wrong, but they were based on good estimates drawn from the data that existed. You can't always predict what will garner more interest than it ought to. Does anyone remember Beanie Babies? We should be happy the program is working and that auto sales are way, way up.

What is truly sick is all of this noise coming from the Conserva-fascists is that they are trying to use this as a stepping stone to make attacks on health care reform. It's an Apples to Oranges pseudo-equation that has no merit. They want to label the "failure" of the CARS program as evidence that health care reform will lead to disaster. Politics by any means necessary, I guess. Please, ignore the man behind the curtain. You don't need affordable health care that you are in control of. The current system of corporate greed is just fine, for them. Don't believe us, just listen to our astroturf mouthpieces who we hire to disrupt any conversation at Town Hall meetings we don't want you to have.

From the LA Times

2009-08-04T21:28:00.000-07:00

A Canadian doctor diagnoses U.S. healthcare

Commentary on this article to follow. I wanted to link it for record keeping.

The Health Care Industry Doesn't Want You To Have Real Options

2009-08-04T21:15:00.000-07:00

Have you heard about the disruption at Town Hall meetings where "Anti-Reform Advocates" throw temper tantrums to make a mess of things? According to reports from Countdown and The Rachel Maddow Show, many of these "protesters" are corporate shills receiving compensation from the HMOs for their activities. The truth of the matter is that they don't want you to hear about reform options because it's bad for business. Real care for Americans is being derailed by the corporations. When I say the Pledge, I don't swear loyalty to the Incorporated States of America. Republicans fear reform because it means a continued loss of power for them. The "Health Care Providers" interfere because they don't want the system to change. They want us to suffer for their benefit. What more do we need to know than this? The only real road forward for reform is a government run Single Payer system. No other option places health care in our hands. Until we are in control of our own care, the corporations will work against us in order to make a profit.

The Health Care Conflict of Interest

2009-07-22T10:59:00.000-07:00

Over time I will have a lot more to say on Health Care and Health Care reform. Right now I want to focus on the conflict of interest that exists in the current system. The very nature of the For Profit industry conflicts with the needs of the insured. A For Profit organization has the inherent goal of bringing in money and spending as little of it as possible. In this case, the Insurers sell policies to pay for medical costs. When the customer uses the policy, the Insurer pays out, lowering the profitability of that policy. The conflict of interest has been set in motion.

In order to maximize profits, the Insurer will resist paying out benefits and leaving the customer with expenses that they expected their policy insurer to pay. We have seen more and more Insurers decrease coverage while raising rates. They then deny coverage to those most in need of medical care because it hurts their profits.

The primary way in which Americans receive health care insurance is through their employer. When people change jobs, there is often a delay in receipt of new coverage from the new employer. Many times there is no coverage for "pre-existing conditions" that were treated under the old policy but not covered by the new insurer. Many employers don't offer health care to their Part-Time employees at all. There is also a dearth of privately available policies, and these come with higher rates and are harder to get if you have any health issues.

This formula has lead us right into the current health care crisis. We have millions of Americans who can not afford health care or are not offered it through their employer. It is not in the interest of the Insurer to cover those most in need. This conflict of interest can only be stopped when primary health care is no longer under the control of a For Profit provider. These providers are not interested in what benefits the customer, but only in what benefits the company.

This is why a public option is the only real option for serious care. When medical decisions are made solely between the patient and the doctor, with no interference from a third party company who stands to lose money, then care is genuine and beneficial. When all Americans can receive care, we will have a healthier nation more able to function and increase performance in the work place. When we reduce the cost of medical care to the people there is more money for savings and, ultimately, to spend. It also allows people to have greater freedom in pursuing better employment because health care is no longer a consideration.

Whenever a company has a conflict of interest with its customers, the company benefits and the customer loses. Health care is not just a service, but a vital part of our national welfare. We can not afford any conflict of interest in keeping our people healthy and well.

Obama isn't a citizen?

2009-07-22T09:25:00.002-07:00

I am incredulous that this belief is actually growing. What is more shocking to me is that the scope of the conspiracy believers is growing. At this point they have to actively believe that the Great State of Hawaii is in on it and that a local news paper that announced the birth of the eventual President was in on it, 50 years ago. Never let the facts get in the way of a delusion.

With Lou Dobbs of CNN giving these "Birthers" credibility by joining them, we are only going to see a rise in the number of people who have been tricked into believing this. I don't want to say that it's racial bigotry that is the source of the belief, but given that this is an extension of the non-sense we saw during the campaign about the President being "a Muslim" it is clear that it is.

While I doubt it is likely that any Birther can have this non-sense cleaned out of their heads, I think it's worth giving it a try when you find one who isn't utterly hysterical. After all, there is a bill in the House to require all future Presidential candidates to publish their birth certificates. A few tools to fight this idiocy would be very helpful.

There are two principles that are used to decide citizenship. Some nations use one, others use both. We are a nation that uses both. These are the "Rule of Soil" and the "Rule of Blood." The Rule of Soil says that anyone born on a nation's land is a citizen of that nation. The rule of blood says that the child of a citizen is a citizen, regardless of where in the world they were born.

Most of these Birthers are fixated on the Rule of Soil. They consistently tout that the President wasn't born in America and therefore can't be an American. This is utter non-sense but you can't argue with them because they believe there is a conspiracy to make it look like he was born in Hawaii. Using the Rule of Soil as the basis of an argument will never work. They willingly disbelieve the facts. So we need to move on to the second rule.

Much has been made of the President's paternal heritage, especially the fact that he wasn't an American. After all, if his daddy wasn't red, white, and blue then he must not be. Foreign imposter, they proclaim. But what about his mother? There can be no argument that she was an American woman. This is a detail that got some discussion when talking about how the President was a bridge between worlds. The Rule of Blood states that the child of an American citizen is automatically an American citizen himself. Where in the world the child was born is not a factor. It's that simple. His mother was an American, so he is an American. It's automatic.

Now, I'm a bit ashamed to have to even write about this, because it's nothing more than distraction. This is another method of turning the American People against themselves and directing their attention away in a sleight of hand effort that can only be used against us. It serves to enhance the polarization in this country that undermines the welfare and value of the People. I hope that by being able to articulate a solid argument that destroys this Birther Conspiracy non-sense that we can take a step towards turning the People away from this self-destructive behavior. We can not allow ourselves to be turned against each other by a controlling elite. To do so would mean our enslavement.

Unemployment enhances economic depression, not solves it.

2009-06-21T12:45:00.002-07:00

Somebody needs to explain to me the wisdom of Chrysler plants being shut down. I understand the company was so utterly mismanaged that they are bankrupt. What I don't get is what happened to all the bail-out money and why those who are not responsible for the screw-ups are the ones paying the price. By cutting more jobs, Chrysler is adding to the problem of unemployed workers falling flat on their faces. What they should be considering about their own bottom line, which is all they ever care about, is that if people don't have jobs they don't have money. If they don't have money they don't buy your product.

Michael Moore has posited quite rightly that these plants should not be allowed to be shut down and the jobs destroyed. Instead, the costly but long term more beneficial choice is to retool the plants for manufacturing new good. Don't make cars, but make something else. It would be unreasonable and untenable to rework them into factories for warfare, but all of that hardware and the skilled labor force could be used to make other goods that Americans do need. In a single stroke you make the company viable through the manufacturing of goods that we need, you keep people from drawing on Unemployment, and you keep money circulating through the economy at a time when it is needed most.

What bothers me about the way the Obama administration has been handling the auto and banking bail-outs is that they clearly favor those who have done wrong by us, the people. I'd like to know where the change is. What I see is business as usual. The fat-cat robber-barons live high on the hog while we drown in a mire of filth that is their making. In a time of radical change we need genuine leadership. We need a new way of thinking and doing. What we have is a president who has done so little for the people that it becomes hard to trust him that "change is coming."

What we need to see is the creation of good wage paying jobs with benefits that would actually make some sense. The American Worker is neither lazy nor stupid, but the American Worker can not afford to be taken for granted either. With the export of so many of our jobs to foriegn lands, it is critical that we revive the manufacturing of goods and provide reasons for business to keep jobs in America. Without good pay, fair hours, decent benefits, and job security along with an ethically run and responsible employer we can fight back the economic decline that serves to do nothing more but eradicate the middle class and elevate the elitists to a position of divinely inspired authority under a fuedal system.

You call that stimulus?

2009-05-25T09:58:00.002-07:00

So, after Texas governor Rick Perry, who has repeatedly threatened secession from the United States and rejected out-right the stimulus money, he has decided to accept at least a portion of it after all. About $11 million of it. What does he plan to spend the money on? Rebuilding the governor's mansion. Seriously?

I can not think of a more insulting gesture to the people of Texas. Perry wants to deny them the money that would be used to benefit the entire state, but he wants some of it to rebuild an ultimately unnecessary structure. The governor can perform the functions of office from the capitol building.

This is such a glaring example of the abuses of the elite. Such actions do not benefit the people of Texas in any way. Such actions place a burden upon the entire nation and benefit us not one bit. I am genuinely befuddled by the workings of this man's mind.

Memorial Day Matters Now More Than Ever

2009-05-25T09:29:00.002-07:00

Our country is in trouble. After 8 years of right-wing foolishness, we now face the very serious matter of fixing what the Bush administration broke; the Constitution. Today we get to take a day off work in remembrance of the brave men and women who gave their lives for this country. Most of us will celebrate with cook-outs and swim parties, but we must not forget why we are enjoying ourselves today.

The lives spent for our freedoms were not spent cheaply, and this is something we must endure to remember. These lives were given for a great cause, freedom and the rule of law. The Bush administration violated those freedoms with the Patriot Acts and the torture of illegally held prisoners of war. The rights of Americans and non-Americans alike were violated and war crimes were committed in our names.

The single most important principle of our legal system is that all men are equal before the law. This includes the President and the Vice-President. When crimes are committed by these austere offices and they go unpunished, no clearer evidence do we have that the People are held in contempt by the wealthy and powerful elites.

Let us not quibble about what "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" means. It is fascist double-speak for torture. In addition to waterboarding, other acts of torture were committed, including "stress positions." For the entire history of civilization, these methods have been used to torture prisoners. They are illegal under American and international law. We convict civilians and law enforcement officers who use these methods.

Contrary to what former Vice-President Cheney wants us to believe, torture does not work. It does not provide valuable or reliable information. Torture does not protect American lives. In truth, it endangers us because the information is unreliable. The victim can and will say anything, anything at all, to make the torture stop. These are facts. There can be no debate about these facts by clear-thinking minds.

The men and women we honor today died so that these methods would not be used against people. The men and women we honor today died so that the rule of law would reign supreme over all Americans and all actions by American officials. Their sacrifice has been cheapened by the Bush administration's actions and the self-serving and lie-filled speeches of the former Vice-President. Their sacrifice continues to be dishonored by President Obama's refusal to hold accountable the perpetrators of these war crimes and his intention of indefinite detainment of terrorists from Gitmo without trial.

I understand that President Obama has been handed a raw deal. He did not create this situation and he is tasked with cleaning it up. We can only urge him to abide by the laws of this nation when fulfilling the task we have assigned him. But we must stress that the law is superior in all things. While the evidence against these monsters may be tainted by the crimes of the Bush administration, there can be little doubt that there is ample evidence of merit that exists without taint. We simple need to work harder to clean it up.

Please remember these things today while you are enjoying the freedoms we still have. We honor the lives of those whho died establishing and protecting these freedoms not by having a cook-out and swim party. We honor their lives by upholding the values and principles for which they gave their lives.

Newsflash: Populism is popular

2009-04-25T15:34:00.008-07:00

Newsflash: Populism is popular
David Sirota,
Creators Syndicate Inc.
Friday, April 24, 2009

Fla. Republican Elitists Seek to Silence Voters

2009-04-25T15:26:00.005-07:00

Republicans push 'sweeping' restrictions on voting in last days of Fla legislature

Accountability and torture

2009-04-24T22:17:00.002-07:00

I can't believe there is even debate on this. Water-boarding is torture. Torture is illegal under US law. Criminals belong in prison. It's that simple. Unfortunately, the fascist elite of the Bush administration want us to believe otherwise. They would like us to believe that there was nothing wrong with torturing our prisoners. They want us to believe that no one should be punished. They want us to believe that their lackies and sycophants are above the law. The Obama administration doesn't seem to be much better on this, but at least it seems he is coming around.

According to reports from the Thursday, April 23rd and Friday, April 24th broadcast of Countdown with Keith Olberman, there is evidence that instruction on how to torture and orders to engage in torture reach the upper echelons of the Bush administration; all the way up to former Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld and former Vice President Cheney. I don't relish the idea of prosecuting these officials for their crimes. It is an utterly tragic situation that could result governmental officials of such high office being tried for war crimes. The resulting trials would tear at the very fabric of our nation. But as a nation of laws I can see no other course of action that would truly satisfy justice. To prosecute only low level people but to leave the people who made the decisions alone would be one the worst blows to the American soul. It would be an expression of the worst form of elitism. We are all equal before the law, even these men.

Tea-bagging is Populism? Not hardly!

2009-04-24T21:59:00.004-07:00

I realize I'm a little bit behind on commenting on this but real life has been a bit hectic. I lost count of the number of times Fox News attempted to portray the "Tea Parties" as a populist movement. Let me be very clear on this. Tea-bagging is not now, nor will it ever be, populist. If you have bothered to look at the definition of Populism then you know it's about believing in the value and virtue of the common people. With Tea-bagging what you have is a top-down fabrication by the fascists at News Corp that they are trying to convince you is a grass-roots protest.

The "Tea Parties" are distractions created by an elitist establishment to turn the people against itself. There was nothing at them that indicated this was about the value and virtue of the common people. In truth, these people showed up with total contempt for taxation and the false belief that President Obama has raised their taxes. This simply isn't true. Obama's tax policy realizes a Populist desire because it decreases the burden foisted upon us by the elite who work to dodge paying their fair share. I'm not talking about making the rich pay more. I'm talking about not bleeding the people to death while benefitting an elite ruling class.

For the "Tea Parties" to have had any connection to Populism they would have had to been genuine expressions of fact that the value of the people is being impugned. What they really were was an elitist ploy to rile the masses and aggitate the populace. Tea-bagging isn't populism, it's just inane.

What is Populism?

2009-04-17T11:57:00.004-07:00

What is Populism, anyway? Ultimately, there is a very simple definition but a very complex answer. Populism is the belief in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people. The definition doesn't completely answer the question, however. To truly understand Populism we need to put it into context.

Populism is the opposite of elitism, or leadership or rule by an elite segment of society. When the American colonies declared independence from Britain we declared our independence from elitism. Elitism means that only those who are possesed of superior position in society have the right to make the rules that govern everyone. Those rules do not benefit the populace, only the ruling elite. When we declaired that all men are created equal we said that all members of society have a place within government. We went one step further and said that government was granted its authority by the people it governed.

In a Populist society it is the common man that makes the rules. In a fair society those rules seek to benefit the whole of society while impinging upon others at a very minimum. In truth, fairness is intrinsic to a Populist society because of the belief that we are all equal before the law.

A common lie about Populism is that it seeks to take from the wealthy or elite and give to the commoner or poor man. Populism is not about redistribution of wealth. Populism isn't an economic policy. Populism isn't a governmental philosophy. Populism is the belief that the common man is of worth and value to society. Populism is a social principle of equality, and ultimately, fairness. Instead of a ruling elite answerable only to itself, government and society is controlled by the very people it governs. This is what Populism is.

For the people!

Why Populism?

2009-04-15T08:17:00.004-07:00

The more I see the way the world operates, the more I realize that people need to be reminded of their power and importance. The populace, the people, are the life blood of a civilization and it is through them that true power of law is derived. This is a founding principle upon which our nation is built and it is the people who have been shut out from the systems of governance. We have been stripped of our importance by an over-class that neither regards our needs nor concerns. Liberty is the right to self-governance and that governance must be an expression of the will of the people with regard for the rights and equalities of the minority. Self-governance has been taken from us and replaced with a shallow veneer of involvement. We have been shut out of the Halls of Power because we are not born people of privilege, status, or wealth. We are not power-brokers with billions of dollars to spend. We are the life blood of our nation, and we have been constrained until we are barely flowing through the veins of the Motherland. Our nation withers and dies because its blood does not flow.

It is our blood most of all that was spilled in our formation as an independent nation. We, the people, bled for our birth. We, the people, bled for our own internal disputes. We, the people, bleed now under a yoke of control. That yoke is ignorance. We have been restricted to meaningless trivialities and been told that it is education. We have been brow-beaten into submission to a master who preys upon our labors but cares nothing for our toils. It is this yoke of bondage that we must cast off and rise above to take back our nation and our pride. We must remove the chains that shackle us and take back our rightful place in society.

We have been caged, our minds left to rot as wheat in the field. Thought is our revolution. Thought is what frees us from slavery and enables us to wield the power that is innately ours. No more an exalted state can man exist in than that of self-mastery. This principle is the founding principle of our republic and it is this principle that heralds the greatest truth we have ever uttered; all men are created equal. This is what is denied to us, and it is this that we must strive for. This is the Revolution of Thought that must take hold, and with it we can aspire to the greatness that was set before us.

Note: This was written a little while back and is meant to be more of a fire-brand than literal expression of populism. As a nation, we need to revitalize the lives and well-being of the common man. We are shackled by our ignorance of the back-room deals in the halls of power. We are worn down by our labors to survive. This is what we must master in order to assert our rightful role in government.

For the people!

What is Democracy Anyway?

2009-04-15T07:17:00.003-07:00

We talk about democracy in blithe terms and I think we often fail to understand what democracy really is. It's easy to say that democracy is the right to vote but this misses the essence of democracy. Merriam-Webster's defines democracy as a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

Direct exercise of power is the oldest form of democratic principle. The ancient Greek city-state of Athens was governed under this manner in which all eligible men would gather and vote with the majority holding the day. There were no elected officials, just majority rule. Now you have to remember that who was eligible to vote was extremely limited and the common man had pretty much no say at all in how laws were decided so this ancient form doesn't come close to a populist ideal of democracy. The limiting factor is the over-all lack of sovereign franchise, the right to vote.

We live in a nation built on indirect exercise of democracy. We are a representative Democratic Republic. We have progressed to grant franchise to a wide and large body of people. This is meant to allow all voices and opinions to be expressed, but ultimately the majority still rules. In our republic the elected officials are supposed to be beholden to the will of the people. They are sent to represent us and are answerable to us. In truth, we do a pretty decent job on this. We are not so completely cut out of the system yet that we don't elect our law-makers. The past couple of elections has seen that to be true. Dissatisfaction cost many people their jobs.

I want to make it clear that we do have a great deal of impact on government and that we are not living in a complete tyranny. We have an amazing application of populist will in our system. But we are being cut out of it, and that is why I seek to wake us to this before we lose control. The United States of America isn't a sinking ship, it just has some holes in the hull that need patching before we take on any more water and sink.

None the less, the will of the people is being silenced and we can not allow this. For American democracy to work the voice of the people must be heard by law-makers at every level of government. A populist democracy demands that we take action and raise our voices to be heard. We must not be dictated to but must instead tell our leaders in no uncertain terms that our will is more powerful than those that seek to buy their vote for their own purposes. That is how American democracy should and must work.

For the people.

In Defense of Populism

2009-04-14T22:05:00.004-07:00

Adam McCall, a student at Emory University in Atlanta, has written an excellent article on Populism. I encourage you all to read it.

In Defense of Populism
By Adam McCall
emorywheel.com

I have a couple of conservative friends who are attending a mock “Tea Party” at the Georgia Capitol in Atlanta tomorrow. Being born and bred in and around Boston, I know a thing or two about such events. And, while I don’t necessarily agree that the situation the United States face now is similar to the state of affairs they faced then, I do believe that the media has underplayed the legitimacy of the populist backlash against the Obama-Bush economic policies of the last year.

Regardless of election-time appeals, Wall Street economists dominate the ranks of both parties. Functionally, there has been little change in the macroeconomic policies pursued by both former President George W. Bush and President Obama. Former Treasury Sec. Henry Paulson, current Treasury Sec. Timothy Geithner and Director of the National Economic Council Larry Summers, as well as their advisers, all spent time working in and around Wall Street. Unsurprisingly, all of their proposed solutions rely on bailing out investment and commercial banks and insurance companies.

Still, I have many friends who trust the elites more. It’s foolish, they say, to get upset about bonuses paid to incompetent managers, the death of the auto industry and the anarchic mess on Wall Street.

This is regrettable; truth is, it has become all too easy for these elite policy-makers to pick and choose which sectors live and die. Trapped inside their own bubbles, government bureaucrats keep Wall Street and the artificial economy afloat. They subsidize the creation of abstract value rather than the people who make America work, the people who make things.

Though there’s been a large outcry about the potential tax hikes on the upper class under the new administration, there has been little recognition of the fact that the bank bailouts represent a large re-distribution of wealth — upwards, to American elites. The idea that strengthening the banks alone will resolve the crisis of confidence in our economy reflects trickle-down economics at its worst.

Whatever happened to Obama’s campaign promises to help the working class and ignore the advice of the Washington wise men?

As these risks become more apparent to many Americans, conventional wisdom has focused on delegitimizing populism as a bastardization of American thought. Even among the intellectual class, there’s a reticence to acknowledge America’s long and proud tradition of populism, reflected in leaders such as former Sec. of State William Jennings Bryan and former Presidents Andrew Jackson and Franklin Roosevelt.

Jackson’s example remains instructive for us today. His distrust of banks and concentrated power in the hands of special interests that he put into practical policy as president seem to be the agenda that Obama has failed thus far to pursue. Like Jackson, Obama was elected after promising to fix similar problems after succeeding the unelected heir of a political dynasty. For his presidency to succeed, Obama must recognize the need to re-affirm the populism he preached on the campaign trail, which harkened back to Old Hickory’s.

So what can Obama do to avert further outrage? Expand on current plans to protect homeowners from foreclosure, for starters. Protect the rights of workers to unionize by passing the Employee Free Choice Act, which allows for unions to be formed after workers sign a petition. Put more money into “shovel-ready” infrastructure jobs and less in tax cuts. Support American manufacturing jobs and prevent jobs from being shipped overseas by bailing out the auto industry and supporting efforts to buy American.

These populist steps are necessary. As countries around the world stand idle, ignoring calls from Obama to stimulate their own economies, Obama must radically take steps to spur our own into a brighter day. While some of these policies may be discouraged as protectionist, the reality is that other countries already have “national champions” of industry and trade barriers of their own. It does the United States no good to allow high paying unionized manufacturing jobs to go elsewhere. Low prices at Wal-Mart mean less and less as employment fails to rebound and wages stagnate.

If Obama continues on his present path, wingnut tea parties will be the least of his concerns. The 2010 mid-term elections approach with Obama Democrats, such as Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, under fire from all quarters for their role in allowing the abuses of the bank bailouts. Will it take defeat at the hands of a dissatisfied public to turn Obama back toward populism? One hopes it doesn’t come to that, but it might if Obama doesn’t provide the answer to his own calls for change.

A Quick Discussion on Lobbyists.

2009-04-14T21:16:00.004-07:00

Lobbyist. It's a political dirty word. President Obama said he would not include any lobbyists in his administration. This comment was later amended to mean that there would be no professional or corporate lobbyists in positions of authority in government where they would oversee areas on which they were paid lobbyists. Confused? I am. Before we get started I want to point out that I voted for Obama. I want to see him succeed. But that doesn't mean I won't be critical where I see reason to be critical. This is one of those areas and it is one where I admit that I need to do more research. But it is this very thing about "lobbyists" that I want to discuss.

I believe there are two types of lobbyists. There are those that are professional lobbyists who represent large organizations or corporations. Think of Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, or even the NRA or ACLU. Not all of them are explicitly bad. Special Interest Organizations like the NRA or ACLU are supposedly derived of the every people I am trying to reach, us. I may or may not agree with them but that isn't a requirement. The former examples, however, disgust me. These industry Goliaths use their money to out and out buy influence in government to promote their own business. They throw around obscene amounts of cash (I call it bribe money) to influence Senators and Congressmen and "persuade" them to support legislation that makes it easier for those companies to make huge profits.

Where is our voice in this? It isn't there and that is what I object to. When those with wealth can buy influence with the lawmakers then the democratic process by which our voice is heard is undone. Corporate lobbyists by-pass the democratic system and rig it so that their masters can make more money faster and easier. To call this dubious at best would be an understatement. I prefer to think of it as Un-American.

The second kind of lobbyist is the "Part-time Lobbyist." These are the men and women who genuinely care about an issue and take the time to personally go see elected officials to plead their case for their cause. These are not people backed by wealthy organizations. Some of them may draw small salaries or compensation for their time by organizations with some funds, but they are the voice of organizations that we are the life blood of. Again, I don't have to agree with them and often don't, but this is our voice in action. Political Action Commities are born of our need to be heard. When many people speak with a single voice it is easier to be heard than if you are a lone voice.

The truth of the matter is, however, that we are out-gunned in the lobbyist game. Large, wealthy organizations have resources beyond our reach. They have money and time we don't have and this is what we are competing against. It is Un-American that representitives of the people can not be heard over the din of noise generated by those that serve only themselves and not the people.

I have been lead to believe that some of the Obama Administration come from this second group. I don't know if any come from the first, although I suspect they do. With your help I want to compile a list of known lobbyists in the Obama Administraion. I want to identify their positions in government, who they represented, and when they represented them. I want to give credit to those that are the voice of the people and I want to cast shame on those who are not.

For the people!

Getting started.

2009-04-14T21:02:00.004-07:00

It is my goal to get people to realize that we, the American People, are not powerless to influence our government. We all know that we can vote and have some say in things when the Big Day arrives. I'm not here to appeal to you to get out and vote. I don't have to, you already know. What I want to talk about here is us and our relationship to government.

The Founding Fathers set forth the idea that our government, our nation, was to derive legitimacy and authority from the people and not from an elite few of wealthy and powerful men that sit in judgment of us from lofty positions of power and authority. We, the populace, are the legitimizing force of government on all levels.

That's the theory, any way. I put forth to you that this is no longer the case. Truthfully, I can not say that it ever really was the case. The ideal is something we have sought but often failed to reach. Slavery, Jim Crow, Woman's Suffrage, Civil Rights. These are all examples of how we failed to be what we ought to be but sought to become that.

What I see today is the explicit removal of the role of the people in government. It's so very easy to identify certain targets like corporate and professional lobbyists. Other ways of taking our true franchise from us are not so obvious, like budget cuts in the educational systems. With your help I want to delve deeper into the ways in which the American People are being deprived of their legitimizing authority and how it is being handed over to an American Aristocracy.

For the People.