Tag Archives: debate

The Difficulties of Discourse

This article originally appeared on Disinfo.com

The futility of political discourse seems all-too-evident in America, whether at the highest levels of power concerning the nonexistent ‘fiscal cliff’ or the debt ceiling, or around the family reunion dinner table concerning guns and health care. Both ‘sides’ are guilty of pseudoscientific claims, misrepresenting the opposition, sowing division with unnecessary ‘othering’, and usually no real clue as to where they actually stand on the issues or why they stand there at all.

Authors like Alex Berezow and Hank CampbellChris Mooney and Jonathan Haidtclaim to have found the secrets behind flawed political brains, usually on the opposite ‘side’ than their own. Many studies and online polls posit to have found the mechanisms by which liberals and conservatives operate; liberals are smarter,conservatives are happierliberals stereotype moreconservatives bow to authority more. While many of these trends can and do show up again and again, it ignores the diversity within and without party lines, the cognitive dissonance along the ideological spectrum, and the subtler reckonings of individual issue orientation. It defies capitulation, conciliation, and compromise. The sweeping generalizations that each ‘side’ usually eschews concerning class, race, religion, gender and sexuality do not seem to apply when considering others in the political landscape.

As Peter Lawler discusses in a recent BigThink post, there is actually a very wide diversity of conservative opinion, some with more depth than others. If we understand the common history, traditions, populist underpinnings and umbrella themes of even widely disparate worldviews, we can begin to work together towards reasonable approaches and solutions to society’s ills.

What’s the big difference between American conservatives and leftist nationalists?  They have different views on how much big government can remedy the excesses of big business.  Another difference concerns their view of the goodness and enduring viability of local institutions and traditional morality.  They actually tend to agree that Marx’s description of capitalism as reducing our freedom to “nothing left to lose” is largely true.  They differ a lot on the goodness and efficacy of some socialist antidote.  From a socialist view, the [The Front Porch Republic] are agrarian reactionaries.  From a Porcher view, the Marxists are irresponsibly “Gnostic” utopians.

Clearly, generalizations and sterotyping are an impediment to progress on either “side”. Even this false dichotomy of language (a relic of the oligarchy’s division tactics and oversimplified media portrayal), contributes to the unhealthy ‘othering‘ that ultimately serves to dehumanize one’s debate opponent. If the other side wants to murder unborn babies, then they are inhuman monsters. If the other side allows people of color to live with poverty and police brutality, then they are heartless misanthropists.

Because, just as with any intellectual pursuit that involves reason, logic, and candor, striving for thorough understanding is hard. It would be much simpler to only intake the sources that validate our reactionary conservatism, religious zealotry, neoconservative militancy, wall street greed and austerity, party cheerleading, progressive utopia, new age psycho-babble, left-wing anarchism, conspiracy theory, or UFO dreamland.

Party affiliation can be deceptive, as can positioning oneself along the political spectrum, rife with overgeneralizations and false associations. Although it’s also inaccurate to outright deny existing on the spectrum at all; the truth lies somewhere in the middle. On issues, you exist more on a web, an amalgam of strands as varied as the visible spectrum of light (and even the invisible, if our mixed metaphor allows for our hidden biases and subconscious belief systems). Taken as a mean, however, it is fair to place yourself somewhere, at least initially for comparison.

So does a progressive have more in common with an anarchist or socialist than a neocon? Do a Democrat and a Republican each have more in common with a centrist or moderate than the radical extremists in their own parties? Do the moderates of each ‘side’ have more they can agree on than the loud and oversampled minority flanking their ranks?

Talking Points Memo highlighted the efforts of a small, but responsible, group of conservatives who are “pro-same-sex marriage, pro-choice, pro-tax Republican activists.” They may be on the rise, as the Tea Partiers whoenergized frenzied the base resulted in embarassing media coverage, abominable policy stances, a fractured party and a disastrous election. The cry to distance themselves may be ‘Everything in Moderation!’, as we all realize that those social issues are always going to be nagging ethical arguments nuanced between us, but that the majority of Americans are actively under attack by unprincipled predators.

Most people honestly believe their delusions and logical fallacies. They came by them honestly. It will only take the incessant jackhammering of facts to break them free. Whether they believe that there is a massive Kenyan conspiracy or that the mushrooms can talk to us, they are not crazy nor liars. The endeavor of discourse, be it personable, in the media, or the national conversation, should aim to correct misconceptions, preconceived notions, and mistakes. We are not concerned with intellectually dishonest actors here. Do not lower yourself into debate with manipulators and charlatans who are mostly concerned with power and greed. They are not usually themselves radicals or revolutionaries, unless they are using and steering such a group for their own self-interests. As a rational, reasonable debater, you will find your considerable efforts at chipping away the hard exterior of an entrenched acolyte to be far easier than dealing with an unremitting fraud. You can pull the former closer to a more moderate position with enough time and work. After all, they believe themselves pursuant to the truth; they have just fallen down a corridor of errors in their search. A liar has no such allegiance.

It is true that what is ‘moderate’ and ‘centrist’ changes over time. This is not a post-modernist statement endorsing relative morality or truth. It is evident that our national dialogue, and the pandering rhetoric of our elected demogogues, swings over time. There is nothing innate in it that demands it become more progressive or reactionary over time. Other trends such as changing demographics, current events, media, law, those in power gaming the system, and technological transparency help define what the New Normal is. We all contribute to it. We are all in a constant tug-of-war game.

It may be the case that in the grand scheme of the social contract and evolution, we are hardwired by default for authoritarianism, and to conserve the status quo. Think of gene preservation and proliferation and likewise other outlier mutations. But just because something is the popular consensus (logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum) or rules by our leaders (logical fallacy: argument from authority) doesn’t make it right. Likewise, just because something is novel or progressive (logical fallacy: appeal to novelty) doesn’t make it right. It is right because it is right. No, evidence and a factual revelation of how reality works should govern our beliefs and ideology, not the other way around.

We strive as civilized animals for societal progress; to protect the unprotected, to feed the hungry, to clothe the cold, to shelter the homeless, to defend the defenseless. Members in every camp can be reached who feel a sense of justice, fairness, equaility, and civil liberty as part of our American tradition and values. Only those actively working against a righteous human condition need be discounted from the discourse (unfortunately, they are often given center stage, the sensationalist media spotlight, a louder voice within their respective parties than the rest).

And there are a variety of radicals in every camp as well; neoconservatives, tea party conservatives, anarchists, corporatists, new agers, creationists, paleoconservatives, anarchoconservatives, tax protestors, ecoterrorists, corpofascists… Their numbers do not represent the larger percentage of each group (though on specific beliefs, biases and issues, there are predispositions from one group to another). That’s not to say that somebody with some crazy ideas can’t be right every once in a blue moon (see: Alex Jones or Terence McKenna), or that their outsider theories may not hold a kernal of interesting truth. A broken clock is right twice a day, and a logically fallacious argument can still happen to be right coincidentally.

Of course, given two theories, one should not simply report on both and say the middle ground is accurate. This is what has allowed climate change denialists to voice their ‘relative truth’ to an uncritical and overly open-minded media in defiance of the overwhelming and reliably tested scientific consensus (not to be confused with popular consensus or sentiment). The right has its fair share of creationist loonies and neoliberal acolytes. And the left has plenty of crystal-worshipping, anti-vaxxer, alternative cancer cure morons as well. It seems too silly to argue which unsubstantiated claims are more damaging to scientific advancement and public policy. We all have our false dogmas, and they all damage us all.

Proposed or theoretical truths are subject to analysis, and should be eviscerated by criticism, replicated by study after study, and broken down into underlying mechanistic principles. Only after these theories hold up (be they scientific, economic, legal or political), only then should they be added to ‘The Canon.’ The Canon, despite its strict title, is ever changing, ever flowing with both the passage of time, new discoveries and contemporary understanding.

If the austerians believe that we should continue to empower the rich (“the engines of the economy”) at the expense of the poor and middle classes, then theirs should not be the default prevailing Beltway wisdom. The burden of proof is on their economic religious dogma to bear that out, especially considering how disastrous the practiced results of just such strategies have been worldwide. If any policy-maker or pundit honestly believes the inane bullshit that comes out of their pieholes, they should be exposed to harsh skepticism. They may be honestly deceived (or self-deluded), or they may themselves be revealed as a deceiver.

The onus is on all of us to research understand the arguments we are making. Just as it is inappropriate to attack Chris Christie based on his weight (logical fallacy: ad hominem), bear the responsibility of understanding a religion before criticizing its adherents, whether fundamentalist Christian, zionist Jew or radical Muslim. Explore the finer points of your debate opponent’s political philosophy by forcing them to delve into their deepest motivations, cited sources, and logical mechanisms. Who knows? You might alter your stance a bit as well.

Challenge entrenched and unfounded belief systems, especially your own. Do so with a relentless fervor, sincerely try to falsify yourself and above all be rational, be reasonable! Learn the rules of argument and logical fallacies so that you can identify when they are employed against you, by either frauds or self-deluded. Turn the incisiveSocratic Method against all claims, but do so patiently and peaceably. Make it known when you are only playing Devil’s Advocate for the sake of comprehension. Question relentlessly and mercilessly, but also earnestly and nonjudgementally. This will force someone to defend themselves not from your close-mindedness, but from critical-thinking and logic itself. It may reduce them to tears. It may change minds. It might just change the world.

Can Liberals and Conservatives Communicate?

This article originally appeared on Disinfo.com

There was a great article a couple weeks ago by Lynn Stuart Parramore, an AlterNet senior editor, titled What if Liberals and Progressives Could Learn to Talk to White Southern Men? in which she reminds us that for Southerners, being polite and reasonable are direct indicators of their sense of honor and self-respect. Most of them, despite our political disagreements, don’t want to be seen as rash, close-minded and unreasonable. Lynn Parramore, also Director of AlterNet’s New Economic Dialogue Project, recounts stories of relating to these individuals on certain issues:

What liberals and progressives don’t seem to understand is that you don’t counter a myth with a pile of facts and statistics. You have to counter it with a more powerful story. And that’s what Obama and the Democrats have repeatedly failed to do. White Southern men want a story that makes them feel proud of America and what it can accomplish. I’m troubled when I hear lefties heap scorn upon the South, partly because I know that the antagonism is precisely what the Mitt Romneys of the world hope for. They want to divide us and keep those regional antagonisms stoked so that the cynical Southern strategy continues to work. Every time a San Franciscan or a New Yorker rails against “rednecks” in the South, he has done Karl Rove’s work for him.

Finding common ground is important, and it’s the sort of thing we need to do to repair the toxic divisions sown by politicians and the media to keep us apart. It is vital if we hope to tackle issues like the debt deal, the fiscal cliff, and yes, even social issues.

There is a lot of ground that conservatives and progressives can share; disapproval of Wall St. tactics, distrusting the very wealthy (“38 percent of the the Bible Belt say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who is “very wealthy” than one who isn’t, a lot more than the 20 percent who admit that they would be less inclined to vote for an African-American), fear of drones and the growing surveillance state, and have historically supported some form of a social safety net. Sure there can be a lot of crazy ideas in there too, but liberalism has their fair share of nutjobs, as well.

And conservatives don’t see themselves as the unreasonable ones, anyway. For a conservative, not only is the uncomplicated authoritarian mindset an internally rewarding and often consistent one (also reinforced by parenting),  they also speak a language that focuses on not just dogma and faith, but also common sense and results. If you can reframe arguments in a certain way, conservatives may see a larger picture that begins to cross over with the debater on the left.

Results-oriented language should have been used by the Obama administration to pitch his ideas to the status quo Right, says Richard Tafel, founder of The Public Squared, a public policy training program for nonprofits and social entrepreneurs. Obamacare, he claims, could have been sold, honestly and openly, but using a different approach:

“Folks, we have universal healthcare in the United States.  It’s called the emergency room and we pay for it. And we cover people’s healthcare right now who don’t pay into any insurance scheme and you’re carrying them. If you’re paying taxes right now you’re covering them. Wouldn’t it make sense for us as a nation to just ask those folks to register and get into an insurance program so we can cut their cost, we can be more proactive with their healthcare, and we can avoid the vast growth of healthcare costs.”

Watch “How to Speak Republican” video from BigThink:

What’s certainly true is that over the past four plus years, conservatives and liberals haven’t even been speaking the same language, let alone having the same conversations when arguing. Until progressives open their minds to respect and include a minority, a populist group, whom they happens to strongly disagree with on religion, taxation, immigration, marriage, foreign policy, and the role of government, there cannot be any real progress. Stubborn and obstructionist, perhaps. But both sides severely believe they are in the right. Regional antagonisms, ivory silos, and othering will not push us together or jumpstart our national dialogue.

Purple America” analysis by Robert J. Vanderbei, Professor of Operations Research and Financial Engineering atPrinceton University. Also included are 3-D models and population analysis of the 2012 election, and the changing electorate over time.

War of the Worldviews

PLAYLIST
In the Hall of the Mountain King – The Ratmen
Grim Grinning Ghosts – Barenaked Ladies
The Dragon – Vangelis
The War of the Worlds Musical Version – Jeff Wayne
The Horror – RJD2
The Boogie Monster – Gnarls Barkley
Ghost Of Frankenstein – Scientist
Dracula – Gorillaz
Season of the Dead – Gein and the Graverobbers
Haunted House – Lee Oskar

There’s plenty to be frightened of in the real world this Halloween season. Both candidates, in the shameful final debate, expressed their love of drones and Israel‘s war crimes. It wasn’t a debate so much as an agreement.

An Israeli human rights organization, Gisha, sued in Israeli courts to force the release of a planning document  for ‘putting the Palestinians on a diet’ without risking the bad press of mass starvation, and the courts concurred. The document, produced by the Israeli army, appears to be a calculation of how to limit Palestinians’ calories, the Israeli military was actually plotting to keep Palestinians in Gaza (half of them children) permanently on the brink of malnutrition, what health professionals call “food insecurity”. And, it was foreseeable that sometimes they would slip into malnutrition, since not as many trucks were always let in every day as the Israeli army recommended (106 were recommended, but it was often less in the period 2007-2010).

Planning for keeping people on the edge is nearly as bad as planning actually to starve them. And at the same time, both Obama and Romney called for harsher sanctions against Iran, while misleading the American people about a nonexistent nuclear weapons program.

OOOOOH! BE AFRAID!!

Obama, on a recent Daily Show appearance, used the only halfway hard-hitting question (on extending Bush’s illegal wiretapping) to mislead once again:

“The truth is we have modified them and built a legal structure and safeguards in place that weren’t there before on a whole range issues.”

No, the truth is, there’s no indication that the still-active warrantless wiretapping program—a dragnet on millions of innocent Americans’ communications—has significantly changed from the day Obama took office. With regard to the FISA Amendments Act, the Obama Administration has actively opposed all proposed safeguards in Congress, his Administration has been even more aggressive than Bush in trying to prevent warrantless wiretapping victims from having their day in court and has continued building the massive national security infrastructure needed to support it.

The Obama administration is actively opposing any new privacy safeguards or transparency provisions, saying it is their “top priority” to renew it with no changes. He cites State Secrets Privilege, Sovereign Immunity, Secret FISA Court Opinions, and Secret Safeguards.

Via WIRED:

The Obama administration is again arguing that a lawsuit accusing the NSA of vacuuming up Americans’ electronic communications without warrants threatens national security and would expose state secrets if litigated.

“This case may be dismissed on the ground that its very subject matter constitutes a state secret,” the government said (.pdf) in a legal filing in San Francisco federal court.

Brought by the EFF, the case is now four years old and its merits have never been litigated. The civil rights group claims that the major telecoms provided the NSA a warrantless backdoor to the nation’s communication backbone. Despite the government’s protestations that talking about the program would expose national secrets, the program is well-known, well-documented, and as of 2008, partially legalized by a compliant Congress.

Just two weeks ago, the Supreme Court terminated the EFF’s case against the telcos for their participation in the program. The justices declined to review 2008 congressional legislation giving the telcos immunity from being sued for their participation. Congress adopted the law after a federal judge rejected the government’s state-secrets claim.

When Congress passed the law, the EFF targeted the gov instead, accusing it of running a massive dragnet spy operation without warrants. The allegations are based in part on a former AT&T technician who produced internal company documents suggesting that the NSA was surveilling internet traffic from a secret room at an AT&T switching center in San Francisco, and similar facilities around the country.

Via RT:

“Both parties are colluding in denying you your First and Fifth amendment rights under the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, and both candidates refuse to discuss this bipartisan assault on civil liberties,” a message posted on the Stop NDAA website reads.

And the rules have been permanently set up by Obama’s overpowered executive branch, that any conservative president that may take office will find himself intrenched in a counterterrorism agenda that includes vague demographic profiling, secret kill lists, and robotic targeted execution. Democrats would rather remain blissfully ignorant of these civil and human rights abuses, and Republicans are drooling over the prospect of getting them for themselves.

Democrats “do not have the foggiest idea what is happening in the White House, and obviously does not care in the slightest, because the person doing it is part of their party.”

Or worse, that supposition that extra-constitutional national security and civil liberties policies are no longer permitted to be part of any “serious” national political discussion.

Luckily, if no one in the United States will step up, the United Nations will.

The United Nations plans to set up a special investigation unit in early 2013 to look at incidents of civilian death in U.S. drone strikes. Speaking Thursday at Harvard Law School, U.N. special rapporteur Ben Emmerson QC, who monitors counter-terrorism programs, announced plans for the investigative team, which will be based in Geneva. According to the UK’s Bureau of Investigative Journalism, “U.N. investigators have been critical ofU.S. ‘extrajudicial executions’ since they began in 2002. The new Geneva-based unit will also look at the legality of the program.”

Emmerson said in his Harvard announcement, “If the relevant states are not willing to establish effective independent monitoring mechanisms … then it may in the last resort be necessary for the U.N. to act.” He noted:

[It is] alleged that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. [U.N. consultant, professor of human rights] Christof Heyns … has described such attacks, if they prove to have happened, as war crimes. I would endorse that view.

And activist groups like the ACLU, EFF, and Muckrock are continuing the fight against robotic death from above, requesting hundred of public records on surveillance drones.

The very concept is chilling, especially as the drones begin to decide for themselves who to spy on, profile, and kill. And though comparisons may be rife, the thought of hungry alien invaders this Halloween may just have to take a backseat to the reality of unfeeling war machines.

~The Stranger
thestranger@earthling.net

Full Third-Party Debate

Agree or disagree with any or all of these third-parties, but it’s a travesty that they haven’t been able to make their voices heard on such important issues on the national stage, especially considering the broad support they’ve garnered. And democracy is in serious trouble when a third-party candidate is arrested and chained instead of allowed into the presidential debates. Jill Stein (Green Party), Rocky Anderson (Justice Party), Virgil Goode (Constitution Party) and Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) seem to be the only candidates willing to address the concerns that have come to the forefront of our national dialogue after over a year of protest and activism; topics like climate change, civil liberties, NDAA, Citizen’s United, campaign finance, term limits, corporatization and the war on drugs.

Via RT:

Organized by the Free and Equal Elections Foundation, and moderated by the respectfully stern and seemingly-immortal Larry King, the debate was lively and attended by raucous applause, with questions submitted via social media. RT interviewed the candidates beforehand, and broadcast the event live and on their website. Read more there for short bios of each presidential hopeful.

The ‘finalists’, Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, will debate again in Washington DC on October 30th. Democracy Now! had previously hosted a more informal set of debates between the candidates in recent weeks.

That Feeling

Certain genres, certain time periods, certain sounds just give you that certain feeling. You know? The way it pervades and perverts your body, for better or for worse. So many things are vying to make you feel a certain way; religion, politics, corporate advertising… I say, follow the hard science, and as for feelings… leave that to the realm of music.

PLAYLIST
In The Hall Of The Mountain King – Will Bradley-Ray McKinley Band
I Loves You Porgy – Nina Simone
Rhapsody in Blue – Gershwin
You Make Me Feel So Young – Rosemary Clooney
Don’t – Elvis Presley
I Think I Love You – The Partridge Family
(We ain’t got) nothin’ yet – The Blues Magoos
Trash Man – Jimi Hendrix
Kodachrome – Paul Simon
How Long – Ace
Superstition – Stevie Wonder
Space Age Love Song – A Flock Of Seagulls
Don`t stand so close to me – The Police
Tom’s diner (acapella) – Suzanne Vega
The Distance – Cake
Speed Metal Symphony – Yngwie Malmstein
Nuthin But A G Thang – Dr. Dre
Just Another Brother – US3
Ice Water – Cat Power
The Mahabhutas – Paul Horn
song about a … – the black heart procession
Never Win – Fischerspooner
Parachute – Shugo Tokumaru
Bar One – Dr. Dre
Lonely People – Talib Kweli

In a night bereft of real policy solutions, both candidates told their fair share of whoppers, but Mitt Romney stole the spotlight and outdid himself by cramming 31 myths into 41 minutes. Including his most heartfelt moment, a story I vaguely remember about binding women, which turns out to not even be true as he told it.

Via Salon:

But that story turns out to be not quite true, according to veteran Boston Phoenix journalist David Bernstein. As Bernstein pointed out last night, what actually happened is that a bipartisan coalition of women’s groups came together to compile lists of eligible female candidates for office before the 2002 gubernatorial election had even occurred.

MassGAP, the women’s coalition responsible for the effort to get more women appointed to state government, gives the Washington Post a statement saying Romney has it wrong – they, and not Romney, initiated the process . The group also notes that female appointments actually fell off during Romney’s tenure.

During Romney’s tenure in the governor’s mansion, the number of women in high-level positions actually declined by almost 30 percent, according to a 2007 study from the coalition of women’s group responsible for the binders effort.

At Bain Capital, his private equity firm, Romney did not have any women partners during the 1980s and 1990s. Romney, the Globe added, “did not have a history of appointing women to high-level positions.”

But that’s okay, what happens in Massachusetts stays in Massachusetts, apparently, since Romney insists that while he should get credit for the small-scale implementation of health care in that state (aided by exploited federal funds), there’s no way that could work as Obama intends on a national scale.

It is a matter of scale. And why won’t Romney tell us how it works on a small scale and not a larger one? He used federal money to balance Romneycare.

His projecting was in rare form, accusing Obama of shipping jobs to China (something Bain Capital excelled at under Romney), claiming that his insurance plans would benefit America while Obama’s would hurt seniors (the opposite is true), and attacking the president on foreign policy by again crassly politicizing a national tragedy.

Top Romney surrogate Rudy Giuliani tells Fox News that Romney “should be exploiting” the Obama administration’s handling of Libya.

Jan Stevens, father of Ambassador Chris Stevens who was killed in the September 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, told Bloombergthat “It would really be abhorrent to make this into a campaign issue.” He added that the campaigns should wait until the end of the formal investigation instead of making snap judgments.

Obama’s counterattacks basically just boiled down to character assassination: “you’re rich.” (At least, a little more rich than the president himself). But after spending the entire debate, actually, his entire four-year presidential campaign, trying to convince America to elect him to government so he can create jobs, Romney quizzically ended his performance with a mantra of:

“Government does not create jobs, government does not create jobs.”

It was a little bit of an odd pitch for a guy whose entire premise is “vote for me because I’ll create more jobs.” But we don’t really know where Romney stands, I mean, the guy is horrible at math:

On Tuesday, one of Mitt Romney’s boldest claims — that his new jobs plan will create 12 million jobs — fell apart.

Quizzed about the claim by Washington Post’s fact-checker Glenn Kessler, the Romney campaign cited three separate studies that, taken together, include numbers that add up to 12 million jobs created. But as Kessler found, the studies employ different time frames, and two of them have no bearing on Romney’s policies.

And, it turns out, not all of the authors believe their research helps justify Romney’s conclusion either.

Those six studies do not validate his tax plan, and even FOX News isn’t buying it.

And despite the whole premise of a sluggish and broken economy being a false one, where would Romney come up with 7 trillion magic dollars, anyway?

And while third-party Green candidate Jill Stein was arrested and chained so she could not attend the event, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson had some choice words for the two-main-party-affiliated brands:

Gov. Johnson says the two-party dog-and-pony show has left voters to watch “a debate between Coke and Pepsi,”

Republicans, however, have taken heed to this news and are urgently rolling out an effort to keep Gov. Johnson with interfering with a presidential race that could come down to the wire.

Robert Gleason, chairman of the Pennsylvania Republican Party, has been adamant with ensuring that Gov. Johnson won’t do to the Keystone State what Green Party candidate Ralph Nader did in elections past.

We discussed how such corruption is on the rise on Capitol Hill, but so are discrimination charges.

The Hill reports:

“The number of discrimination and harassment claims has risen from 64 allegations in 2006 to 196 brought forward in 2011. And alleged instances of retaliation have grown from 44 cases in 2006 to 108 charges in 2011.

The majority — 63 percent — of allegations raised by employees on Capitol Hill came from the U.S. Capitol Police, the OoC found in its study, which looked at the time period from Oct. 1, 2010 to Sept. 30, 2011.”

The OoC, which is tasked with protecting workplace rights, also found that there were 142 total complaints that alleged 332 different violations of the Congressional Accountability Act, and 23 of the cases resulted in financial settlements.

Little hope to oust these scum-sucking mutants if the courts don’t overturn voter discrimination. Even some wise Republicans are turning their back on the party based on these racist antics. And hell, outright fraud.

And where could they have learned such despicable, fraudulent behavior!?

So, agree or disagree with lefties like Karl Marx, but he did say that capitalism held the seeds of its own destruction. And they seem to be steaming pretty rapidly towards collapse.

Via the NYTimes:

The 1 percent pulls away from everyone else and pursues an economic, political and social agenda that will increase that gap even further — ultimately destroying the open system that made America rich and allowed its 1 percent to thrive in the first place.

You can see America’s creeping Serrata in the growing social and, especially, educational chasm between those at the top and everyone else. At the bottom and in the middle, American society is fraying, and the children of these struggling families are lagging the rest of the world at school.

It is no accident that in America today the gap between the very rich and everyone else is wider than at any time since the Gilded Age. Now, as then, the titans are seeking an even greater political voice to match their economic power. Now, as then, the inevitable danger is that they will confuse their own self-interest with the common good. The irony of the political rise of the plutocrats is that, like Venice’s oligarchs, they threaten the system that created them.

Meanwhile, at the Washington Post:

Earlier this week, the International Monetary Fund made a striking admission in its new World Economic Outlook. The IMF’s chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, explainedthat recent efforts among wealthy countries to shrink their deficits — through tax hikes and spending cuts — have been causing far more economic damage than experts had assumed.

He studied the IMF’s previous economic forecasts. If a country is already struggling for other reasons, the forecasters are likely to have taken that into account. And what Blanchard found was surprising: IMF forecasts have been consistently too optimistic for countries that pursued large austerity programs. This suggests that tax hikes and spending cuts have been doing more damage to those economies than policymakers expected. (Conversely, countries that engaged in stimulus, such as Germany and Austria, did better than expected.)

And even Wal*Mart now admits that unions, protests and strikes will lead to wage increases. So… why are those bad things, again?

These labor actions are coming on top of earlier labor actions at Walmart’s warehouse contractors linked to “non-payment of overtime, non-payment for all hours worked, and even pay less than the minimum wage.”

Without some kind of new “Treaty of Detroit”, the massive corporations will continue their race-to-the-bottom economy (and I do mean minimum wage). And to help them get there, they can extort and hold your wages and jobs hostage unless you vote for their guy… OR ELSE!

many of our more than 50,000 US employees and contractors may suffer the consequences” ~Koch Brothers missive

We will not be the tools of political repression. We will not allow fascists the world over to torture us with police consent. Fight for whistle-blowers who expose torture practices! Fight against invasions of privacy! Fight against the use of drones against civilians at home and abroad! Fight against the corporations mining your personal information! Fight against their moves to track you online!

“[T]here is clearly a rogue element of advertising networks that wants to subvert the process.”

Subvert the surveillance of the world! Subvert the servers of the world in favor of the cloud! Subvert financial paradigms!

Just don’t subvert the science.

~The Stranger
thestranger@earthling.net

Sad Tomorrow

More conspiracy theoriesfear-mongering, and casual lying as election day nears, both parties move further to the radical right using their false morality tale as a pisspoor excuse for their illegitimate behavior.

Stranger in a Strange Land 2012-10-13: Sad Tomorrow by The Stranger on Mixcloud

PLAYLIST
In the Hall of the Mountain King – Sounds Incorporated
I Wanna Know – The Du-Droppers
el quinto reqimiento-los cuatro generales-viva la quince brigad – charlie haden
Maybe Tomorrow – Jackson 5
Sad Tommorow (Original Single Version) – Marvin Gaye
Fat City Strut – Mandrill
The Gumbo Variations – Frank Zappa
Astronomy Domine – Pink Floyd
Devil’s Answer – Atomic Rooster
The Real Thing – Russell Morris
Pinball Wizard – The Who
Le Rafiot – Maneige
Forgotten Worlds – Klaxons
My People – Erykah Badu
Bright Lights Bigger City – Cee Lo Green
The Gentle Rain – (RJD2 Remix)
Paid In Full – Eric B And Rakim
Evil Paradise – Bone Thugs-N-Harmony
“Wheels That Go” – Raymond Scott
Argument – Monty Python

Look, I know I’ve focused a lot on politics in this… *ahem* election year. While both sides argue over who loves Israel and hates Iran more, a false debt crisis, raking in more money, benefitting the super-rich, escalating extrajudicial drone attacks, continuously kill civilians, ignore climate change, advocate job-killing free trade agreements, grow our domestic surveillance state and unmatched prison population… well, let’s just say that I do think it’s important to think critically about, just as with any story about people in power.

But I promise, if there is a 2013: a return to the weird. Though it all seems pretty fuckin’ weird to me.

And talking about the rich’s class war on us isn’t political… It’s survival.

~The Stranger
thestranger@earthling.net

Master Debaters

In which we discuss the real loser of the debate; America. Schills, sellouts, state-sponsored spies, union betrayals, battleground states and third party revolutions.

PLAYLIST

In The Hall Of The Mountain King (Terramix) – terraon
Bionic -Groove Collective
Aneurysms -Mr. Dibbs
El Salvador -Cybotron
Something Bells -Daedelus
Frontier Psychiatrist -The Avalanches
Glue of the World -Four Tet
Easy Muffin -Amon Tobin
Sign Of The Dove – World United
I Love Buddha -Monkey
Insomnia- Yellow Magic Orchestra
Kometenmelodie 1 – Kraftwerk
Wavelength – Delerium
Music Sounds Better With You (Radio Edit) – Stardust
Aerodynamic – Daft Punk
New Horizons – Synaesthesia
The Tao of Love – Vangelis
Reactionary – Controller 7
More Dance Music – Kid Koala

~The Stranger
thestranger@earthling.net