Tag Archives: plutarchy

Confusion

obama 2 cropNow that we’ve disentangled the quantum data, my mind has been struggling to reassemble and compartmentalize the various strings from that theory. Or perhaps it’s just my political junkie nature which is causing me to shake and tremble so violently from the confusing current events and media spin?

Stranger in a Strange Land 2012-12-01: Confusion by The Stranger on Mixcloud

PLAYLIST
In the Hall of the Mountain King – Christian Elsässer
What Difference a Day Makes – Dinah Washington
Confusion – Fela Kuti
Who Do You Love – Bo Diddley
Time Is Marching – John Lee Hooker
A Foggy Day – Billie Holiday
In A Silent Way / Shhh Peaceful / It’s About That Time (Bill Laswell Mix) – Miles Davis
Il Ricordo Di Serena – Riz Ortolani
Neurotico – Sergio Mendes
Inutil Paisagem (Useless Landscape) 3’11 – Antonio Carlos Jobim
Cubano Chant – Art Blakey
Mara-Jat’s Love – Alberto Baldan Bembo
Machine Gun – The Jimi Hendrix Experience
Nautilus (Rob Swift Scratch Remix) – Bob James
Look To The Sun – Guru
Bridge on the Ninth Dimension – Sun Ra
I Love You More Than You’ll Ever Know – Blood, Sweat & Tears
Whole Lotta Love – Ike & Tina Turner
The Thrill is Gone – Chet Baker
A Very Precious Time – Gil Scott Heron and Brian Jack

A look at the electoral map reveals that America isn’t mostly red or blue, but largely purple. Something that we’ve known for some time on this show, and will continue to represent going forward. After all, if you’re going to drink somebody’s Kool-Aid, purple is the best flavor.

Screen%20shot%202012-11-13%20at%207.44.20%20am

American voters rejected voter id, racist rhetoric, class war politics, and saw that Obama’s efforts to stimulate the economy were working (slowly) and needed more time to honestly kick off.

We must avoid a false “centrism” that has been pulled to the right along with the other loud loonies, and dispel with notions of compromise that are actually false dilemmas.

As Bill Maher put it, “There’s no third term, Mr. President, so you may as well throw caution to the wind, ’cause it’s not like we’re using it to produce energy.” Because “if not now, when?”

Americans aren’t stupid. And we know what to expect. A national CNN/ORC poll found that the expectations for Congress in the budget showdown are low, with two-thirds of respondents saying they expect lawmakers to act like ”spoiled children,” not “responsible adults,” during the negotiations.

77 percent of those surveyed also said they believe they would be personally impacted if the country is allowed to go off the “fiscal cliff” – but if that happens, 45 percent said they would blame Congressional Republicans, as opposed to 34 percent who would blame Obama.

AlterNet covers the various social programs that are being threatened by our esteemed leaders:

  • Medicaid ( $258 billion ): Though Obama has largely targeted providers for potential Medicaid cuts, Republicans want beneficiaries to fork over more. In which case, says Kogan, patients might be forced to make copayments, or program costs may be shifted to the states, which could decide to scale back coverage.
  • Food Stamps ( $78 billion in 2011) : The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program serves about 45 million people . It is not part of discretionary spending, but Ellen Nissenbaum, senior vice president for government affairs at CBPP, toldThe Nation it faces a real prospect of being cut in negotiations.
  • Supplemental Security Income ( $47 billion ): Social Security itself is mostly off the table, but Supplemental Security Income for the blind, elderly, and disabled, is likely to take a hit
  • Pell Grants ( $36 billion ): These need-based grants help some 10 million low-income students afford college.
  • Title 1 Education Grants
  • Section 8 Housing Assistance
  • Job Training
  • Head Start
  • Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program
  • Community Health Centers
  • Women, Infants and Children ($8.9 million in 2011): The Department of Agriculture’s WIC programhelps low-income moms and babies get access to supplemental nutrition and health care referrals. WIC has about 9 million participants , most of whom are kids.

The entire debate is stupid. Obama won the election based (partly) on promises raise taxes on the extremely wealthy, but Republicans would rather hock damaging “entitlement reform” than raise taxes one penny. In other words, “asking old people to work longer and accept less in return.”

Cutting (or “reforming”) Medicare in response to a pseudo-crisis invented by Congress would be an effective way to prove that liberal conspiracists are correct when they claim that all deficit hysteria is merely an excuse to roll back social insurance programs.

Any “serious” and “responsible” discussion must love austerity and upward-redistribution. Any precondition for cooperation is for Democrats to support Bush-era tax rates (which we are still in, btw)!

According to the conventional wisdom, any grand bargain should be modeled on plans like the Bowles-Simpson plan or the Rivlin-Domenici plan — financing lower tax rates on the rich by closing tax loopholes and cutting Social Security and Medicare. Social Security does not and cannot add to the deficit, and both programs only need minor tweaks, but are overall sustainable for decades.

But there is no evidence that the low tax rates on the wealthy encourage them to spend or invest, no evidence that higher tax rates would deter the spending and investment that they might otherwise do.

Via The Next New Deal:

The Simpson-Bowles budget balancing plan seems to have become the common-sense standard for dealing with America’s future budget deficits. this move toward the right is dangerous to the future of the nation and essentially cruel—far more dangerous than the level of the deficit over the next 15 years. The commission proposed cuts in Social Security benefits of 15 percent for medium earners, for example. The right-wing Heritage Foundation spawned many of their ideas, and any progressive notions like those of Paul Volcker or Warren Buffett, seem to be watered down or cut out or ignored.

But these lies that the rich promote growth and that America can’t afford the Social Security that we’ve already been paying into are repeated often enough that they become ‘Beltway wisdom’. But no amount of repetition will turn them into facts.

The United States needs a middle-class welfare state that is bigger, not smaller. It’s the restricted, elitist private welfare state that needs to be cut, not the universal public social insurance system. Most industrial nations do not rely as heavily on private over public programs as we do here (retirement security and health care are prime examples). Deficit hawks would make cuts to stingy social security benefits, leaving the poor, the old, and the laborers to the mercy of their employer’s fickle pension programs, 401Ks and IRAs.

George Bush failed to privatize our social programs due to public outrage and popular outcry, but the con artists are still trying to take what little pittance is left form the elderly, compelling them to gamble their savings in the private markets and mutual funds.

Their objective is to compel Americans to try to make up the losses in public benefits by gambling more with their savings in mutual funds, from which hefty profits will be skimmed by overpaid money managers. Meanwhile, unscrupulous money managers capture many of the returns from private investments for themselves via deceptive fees. Wall Street wants to charge fees on as much of our programs as it can.

Furthermore, there is no looming crisis of debt or deficits, such that sacrifices in general are necessary. None. Not in the short run – as almost everyone agrees.  But also: not in the long run.  What we have are computer projections, based on arbitrary – and suspicious – assumptions. CBO has adjusted its interest rate forecast, and even under its “alternative fiscal scenario” the debt/GDP ratio now stabilizes after a few years.

There is no looming crisis of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, such that these programs must be reformed?  There just isn’t!  Social insurance programs are not businesses. They are not required to make a profit; they need not be funded from any particular stream of tax revenues over any particular time.  Reasonable control of health care costs – public and private – is necessary and also sufficient to keep the costs of Medicare and Medicaid within bounds, but none of our politicians are speaking about this.

They are more concerned about military sequestration, even though Pentagon spending is already set to decline as we adjust our military programs to our national security needs.

Social Security doesn’t add a penny to the debt and should not be part of any deficit reduction talks.” ~Sen. Dick Durbin

“cutting Social Security and Medicare for the sake of an arbitrary and needless budgetary reduction of $4 trillion and as a “solution” to an entirely contrived fiscal crisis is bad policy. It is bad economic policy and worse social policy. And for Democrats, it is dumb politics. If Republicans want to be the ones to attack America’s two most valued social programs, Obama should let them go right ahead—until they march off their own fiscal cliff.” ~Rob Kuttner

Medicare and Medicaid aren’t “chief drivers of the deficit”; Bush tax cuts and two unfunded wars are. The best solution to deficits is to let all the Bush tax cuts lapse and not cut spending at all, while taxing capital gains and dividends as regular income. This would raise some $2 trillion, which the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities argues would be enough deficit reduction to stabilize the national debt.

Instead we have dishonest actors who would gladly lead us over their own constructed “cliff” rather than lead to real solutions, avert mythical problems as opposed to real ones.

Even ignoring that it was entirely invented, the “fiscal cliff” is not even a cliff. All of the tax and spending cuts “scheduled” to take effect Dec. 31 will take effect gradually, and can be reversed by Congress.

Why try to make a deal with this Congress, anyway, when the next one will have more Democrats, and most important, more liberals, on both the House and the Senate side?

The Brookings Institution held panels on the future budget, and in general, centrists on those panels agreed that spending as a percent of GDP should be 23 to 25 percent 20 years from now. He thinks the Simpson-Bowles plan is simply wrong for America. In truth, Social Security is inadequate today, and Medicaid tragically so.

All this while a few of the country’s wealthiest and most patriotic billionaires are calling to for more taxes on themselves.

“Let’s forget about the rich and ultrarich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if – gasp – capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased. The ultrarich, including me, will forever pursue investment opportunities.” ~Billionaire investor Warren Buffett

But most of the rich feel so entitled, they claim that anything that hurts them will also hurt the economy. They are essentially threatening ‘a knife to the throat of America’s frail recovery.’

Via In These Times:

The GOP sore losers have America up against a wall. Republicans don’t care that the majority of the country voted for a candidate who promised to raise taxes on the rich. Republicans don’t care that an even larger majority—60 percent—told election day pollsters they wanted those taxes raised. Republicans don’t care about majority-rule democracy at all. They’re demanding ransom—extension of tax cuts for the rich. If Americans don’t submit, Republicans will slash the nation’s economy.

The party that lost the Presidency, lost seats in the House and lost seats in the Senate is willing to take down the economy, to eviscerate programs like the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration rather than require the entitled rich pull their weight as citizens of the country that enabled them to live lives of unprecedented luxury.

Romney and the GOP said that Obama bought his votes with promises of gifts, but THEY don’t think they were buying the votes of the rich with their promise to add another 20 percent break on top of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest.

That’s because they believe they’re entitled. They derisively refer to the social safety net programs that prevent the nation’s poor and elderly from being reduced to eating cat food as “entitlements.” But it’s the entitled rich—Romney, the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson and their ilk—who demand that America give them “stuff” like tax breaks for sending jobs overseas, like tax loopholes for hoarding their assets in the Caymans, like government-paid roads and sewers and rail lines to their businesses.

The CEOs, calling themselves the “Fix the Debt” coalition, claim they’ll pay a secret amount more in taxes if the 99 percent suffers cuts to its social safety net and endures slashed government programs, just accepts cat food as its meat course.

They’ve proposed extending the tax cuts for the 98 percent right now. The richest two percent would benefit from these breaks as well, receiving them on the first $250,000 of their earnings. Everybody gets something. This proposal passed the Democratic-controlled Senate. The Republican-controlled House refuses to even vote on it.

That gap between America’s high-income and middle-income households, after all, has been growing almost as fast as the gap between rich and poor.

A new income inequality study from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute has found that in the three-year span from 2008 through 2010, in 15 different states, our most affluent 20 percent averaged over eight times the income of our poorest 20 percent. Back in the late 1970s, the new Pulling Apart points out, not one single state had a top-to-bottom ratio that ran over eight times.

In all 50 states, the gap between top 20 and middle 20 percent has widened “significantly.” The gap between middle 20 percent and top 5 percent has widened even more. By almost five times in the largest states.

Plus, these Census surveys do not even take into account income from capital gains. 87 percent of all capital gains “will go to families in the top 5 percent of the U.S. income distribution.”

Rising inequality, they contend, “adversely affects our economy and political system.” They eat away at our social cohesion. Deeply unequal societies just don’t work together in a democracy. The rich in these societies live apart, in their own private universes.

Here are some other numbers the conservative rich would rather have ignored, distorted or fudged:

  1. Only FOUR OUT OF 150 countries have more wealth inequality than us.
  2. Only THREE PERCENT of the very rich are entrepreneurs: According to both Marketwatch and economist Edward Wolff, over 90 percent of the assets owned by millionaires are held in a combination of low-risk investments (bonds and cash), personal business accounts, the stock market, and real estate. Only 3.6 percent of taxpayers in the top .1% were classified as entrepreneurs based on 2004 tax returns. A 2009 Kauffman Foundation study found that the great majority of entrepreneurs come from middle-class backgrounds, with less than 1 percent of all entrepreneurs coming from very rich or very poor backgrounds.
  3. An amount equal to ONE-HALF the GDP is held untaxed overseas by rich Americans.
  4. Corporations stopped paying HALF OF THEIR TAXES after the recession: After paying an average of 22.5% from 1987 to 2008, corporations have paid an annual rate of 10% since. This represents a sudden $250 billion annual loss in taxes.
  5. Just TEN Americans made a total of FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS in one year.
  6. Tax deductions for the rich could pay off 100 PERCENT of the deficit.
  7. The average single black or Hispanic woman has about $100 IN NET WORTH.
  8. Elderly and disabled food stamp recipients get $4.30 A DAY FOR FOOD.
  9. Young adults have lost TWO-THIRDS OF THEIR NET WORTH since 1984.
  10. The American public paid about FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS to bail out the banks.

We have the radical right to thank for much of this. There will always be those in the GOP, or proudly to its right, who will protest any policy movement toward the center as an abandonment of conservative principles.

You are allowed to believe whatever you want in America, but remember that false beliefs ultimately lead to suffering.

Stranger in a Strange Land 2012-12-01: Confusion by The Stranger on Mixcloud

~The Stranger
thestranger@earthling.net

Advertisements

Feel Good

Good news, everyone!

In the wake of so much depressing and oppressing mainstream media, I thought I’d dedicate this week to some of the redemptive and hopeful items in our culture/class/info war. Appropriately, some happy-time feel-good music to make you move your feet!

PLAYLIST
In The Hall Of The Mountain King – Will Bradley and the Ray McKinley Band
Cheek to Cheek – Billie Holiday
Lambeth Walk – Django Reinhardt & Stéphane Grappelli
Stomping At Decca – Django Reinhardt & Stéphane Grappelli
I’ve Got My Love To Keep Me Warm – Django Reinhardt & Stéphane Grappelli
I’m Perfectly Satisfied – Jack Hylton And His Orchestra
Feelin’ High And Happy – Gene Krupa
Here Comes The Sun – The Beatles
A Felicidade – Louiz Bonfa
Joy – Sun Ra
The Tide Is High – The Paragons
Rock-A-Hula Baby – Elvis Presley
Satisfy My Soul – Bob Marley
Surfboard Antonio – Carlos Jobim
Happy Together – The Turtles
Windy – Association
The Warmth Of The Sun – Beach Boys
Papa Gene’s Blues – Monkees
Love And Happiness – Al Green
Joy – Issac Hayes
Da Funk [Armand Van Helden Remix] – Daft Punk
19-2000 – Gorillaz
Tropicana – RATATAT
Satisfaction (Club Mix) – Benny Benassi
Besame Mucho – Dave Pike
You’ve Made Me So Very Happy – Blood, Sweat & Tears

Stranger in a Strange Land 2012-05-19: Feel Good by The Stranger on Mixcloud

Romney is having trouble staying on message, buffeted from all sides for his forced radical right social obligation, his “experience” as one of the wealthy elites we love-to-hate, a job-destroying corporate raider at Bain Capital in the 1980s, and his record of status quo pandering not much unlike Obama’s.

Romney is trying to pivot from the incendiary social issues that dominated GOP primaries to the economy, which polls show is his strongest suit, Obama’s biggest vulnerability and the No. 1 election issue.

He wants to “reward job creators” on Day One as president, which is code for “job-destroying greedy plutocrats.” He would also approve the Keystone oil pipeline regardless of environmental impact and start rolling back Obama’s health overhaul to leave millions at the mercy of a corrupt insurance industry.

Both of these are steps away from the science and the economic evidence.

He also found himself having to refudiate a conservative independent group’s $10 million TV ad campaign recalling Obama’s ties to the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It would have raised off-message race and religion issues.

After staying mostly quiet through the Republican primaries, Democrats are kicking off a new campaign to convince voters that Mitt Romney earned his fortune by exploiting workers at Bain Capital.

Formerly finance-friendly politicians are frenetically trying to straddle this hard line between populist appeasement and corporate donorship.

The Obama campaign has insisted repeatedly that its beef with Romney is about his specific business dealings and not private equity in general. But it can sound like a pretty thin distinction at times, especially to prominent Democratic donors who’ve worked in private equity themselves and are sensitive about being vilified as greedy corporate raiders.

Steve Rattner, who co-founded the Quadrangle Group, a successful private equity firm, hardly a fan of Romney in most circumstances, defended Bain Capital on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” as a model company and called Obama’s attacks “unfair” (though he did disagree with Romney’s claim that private equity creates jobs).

In a case of awkward timing, Obama attended a fundraiser Monday hosted by Tony James, a top executive at the world’s largest private equity firm, Blackstone Group. Like Rattner, James is on the record defending private equity from Obama.

But if President Obama is politically vulnerable on the weak recovery of the economy, Romney will be increasingly vulnerable in the presidential race for embracing Paul Ryan’s plan – if the Democrats make clear the dangers it poses for the vast majority of Americans, the servants at Romney’s “marvelous” policy buffet. Declaring the presidential race starkly as a “make-or-break moment for the middle class,” Obama told Associated Press editors in April that in the much-different budgets he and Ryan have proposed, voters face a “choice between competing visions of our future [that] has [not in recent memory] been so unambiguously clear.”

The Ryan-Romney plan is further to the Right – and more hurtful to average Americans – than anything from Ronald Reagan or Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America, Obama said. Calling it “thinly veiled social Darwinism,” he argued that his “centrist” approach has historically drawn support even from Republicans, from Lincoln to Eisenhower, who saw government as a way to “do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves.”

The Ryan budget will not only fail to do what it claims, but in most cases will do just the opposite. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman put it, the budget is “the most fraudulent in American history.”

Under the guise of cutting deficits and protecting health and retirement security, Ryan-Romney would change federal health insurance to reduce federal costs but only by shifting the burden back to individuals – especially the aged and poor – not by increasing efficiency. The budget would raise the eligibility age for Medicare in the future and replace Medicare with vouchers, turn over Medicaid to the states with inadequate, declining block grants, and invalidate most of the Affordable Care Act, including its expansion of Medicaid. As a result, as many as 27 million people would lose Medicaid coverage (according to the Urban Institute), and 33 million uninsured will not gain insurance promised through the Affordable Care Act.

These are the sorts of injustice that show where reform is necessary.

Powerful elites like Jaime Dimon have been working for years to destroy financial reforms, with a set of insidious tactics, recently outlined by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone:
  • STEP 1: STRANGLE IT IN THE WOMB
  • STEP 2: SUE, SUE, SUE
  • STEP 3: IF YOU CAN’T WIN, STALL
  • STEP 4: BULLY THE REGULATORS
  • STEP 5: PASS A GAZILLION LOOPHOLES
Two years ago, when he signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, President Barack Obama bragged that he’d dealt a crushing blow to the extravagant financial corruption that had caused the global economic crash in 2008. “These reforms represent the strongest consumer financial protections in history,” the president told an adoring crowd in downtown D.C. on July 21st, 2010. “In history.”

The new law ostensibly rewrote the rules for Wall Street. It was going to put an end to predatory lending in the mortgage markets, crack down on hidden fees and penalties in credit contracts, and create a powerful new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to safeguard ordinary consumers. Big banks would be banned from gambling with taxpayer money, and a new set of rules would limit speculators from making the kind of crazy-ass bets that cause wild spikes in the price of food and energy. There would be no more AIGs, and the world would never again face a financial apocalypse when a bank like Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.

Most importantly, even if any of that fiendish crap ever did happen again, Dodd-Frank guaranteed we wouldn’t be expected to pay for it. “The American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street’s mistakes,” Obama promised. “There will be no more taxpayer-funded bailouts. Period.”

And though Paul Volcker has said Jaime Dimon should give up his banking license, others are calling for him to stand trial.

Let’s put JPMorgan Chase chairman, president and CEO James “Jamie” Dimon on trial. Mr. Dimon has a reputation for being the sagest guy on Wall Street and an expert at managing risk. JPMorgan emerged from the financial crisis not just unscathed but secure enough to step in and rescue Bear Stearns when the government asked it to. (He gets very mad when you say that his bank got bailed out by the government, and he insists that the government made him take all that free money.) Then his bank somehow accidentally lost billions of dollars last week, whoops! And he is really embarrassed, but not embarrassed enough to fire himself. So, let’s put him on trial and force him to explain what good he and his bank are.

The FBI has opened a probe into trading losses at the biggest US bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co. The SEC is investigating the massive lossDimon might have to be hauled before Congress to answer questions.

“Wouldn’t it have been better if that $2 billion had been used for almost anything in the world besides shady mega-bank gambling that no one understands?” And, “Doesn’t it seem you guys could save a bit of money on salaries and so forth while still achieving basically the same results if you replaced your chief investment officer with some old people who play video slots all day?”

It seems like America was actually doing pretty well with there not being any such thing as credit-default swaps, which JPMorgan invented, in the 1990s, right before investment banks were allowed to merge with retail banks and do whatever they wanted with everyone’s money.

Also did Dimon lie during his first-quarter earnings call last month, or did he have no idea what sort of things his chief investment office was up to (even after their actions were reported in the press)? If he didn’t have any idea, shouldn’t he maybe step down to run a smaller bank, where he can keep a closer eye on everything? Dimon said initially that the stuff that lost all the money wouldn’t have violated the Volcker Rule, even though it plainly violates the spirit of the Volcker Rule but also he’s not sure if the bank broke any laws?

President Barack Obama said on Monday that the huge trading loss at JPMorgan Chase, demonstrated the need for Wall Street reform.

 So what can be done? In the 1930s, after the mother of all banking panics, we arrived at a workable solution, involving both guarantees and oversight. On one side, the scope for panic was limited via government-backed deposit insurance; on the other, banks were subject to regulations intended to keep them from abusing the privileged status they derived from deposit insurance, which is in effect a government guarantee of their debts. Most notably, banks with government-guaranteed deposits weren’t allowed to engage in the often risky speculation characteristic of investment banks like Lehman Brothers.

But with many lawmakers personally invested in JPMorgan Chase, can we expect any real change to be made in Washington?

Senators Minimum Maximum
Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D) $1,000,001 $1,000,001
Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D) $100,001 $250,000
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D) $52,003 $130,000
Sen. Tom Coburn (R) $17,003 $80,000
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D) $15,001 $50,000
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) $15,001 $50,000
Representatives Minimum Maximum
Rep. Leonard Lance (R) $250,001 $500,000
Rep. Jim Renacci (R) $213,937 $213,937
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr (R) $100,001 $250,000
Rep. Peter Welch (D) $100,001 $250,000
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D) $50,001 $100,000
Rep. Mike Conaway (R) $50,001 $100,000
Rep. John Boehner (R) $30,002 $100,000
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R) $30,002 $100,000
Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R) $17,003 $80,000
Rep. Connie Mack (R) $17,003 $80,000
Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R) $15,001 $50,000
Rep. Kurt Schrader (D) $15,001 $50,000
Rep. David McKinley (R) $15,001 $50,000

One of the most dogged Wall Street reformers on Capitol Hill says there’s a small but golden opportunity to close key loopholes in the 2010 financial reform law,

“We have felt like there’s two of us against hundreds of Wall Street lawyers working on this all day, every day — and that the public was disengaged from the issue,” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) said “Now the public is engaged. There’s a chance here — because the rules are supposed to go into effect in July — there’s a moment of possibility, we’re trying to do all we can to press it forward, say ‘seize this moment and get the rules right.’ Because once they’re put in place it’s very hard to change them.”

Merkley, along with Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), were the primary authors of the so-called Volcker Rule, meant to forbid federally insured banks from speculating with depositor money. But the regulators tasked with writing and implementing the rule, under pressure from the financial services industry, wrote exemptions into the draft that, if finalized, would allow firms to continue making the risky trades that got JP Morgan into trouble.

*******************************************

Meanwhile, from the Chicago Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild

The National Lawyers Guild (NLG) condemns a preemptive police raid that took place at approximately 11:30pm Wednesday in the Bridgeport neighborhood, and instances of harassment on the street, in which Chicago police are unlawfully detaining, searching, and questioning NATO protesters. The Bridgeport raid was apparently conducted by the Organized Crime Division of the Chicago Police Department and resulted in as many as 8 arrests.

According to witnesses in Bridgeport, police broke down a door to access a 6-unit apartment building near 32nd & Morgan Streets without a search warrant. Police entered an apartment with guns drawn and tackled one of the tenants to the floor in his kitchen. Two tenants were handcuffed for more than 2 hours in their living room while police searched their apartment and a neighboring unit, repeatedly calling one of the tenants a “Commie faggot.” A search warrant produced 4 hours after police broke into the apartment was missing a judge’s signature, according to witnesses. Among items seized by police in the Bridgeport raid were beer-making supplies and at least one cell phone.

“Preemptive raids like this are a hallmark of National Special Security Events,” said Sarah Gelsomino with the NLG and the People’s Law Office. “The Chicago police and other law enforcement agencies should be aware that this behavior will not be tolerated and will result in real consequences for the city.”

In another incident, 3 plainclothes police officers unlawfully stopped, handcuffed, and searched a NATO protester on Michigan Avenue and Wacker Drive at approximately 2pm today. According to the protester, he did not consent to a search and there was no probable cause to detain him. The police also photographed and questioned him about where he was from, how he got to Chicago, how long it took, what he was doing here, where he was staying, who he was with, and how long he was planning to say in Chicago. The protester refused to answer any questions and was eventually released.

The NLG has received reports that at least 20 people have been arrested so far this week, and two people are still in custody, not including the Bridgeport residents who are still unaccounted for. One of the protesters currently being detained, Danny Johnson of Los Angeles, has been accused of assaulting a police officer during an immigrant rights rally on Tuesday afternoon. However, multiple witnesses on the scene, including an NLG Legal Observer, recorded a version of events that contradict the accusations of police.

During the week of NATO demonstrations, the NLG is staffing a legal office and answering calls from activists on the streets and in jail. The NLG will also be dispatching scores of Legal Observers to record police misconduct and representing arrestees in the event the city pursues criminal prosecutions.

And while these affronts to civil liberties enrage and outrage (as they should), while we report and protest, remember, these reactionary authoritative actions will only cost the system more when they inevitably lose.

The good news, according to Noam Chomsky, is that Occupy has created solidarity in the US.

The NYPD has lost its first Occupy Wall Street Trial. This case could have been a slam dunk for the NYPD, had it not been for one thing: the video showing police claims of disorderly conduct during an OWS protest to be completely untrue.

Hundreds have been arrested during the Occupy Wall Street protests, but photographer Alexander Arbuckle’s case was the first to go to trial – and after just two days, the Manhattan Criminal Court found him not guilty.

Arbuckle was arrested on New Year’s Day for allegedly blocking traffic during a protest march. He was charged with disorderly conduct, and his arresting officer testified under oath that he, along with the protesters, was standing in the street, despite frequent requests from the police to move to the sidewalk.

But things got a little embarrassing for the NYPD officer when the defense presented a video recording of the entire event, made by well-known journalist Tim Pool.

Pool’s footage clearly shows Arbuckle, along with all the other protesters, standing on the sidewalk. In fact, the only people blocking traffic were the police officers themselves

His lawyers said the video proving that testimony false is what swayed the judge, and the verdict a clear indication that the NYPD was over-policing the protests.

The irony of the case, however, is that Arbuckle was not a protester, or even a supporter of the Occupy movement. He was there to document the cops’ side of the story. A political science and photography major at NYU, Arbuckle felt the police were not being fairly represented in the media.

Also hearteningly, in a surprising letter (.pdf) sent on Monday to attorneys for the Baltimore Police Department, the Justice Department also strongly asserted that officers who seize and destroy such recordings without a warrant or without due process are in strict violation of the individual’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The letter was sent to the police department as it prepares for meetings to discuss a settlement over a civil lawsuit brought by a citizen who sued the department after his camera was seized by police.

In the lawsuit, Christopher Sharp alleged that in May 2010, Baltimore City police officers seized, searched and deleted the contents of his mobile phone after he used it to record them as they were arresting a friend of his.

The right to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties was essential to help “engender public confidence in our police departments, promote public access to information necessary to hold our governmental officers accountable, and ensure public and officer safety,” wrote Jonathan Smith, head of the Justice Department’s Special Litigation Section, who cited the Rodney King case as an example of police abuse caught on camera.

federal judge in New York has given the go ahead for a class action lawsuit to move forward against the city’s police department over allegations that its ‘stop-and-frisk’ program has continuously allowed officers to discriminate against minorities.

In a ruling made Wednesday by US District Judge Shira Scheindlin, the pending suit against the NYPD, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others was granted class action status.

When asked for his take on Judge Scheindlin’s decision, NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly told the New York Times that he had no comment because the litigation was continuing, but offered one quip: “It is what it is.”

Elsewhere in her ruling, Judge Scheindlin says that the NYPD’s arguments in favor of the program appear “cavalier”and display “a deeply troubling apathy towards New Yorkers’ most fundamental constitutional rights.”

In a statement offered to the AP, the law office for the city of New York says, “We respectfully disagree with the decision and are reviewing our legal options.”

Another federal district judge, the newly-appointed Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York, issued an amazing ruling: one which preliminarily enjoins enforcement of the highly controversial indefinite provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Obama last December. This afternoon’s ruling came as part of a lawsuit brought by seven dissident plaintiffs — including Chris Hedges, Dan Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, and Birgitta Jonsdottir — alleging that the NDAA violates ”both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the First Amendment as well as due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

In a 68-page ruling, US District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed on Wednesday that the statute failed to “pass constitutional muster” because its language could be interpreted quite broadly and eventually be used to suppress political dissent.

“There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment,” Forrest wrote, according to CourtHouseNews.Com. “There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention.”

The Manhattan judge therefore ruled in favor of a group of writers and activists who sued US officials, including President Barack Obama. They claimed that the act, which was signed into law on December 31, makes them fear possible arrest by US armed forces.

The ruling was a sweeping victory for the plaintiffs, as it rejected each of the Obama DOJ’s three arguments: (1) because none of the plaintiffs has yet been indefinitely detained, they lack “standing” to challenge the statute; (2) even if they have standing, the lack of imminent enforcement against them renders injunctive relief unnecessary; and (3) the NDAA creates no new detention powers beyond what the 2001 AUMF already provides.

The court also decisively rejected the argument that President Obama’s signing statement – expressing limits on how he intends to exercise the NDAA’s detention powers — solves any of these problems. That’s because, said the court, the signing statement “does not state that § 1021 of the NDAA will not be applied to otherwise-protected First Amendment speech nor does it give concrete definitions to the vague terms used in the statute.”

The court found that the plaintiffs have “shown an actual fear that their expressive and associational activities” could subject them to indefinite detention under the law,and “each of them has put forward uncontroverted evidence of concrete — non-hypothetical — ways in which the presence of the legislation has already impacted those expressive and associational activities” (as but one example, Hedges presented evidence that his “prior journalistic activities relating to certain organizations such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban” proves “he has a realistic fear that those activities will subject him to detention under § 1021″). Thus, concluded the court, these plaintiffs have the right to challenge the constitutionality of the statute notwithstanding the fact that they have not yet been detained under it; that’s because its broad, menacing detention powers are already harming them and the exercise of their constitutional rights.

But even after a federal court deemed the NDAA unconstitutional, the US House of Representatives refused to exclude indefinite detention provisions from the infamous defense spending bill during a vote on Friday.

An attempt to strike down any provisions allowing for the US military to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge from next year’s National Defense Authorization Act was shot down Friday morning in the House of Representatives.

A colleague asked me how the government could blatantly disregard the courts (those that have not been stacked or bought). There’s not much they can’t do, and it’s getting a whole lot worse. With Big Brother street lamps, “incidental” drone spying on American citizens, and the US Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) as well as the  Department of Homeland Security (DHS) considering collecting DNA from kids. Soon all of this information may be collated at the NSA mega-base in Utah.

“Even though information may not be collectible, it may be retained for the length of time necessary to transfer it to another DoD entity or government agency to whose function it pertains.”

You could just hack into the systems yourself, as can be easily done with CCTV, for example. But this says little of citizen empowerment, since about half of those that utilize this cyber-espionage will be criminals, and not protesters.

But don’t let all that make you feel bad. There are many groups out there (such as the EFF) fighting against such injustices. Join the fray. You’ll feel a lot better.

~The Stranger
thestranger@earthling.net

Free Radicals!

Groups and individuals are radicalizing all around us! Taking up arms, subverting laws to their own purposes, spying, organizing, stealing, indoctrinating, infiltrating every crack of our world society. Radical Islam, radical conservatism, radical Israel, radical plutocracy, radical protest, radical polarization, and my personal favorite, our radical race towards the future, perhaps our own demise!

PLAYLIST
Hall of the Mountain King – Ratmen
Let’s Get Radical – Gogol Bordello
International Sponge – Alien Planetscapes
Uprising – Muse
Free Radicals – The Flaming Lips
Oppression – Ben Harper
The Ghost of Corporate Future – Regina Spektor
Harvester of Sorrow – Apocalyptica
Megalomania – Black Sabbath
Youth Against Fascism – Sonic Youth
All You Fascists – Billy Bragg & Wilco
Attack – Deerhoof
Be a Sect Maniac – Thee Headcoats
Submission Complete – Bad Religion
Anarchy In The UK – Sex Pistols
The Conspiracy Song – Dead Milkmen
Fight – Lars Frederiksen and the Bastards
Blood On The Motorway – DJ Shadow
midnight in a perfect world – DJ Shadow
This Damn Nation – The Godfathers
Gangsters – The Specials
Fight For Your Right – Beastie Boys
Insaneology – Necro
The Age of Sacred Terror – Jedi Mind Tricks
Call Of Revolt – Benefit
Sneak Attack – DJ QBert
Revolutionary Warfare (Ft. Lake) – Nas
Attention [drum skit] – Head West
Third World Revolution – Gil Scott-Heron

Stranger in a Strange Land 2012-05-05: Free Radicals! by The Stranger on Mixcloud

A University of Maryland-led team of international experts, funded with $4.5 million from the U.S. Dep. of Defense, are empirically investigating ways to understand, prevent and reverse the radicalization of young people in destabilized areas of the world, and to keep them from embracing terror as a political tool.

“Ultimately, we hope to identify tactics that will help inoculate young people against terrorist recruiters who urge the use of violence as a legitimate political tool,”

Why don’t we have something like that already? Why isn’t there an entire political group organized around criticism and the deradicalization of our system, our parties, our media, and our national rhetoric? A political party that can criticize both Iran and Israel? Ok, and I know I’m not the first, by far, to point out that our own government uses terror to control us, but when we see shades of it in China, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Israel, it should give us pause.

Former PM Ehud Olmert and the recently-resigned Kadima leader Tzipi Livni have joined the chorus of past and present senior Israeli politicians criticizing the government and its warmongering policy against Iran.

Livni announced her resignation as leader of the centrist liberal Kadima party on Tuesday, saying in her speech that Netanyahu’s government is putting the existence of the Jewish state “in mortal danger” by ignoring growing international discontent.

“Israel is on a volcano, the international clock is ticking and you should not be the ‘chief of Shin Bet’ to understand that. The real danger is a politics that buries its head in the sand,” Livni said.

Meanwhile, former prime minister, Ehud Olmert, who was in office in 2007 when a suspected nuclear site in Syria was attacked allegedly by Israel, has spoken out against the ill-considered attack on Iran. The fresh criticism comes just days after Israel’s former Shin Bet chief, Yuval Diskin, voiced his mistrust in the Israeli political elite in the harshest terms to date.

“I do not believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic feelings,” Diskin said last Friday. “I don’t have faith in the current leadership of Israel to lead us to an event of this magnitude of war with Iran.”

“An Israeli attack would accelerate the Iranian nuclear race.” And here in this country, where we’ve born witness to a slow and decades-long, and yet no less drastic, radicalization to the right. With the corporate systems of power controlling our security forces, shouldn’t these fundamentalist (whether gun-toting right-wing Christians, Ayn Rand acolytes or deregulated greed-economics dogmatists) be considered a threat to national security? Our nation? Why would supremely powerful, connected and wealthy elites reigning over multinational corporations have any fealty to the US? They’re spying, bribing, extorting and blackmailing us and our leaders. Surely of more concern that than teenaged hackers and sign-carrying protestors?

The scandalous corporate crime wave continues, with one such hacker answering fabricating for his crimes. The UK parliamentary report on phone hacking practices at Rupert Murdoch’s British newspapers is harsh — but it’s just one piece: the Leveson Inquiry, which has far more real power, and the five ongoing criminal investigations by the police, the Justice Department and FBI — already looking into News Corporation — will “pursue a rigorous investigation” of any violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. when its employees allegedly paid bribes to foreign officials such as police, law enforcement, and corporate sources.

Rupert Murdoch apologized for the phone hacking and admitted that there was a “cover-up” within the paper to shroud the extent of the hacking from poor, innocent, hapless, buffoonish senior executives such as himself.

The Inquiry has “a duty under the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996 to be satisfied that any person holding a broadcasting licence is, and remains, fit and proper to do so. And the findings are harsh, indeed. Rupert Murdoch is “not a fit person,” and he and his company committed “willful blindness” “collective amnesia” and “tried to have it both ways” and “wished to buy silence” calling him “astonishing” “a huge failure” and “simply not credible.”

While the report itself is harsh, the committee was apparently split on party lines about at least some of its conclusions.

Rupert Murdoch has been shielded in a way because the scandal keeps unfolding an ocean away from his home and corporate headquarters. If, for instance, a U.S. congressional committee or regulator criticized Murdoch in the way that the British Parliament has, Wolff told TPM — “willfully blind” and “not a fit person” to lead an international company — “you would be thrown out or your company would collapse.”

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sent a letter to the FCC this week demanding that the federal agency that oversees America’s airwaves suspend the more than two dozen licenses issued to News Corp. that permits them to publish content to Fox affiliates from coast-to-coast.

“Under US law, broadcast frequencies may be used only by people of good ‘character,’ who will serve ‘the public interest,’ and speak with ‘candor’,” reads the press release issued on Monday from CREW’s DC office. “Significant character deficiencies may warrant disqualification from holding a license.”

And ever since the financial crisis started, we’ve heard plenty from the 1 percent. We’ve heard them giving defensive testimony in Congressional hearings or issuing statements. They typically repeat platitudes about investment, risk-taking and job creation with the veiled contempt that the nation doesn’t understand their contribution. You get the sense that they’re afraid to say what they really believe. What do the superrich say when the cameras aren’t there?

Edward Conard, Romney’s old buddy at Bain Capital (his wealth is most likely in the hundreds of millions) aggressively argues that the enormous and growing income inequality in the United States is not a sign that the system is rigged. On the contrary, Conard writes, it is a sign that our economy is working. And if we had a little more of it, then everyone, particularly the 99 percent, would be better off. His could be the most hated book of the year. “They (I assume he means people or chattel or serfs) don’t recognize the benefits to consumers that come from investment.”

He advocates creating a new government program that guarantees to bail out the banks with taxpayer money if they ever face another run. As for exotic derivatives, Conard doesn’t see a problem. He argues that collateralized-debt obligations, credit-default swaps, mortgage-backed securities and other (now deemed toxic) financial products were fundamentally sound. Conard, for instance, insists that even the dodgiest financial products must have been beneficial or else nobody would have bought them in the first place. If a Wall Street trader or a corporate chief executive is filthy rich, Conard says that the merciless process of economic selection has assured that they have somehow benefited society. Because society is doing so well right now thanks to these freaks.

If their Ayn Rand philosophy feels grim and soulless, one in which art and romance and the nonremunerative satisfactions of a simpler life are invisible, it’s because it is.

Wealthy individuals and corporations are able to influence politicians and regulators to make seemingly insignificant changes to regulations that benefit themselves. In other words, to rig the game. Banks have enormous resources to constantly put explicit or subtle pressure on lawmakers and regulators so that regulation can eventually serve their interests.

Both could be true. The rich could earn a great deal of wealth through their own hard work, skill and luck. They could also use their subsequent influence to make themselves even richer at the expense of everyone else. What impetus do they have to benefit their “lessers” at even minor expense to themselves?

Romney has also said that rising inequality is not a problem and that the attention paid to the issue is “about envy. I think it’s about class warfare.”

Meanwhile, millionaire author Stephen King writes that the rich (such as himself) should be taxed, as an institutional motivation above and beyond any wishy-washy voluntary donation.

I’ve known rich people, and why not, since I’m one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing “Disco Inferno” than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar. It’s true that some rich folks put at least some of their tax savings into charitable contributions. My wife and I give away roughly $4 million a year to libraries, local fire departments that need updated lifesaving equipment (Jaws of Life tools are always a popular request), schools, and a scattering of organizations that underwrite the arts. Warren Buffett does the same; so does Bill Gates; so does Steven Spielberg; so do the Koch brothers; so did the late Steve Jobs. All fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough.

He goes on to write that the rich are not only unwilling to donate, but those that individually do are incapable to systemic change.

What charitable 1 percenters can’t do is assume responsibility—America’s national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts. Charity from the rich can’t fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny. That kind of salvation does not come from Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer saying, “OK, I’ll write a $2 million bonus check to the IRS.”

We don’t need them to apologize, we need them to admit that “you couldn’t have made it in America without America.”

But where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged.

This has to happen if America is to remain strong and true to its ideals. It’s a practical necessity and a moral imperative. Last year during the Occupy movement, the conservatives who oppose tax equality saw the first real ripples of discontent. Their response was either Marie Antoinette (“Let them eat cake”) or Ebenezer Scrooge (“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”). Short-sighted, gentlemen. Very short-sighted. If this situation isn’t fairly addressed, last year’s protests will just be the beginning. Scrooge changed his tune after the ghosts visited him. Marie Antoinette, on the other hand, lost her head.

One the one hand, the conservatives tell us that Obama is bad because the recovery isn’t fast enough. Then they push for austerity, so that nobody can spend anywhere (except their elite friends).

But cuts in government spending are reducing domestic demand precisely at the time when consumers are reaching the end of their ropes and can’t spend more. Absent real wage gains, that spending pace can’t possibly continue. Consumer savings are down and their debt is up. Consumer confidence dropped last week to a two-month low.

The basic issue, says economist Paul Krugman, is a lack of demand. American consumers and businesses, aren’t spending enough, and efforts to get them to open their wallets have gone nowhere. Krugman’s solution: The federal government needs to step in and spend. A lot. On debt relief for struggling homeowners; on infrastructure projects; on aid to states and localities;

Part of it is that if you’ve been brought up to believe that capitalism is wonderful and perfect then the notion that it could use some help every now and then becomes alien to you, and there are a lot of people who are so deep into that mindset that it’s very hard for them to get out.

But besides, there is a great recovery happening: for the 1 percent.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average hit 13,338 Tuesday, it’s highest since December, 2007. The S&P 500 added 16 points. Wall Street will remember May 1 as a great day. But most of these gains are going to the richest 10 percent of Americans who own 90 percent of the shares traded on Wall Street. And the lion’s share of the gains are going to the wealthiest 1 percent.

Shares are up because corporate profits are up. Increasingly, the world belongs to those collecting capital gains.

They’re the ones who demanded and got massive tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, on the false promise that the gains would “trickle down” to everyone else in the form of more jobs and better wages.

None of this is sustainable, economically or socially. Or even physically.

Physicists like Tom Murphy claims that economic growth cannot continue indefinitely. physical limits assert themselves. resources—particularly energy, thermodynamic issues

Occupy protestors are filling the streets, decrying the corporate crime wavesquatting in foreclosed homes, fighting for the public, and opening free universities.

The systems of corporate control (the Empire) is striking back.

Five young men from Cleveland are now in jail, accused of plotting to “blow up a bridge in the Cleveland area,” according to the FBI’s triumphant press release/criminal complaint. As is always the case with FBI terror stings, the “sting” part involved the bureau’s informant/agent provocateur mostly inventing the plot the accused have now been arrested for.

The five planned to detonate smoke bombs as a distraction as they “toppled financial institution signs atop high rise buildings in downtown Cleveland.” But the informant (as usual, a sketchy unnamed character with a checkered past) strongly pushed the group to seriously consider different, more extreme plots.

The FBI’s affadavit suggests that there was never actually a serious “plot.” The gang tossed around the idea of “taking out” a bridge in order to stop people from getting to work, but they also thought maybe they could use their (pretend) C4 on a Klan rally, or a neo-Nazi organization, or an oil well, or the Federal Reserve Bank.

Many people question the radical responses of protestors to the (much more radical) corporate persons.

“How are you going to get anywhere if you refuse to create a leadership structure or make a practical list of demands? And what’s with all this anarchist nonsense – the consensus, the sparkly fingers? Don’t you realise all this radical language is going to alienate people? You’re never going to be able to reach regular, mainstream Americans with this sort of thing!”

History has shown that vast inequalities of wealth, institutions like slavery, debt peonage or wage labour, can only exist if backed up by armies, prisons, and police. Protest movements wish to see human relations that would not have to be backed up by armies, prisons and police. They envision a society based on equality and solidarity, which could exist solely on the free consent of participants.

  1. The refusal to recognise the legitimacy of existing political institutions.
  2. The refusal to accept the legitimacy of the existing legal order.
  3. The refusal to create an internal hierarchy, but instead to create a form of consensus-based direct democracy.

Most Americans are far more willing to embrace radical ideas than anyone in the established media is willing to admit. The basic message – that the American political order is absolutely and irredeemably corrupt, that both parties have been bought and sold by the wealthiest 1 per cent of the population, and that if we are to live in any sort of genuinely democratic society, we’re going to have to start from scratch – clearly struck a profound chord in the American psyche.

The worldwide protests have focused on four targets—extreme inequality of wealth and income, the impunity of the rich, the corruption of government, and the collapse of public services. And rapid population growth means a bulging youth population.

Employment growth is simply not keeping up with this population surge, at least not in the sense of decent jobs with decent wages. The unemployment rate for young people. In the United States, the overall unemployment rate is around 9 percent, but among eighteen- to twenty-five-year-olds, it is a staggering 19 percent. As always, this does not include the part-time underemployed, underpaid, or the overqualified also burdened with student loan debt.

They have created an entire generation of progressive activists worldwide.

It’s not just the vast wealth at the top that they are questioning, but how that wealth was earned and how it’s being used to twist politics and the law.

Inequality of income has also led to inequality of political power, leading to governments that simply don’t care enough about the working class and poor to make the needed investments on behalf of the broader society. We have a vicious circle instead. The rich get richer and also more powerful politically. They use their political power to cut taxes and to slash government services (like quality education) for the rest of society. Wealth begets power, and power begets even more wealth.

The United States, alas, is a case of massive political failure. American society has everything imaginable: a huge, productive economy, vast natural resources, and a solid technological and educational base. Yet it is squandering these advantages because the rich have lost their sense of responsibility and are far more interested in their next yacht or private plane than in paying the price of civilization through honest and responsible taxation and investment. The result is an American society that is increasingly divided between rich and poor, with shrinking social mobility between the classes.

The political power of the rich has also led to an environment of impunity in which the Wall Street tycoons feel that they can break the law and get away with it.

Then again, a complete rejection of compromisebiases politics in favor of the status quo, even when the rejection risks crisis. I advocate using conservative rhetoric to fight conservative lies. Utilize O’Reilly-style railroading, ad hominem name-calling, and projection onto your political rivals. At least when we accuse them of waging a class war, there’s evidence to back it up.

It isn’t hard to argue, considering that the bailouts gave corporations trillions of our money, that neo-conservatists and corporatists are the real socialists. They socialize their debt, while binding corporate and governmental action together by secretive and elite means (but not too conspiratorial, much of this is all out in the open).

Do they really need trillions stored up? They’re not investing as much as they claim, and we don’t really reap any benefits, so stop lying to us about it!

I advocate pulling together the sane elements of Occupy, the old Alex Jones vanguard, and yes, even the Tea Party, to protect our constitutional rights and civil liberties. We should engage and contribute to building a society for everyone! Those sticky social issue debates aren’t going anywhere, and we’ll be contending with them for a long time. Don’t let any authority lie to you with twisted facts and ideologies and distracting messages.

It seems an odd strategy on their part, to push so hard to the “right” for austerity and the rich. It can only backfire and bounce back to leftist ideals (France, Greece). It seems an odd strategy to push hard anywhere, unless we’re just pushing back for our own survival, unless we’re just trying to get back to a rational middle-ground!

With soldiers and CEOs, protestors and religious zealots, it’s a damn shame that the nefarious few make the rest of us look so bad. Don’t be radical! Be moderate! Be reasonable! We don’t like tyrants, or terrorists, or demagogues or idealogues… Look outside (what may be) your own close-minded worldview, and always be self-critical, try to falsify your own precepts to make them stronger and weed out the bad ones. Just use your critical thinking and your innate moral compass to lead you to what is fair, just, and right.

So it doesn’t matter if you’re Jaime Dimon or the Koch Brothers or the GOP or Barack Obama or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or the European Union or Al-Qaeda or Scientology or Loki, we refuse to bow to your wealth and power.

~The Stranger
thestranger@earthling.net

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” –Daniel Patrick Moynihan