A long overdue apology

Blinded by Wrath

Dear President Bush,

I write to you today to apologize for wronging you in my thoughts for many years. For excoriating you with the most bitter and hateful thoughts I could muster. I apologize for hating you because, as I saw it, you invoked war and destruction on innocent people.

Eventually, I came to understand that whatever sins I may have attributed to you live within me as well. That, by succumbing to Wrath, I was your brother in folly.

And thus, we being brothers, I can no longer hate you.

God is great.

Please forgive me, my brother.

Sincerely,
Dade Ross Cariaga

Humbled by life

Isn't life dreary, Mr. Billionaire?

"I would call attention to the parallels of Nazi Germany to its war on its 'one percent,' namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the 'rich.'
...
This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendent 'progressive' radicalism unthinkable now?" --Tom Perkins, January 24, 2014, letter to the Wall Street Journal

I wonder, could Tom Perkins have possibly found a more frank expression of the contempt he has for the common people? The audacity of these remarks --made by way of complaint at the treatment "the rich" are receiving in the national media --is breath-taking. Truly, Mr. Perkins has but one measure of a person's worth. (Hint: it ain't sartorial sense.)

(Not to mention, of course, the disrespect it displays toward the millions of victims of Nazi atrocities in the days of the Third Reich. (Kristallnacht refers to a two day period of terror in 1938, about 18 months before the outbreak of World War II. Nazi paramilitary units in Germany and Austria roamed the streets, attacking Jewish businesses, homes, schools, and synagogues. They burned, smashed, and pillaged while authorities looked on. At least 91 people were killed and many more beaten or incarcerated.))

Mr. Perkins thinks he's being treated unfairly? I say he needs to buck up. According to the New York Times, corporate profits in March, 2013 were at record levels. Corporate profits are how Perkins makes his money. He's a venture capitalist. He makes money with money.

Meanwhile, the US poverty rate for the last three years has held at 15%. One in six Americans live in poverty. And while President Obama recently issued an executive order raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, it would take a minimum wage earner 4,670 years of 40-hour weeks to make enough money to bid on Perkin's yacht, The Maltese Falcon, which he sold in 2009 for £60 million.

Perkins is a sociopath. Like Junior. Or Cheney. Like oligarchs everywhere. They have no inkling of what it is like to sweat making a mortgage payment or to run a cost/benefit analysis for a health care procedure. People like Perkins cannot conceive that other people matter. They have no idea of what life is like for the rest of us.

It just serves to confirm. Vast fortunes kill empathy.

In a way, they are pitiable. Their extraordinary circumstances set them apart. They can never know the triumphs that we know, the joys that come from just enduring.

They can't buy that.

Super Bowl XLVIII: Party for the privleged

“For those of you in the cheap seats I'd like ya to clap your hands to this one; the rest of you can just rattle your jewelry!”  --John Lennon 

Another Super Bowl in the can.

Maty and I actually watched the game this year. We and roughly 97 million other persons (according to Neilsen). What made it strange was that we watched because she suggested it! Maty, the gal from West Africa who doesn't even understand American football, suggested that she and I watch the game together. On teevee! She said she wanted to see the commercials.

Mismatched work schedules put a premium on the time that Maty and I have together and Super Sunday was our day. So we watched, even though it has been 20 years or more since I've had any interest in the NFL.

The Seattle Seahawks, our neighbors to the north, blew out the Denver Broncos in a surprisingly lop-sided game. Final score 43-8. Denver bungled their opening play from scrimmage and gave up a safety to the tenacious Seahawk defense. On the first play from scrimmage! For the Broncos, it was all downhill from there.

At some point in the day, maybe while enduring the breathless pre-game coverage on the tube, or maybe while enjoying all the chomp-at-the-bit sh*t-talking on Facebook, it occurred to me that the Super Bowl is prima facie evidence of the gaping resource chasm that exists in this country. I'm talking about the gap between those who have everything --the upper 10% --and all the rest of us.

The Super Bowl isn't really an event for most of us. Yes, we gather around our television sets in our millions, munching chips and guacamole. But we're spectators. We aren't included in the party.

Consider: according to the New York Times, cheap seats at MetLife Stadium went for $1600 per. For top-of-the-line corporate suites the price was $292,000. In Portland, that could buy you a very decent 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom house! Of course, most of us would have to take out a mortgage and pay it off over decades. No one I know has access to the kind of resources that allow you to spend over a quarter million dollars to spend a day partying.

I have to imagine that the vast majority of the people taking part in the Super Bowl event --the people sitting in those seats, enjoying Bruno Mars and the Red Hot Chili Peppers half-time show --are affluent beyond anything I can ever imagine. Of course, noblesse oblige dictates that the NFL relegate a few seats to charitable causes --Special Olympics kids, wounded war veterans, and so on --but the rest of us aren't really welcome at the party. It's an elite event.

Flawed presidential candidate John Edwards used to speak about there being two Americas. "One America that does the work, another that reaps the reward."

That speech, the "Two Americas" speech, came to mind while Maty and I munched Papa Murphy's pizza. We sat under a blanket on the couch in our drafty living room. Glued to our television screen. Watching the rich folks rattle their jewelry. At the Super Bowl.

Liberty and justice for all?

Ethan Couch: According to the State of Texas, he's the real victim.

"Affluenza."

That was the trumped up condition that Ethan Couch's high-priced lawyer coaxed out of an expert witness, psychologist Gary Miller, to explain why Couch was not responsible for his actions when he drove drunk and killed four people. In his testimony, Miller claimed that Couch suffered from "affluenza," a condition suffered by very wealthy individuals. Quoth Miller: "[Couch] never learned that sometimes you don't get your way."  (Read about it here.)

That testimony apparently satisfied Texas District Judge Jean Boyd who sentenced Couch to 10 years probation and mandatory enrollment in a California inpatient rehabilitation center. No jail time.

Apparently Couch is a victim of being too rich to know that other people matter.

Trayvon Martin: Forced George Zimmerman to shoot him to death

Unless they're black.

Not even a year ago, Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old black kid was walking home from the store in Sanford, Florida, when George Zimmerman, a "concerned citizen," espied and began following him. Zimmerman pursued the teen against the instructions of a 911 operator, going so far as to leave the safety of his vehicle to pursue Martin on foot. A confrontation ensued and ended with Zimmerman shooting Martin dead. A jury found Zimmerman not guilty of 2nd degree murder, determining somehow, that he had acted in self-defense.

This is our glorious justice system.

For the ultra-rich, anything goes. For the poor and racial minorities, you'd better keep your nose clean, 'cause if anybody has it in for you, all bets are off.

In America, you're presumed guilty until proven rich.

Requiem por un hermano

No me importa lo que los plutócratas se llama. Hugo Chávez era un heroé de los pobres del mundo.

A pesar de la propaganda de los derechista, los quienes que tengan temores válidos de un populista auténtico, Hugo Chavez no era un dictador. Él fue elegido dos veces como el presidente de Venezuela.

Sus políticas apoyaron a los derechos de las clases bajas. Él nacionalizó los recursos petroleros del país, Él se prestó asistencia a las personas pobres de todo el mundo (incluso en los Estados Unidos). Abogó redistribución de la riqueza. Y, por eso, las clases de privilegio lo odiaron.

Pero, también, él fue reconocido por los grupos de derechos humanos, como Human Rights Watch y otros, para mejorando las condiciones del pueblo. Y las estadísticas no mienten. Durante su presidencia, muertes por desnutrición en Venezuela se redujo en 50%, y la tasa de pobreza en 54%.

Presidente Chávez los desafió a Bush y sus colaboradores. Me animé cuando llamó a Junior "el diablo" en un discurso ante las Naciones Unidas en 2006.

Como Chávez, un católico, dijo "Cristo está con la revolución!"  

Adios, hermano!

Romney gives voice to plutocratic contempt

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.... These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." --Mitt Romney

That, friends, is called "Telling it like it is."

Those words, uttered by Mitt Romney at a silver spoon fund-raiser earlier this year, express perfectly the sentiments he and the people he deems to be in his social stratum have toward the rest of us.  All of us.  Not just liberals or black people or immigrants, but also senior citizens, laborers, and small business owners.

We're parasites.  Leeches.  Mooches.  We can never be convinced to take responsibility for our own lives.  By insisting on a social safety net, public education, safe working conditions, living wages, and other such frivolities, we're muting the light of humanity's flame.

You see, Mitt and the people at his fund-raiser (multimillionaires all) are the very best of humanity.  They mustn't be constrained by worrying about the plight of lesser men.

Leave aside the reality that it is people like him --like Mitt and his plutocrat buddies --who rely on government to protect their plunder and maintain the corrupt structure that ensures they continue to wield inordinate power regardless of their ineptitude or criminality.  (Take Dick Cheney, for instance...)

We're the problem.  It's not their job to worry about us.  Mitt said it himself.  He knows he can never convince us that we're responsible for the disasters and mischances and corporate malfeasance that have brought nearly 50 million Americans into poverty.  We spend our lives whining and complaining and trying to dick people like him out of their car elevators and dressage horses.

The sad part of it all is this:  there are people out there --people who are not filthy rich, people who belong to the 47% that Romney disparages --that will vote for him anyway.

Why?  Because they, too, believe that those of us who are not filthy rich are somehow less worthy than are Romney and his ilk.

There's no contempt like self-contempt.

What's with the demonization of the poor?

Tea Party raving

More and more it becomes clear that the Tea Party, no matter what its constituents purport to believe, is driven not by patriotism, and most certainly not by logic.  Rather, the Tea Party seems to be driven by a deep-seated resentment toward the vulnerable and weak in our society.  The mind-blowing remarks of Tea Party Senate candidate Todd Akin, revealing the contempt Tea Party folks have toward women is only part of the story.  More generally, the Tea Party seems to scorn poor people.

Remember Newt Gingrich's remarks during the South Carolina primary?  "President Obama is the most successful food stamp president in American history."  That's how Newt put it.  Rick Santorum added a racial twist with his remarks in Iowa:  "I don't want to give black people someone else's money. I want to give them the opportunity to make money."

As the Tea Party graphic at the top of this post suggests, Tea Party folks work under the assumption that people who apply for any kind of public assistance are lazy sponges looking to take advantage of the labor of others, that they are the leeches and mooches that Ayn Rand raved about.

When my parents divorced in 1971, we three kids went to live with my mom in Salem, Oregon.  Mom was out on her own with 3 kids and no education. (She'd started college, but the birth of her first child (me) prevented her from finishing.)  Even though Dad paid his child support every month, it wasn't enough to cover all the bills and expenses associated with raising three kids in the 70s. 

So Mom decided to go back to school to get her degree. While she was attending Oregon College of Education (which is now called Western Oregon University) she enrolled us in the Food Stamp program.  I remember she was embarrassed by it, but felt there was no other way to get by.

Eventually, she earned her teaching certificate and went on to teach in public schools in Oregon and Washington.  Each of her three kids also went on to earn college degrees and become productive members of society as well.  So, society got a big return on its investment.  

I believe our story, the story of my mom and my brother and sister and me, is fairly typical of those who apply for food stamps.  To be sure, there are probably people who take advantage of the system.  But so what?  Which is more egregious:  a few people getting something that they don't deserve?  Or people with legitimate needs being denied nutrition in this land of plenty?  

I don't have a problem with food stamps (the program is now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)). People need help sometimes and all in all, my life is very good. It doesn't bother me to kick in some money to help folks who don't have it so good. I'd much rather spend my money that way than give a tax break to people who already have everything.

What about you, Christians?  What about you, Tea Partiers?  Does it bother you so much to think that somebody somewhere might get a tax-payer subsidized box of Kraft Mac and Cheese?  

Bring back the draft

I had a conversation with an old friend recently. A military man.  Marines.  On his way to Afghanistan for his fourth tour of duty overseas.  Good friend, good man. 

Our conversation was spawned by the horrific news, last week, about the soldier that snapped and left his base in Kandahar province to murder 19 civilians (including a 2 year-old child) in their beds.  Well, as I've mentioned before on this blog, war breeds atrocities.

War is sometimes necessary, some will argue, in spite of its inherent evil.  Perhaps.  But if that is true, should not the burden of war fall equally upon all citizens of the nation engaged in it?  If the United States determines that it must go to war, who does the fighting?

As I mentioned to my friend, much more has been asked of him and his family (four tours overseas!) than of most Americans.  Even though our nation has been at war for over a decade, the events in Iraq and Afghanistan are little more than 10 minute segments on the television news for many.

In the early 2000s, when Junior was waving the bloody shirt for Iraq, Congressman Charlie Rangel (who was awarded the Bronze Star and a Purple Heart for his service during the Korean War) put forth a proposal to reinstate the draft.  At the time, it seemed preposterous.  But with 10 bloody years of experience behind us, and with case after case of mentally-savaged combat veterans crumbling under the strain of disproportionate sacrifice, it seems a lot more reasonable.

My friend disagrees:

Dade, respectfully disagree with regard to the draft. An all volunteer force is well proven, albeit the Army has softened standards to meet recruitment, the Marines have nearly a year waiting list for boot camp. To these kids credit, they WANT to serve when they don’t have to, and, will water our eyes as they do their job in crappy conditions. Sure, it’s great resume fodder for future opportunities, but the draft isn’t needed, nor wanted by both military and civilian leadership.

I still disagree with the draft...and here's why. In short, let's take two kids...one an athlete gifted in many physical attributes, good stamina, intelligent,'type-A' sort; another somewhat less athletic, intelligent, aspergers- type-A sort of guy, more of an engineer type that can design a jet engine but can't ride a bike. Are you saying that you would put them in the same foxhole in combat, or, same cubicle at Lockheed-Martin? Exploring strengths, spiritual gifts, (whatever the term), works... That said, lessons learned from the Vietnam draft (and draft dodgers), is that morale sucks under conscription during war, and is a welfare program during peace. Draft dodgers will always hold the title of a union scab to military men.

Well, who wants to argue with a Marine about how to create an effective fighting unit?  Not me.  But, with all due respect to my friend, he's approaching the problem as a professional soldier.  My argument is sociological.

If we, as a society, determine that we must go to war, no one should be exempt from the sacrifice war requires.  Paraphrasing Representative Rangel:  "Declaring war without a draft is like saying 'Let's go fight.  Here, I'll hold your coat.'"

And there is this:  a draft might make debate over war a lot more serious and considered than it was for the Iraq lie.  One wonders how vociferously cowards like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, or Richard Perle would have argued for war if there was any possibility of their own kin being killed in it.  As it stands now, that bitter old adage has never been more true:

Rich man's war; poor man's fight.

Credit unions are the way to go

This Saturday, tomorrow, is "Bank Transfer Day," as it is named on Facebook.  Customers of corporate banks are moving their money to credit unions rather than accede to outrageous nickel-and-dime fees, like that recently proposed by Bank of America.

Imagine!  A $5 monthly fee to access your own money!

This from the Worcester Telegram & Gazette:

For many months, Sean J. McLoughlin considered leaving Bank of America and switching to a bank that didn't charge him fees just for having checking accounts.

When Bank of America said in September it would charge customers $5 a month for using debit cards, his decision to leave the big bank became easier.

“I said ‘Forget it, I'm done,' ” he said.   

You can read the whole story here.

There are many reasons why a credit union is a superior option to a corporate bank.  As the graphic at the top of this post points out, credit unions are non-profit.  They do not answer to share-holders, but exist to serve their members.  That's us.  That is we.  That is the people with the checking and saving accounts, not champagne-sipping hucksters sitting on a corporate board.

Fees and loan interest rates at credit unions are lower than those imposed by corporate banks, while interest on savings accounts is higher.

But, most importantly, with credit unions, the money stays local.  Any money deposited in a credit union account is loaned out to local businesses and individuals, to the people in the community.  It isn't absorbed into a corporate fund, managed and administered by fabulously rich banking executives who have no connection to or knowledge of the people who performed the labor that earned the money.

So, what advantages do corporate banks offer?  There is only one that comes to mind.  Convenience.  Corporate banks are everywhere, making it easy to go to a branch to deposit and withdraw funds.  But in this day of debit cards and automatic deposits, how much of an advantage is that?  Is it really worth being nickle-and-dime'd every month with minimum deposit fees, transfer fees, ATM fees?

Not in my mind.

Bank of America has nixed its plan to impose the $5 ATM card fee due to a vehemently negative public reception.  Quite a reversal, given that, at first, they tried to pitch it as a necessary response to the "over-regulation" imposed on banks by the (meager and inadequate) Dodd-Frank bill passed in the 111th Congress.  Wells Fargo and Citibank, which were both considering such a fee, have also decided against it.

To some extent, I credit the Occupy Wall Street movement for this minor victory over corporate power.  The movement has made people aware of just how badly we are being fleeced.  And it's reminding us that we have power.  If the movement didn't exist, I'm not sure that people wouldn't have just shrugged their shoulders and accepted Bank of America's dictate. 

I've been a member of First Tech Credit Union for years.  I urge everyone to continue this emigration from corporate banks to credit unions.  The plutocrats need to be convinced of the precariousness of their position.

Stick it to the man!  Join a credit union!

#occupywallstreet: Continue to exist

In politics and this other the first thing is to continue to exist.  --Ernest Hemingway, For Whom the Bell Tolls

One oft-repeated criticism of the #occupywallstreet movement is that it has no identifiable leaders and no specific demands.  Those in sympathy with the movement bemoan these lacks as weaknesses.  Those opposed hold them as proof that the movement is simply the plaintive crying of an idle rabble.

I disagree.  I think the lack of a clearly-articulated message and the leadership void are strengths.

Here's my reasoning.

Since there are no explicit demands, the movement stands as a broad indictment of all the injustices and inequities of the current system.  It's not just a political system corrupted by money and corporate lobbyists; It's not just a tax system that absolves the über-wealthy of any responsibility toward the common good.  It's not just a financial system that allows swindlers to fleece the common people with impunity.  It's not just the economic conscription of the working class into wars fought for corporate profit.  It is all of these things.  And more.

I think the lack of leaders and specific demands is what frightens the movement's opponents most.  If there are no leaders nor specific policy demands, there is no one and nothing for right-wing demagogues and political charlatans to attack.

The robber barons and Wall Street fleecers already know all the different ways in which they are screwing the lower classes.  None know better.

The Occupy Wall Street movement, just by existing, serves as a public indictment of the entire corrupted system.  Were the movement to single-out one particular aspect of the Great Screwing, the plutocrats could send out their double-talkers and snake-oil salesmen to confuse the issue and sow dissension.  As it is, they can only make disparaging remarks and keep their fingers crossed.

I hope the movement will continue to grow.  As it gains steam, the bankers, corporate executives, and political shills (of both parties) will be forced into acknowledging those egregious abuses that they would rather not discuss.

They know how to fix things; they know how to placate the just demands of the people.  They're just hoping they won't have to do it.

Hell with them!  Occupy!

Forty-six million in poverty

According to new census data released on Tuesday, the number of Americans living in poverty in 2010 reached 15.1% of the population. (The federal government sets the poverty line for a family of four at $22,314 in annual income.  For an individual, the amount per annum is $11,139.)

Forty-six million people in the United States are living in poverty. One of every six. Right here in America.

We're hittin' the skids, people.

Check this story from Indiana:



Or this from Washington, DC:



Even the most tax-begrudging conservative can see that not all of these people are dead-beats and loafers.  These are not irresponsible people who can't manage their money correctly.  They aren't basement-dwelling stoners or welfare queens. These are people who, ten years ago, were living more-or-less middle class lives; whose jobs were destroyed in the wake of the massive financial collapse at the end of the Junior Bush era. 

Meanwhile, corporate profits are up 8.3% over 2010, which was itself a record year for corporate profits.  These are profits reaped by the same corporations that extorted the federal government out of billions in tax-payer bailout dollars in late 2008.  Bail-out dollars that were necessary because of the criminal behavior of corporate executives motivated by greed.

Someone, please tell me...  How can a reasonable person argue that the solution to the problem of poverty in the United States is to eliminate corporate taxes and slash social programs?

Or, if that question doesn't suit you, try this one:  How long before we start seeing the riots and social upheaval that are precursors of something much worse?

In hard times, management hold all the cards

The cafeteria on campus at my place of employment is operated by an independent catering company. The staff --the people that cook, run the cash register, prepare the salad bar, and make the sandwiches --are hard-working folk.  Mostly Latinos.  Generally popular with the people they serve.  They earn $10-$12 per hour.  They are not organized in a union.  This morning, when I went over for a breakfast burrito, I found them in turmoil.

Management informed them that some of them will, over the course of the next year, be transferred to other sites around town, to be replaced by new workers.  Or, they can resign.  No reasons given.  No further discussion.

Never mind that the decision will disrupt the lives of those hard-working folks that make the catering company profitable.  Never mind that they will have to spend more time and money getting to and from work, or may even have to change residences to make their new commute feasible.  If they don't like it, there are plenty of desperate people who will gladly fill their positions.

This case is, no doubt, one of myriad other similar cases around the country.  It is a clear example of how, in this economic climate, management holds all the cards.  Management makes a decision and hands it down to the workers, confident that the workers will have no choice but to accept the new terms.

I remember back in the late 90s, when the unemployment rate was below 5%.  I had a great job, working for a great company.  Besides having fantastic bosses and coworkers, the economic conditions of the country were so favorable that I had complete confidence in my ability to find work.  I didn't live in fear that I might join the ranks of a growing army of long-term unemployed people with no hope for the future.

Things are different now.  These days, when management announces bad news (denying cost-of-living pay raises, demanding longer hours, requiring increased co-payments on employer-provided health care plans, etcetera), the follow up line is usually "I'm just glad to have a job." 

Folks, they've got us right where they want us.

Capitalism at its finest.

Wisconsin Democrats make their stand

Today is a big day in Wisconsin.  Today, the herculean efforts of Badger State Democrats either succeed or fail.  It's election day, and Democrats are seeking to recall at least three Republican state senators.  If they succeed, they gain control of the upper house of the Wisconsin state legislature and can block the union-busting power grab of Governor Scott Walker and his corporate masters.

A big, big day.  Not only might this day foretell how next year's national election will shape up, but the future of the Labor Movement is at stake.

Momentum would seem to be with Wisconsin Democrats.  And, after all, the fact that they managed to organize and build support to force recall elections at all is in itself testimony to their determination.  And you know that Governor Walker is feeling the heat. But, as we saw last March, these kinds of fights are highly unpredictable.

Of the six recall elections that occur today, Democrats have a clear advantage in one race and 3 of the remaining 5 are too close to call.  

At the very least, today stands as testament to the courage and determination of Democrats at the state and local levels.  Nationally, the Democrats are a disgrace:  weak-kneed, unprincipled, and timid.  Not so the fighters in Wisconsin!  Nor, those of us here in Oregon who busted the Big Red Wave last November.

Fight on, Wisconsin!  I'm with you in spirit.  Today's the day.  Let's see what happens...

A big win for the plutocrats

Guess who gets screwed in this meeting!  (Hint:  It's not anyone seated at the table.)

Every day, I find fewer and fewer reasons to support President Obama.  The ugly negotiation over lifting the Federal debt ceiling just about ices the cake.

The "deal" that they worked out (Harry Reid, John Boehner, Steny Hoyer, Mitch McConnell, Joe Biden, and the President, himself) involves $2.4 trillion (trillion!) in cuts to Federal spending and not a single red penny in raised revenues.  Nothing will be required of the corporate robber barons and the über-rich.  Nothing will be required of General Electric, which made billions in profits last year and paid nothing in Federal income tax.  Nothing will be asked of mega-polluters ExxonMobil and British Petroleum, which continue to "earn" record profits while, at the same time, receiving Federal subsidies.

Looks like this is as far as we're likely to get.

Everything will be required of the poor and middle class.  Less money for national parks, schools and infrastructure.  Less money for public health.   

You'd think that this kind of regressive policy would have the Tea Party patriots kicking up their heels with joy.  But if you thought that, you'd be wrong.  Tea Party folks are too stupid to recognize a victory when they see one.  (They're even more stupid imagining that this policy serves their interests.)  Their puffed-up outrage provided the justification for political leaders (and, yes, that includes the Obama administration) to do what they wanted to do, but couldn't justify without the Tea Party.  That is, to continue to fill the coffers of the plutocrats and scrimp on providing services to the general citizenry.  And yet, heady with their false sense of empowerment, Tea Partiers rage that the deal doesn't go far enough. 

For liberals and progressives, for people like me, this situation is horrendous.  Unlike in the Bush years, when we had no ambivalence, when we could focus our antipathy and contempt on villains like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Junior, we are now stuck behind a president that, for all his mealy-mouthed passivity, is still the only alternative to insane nihilists deep in the grips of Ragnarok anticipation.

The Democrats have been calling me relentlessly over the past several months, asking for my time and my money.  I've been turning them down flat.  They usually don't ask me why, but I tell them anyway.  Yes, I will probably vote for President Obama.  But I won't do so with any enthusiasm.  And I won't be donating my time or money any more.

F*ck it, Mr. President.  Let the Tea Party burn the place down, if that's what you want.  To the extent that you give a sh*t, I object.

Your happiness offends them

Cardinal Altamirano, calling 'em like he sees 'em

Quick digression:  If you have not seen The Mission, starring Jeremy Irons and Robert DeNiro (with a young Liam Neeson in a supporting role) by all means, rent it today!  The cinematography, the score (by Ennio Moricone, who also wrote the score for The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly), the acting, the direction, and most especially, the writing are superb.  A must see for movie lovers!

This seeking to create a paradise on earth... how easily it offends.
Your Holiness is offended... because it may distract from that paradise which comes hereafter.
The Spanish and Portuguese kings are offended... because a paradise of the poor is seldom pleasing to those who rule.
And the settlers here are offended for the same reason.  --Cardinal Altamirano, The Mission

Thus dictates Cardinal Altamirano, the Holy Father's personal envoy, in the opening scenes of the 1986 Roland Joffé classic, The Mission.

And don't those words ring true?

(The name Altamirano, of course, is a play on words in Spanish.  Roughly:  "far-seeing." )

Well, I've got a theory...

I believe that there are people who are unhappy with their stations in life.  This unhappiness seems to stem not so much from the conditions that surround such people --many of them are financially well-off and living in comfort --but more from some unhappiness deep within their psyches.

To these people, society is a ladder.  One's position higher or lower on the ladder determines the rights and privileges one should expect.  Kowtow to those higher on the ladder; spurn and scorn those who are lower.

So, for people who hold this mindset, stories of corporate corruption or financial scams are not overly troubling.  After all, the perpetrators of those crimes are "higher" on the ladder, and therefore not to be judged by those "below."

But it is offensive in the extreme when they see people "below" them who are content, who care not one wit about the all-important hierarchy, who have achieved some version of Cardinal Altamirano's "paradise of the poor." It vexes them to no end.  After all, they bitterly envy those whom they deem to be "above" them.  They bow and scrape on cue and readily.  Why are they not afforded the same deference and submission from those "below" them?

I think many (but certainly not all, let me hurry to stipulate) of the people who supported Junior Bush and conservative policy hold such views.  To them, programs that attempt to address the needs of those lower on the ladder blur distinctions, make the hierarchy less pronounced.  Universal health care, for example, diminishes their stature:  it removes one more advantage they have over the "lower" people.  It gives life to "paradises of the poor." 

As Cardinal Altamirano observes, it offends these people when they see others who are not caught up in their game and seem to be getting away with it.  By not sharing in their misery.  By daring to be happy.

Tough life, that.

Tea Party: Don't cut Medicare!

"Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

Bad news, Paul Ryan!  A new McClatchy-Marist poll finds that 70% of people who identify themselves as part of the Tea Party oppose cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.  That puts them in line with 80% of registered voters nationwide.

Representative Ryan (R-WI) has only just submitted a revolutionary new budget, passed last week by Republicans in the House of Representatives, calling for the phase out of Medicare for people under 55 and replacing Medicaid with block grants.

When Ryan released his budget, so-called fiscal conservatives hailed it as "serious and detailed" (Senator Mitch McConnell).  But as the details of the budget got more scrutiny, Republicans got a little more cautious.

Check this quote from Rep. Steve Chabot (R., Ohio), who returned to Congress in January after losing his seat in 2008:  “We are still studying [the Ryan budget], what the implications might be for the budget.  I’m not ready to announce a position. I’m sure there are parts of it that we agree with — probably the vast majority of it — but there may be some things we have problems with. We need more time.”

Or this, from Rep. Jon Runyan (R., N.J.). “It’s something we are digging through slowly,” he says. “I’m not prepared to make a statement on that.”

Nonetheless, Republicans did vote to pass the budget, knowing that Senate Democrats and President Obama have already vowed to defeat it.  In that light, it was a relatively safe vote.  But this poll must surely be troubling.

Tea Party people, for all their supposed desire for what they call "fiscal responsibility," probably never imagined that budget cuts might affect them personally.  And note that Ryan, in typical Republican fashion, included a ploy to divide opposition to his bill by exempting people 55 and older.  (Remember how Governor Scott Walker tried to split police and firefighter unions from public employees in the Wisconsin fight?)  Now, as the potential consequences of extending Bush tax cuts to the top incomes become apparent, Tea Party people are falling into confusion.

One can almost hear their plaintive cries:  "But Paul Ryan is one of us! He wouldn't screw us over like that, would he?"  Surprise, Tea Party people!  The GOP is not concerned with your well-being or your interests.  It views you as a resource.  The GOP has only one true constituency. 

If these poll results don't cause Republicans to squirm they are either

a) confident in their ability to confuse and mislead the Tea Party people into supporting their regressive plan;

or

b) hellbent on destroying themselves.

At this point, I'm willing to believe either.

Wisconsin: Bitter defeat, pyhrric victory

Workers in the Badger state demonstrate in the Wisconsin State Capitol Building

The breaking news this evening is that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and the Republican majorities in the state's two legislative houses have found a way to pass their budget and union-busting legislation.

It's a startling turnaround.  Only yesterday, it seemed that all the momentum was with the working people of Wisconsin.  Governor Walker's approval rating are dropping like a stone.  Rumors were aswirl that he was ready to compromise.  And then, the GOP pulled an arcane parliamentary maneuver, somehow separating the bill into two different pieces.  By doing so, they set a lower threshold for a quorum and were able to vote quickly to pass both pieces.  There appears to be some question about the legality of the GOP tactic, but it is clear that Wisconsin Democrats are appalled by it at the very least.

I hate to say it, especially as reports indicate that angry protesters are even now gathering at the Wisconsin capitol, but this battle may be over.  A bitter defeat.  I feel the sting of it all the way over here in Portland.  How must it burn for my union brothers and sisters in Madison?

The plutocrats, the neo-feudal lords have won a victory tonight.  And it comes at the expense of the common people.

This is a defeat, brothers and sisters.  Taste the cruel, bitter dregs.   But remember, watershed events set a course of their own.

On September 7th, 1812, Napoleon's ill-fated Russian campaign culminated in the battle of Borodino.  Napoleon and all his armies crashed into the Russians on the road before Moscow.  Even in the face of the mighty Grande Armée, Field Marshall Kutuzov, the Russian commander, vowed that the invading French "...shall eat horseflesh like the Turks!"

At the end of the battle, the French commanded the field and the Russian army was in full retreat.  Napoleon rode unopposed into Moscow, apparently triumphant.

But six weeks later, the real results of Borodino became known.  The French army was mortally wounded and out of supply.  By the end of October, the Grande Armée was in full rout toward Poland with the Russian army at its heels. The French soldiers froze and starved to death along the way. Many of them did, in fact, eat horseflesh.

It could be that what happened in Wisconsin, this apparent victory by the plutocrats, awakened the people.  The bourgeoisie may yet find itself in full rout.  It may yet eat horseflesh.

That's what I believe.  I believe that we, the people, have had enough.  We've lost a battle, but the war is on.  And we're just getting started.

Fight on, Wisconsin!

(Thanks, Robert, for the image.)

It's difficult to know who is winning the vital fight that is occurring, right this minute, in the Great State of Wisconsin.

Some media reports indicate that the "Wisconsin Fourteen," those Democrats in the state senate who have fled the state to deny a quorum (and thus, block passage of Governor Walker's regressive and cruel state budget) are wavering in their resolve.  Rumors abound that they are working to cut a deal.  And, honestly, who can blame them?  They've been away from their homes for two weeks now.  They have spouses and families. 

On the other hand, Governor Walker's intransigence doesn't seem to be playing well with public sympathies.  Polls consistently show that the American public is sympathetic to the cause of the protesters.  (You can read about one such poll here.)  And you'll notice that there are no prominent national Republicans flying in to Madison for photo shoots with the young governor.  Walker is out there on a limb, all by himself.  And, whaddya know?  None of his right-wing buddies are backing him up.  Where is Mike Huckabee?  Newt Gingrich?  Sarah Palin?  

(Of course, President Obama hasn't been exactly courageous in his support of the union.  But let's put that aside for now...) 

Says it all, don't it?

Take a look at this graphic.  It clearly shows that there is a direct correlation between the decline in union membership and a fall in the share of national income that goes to the middle class.  You can read more here.  And don't forget that unions are responsible for the 40 hour work-week, child labor laws, maternity leave, paid holidays and just about every other benefit you now enjoy at the expense of the bourgeoisie.

Who are these Wisconsin protesters?  Take a look and see...



The protesters who are even now on the front lines need to know that there are others all across this country (indeed, the world!) who stand with them.  If you're so inclined, Ian's Pizza in Madison, Wisconsin, will accept orders and deliver pizzas to the protesters who are occupying the Wisconsin state house.  You can view their web page here.  Their phone number is 608.257.9248.

People, unless you're one of the top 2% of income earners in these United States, this fight is your fight.  It's our fight.  Do you hear the people sing?

Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!

Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me?
Beyond the barricade
Is there a world you long to see?
Then join in the fight
That will give you the right to be free!

Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!

Will you give all you can give
So that our banner may advance
Some will fall and some will live
Will you stand up and take your chance?
The blood of the martyrs
Will water the meadows of France!

Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!

--Les Misérables

Fight on, Wisconsin!

Neo-feudalism, as I understand it

Beggin' yer lordship's pardon...

Feudalism is a term used to describe the political and governing systems that arose across post-Empire Europe (from around 800 to 1500 anno domini).  These systems relied on a relationship involving a lord, his vassals, and his fief.  Very briefly, the lord is the landowner, the vassals are the people who work the land, the land itself is the fief.  The vassals pay tribute to the lord and there exists a sort of mutual responsibility between vassals and lords for military protection.  Wealth and power flow upward, from fief to vassal to lord.

Neo-feudalism is the modern-day incarnation of the same basic system of relationships.  We have our lords, nowadays:  the mega-rich who control vast financial, media, or resource extraction empires.  We have our vassals:  the people who perform the work of these empires and rely on them for income and health care.  And, under the authority of the insane sanctity that we afford the concept of "capitalism," the fief, the land, the authority of power, is hoarded in the completely ethereal abstraction of numbers that portend the future.

Lords these days are people like Rupert Murdoch, George Soros, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Junior Bush.  They are not necessarily malevolent.  Some are philanthropists and humanitarians.  Some are self-made while others inherit their fortunes.

Lords are afforded greater rights and privileges than are their vassals.  Lords are generally exempted from contributing to the "common good."  Lords are not subject to the same laws that apply to vassals.  

For these people, these lords, money is something other than a means of living from day to day.  It is their birthright awarded by destiny.  It is the irrefutable source of their authority. 

There is a great scene in the old Roman Polanski flick, Chinatown, wherein Jack Nicholson's character, Jake Gittes, confronts John Huston's Noah Cross, the powerful water baron in Depression-era Los Angeles County who builds an empire with murder and corruption: 

Jake Gittes: How much are you worth?
Noah Cross: I have no idea. How much do you want?
Jake Gittes: I just wanna know what you're worth. More than 10 million?
Noah Cross: Oh my, yes!
Jake Gittes: Why are you doing it? How much better can you eat? What could you buy that you can't already afford?
Noah Cross: The future, Mr. Gittes! The future.

And what a future it is!

Joinin' in

Tips on organizing

On Saturday, February 19th, I took part in something called "Grassroots Volunteer Training."   Without really knowing much about it, I signed up for the event several weeks back, in response to an email message that came my way somehow.

(Hoodwinked, I say!  I thought the event was to be roadie tryouts for an upcoming reunion tour of the old 60s band!  (A joke...  that's what I call a joke, people.  Aw, come on!))

To tell you the truth, I wasn't all that excited about spending the day listening to a presentation about how to organize, but with everything that is going on all over the world, and especially in our own Rust Belt, I felt I had a responsibility to do my part.  To join in.

Impressive turnout

It was an all-day event.  So I was more than a little surprised when I arrived and saw the turnout.  Lots of people, fired up and ready to get to work.  And why not?  If we proved anything in this last election, Oregon progressives have a great ground game.  The Republican party in this state has no answer for it.  (And, Governor Kitzhaber, you're welcome.)

Kinda looks like an "O," don't it?

The event was actually organized by several groups:

• The Democratic Party of Oregon
• The Multnomah County Democrats
• The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 48, and...
• An organization calling itself "Organizing for America-Oregon"
  

There is a degree of irony in all of this, since I am neither a registered Democrat, nor a union member.  But I usually line up pretty close to them on most issues.  The last group, "Organizing for America," was new to me. 

Well, according to the organization's web site:  "Organizing for America, the successor organization to Obama for America, is building on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering communities across the country to bring about our agenda of change."  There's more here.

Break-out sessions

Early in the event, as part of an ice-breaking exercise, the dedicated volunteers who ran the event (names escape me, I'm afraid) were passing around a microphone and asking people what the term "grassroots" meant to them.  When my turn came, I said "Solidarity.  Especially with our brethren in Wisconsin."  That elicited a cheer and a round of applause and made my day.

I enjoyed the event, believe it or not.  I met a lot of my neighbors in the break-out sessions.  The event coordinators were incredibly organized, motivated, and good at their jobs.  They kept the event moving; they exuded positive energy.  The prep team had our names, email addresses, areas of residence, all of it cataloged and referenced.  It was an impressive achievement.  Hats off to the folks at Organizing for America.  Great job, you guys.

Hiked on up to Tabor in the afternoon

But I didn't stay for the whole thing.  I had to get back home so I could get in my hike and get cleaned up. 

Maty and I, partyin' with the Gambians

Maty and I had a party to attend that night, you see.  It was Gambian Independence Day and we have many Gambian friends...