GDAEman

November 14, 2010

Interpreting the 2010 Mid-Term Election

Following the recent election, the establishment narrative has been that Obama over-reached; his initiatives were too liberal and he needs to tack to the right. This view isn't based on analysis, rather it is more a matter of group-think among the punditocracy. To them it's obvious.

However, actual analyses suggest that the right-wing surge in the 2010 mid-term elections hinged on Obama not being progressive enough and thereby loosing the support of his base.

First, lets dismiss with the false common wisdom, promoted by the establishment, that presidents almost always suffer losses in the US House of Representatives during the mid-term elections. It's taken as unalterable fact. It's true that this occurred for George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, but during Franklin Roosevelt's first mid-term election, after he put forth radically progressive programs, the Democratic Party gained seats in the US House of Representatives.

Second, is the contradiction between the establishment narratives of the mid-term elections. On the one hand, losses in the US House were predicted on the basis of an "enthusiasm gap;" the narrative was that Democrats were disillusioned with Obama and thus less likely to work on the mid-term election campaign and come out to vote on election day. This narrative conflicts with the post-election interpretation that says Obama is being too liberal and needs to tack to the right.

Third, there are the numbers. Below is a comparison of exit poll information for US House vote results for 2008 and 2010, each with about 17,000 people surveyed. As a percentage, Democratic voters were a significantly smaller proportion in 2010 than in 2008.

Percentage of Turnout by Party for
US House Vote
2008 Vs 2010

Party Affiliation	2008 Percentage	2010 Percentage
Democratic	40%	35%
Republican	33%	35%
Independent	28%	29%

But percentages only tell part of the story. Did Democrats stay home, or did more Republicans come out in 2010 than 2008.

According to ABC News (Bold added),

[the] current estimate is that 90 million people voted [in 2010]. Exit poll says 45 percent were Obama voters in 2008. That’s 40.5 million voters.

In 2008, Obama won 69.5 million votes. So about 29 million Obama voters did not show up in 2010.

Exit poll also says 45 percent of people who voted yesterday were McCain voters in 2008, again 40.5 million. That, vs. his nearly 60 million in 2008, means about 19.5 million McCain voters did not show up.

So Obama had nearly 10 million more no-shows.

The following tables show that, of the Democrats that did come out to vote in 2010, they for the most part stayed with the Democratic party compared with 2008 (91-92%).

However, there were shifts in both Republican and Independent votes away from the Democrats to the Republicans. As a percentage, we see a big shift in Independents voting 51% Democratic in 2008 to only 37% Democratic in 2010.

US House Vote by Party Affiliation - 2010

Party and % of Turnout	% of Vote Dem	% of Vote Rep	% of Vote Other
Democratic 35%	91	7	2
Republican 35%	5	94	1
Independent 29%	37	56	7

US House Vote by Party Affiliation - 2008

Party and % of Turnout	% of Vote Dem	% of Vote Rep	% of Vote Other
Democratic 40%	92	7	1
Republican 33%	9	89	2
Independent 28%	51	42	6

But it's wrong to conclude that Independents simply jumped ship from Democrats to Republicans. About 48.5 million Independents voted in 2008, but only about 34 million voted in 2010, nearly a 15 million voter difference. If the "enthusiasm gap" story is correct, leading to progressive Democrats and Independents staying home, then concluding that voters seek a more "centrist" or conservative policy agenda, based on 2010 exit polls in which many "unenthused" progressive voices were absent, is in error.

Sources:

Re-posted from Challenge the Establishment Blog.

2010 Exit Polls for House voting - CNN

2008 Exit Polls for House voting - CNN

Thanks to GLH Blog for the ABC News information.

November 13, 2010

An Invitation

My next GDAE Podcast episode, Number 37, starts as follows:

On the previous episode of GDAE Podcast (36) I re-visited my original motivation for people on the political left to reach out to principled people on the political right... a concern that extreme right wing demagogues are stirring up potential violence among uninformed people who are suffering real economic hard times. My "original" motivation was to promote relationships between genuine conservatives and progressives that could either prevent right-wing populism from growing ugly or at least be a mitigating force, a buffer, if society devolves further into darkness as some economists predict is a real possibility in the coming years.

My original motivation grew in early 2010 culminating in my March 31, 2010 Episode 29, which has become the first in a series. In less than 30-minutes, before the audio program shifts to some unusual music, I initiated an exploration that has held my attention for the past eight months and promises to maintain its hold on me for a while.

We could see the dot-com bubble-burst coming. We saw the Iraq war and security state coming after 9/11. We saw the housing and financial economic bubble-bursts coming. Now we can see the potential for the predictably destructive outcomes of right-wing demagoguery coming. This is my small attempt to do something about it, if only to raise awareness. You are invited to join me by listening to the initial Episode 29 and seeing where it leads.

November 12, 2010

Ann Coulter Blathers about US Constitution

Nut case Ann Coulter is at it again calling for a repeal of the 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18.

Read her in her own words, if you have the stomach: MORE.

Sources:

Thanks to the Speez for enlightening me on this.

November 10, 2010

Prosecute Bush - A Podcast Drum Beat

For about two years I've been producing segments for the GDAE podcast that "beat the drum on prosecuting Bush administration officials for their crimes." I've generated nearly 40 segments, each about 1-3 minutes.

Topics have included:

Law Professor Francis Boyle describes the complaint he filed in January 2010 with the International Criminal Court.
Bush war-crimes-Prosecution Theater: A Play called "In the Loop", by Armando Iannucci.
"Arrest Blair dot Com"... as in British prime minister Tony Blair?
The Chilcot Inquiry into Britain's role in the Iraq war, a window into a US inquiry.
Prosecute Bush: Evidence of 'the Possible': The Case of Peru's Alberto Fujimori.

Check them out at GDAE Podcast.

November 7, 2010

Fiscal Sanity?

Dear Editor of Time Magazine,

Fareed Zakaria's article, "Restoring the American Dream" (Time, Nov. 1, 2010), revealed that "American" S&P 500 corporations generate nearly half (46%) of their profits outside of the U.S., which explains why I put the term "American" in quotation marks. He says than 80% of Coca-cola's employees are in foreign countries. Why should these U.S. corporations continue to receive the full privileges and benefits afforded by our government of the people without having to give back more? Aside from massive corporate subsidies, their off shore operations depend on U.S. foreign consulate services and benefit immensely from the U.S. military that ensures access to and stability of foreign markets.

With that in mind, consider Zakaria's advice entitled "Fiscal sanity." Zakaria has explained the structural reality that corporate profit generation has left the US along with significant tax revenues. Yet, just when Americans need social safety nets, Zakaria recommends cutting "entitlement programs", a loaded term these days*. Just when we need skilled state and local civil servants to help the ballooning population of Americans who are struggling, Zakaria recommends doing away with state pensions that attract capable people to government jobs that pay lower salaries than the private sector.

That's not a "sane" fiscal policy. It's group-think that will likely lead us further away from the American Dream. A sane policy would condition the privileges and benefits of U.S. corporate charters on supporting America; if a corporation wants to call itself "American," then it needs to support America. A sane fiscal policy must also address runaway military spending. One might ask, "Where will all of those tax-payer supported soldiers now stationed in foreign lands find work if we draw down some of the 600 foreign military bases? For starters, shift some of them, along with their federal funding, to work at home. As civil servants, they can help our communities maintain a glimmer of hope in the American Dream during these hard times while spending their income locally rather than abroad.

* Aside: Part of the "American Dream" includes feeling a sense of national and civic pride. This pride factors into the choice of many people who choose to work in state and local government despite the lower pay relative to the private sector. The choice to work in government also factors in stability summed up by the thought that, "I won't get rich, but at least I won't be destitute in my old age." Finally, the notion that government workers only soak up tax revenues is simplistic. The private sector, for instance, has little incentive to protect the environment as the Gulf disaster attests. I was in a recent meeting in which private sector participants said, "We will gladly do our part, but the government has to set up and administer a system that makes it easy for us." That takes tax-payer support, which supports the common good AND enables the private sector to thrive. Despite his broad knowledge, Mr. Zakaria appears to have some critical knowledge gaps that lead to recommendations that are more likely to do more damage than good to our society.

Sources:

First published on Challenge the Establishment Blog.

November 3, 2010

Prosecute Bush Crimes

http://thumb7.webshots.net/t/76/176/5/95/69/2638595690103099887WfFnyB_th.jpg

[URL=http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2638595690103099887WfFnyB][IMG]http://thumb7.webshots.net/t/76/176/5/95/69/2638595690103099887WfFnyB_th.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

November 2, 2010

GDAE Podcast - Episode 36

October 31, 2010 - Released

Left / Right Populism - Part VII

Can genuine conservatives and progressives clean up our democratic institutions?

Motivation for Reaching out to the Political Right on Issues of Common Concern: Preventing the Drift toward "Barbarism".

Right-Wing TV/Radio Incitement: The case of Byron Williams who attempted to murder eleven people in San Francisco after listening to Glenn Beck and others.

Walden Bello: A historical perspective on the Drift toward "Barbarism" and its relation to the Movtiation to reach out to genuine conservatives.

2006 Conservative Essay: "Now Is the Time for a Left-Right Alliance: A rebel alliance already exists that could stop Bush administration attacks on the Constitution."

Prosecution of Bush Officials: Beating the drum with the help of revelations from WikiLeaks of US complicity with abuse and torture.

Iraqi Blogger Raed Jarrar: Personal experience with WikiLeaks revelations.

Start with Episode 29 for Full Series on Left/Right Populist Alliance
or
Start with Episode 30 for Quick 20-minute Kickoff

Play Episode 36 from this page:

Click to Download Episode 36.

Play Episode 35 from this page:

Click to Download Episode 35.

Listen to Part V in the series, Episode 34:

Listen to Part IV in the series, Episode 33:

Listen to Part III in the series, Episode 32:

Listen to Part II in the series, Episode 31:

Listen to Part I in the series, Episode 30, (20-minute abridged version):

October 26, 2010

Wiki Leaks War Logs: Weak Search Capability

Wiki Leaks War Logs search capability disappointing. They invest untold time into combing thru the documents and making them searchable, then have a very weak search tool.

I wanted to search for Colonel James Steele, the guy who brought death squad methods from Central America to Iraq. I search for "Steele" and get "steel" too (and steal miss spelled as steel, Go USA!). I want to search for "James and Steele," and the search tool can't handle boolean logic.

Also, the public version is pretty heavily redacted. Compare Guardian UK report:

"Only the severed head was found. A wire was run through the ear with the corpse's ID attached to the wire. 3rd bn [battalion] commander identified the remains as Ahdel Abu Hussain, he was an officer in the NP [national police] Wolf Brigade."

compared with what is available on line:

: //-___ REPORTS IP'___ FROM ___ FOUND A CORPSE IPE___ AND E___ FROM JSS ___ THE RECOVERY AND DISPOSITION OF THE REMAINS; NO BODY FOUND, NO OTHER WOUNDS VISIBLE, ONLY THE SEVERED ___ WAS FOUND. A WIRE WAS RUN THROUGH THE EAR WITH THE CORPSEE___ ID ATTACHED TO THE WIRE.
___ Battalion COMMANDER IDENTIFIED THE REMAINS AS
___ , HE WAS AN OFFICER IN THE ___ WOLF BRIGADE ___ Battalion, ID SERVICE NUMBER IS ___.

And we hear all of this racket from the US establishment about how wiki leaks exposes people to threats of reprisal. The material is pretty sanitized. Typical establishment spin.

The Tea Party and the Fascist Impulse

True, people toss around the term fascism without care. Hopefully this post isn't another such case.

An essay, Global Capitalism versus Global Community, by Walden Bello, begins with some historical background. He talks about unbridled capitalism's rise "in what is now known as the first age of globalization that spanned the ninteenth century and ended with World War I in 1914." It included the late 1800s Robber Barron era.

This "first age of globalization" saw "the emergence of sharp disparities in the distribution of income and assets." Bello then notes that this "provoked a countervailing push from society, especially the lower and middle classes" to re-balance the inequities. This is where my insight begins.

At first I didn't understand why Bellow didn't define the "first age" to continue through the 1920s to the Great Crash. Then I realized that his cut-off point it's central to my insight: The rise of NAZIs between the two world wars.

We on the left like to think of the "countervailing push" to re-balancing the inequities caused by unfettered capitalism to be solely our domain; it's the little people reasserting their say in the socio-economic system, asserting public freedom over excessive private freedom. But Bellos reminded me that this isn't the way it really works.

... not all of the responses to globalization were progressive. For example, fascism, which Karl Polanyi defined as "the reform of the market economy achieved at the price of the extirpation of all democratic institutions," was also part of this countervailing drive, one that hijacked the search for community in the service of reaction, counterrevolution and racism.

Yes. The "first age of globalization" does find a break-point at World War I, after which Hitler found a desperate populace that was itself hijacked in his service. The "little people" were swept up in the fascist "countervailing push".

It's a similar strata of today's society that has an impulse to follow the Tea Party movement. Now they are following the likes of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Tom Delay, all of whom are very pro-corporation, like Hitler and Mussolini the later of which who said, in Italian of course:

Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

The conundrum of the Tea Party, being against the establishment, but for the corporate system, now makes more sense. But it is a bad omen, particularly when one considers another definition of fascism by FDR:

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

Sources:

First posted on Challenge the Establishment blog.

October 25, 2010

Associate Press Blow Interpretation of Health Care Poll

What's up with the Associated Press (AP)? Seems it's been captured by the transnational corporations too (like the other three branches: U.S. Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, the Executive). AP has teamed up on polling with GfK Roper Public Affairs & Corporate Communications... I'm not kidding, that's their name.

I was drawn to this realization after reading a recent AP article entitled, "AP-GfK Poll: Americans Split On Health Care Repeal." Oh really? "Split" usually means 50 percent for and 50 percent against.

So, out come the latest AP corporate communications numbers on the recent health care legislation:

40% Support Health Care legislation
11% Neutral on it
51% Total

45% Oppose the Health Care legislation

45% to 51% percent is almost a "split," only six points apart, but not on "repeal" of the legislation.

32% want to repeal it completely, which isn't exactly a "split" when compared with 40% who "support."

But what really got me was that the AP article makes the lame oversight that so many polls do on this topic; it doesn't directly address the question that some people who are "opposed" to the legislation didn't feel it goes far enough to truly reform health care. Well it did, but it stacked that number up against "repeal" and called it a "split."

I went to the Oct. 13-18, 2010 corporate communications poll [PDF] to look at the numbers. Unfortunately, it doesn't have the follow-up question, "of those opposed, who wants stronger legislation?" But, you can get close to the answer of that question. Here are the numbers:

18% say leave the Health Care legislation as it is.
39% say change the Health Care legislation so it does MORE.
57% Total say keep it the same or stronger Health Care legislation

9% say change the Health Care legislation so it does LESS.
32% say completely repeal the Health Care legislation.
41% Total say make it weaker or repeal it.

41% Repeal or does LESS, 57% Keep as-is or does MORE. This should have been the headline, not a lame twisting of the number to say Americans are "split" on wanting to repeal the Health Care legislation.

Instead, AP cherry picks two numbers from "likely voters" that fit a story line: Those who want stronger health care legislation and those who want repeal it, as if that is a logical comparison.

But, the damage of the headline is done, less than two weeks before the elections. Shame on the Associated Press and its corporate communications partner. It's telling that it was AP's corporate communications partner that does the interpretation of the poll video.

Let AP Know What You Think:

Contact AP:

E-mail: info@ap.org
Phone: 212 621-1500

Contact FAIR: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting to let them know what you think.

E-mail: fair@fair.org

Sources:

First posted on Challenge the Establishment blog.

October 24, 2010

Where Does Boundless Economic Growth Inevitably Lead?

Yesterday I explored the notion of "imperialism," that natural tendency for industrialized nations with mass production that manufactures too much to be absorbed at home and must be sold abroad... by force if necessary (the imperialism part).

OK, so lets take the long view. "Economic Growth" is actually an acceleration; it's not good enough to be stuck at x% growth... the increase needs to be increasing year after year. This raises questions about carrying capacity and the wisdom of an economic framework that demands growth for the sake of "a healthy economy."

This question is explored by William Fort, 80-year-old founder of Praxis, a transnational corporation that is on par with with large nations. Fort is a fictional character, living in 2010, but his insights are pretty real. He knows that the global carrying capacity is finite and he is smart enough to know that economic growth in today's sense isn't sustainable; the economic model must change. The setting is a discussion among a few people chosen by William Fort to think about this issue:

One morning he spend an hour talking about feudalism -- how it was the clearest political expression of primate dominance dynamics, how it had never really gone away, how transnational capitalism was feudalism writ large, how the aristocracy of the world had to figure out how to subsume capitalist growth within the steady-state stability of the feudal model.

One can debate whether or not this question should be left up to the "aristocracy of the world", but the existence of the underlying question is not open to debate.

William Fort eventually reveals his insights on the matter to his select group:

The opportunities for growth are no longer in growth.

Sounds like a puzzle stated by a martial arts instructor or something. Fort continues,

We've got to identify the new nongrowth growth markets, and get into them.

He talks about "nonmarketable capital", which he boils down infrastucture investment, a long-term investment. One of the participants in the discussion observes that such "nonmarketable capital" is publicly owned, to which William Fort responds:

Yes. Which means close cooperation of the governments involved. Praxis's gross annual product is much larger than most countries'. What we need to do is find countries with small GNPs and bad Country Future Indices [bad future prospects]. ... We identify those, go to them and offer them a massive capital investment, plus political advice, security, whatever they need. In return, we take custody of their [nonmarketable captial]. We also have access to their labor. It's an obvious partnership. I think it will be the coming thing.

It's not "coming;" it's already been here. It's "imperialism" writ large. It's privatization. A particularly insidious form is described John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man."

Sources:

Green Mars, by Kim Stanley Robinson.

October 23, 2010

Capitalism and Why We're Imperialists

The title probably sounds like the ranting of a lefty wing-nut. But a little sober thought reveals a reality that is hard to deny.

Way back in 1902 an English economist, John A. Hobson, provided a simple explanation of the term imperialism, which holds to this day. In simple terms, mass production creates too many products for domestic consumption. This necessitates finding foreign markets, and the capitalists who make the products use the power of their government to secure those markets using military force if necessary. Hobson puts the motivation for new markets this way:

It is open to Imperialists to argue thus: "We must have markets for our growing manufactures, we must have new outlets for the investment of our surplus capital and for the energies of the adventurous surplus of our population: such expansion is a necessity of life to a nation with our great and growing powers of production."

Hobson then puts words to the next logical step: Corporations influencing government's use of the military to secure foreign markets:

After 1870 this manufacturing and trading supremacy was greatly impaired: other nations, especially Germany, the United States, and Belgium, advanced with great rapidity, and while they have not crushed or even stayed the increase of our external trade, their competition made it more and more difficult to dispose of the full surplus of our manufactures at a profit. The encroachments made by these nations upon our old markets, even in our own possessions, made it most urgent that we should take energetic means to secure new markets. These new markets had to lie in hitherto undeveloped countries, chiefly in the tropics, where vast populations lived capable of growing economic needs which our manufacturers and merchants could supply. Our rivals were seizing and annexing territories for similar purposes, and when they had annexed them closed them to our trade. The diplomacy and the arms of Great Britain had to be used in order to compel the owners of the new markets to deal with us: and experience showed that the safest means of securing and developing such markets is by establishing 'protectorates' or by annexation....

What strikes me is that the logic is so simple and it explains the corruption of our government by corporations.

Sources:

October 18, 2010

Opportunities to Miss

Not sure it's kosher, but I'm going to re-print a Paul Krugman blog post in it's entirety:

In today’s [New York Times] report on the foreclosure mess, a revealing sentence:

As the foreclosure abuses have come to light, the Obama administration has resisted calls for a more forceful response, worried that added pressure might spook the banks and hobble the broader economy.

Surely this can serve as a generic statement:

As NAME ISSUE HERE has come to light, the Obama administration has resisted calls for a more forceful response, worried that added pressure might spook the banks and hobble the broader economy.

Stimulus, bank rescue, China, foreclosure; it applies all along. At each point there were arguments for not acting; but the cumulative effect has been drift, and a looming catastrophe in the midterms.

Or to put it another way, the administration has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. And soon there won’t be any more opportunities to miss.

===== End ====

Ouch!

Sources:

Challenge the Establishment Blog

October 9, 2010

GDAE Podcast - Episode 35

Left / Right Populism - Part VI

Can principled people on the left and right clean up our democratic institutions?

Case-study from Electoral Politics: David Sirota on Tea-party-backed candidate for US Senate in Colorado, Ken Buck.

Shared Left/Right Populist Anger: CNN interview with David Sirota explains Bush & Obama failure on Financial Bailout.

MUSIC: Ryan Harvey, "It's Not Just Bush"

Historical Context of Tea Party: We've seen this before in past decades. Kevin Drum exposes how the Tea Party follows the same broad contours of past right-wing spasms during Democratic Party presidencies.

Prosecute Bush: An example of a "nation of laws," Iceland is holding its leaders accountable for financial meltdown.

Play Episode 35 from this page:

Click to Download Episode 35.

Listen to Part V in the series, Episode 34:

Listen to Part IV in the series, Episode 33:

Listen to Part III in the series, Episode 32:

Listen to Part II in the series, Episode 31:

Listen to Part I in the series, Episode 30, (20-minute abridged version):

October 4, 2010

Scottish Ghost Music

Sources:

October 1, 2010

GDAE Podcast - Episode 34

September 30, 201o Posting Date

Left & Right Common Goals - Part V

Conversation with Vince Tola: Perspectives on the potential of principled people on the left and right to join forces and reassert the power of the people over our democratic institutions. Vince is a public school teacher and Maryland Green Party organizer.

Play Episode 34 from this page:

Click to Download Episode 34.

Listen to Part IV in the series, Episode 33:

Listen to Part III in the series, Episode 32:

Listen to Part II in the series, Episode 31:

Listen to Part I in the series, Episode 30, (20-minute abridged version):

September 30, 2010

FBI Could Face Backlash from Left and Right

The recent raids by the FBI on Chicago and Minneapolis peace and justice activists is a bad omen for everyone concerned about civil liberties. Regardless of where one stands on the political spectrum, left or right, abuse of power by the government is antithetical to the founding principles of America.

We are experiencing a teachable moment about the potential power of a left/right coalition. The time-tested technique of "divide and conquer," used by the establishment to maintain power, breaks down when they cannot divide the common interests of people on the left and right.

These recent FBI raids didn't go unnoticed by bloggers on the right, as evidenced by a post on http://conservativetimes.org/?p=6431, which displays the range of conservative views. True, you have some on the right who are partisans who can take anything, "Obama eats vanilla ice cream", and twist it into an anti-Obama conspiracy. But they aren't principled conservatives and can be dismissed. However, others on the right get it.

The calculus is simple; combine the numbers of people on the left with the numbers on the right who share principled views on limits of government power and the FBI could be facing a potent backlash.

Sources:

First published on Challenge the Establishment Blog.

September 29, 2010

FBI: Uniformed

I just wrote a post about how the FBI employees are so uniformed that their biases are resulting in these raids on peace and social justice activist that tear at the fabric of our democracy... but poof! Blogger nixed it.

Bottom Line: We need to insist that one response to the Department of Justice General Inspector reports is that a major awareness training is conducted for FBI employees about the history of labor struggles, Palestinian struggles, US intervention in Central and South America, etc.

Nuf said for now.

For Your Convenience:

Contact the Broadcast Media
Contact the Newspapers
Contact the US Senate
Contact the House of Representatives

Sources:

September 25, 2010

Mideast Surrender Negotiations: Part 2

The number of Google search results for a phrase isn't a scientific survey or anything, but it is one measure of the sketchy term "buzz." So in writing this blog post I looked up the phrase Mideast Peace Negotiations with the following result:

The number, 578,000, seemed a bit low to me, having done other searches and seen results in the millions. Maybe this is the punchline of my ramblings... that the search result number is low; however, I more-or-less shrugged at that observation.

Then, having written in Spring 2008 about "Mideast Surrender Negotiations" I searched for that term. I literally jumped in my seat when I saw the number of Google search results:

How can it be that there are 2,930,000 results about surrender negotiations when we're being told these are peace negotiations?

This is all a side-track of my original intent, which is to re-visit the sense I have that these so-called "peace" negotiations have a feel of being surrender negotiations. I'll do that in my next post.

September 23, 2010

We're Not too Enthusiastic about Some Acts

Since when have the Dismalcrats acted like they stand for something principled? OK, we're aware of FDR's New Deal, and Jimmy Carter's stance on human rights, tho he's the one for whom the Carter Doctrine on the Middle East is named:

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. - State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980

George Bush can claim that he was simply maintaining consistency with a long-held US doctrine voiced by President Carter.

I highlight the word "acted" in my opening sentence, initially thinking of the synonym "to behave", as in "actions are louder than words." But, there's another use of the word as in, "Ronald Reagan was an actor" .... he acted... as in "make-believe" both in the movies and the White House.

That's what we're seeing with Democrats, and Republicans and the establishment in general, be they conservative or liberal. It's becoming part of the fabric of American culture, instilled by our TV culture. They say lots of nice sounding phrases like "Healthy Forest legislation", and "we're getting tough on Wall Street," and they even act the part.

Another example that comes to mind was an early sign of how Obama would act if he became President... there's that pesky word again. You might recalled the incident during the last presidential campaign when Obama advisor Austin Gouldsby was caught telling corporations not to worry about Obama's statements regarding renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); Gouldsby assured the business establishment that Obama was just rattling the saber on NAFTA to gain popular support.

So, we've had half-measures from the Obama administration at best and sell-outs to the powers on Wall Street and the healthcare industry as well. Is it any wonder why there is an "enthusiasm gap" in the upcoming elections?

September 22, 2010

Right Wing Radicals Slinging Class Warfare Mud

Since including some clips of Glenn Greenwald in the last GDAE Podcast I've been digging a little deeper into his work. I came across the following and, though out of context, thought it worthy of sharing:

For as long as I can remember -- decades -- I've been hearing that the new incarnation of the GOP is far more radical and dangerous than anything that preceded it, and it tragically threatens to banish the previously Reasonable, Serious, Adult version of that party. That was certainly said about Ronald Reagan, as he argued for the elimination of the Department of Education, brought in cabinet officials like Ed Meese and Jim Watt, catered to Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, and nominated people like Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. That was certainly said about the Gingrich-led GOP of the 90s, with their Contract with America, obsessions with law-enforced morality, and impeachment of Bill Clinton. And it was said over and over about the Bush/Cheney era that ushered in the Iraq War, the torture regime, broad executive lawlessness, and an endless roster of vapid, know-nothing ideologues and religious fanatics in the highest positions.

Given all that, I'd really like to hear what it is about Christine O'Donnell, or Sharron Angle, or any of these other candidates that sets them apart from decades of radical right-wing elected officials who came before them? They seem far more similar to me than different. When was this idealized era of GOP Adult Reasonableness?

The context was a blog post, entitled "The misguided reaction to Tea Party candidates," which explores how "ruling class" conservatives look down their collective noses at the likes of Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell. These elites claim that Palin and O'Donnell are particularly "radical;" however, Greenwald exposes the hypocrisy of "radicals" from the elite class labeling "radicals" from lesser class strata.

The excerpts above seemed to sum it up for me. It seems that the right wing radicals are slinging class warfare mud, but don't even realize it. Thanks to Glenn Greenwald for pointing it out.

Sources:

Salon dot Com, Glenn Greenwald Blog

September 18, 2010

GDAE Podcast - Episode 33

Common Interests on the Left & Right - Part IV

Principled and Unprincipled Conservatives: Will Bunch, Author of "The Backlash: Right-Wing Radicals, High-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama," on the Tea Party movement and the recent primary elections.

Principled and Unprincipled Liberals: Glenn Greenwald, former constitutional and civil rights litigator now writer and blogger.

Prosecute Bush... and Obama?: Ideological consistency of "principled" people on the Left and Right should reach the same conclusion about Bush and Obama administrations; they both abuse power. Glenn Greenwald commentary.

MUSIC: "You're American" by Brian Fox .

Play Episode 33 from this page:

Click to Download Episode 33.

Listen to Part III in the series, Episode 32:

Listen to Part II in the series, Episode 31:

Listen to Part I in the series, Episode 30, (20-minute abridged version):

September 16, 2010

Power of Principled People on the Left and Right

I continue to explore a subject that is summed up in the question,

"Do populists on the left and right have enough in common that they could join together and challenge the status quo establishment?"

I'm not talking about political party "bi-partisianship" in Washington. I'm referring to activists who advance positive change on the basis of promoting principled values and not necessarily through party politics.

The notion of "principled" seems to be a core concept that helps define what I'm talking about above. When I say "principled" I mean that they have consistent political views. Their ideology is consistent. Because, when somebody espouses what is supposed to be a core value, like saying that "freedom means minimal government intrusion in our lives," but then turns around and supports capital punishment at the hands of the same bumbling, corrupt, excessive government they want to limit.... I see it as inconsistent at best and perhaps even hypocritical.... they certainly aren't principled in their political views, because they are flip-flopping on their principles.

Since I come at this subject from the Left, my perspective is to ask the question,

"Which people on the right could be partners with people on the left?"

and up crops the answer,

"principled people who share common concerns about abuse of power in our country. People who are concerned that our democratic ideals are being subverted."

More on this: Examples of Left/Right Collaboration to Give Power to the People

Sources:

First posted on Challenge the Establishment Blog.

September 14, 2010

The Revolutionary Mood

Don't ya get the feeling we're heading toward a revolution? Everything is broken and everything is connected, so the only real fixes involve fixing everything.

Only half-measures are being taken at best, and we're so deep in the hole that full-measures might actually push us over the brink.

The nation is divided and the extreme right is.... giving me the willies... how 'bout you?

Then there are the other Americans, believing the evening news and, blaming themselves for making bad financial choices as if that explains the economic predicament.

Meanwhile, those in the establishment are enriching themselves, and gathering behind the humongous security network, in preparation for the coming debacle.

What did I forget? Oh yea. The match.

Source:

These thoughts paraphrase the thoughts of Czarist Prince Peter Kropotkin's "Spirit of Revolt" 1880.

Posted originally on Challenge the Establishment Blog

Inspired by GLH Blog Post "Voting in New York Sucks."

September 11, 2010

Mideast Peace Talks

More like Palestinian surrender negotiations.

September 7, 2010

Un-Tapped Power-Block

Connecting the dots back to the last post,

People are rejecting both parties. The quick reversal of public support for the Democratic Party ... reveals something deeper. ... general repulsion of the establishment political parties by a large swath of the public has not yet become an accepted part of the mainstream narrative. ... This is in part because the establishment media controls the narrative to a large extent.

Which is where we left it.

The corporate media are intertwined with the political establishment that is being rejected by more and more people. The political establishment has become impotent and people don't want half-measures. The media, drinking from the same punch bowl of celebrity and money, do a dance of poking and prodding the political establishment, but they also employ half-measures; we don't get quality news.

It seems that polls suggest people reject the media establishment too, but then it also seems that people still tune in to it and parrot it. (Is there some TV-addiction involved?). Perhaps the growing media reform movement will become more popularized and create a ground swell of the public tuning out; effectively boycotting TV.

This scenario might be more plausible than first meets the eye. One reason is that media reform is a topic that appeals to both the left and right wings; it's a cross-over subject. That means there is a natural block of people whose numbers are larger than on other issues that split the left and right.

Other examples include opposition to the financial bailouts with no strings attached, the call to audit the Federal Reserve that gained a unanimous vote in the US Senate, numerous civil liberties issues like the government spying on US citizens and the erosion of Habeas Corpus, just to name a few. On these subjects, there is a history of the left and right coming together in a power-block.

I think this power-block, despite its natural instabilities, has significant untapped potential that could be organized.

I'll leave it there for now, but if you're curious about this topic, check out More on the Left and Right Joining Forces.

For Your Convenience:

Contact the Broadcast Media
Contact the Newspapers
Contact the US Senate
Contact the House of Representatives

Sources:

First published on Challenge the Establishment blog.

September 3, 2010

Obama's Bad Numbers: Sign of Something Deeper

It's true that the poll numbers about mid-term election losses could be wrong; but for argument sake, lets assume that the majority of the voting public is now leaning towards the Republicans, or more accurately, leaning away from the Democrats. That's a quick turn-around just two years after removing the Republicans from power in the White House and Congress.

The quick reversal of public support for the Democratic Party is evidence that a large portion of common people have little allegiance to either party. No news there. However, the sense that people are leaning away from the Democrats after having just rejected the Republicans in 2008 says something deeper. People are rejecting both parties.

This also isn't news. Most of the news has been about Tea Party activists rejecting establishment Republican candidates; however, it wasn't long after the 2008 election of Barack Obama that people were predicting he would loose his base of support if he took the corporate track. Obama has taken the corporate track on the bail outs, health care and financial reform. Now the predictions are coming true, including Gallup poll figures showing a lack of enthusiasm among people registered as Democrats; Obama has lost many of his ground troops for getting out the vote.

The loss of Congressional seats by the dominant party during a mid-term elections is a decades old pattern and much has been said of this. What has not been said much is that this back-and-fourth is a sign of the public rejecting both establishment political parties, but having little other choice. This insight of a general repulsion of the establishment political parties by a large swath of the public has not yet become an accepted part of the mainstream narrative. This is in part because the establishment media controls the narrative to a large extent.

That's the setting, or the political landscape. Where do things go from here? That's a topic for another post.

Sources:

First Posted at Challenge the Establishment Blog.

November 14, 2010

November 13, 2010

November 12, 2010

November 10, 2010

November 7, 2010

November 3, 2010

November 2, 2010

October 26, 2010

October 25, 2010

October 24, 2010

October 23, 2010

October 18, 2010

October 9, 2010

October 4, 2010

October 1, 2010

September 30, 2010

September 29, 2010

September 25, 2010

September 23, 2010

September 22, 2010

September 18, 2010

September 16, 2010

September 14, 2010

September 11, 2010

September 7, 2010

September 3, 2010

About Me

Followers

GDAE Podcast

Hand-Picked Links

Business Econ Links

Blog Archive

Visitors

Podcast Directories

Social News Sites