Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of The Nation, has written an opinion piece in The Washington Post titled Progressives Must Work to Retake the Supreme Court.
After having read the piece, I must say that Katrina shows a clear lack of understanding of the U.S. constitutional system. The U.S. Supreme Court is, by design, a reactionary institution whose function is to limit the power of the most democratic branch of government (Congress). And while, historically, there are instances of socially progressive Court decisions, by and large, the institution's primary function is to protect and promote the interests of corporate America. Just look at the current composition of the court: eight out of nine justices are pro-corporate individuals. These include Obama's appointments.
Also, the right-wing nature of the institution notwithstanding, if Katrina vanden Heuvel wants to be taken seriously she needs to be more candid about who she wants to retake the Court from whom; advocating for Obama's re-elections implies the socially liberal corporatists (Dems) v. socially conservative corporatists (Reps) dichotomy. If, instead, she means that the People need to retake the Supreme Court, then she should advocate electing a president by the people rather than by the corporations such as Obama.
Only when we elect a president who truly represents the people, we can talk about retaking the Supreme Court. Until then, the cries by the likes of Katrina vanden Heuvel are simply scare tactics to make people vote for Obama and the corporate state. This is why in the current presidential election, I will vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party.
(To those who chastise voters who vote their conscience rather than voting for the lesser-of-two-evils – itself an oxymoron, given Obama's pitiful record – I say this: if you vote Democratic thinking that the Democratic party is going to take your vote as anything other than a full endorsement of their policies, you clearly do not understand electoral politics. Because, make no mistake, after every election parties look at results very carefully, including those of smaller parties. Any spillover in any direction is assessed and, if considered worrisome, addressed by modifying the party's message to include those voters' concerns. If you don't believe me, just look at how much time both major parties spend courting the so-called independents.)
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
US Soldiers Kill Afghan Civilians in Rogue Attack
Up to three drunken soldiers took part in the attacks taking the lives of up to sixteen civilians including nine children. This is what war does to people. This is what those who vote for Democrats and Republicans vote for. We've lost our way. Somebody help us.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Elizabeth Warren for Imperial Senate
This week I was not terribly surprised to learn that Elizabeth Warren, one of the darlings of the progressive left, has capitulated to the needs of Empire in her race for the US Senate. At the bottom of the National Security / Foreign Policy page of her campaign website it reads:
Never mind that the consensus of the top US military and intelligence agencies is that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons: United States Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said on Face the Nation: "[Is Iran] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No." Voice of America wrote yesterday: "Secretary Clinton says the U.S. intelligence community believes Iran has not yet decided to produce a nuclear weapon." The New York Times of February 24 reports:
Thus the questions arise: how can a champion of economic justice in the United States be so blatantly out of touch with reality when it comes to foreign policy? How can someone who fights against the big financial conglomerates support the big military/industrial conglomerates? Is there any integrity left in our political system? And finally, have we as a nation become so dependent on Empire that we really don't care about what our government does in our name as long as we have food on our table?
It is obvious that Warren is an extremely intelligent and knowledgeable person and for this reason we need to come to terms with the fact that her decision to go against the consensus on this issue is politically calculated. Warren and her advisors must believe they need to be hawkish on foreign policy in order to win the election. But to be hawkish doesn't mean to be foolish. When you blatantly go against the military and intelligence consensus of your own party's Administration because you believe that that would make you more electable you simply look foolish and opportunistic.
Since an image is worth a thousand words here is a map in response to Warren's preposterous claim that "Iran is a significant threat to the United States" and its allies which shows Iran almost completely encircled by US military bases:
Which begs the question: who is threatening whom Ms. Warren?
I am sure Warren and her handlers must have done their research, polling and focus groups, but does she really believe that people who support her on economic justice will feel energized by her belligerent imperial rhetoric against Iran? Or, as I postulated above, does she really think that we, the American people, are passively going to accept the faustian deal that in order to maintain our lifestyle we must subjugate the rest of the world?
I guess I have more questions than answers, but does Warren believe that the Occupy movement cannot or does not want to make the connection between militarism overseas and repression of first amendment rights at home? And on this topic, I'd like to take a moment to point out something that doesn't seem to get much airplay, at least so far. As a matter of fact, this really deserves its own diary (and I hope someone will pick it up before I do so) but I will put it here for the time being since I believe it is connected to the increased militarization of our national discourse.
Last night I learned of the Trespass Bill (H.R. 347), which was voted by the House of Representatives almost unanimously (388-to-3) and which gives the government the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest under the guise of protecting government officials. There is almost complete silence in the US media about this bill which has passed both chambers of Congress, but RT reports:
Is this the country that we and Warren want to live in? Have we reached the point where our politicians believe that we are so selfish and greedy that as long as we have a job and money to shop we will relinquish all our responsibilities to a government that subjugates any country that does not fall in line with its interests or any American who happens to disagree with its policies?
The bright side is that the USSR has already fallen over the assumption that all that people want is a full belly and a roof over their head. And for this reason, I simply find it crude and narrow minded for a would be politician such as Warren to run on a platform that relies on the cognitive dissonance that we can be fair to each other as we bully everyone else in the world. As Occupy continues to show, love, compassion, empathy and solidarity - not just here but everywhere - are the ways of the future if the world is to have a future at all.
And so I will conclude this diary with the Occupy Wall St. video aptly titled The Revolution Is Love:
Iran is a significant threat to the United States and our allies. Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, it is an active state sponsor of terrorism, and its leaders have consistently challenged Israel’s right to exist. Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is unacceptable because a nuclear Iran would be a threat to the United States, our allies, the region, and the world. The United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I support strong sanctions against Iran and believe that the United States must also continue to take a leadership role in pushing other countries to implement strong sanctions as well. Iran must not have an escape hatch.
Never mind that the consensus of the top US military and intelligence agencies is that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons: United States Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said on Face the Nation: "[Is Iran] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No." Voice of America wrote yesterday: "Secretary Clinton says the U.S. intelligence community believes Iran has not yet decided to produce a nuclear weapon." The New York Times of February 24 reports:
Recent assessments by American spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier, according to current and former American officials. The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies.
Thus the questions arise: how can a champion of economic justice in the United States be so blatantly out of touch with reality when it comes to foreign policy? How can someone who fights against the big financial conglomerates support the big military/industrial conglomerates? Is there any integrity left in our political system? And finally, have we as a nation become so dependent on Empire that we really don't care about what our government does in our name as long as we have food on our table?
It is obvious that Warren is an extremely intelligent and knowledgeable person and for this reason we need to come to terms with the fact that her decision to go against the consensus on this issue is politically calculated. Warren and her advisors must believe they need to be hawkish on foreign policy in order to win the election. But to be hawkish doesn't mean to be foolish. When you blatantly go against the military and intelligence consensus of your own party's Administration because you believe that that would make you more electable you simply look foolish and opportunistic.
Since an image is worth a thousand words here is a map in response to Warren's preposterous claim that "Iran is a significant threat to the United States" and its allies which shows Iran almost completely encircled by US military bases:
Which begs the question: who is threatening whom Ms. Warren?
I am sure Warren and her handlers must have done their research, polling and focus groups, but does she really believe that people who support her on economic justice will feel energized by her belligerent imperial rhetoric against Iran? Or, as I postulated above, does she really think that we, the American people, are passively going to accept the faustian deal that in order to maintain our lifestyle we must subjugate the rest of the world?
I guess I have more questions than answers, but does Warren believe that the Occupy movement cannot or does not want to make the connection between militarism overseas and repression of first amendment rights at home? And on this topic, I'd like to take a moment to point out something that doesn't seem to get much airplay, at least so far. As a matter of fact, this really deserves its own diary (and I hope someone will pick it up before I do so) but I will put it here for the time being since I believe it is connected to the increased militarization of our national discourse.
Last night I learned of the Trespass Bill (H.R. 347), which was voted by the House of Representatives almost unanimously (388-to-3) and which gives the government the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest under the guise of protecting government officials. There is almost complete silence in the US media about this bill which has passed both chambers of Congress, but RT reports:
United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, “The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal.”
“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights,” adds the representative.
Is this the country that we and Warren want to live in? Have we reached the point where our politicians believe that we are so selfish and greedy that as long as we have a job and money to shop we will relinquish all our responsibilities to a government that subjugates any country that does not fall in line with its interests or any American who happens to disagree with its policies?
The bright side is that the USSR has already fallen over the assumption that all that people want is a full belly and a roof over their head. And for this reason, I simply find it crude and narrow minded for a would be politician such as Warren to run on a platform that relies on the cognitive dissonance that we can be fair to each other as we bully everyone else in the world. As Occupy continues to show, love, compassion, empathy and solidarity - not just here but everywhere - are the ways of the future if the world is to have a future at all.
And so I will conclude this diary with the Occupy Wall St. video aptly titled The Revolution Is Love:
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Krugman and the Truth About the 1% That Can't Be Spoken
I have been participating in OWS with increased intensity over the course of the last two months. The defining moment for me was the illegal and brutal eviction on November, 15. One of the things that I liked about the Freedom Plaza encampment was the Think Tank discussion: people from all walks of life gathering together in a public space discussing openly about the inadequacies of capitalism.
Today's New York Times op-ed by Paul Krugman The Post-Truth Campaign reminded me of these discussions particularly in terms of certain ideological tenets that seem so engrained into our collective unconscious even in the face of the starkest of realities. In this regard, Krugman opens his essay by positing the following:
Krugman goes on to say that such a statement would be universally condemned by almost everyone, including himself, and much of the essay is dedicated to creating a moral equivalence between the statement above and the continuous charges coming from Republicans about Obama being a redistributive socialist. He continues by wondering why the latter statements do not meet a condemnation similar to that which the former would receive if Obama, or anyone else for that matter, would dare uttering it.
As the title of his piece summarizes, Krugman describes this type of environment the Post-Truth Campaign.
While Krugman should be thanked for putting his finger on a praxis that has become pretty much the modus operandi of political discourse, his underlying ideological tenets don't seem to alert the Princeton economist to the fact that he has lured himself into an logical fallacy. If the idea of a post-truth political environment is assumed to be true – as I believe it has been for at least a decade – then Obama should be able to say that Mitt Romney, the embodiment of the 1%, wants to reduce middle-class Americans to serfs without causing any particular uproar in the establishment community. For this reason, the fact that he can't say it is proof that the statement is true: the 1% wants to reduce middle-class Americans to serfs, forced to accept whatever wages corporations choose to pay, no matter how low.
One of the primary goals of capitalism is to reduce labor costs. According to Marx's concept of surplus value, the lower the wages the higher the profits for capital. This is why the 1% has historically being opposed to unions or anyone and anything (i.e. minimum wage legislation) that would champion workers' wages. In the post-truth age, the increase of surplus value is called an increase in productivity. This is an euphemism for laying off workers while putting the extra work on the shoulders of remaining workers who must work longer ours without having their salaries raised.
If we take this tendency of capitalism to maximize profit by minimizing labor costs to its logical conclusion, it follows that the ideal wage from a capitalist's standpoint is zero. And what do we call someone who works for free or perhaps for simply food and shelter? That is a serf or, in other words, a slave. For this reason, it can be said that serfdom and slavery are an intrinsic tendency of capitalism because they represent the ultimate zero-level labor cost.
Yet, many in this country – including Krugman and those who I sometimes happened to converse with in the Think Tank discussions at Freedom Plaza – seem to not be able to grasp this simple reality. It's as if it is not possible for many people to accept that in America there are people, the 1%, who would have no qualms to return this country to the middle-ages or even earlier, more brutal forms of slavery. This resistance is perhaps rooted in the positivist idea of inevitable human progress, the idea that we could never go back to certain forms of barbarism. Yet, history is full of examples of regress – the middle-ages being only one the most glaring. Even Krugman admitted so much in an op-ed earlier this year when he wrote that the country was well on its way of becoming a banana republic.
The fact is that many Americans still seem unable to accept that given the chance the 1% would gladly turn this country into a Honduran style republic, where a tiny oligarchy which controls most of the wealth uses the government and death squads as a tool to repress a population of mostly peasants. Yet, the signs of this coming reality are all around us if one only cares to look:
– The absolute impunity of Wall Street executives in the greatest plunder of wealth in human history.
– A defense (sic) bill that enables the executive to deploy the military in the United States to arrest and detain Americans indefinitely.
– A 1% whose wealth has reached 1929 levels of concentration and which is thrusting the country into a depression.
I could go on and on but the point is simple: rather than being an imaginary statement, the truth about the 1% that can't be spoken is that they sense an historic opportunity and they are pursuing it with a vengeance: turning working people into serfs. Krugman even alluded to that much when he said that the Troika is now trying to destroy the European dream. On this, economist Dean Baker concurs. The truth is that, if they succeed, we are next.
Today's New York Times op-ed by Paul Krugman The Post-Truth Campaign reminded me of these discussions particularly in terms of certain ideological tenets that seem so engrained into our collective unconscious even in the face of the starkest of realities. In this regard, Krugman opens his essay by positing the following:
Suppose that President Obama were to say the following: “Mitt Romney believes that corporations are people, and he believes that only corporations and the wealthy should have any rights. He wants to reduce middle-class Americans to serfs, forced to accept whatever wages corporations choose to pay, no matter how low.”
Krugman goes on to say that such a statement would be universally condemned by almost everyone, including himself, and much of the essay is dedicated to creating a moral equivalence between the statement above and the continuous charges coming from Republicans about Obama being a redistributive socialist. He continues by wondering why the latter statements do not meet a condemnation similar to that which the former would receive if Obama, or anyone else for that matter, would dare uttering it.
As the title of his piece summarizes, Krugman describes this type of environment the Post-Truth Campaign.
While Krugman should be thanked for putting his finger on a praxis that has become pretty much the modus operandi of political discourse, his underlying ideological tenets don't seem to alert the Princeton economist to the fact that he has lured himself into an logical fallacy. If the idea of a post-truth political environment is assumed to be true – as I believe it has been for at least a decade – then Obama should be able to say that Mitt Romney, the embodiment of the 1%, wants to reduce middle-class Americans to serfs without causing any particular uproar in the establishment community. For this reason, the fact that he can't say it is proof that the statement is true: the 1% wants to reduce middle-class Americans to serfs, forced to accept whatever wages corporations choose to pay, no matter how low.
One of the primary goals of capitalism is to reduce labor costs. According to Marx's concept of surplus value, the lower the wages the higher the profits for capital. This is why the 1% has historically being opposed to unions or anyone and anything (i.e. minimum wage legislation) that would champion workers' wages. In the post-truth age, the increase of surplus value is called an increase in productivity. This is an euphemism for laying off workers while putting the extra work on the shoulders of remaining workers who must work longer ours without having their salaries raised.
If we take this tendency of capitalism to maximize profit by minimizing labor costs to its logical conclusion, it follows that the ideal wage from a capitalist's standpoint is zero. And what do we call someone who works for free or perhaps for simply food and shelter? That is a serf or, in other words, a slave. For this reason, it can be said that serfdom and slavery are an intrinsic tendency of capitalism because they represent the ultimate zero-level labor cost.
Yet, many in this country – including Krugman and those who I sometimes happened to converse with in the Think Tank discussions at Freedom Plaza – seem to not be able to grasp this simple reality. It's as if it is not possible for many people to accept that in America there are people, the 1%, who would have no qualms to return this country to the middle-ages or even earlier, more brutal forms of slavery. This resistance is perhaps rooted in the positivist idea of inevitable human progress, the idea that we could never go back to certain forms of barbarism. Yet, history is full of examples of regress – the middle-ages being only one the most glaring. Even Krugman admitted so much in an op-ed earlier this year when he wrote that the country was well on its way of becoming a banana republic.
The fact is that many Americans still seem unable to accept that given the chance the 1% would gladly turn this country into a Honduran style republic, where a tiny oligarchy which controls most of the wealth uses the government and death squads as a tool to repress a population of mostly peasants. Yet, the signs of this coming reality are all around us if one only cares to look:
– The absolute impunity of Wall Street executives in the greatest plunder of wealth in human history.
– A defense (sic) bill that enables the executive to deploy the military in the United States to arrest and detain Americans indefinitely.
– A 1% whose wealth has reached 1929 levels of concentration and which is thrusting the country into a depression.
I could go on and on but the point is simple: rather than being an imaginary statement, the truth about the 1% that can't be spoken is that they sense an historic opportunity and they are pursuing it with a vengeance: turning working people into serfs. Krugman even alluded to that much when he said that the Troika is now trying to destroy the European dream. On this, economist Dean Baker concurs. The truth is that, if they succeed, we are next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)