Subject: Even more on Obama's speech
I never figured out if George Bush II thought he was "talking down
to the people", or if he'd been AWOL during English classes.
But Barak Obama knows English, and knows how to speak and present a positive
case.
Yesterday was a good example of his ability to manipulate a pile of Fluff
and present it as if he were really saying something.
But I struggled for about three minutes with the Republican response. How
embarrassing! I went out and joined Cathy watching re-runs of, Everybody
Loves Raymond. A much more productive use of my time.
Carl Jarvis
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
More on Obama's speech
Subject: More on Obama's speech
This need to wave the flag and shout our support for the good old USA is
both annoying and nonproductive.
Is the message that Carl Jarvis is less Patriotic because he criticizes his
nation's short-comings, as opposed to those who ignore the nation's faults
and chant, "We are wonderful, we are the best"?
When I worked for the Washington State Department of Services for the Blind,
we would contract with a firm that did a complete Program and Case review,
looking for problem areas that needed our attention.
My job was to take all of this material and walk the director through it, so
she could understand where we were and provide appropriate leadership.
To my way of thinking, this was a very valuable service. If you don't seek
out your soft spots, hunt down overlooked pieces of the big puzzle that
constituted the Department, how could we expect to improve our performance
and better serve our clients? It was the director's job to go before the
world and brag about how wonderful we were. But she had to know where the
cracks were, and know how she planned to fix them. This director, like
most, did not want to be side swiped because someone had forgotten to inform
her of an issue.
But one of my assistants, the fellow in charge of the VR Field Services, saw
any short comings in our review as a statement that he was not doing his
job. He was afraid of the director and only presented positive reports. No
matter how many times I took him aside and explained what I needed from him
in his reports, he simply could not allow himself to "look bad". I never
challenged him in our open meetings, but I had the extra duty of going
privately to the director and discussing what he'd left out of his reports.
Now, would you say that this man was doing his agency and his clients a good
service?
To my way of thinking, this is what we witnessed yesterday evening.
Golly gee, just a few little tweaks and we're still Number One.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
To: "'Blind Democracy Discussion List'" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:27 AM
Subject: RE: Obama's speech
And also, there was no mention of the NSA, not a word! And although most
Americans may feel it's patriotic to talk about how we are bigger and better
than anyone else and will continue to be so, and how we must beat the
competition which means all those other countries, I find it embarrassing as
an American to hear my President speak like that publicly. I am also
embarrassed by Obama's attempts to relate to "the common man" by mentioning
all these individual Americans by name, as examples of the point he is
trying to make; the woman whose unemployment benefits have run out, the
veteran who was so terribly wounded by war, the woman whose insurance began
on January 1 and needed surgery on January 3. I wonder if I listened to
FDR's speeches, if I would feel that he is talking down to his audience in
the same way.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 12:08 AM
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
Subject: Re: Obama's speech
fluff. Pie in the sky.
Obama, the magician has demonstrated the greatest trick of the year. He
shoves his head in the sand and still can articulate clearly.
But what he says is all fluff and no substance.
Okay, so he's going to raise federal contractors wages to $10.10 per hour.
Out in little old SeaTac they've gone him fifty percent better already.
$15, per hour.
But not one word about that pesky pipe line he was going to deal with last
year. Nothing about the sell out to the Pacific Trade Treaty. No worry
about the increasing pressure from billionaires bank accounts funding
politicians and backing certain legislation, or attacking unwanted
legislation.
All general talk, just like the last time he stood up and promised us all a
piece of the Moon, and a slice of grandma's home made apple pie.
And then I tried listening to the Republican rebuttal. I wanted to see how
a local representative would challenge what the president said. As she
began spouting her own platitudes and waving her own American/Republican
Flag, I became embarrassed. I mean, I'm an Eastern Washington product, born
in Spokane. My mother was born in Spokane, too, so was her mother. And my
great grandma came to Spokane when she was six years old, in 1875.
Anyway, I'm supposed to go to bed, resting in the knowledge that we are
bigger and better and safer than we've ever been.
But this nagging little voice keeps telling me that we're just being
suckered in by the amazing Wizard of Oz.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
To: "'Blind Democracy Discussion List'" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:02 PM
Subject: Obama's speech
I listened to it on the Green party website and then I heard a bit of the
Green Party commentary. Nothing that the Green Party said was a surprise.
Nothing that Obama said was a surprise either. The only meat in the speech
was the $10.10 an hour for federal contract workers. He mentioned all kinds
of issues and said things that would draw approving applause. He danced
around the TPP without ever mentioning it. He chided the Republicans for
their misguided behavior like a kind schoolteacher, something he's done
before. He took piles of you know what, and covered them with roses and then
displayed them as beautiful. He talked about how we are now ending a war
that has lasted for almost 12 years, as if we'd accomplished something. It
was really a bizarre experience, listening to that speech and it is bizarre
that all of the progressive emails I received, joyfully touted that $10.10
as if we'd won a huge battle. I started figuring out what it would be like
for a family to live on that if one person was working at that job for 40
hours a week.
Miriam
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
This need to wave the flag and shout our support for the good old USA is
both annoying and nonproductive.
Is the message that Carl Jarvis is less Patriotic because he criticizes his
nation's short-comings, as opposed to those who ignore the nation's faults
and chant, "We are wonderful, we are the best"?
When I worked for the Washington State Department of Services for the Blind,
we would contract with a firm that did a complete Program and Case review,
looking for problem areas that needed our attention.
My job was to take all of this material and walk the director through it, so
she could understand where we were and provide appropriate leadership.
To my way of thinking, this was a very valuable service. If you don't seek
out your soft spots, hunt down overlooked pieces of the big puzzle that
constituted the Department, how could we expect to improve our performance
and better serve our clients? It was the director's job to go before the
world and brag about how wonderful we were. But she had to know where the
cracks were, and know how she planned to fix them. This director, like
most, did not want to be side swiped because someone had forgotten to inform
her of an issue.
But one of my assistants, the fellow in charge of the VR Field Services, saw
any short comings in our review as a statement that he was not doing his
job. He was afraid of the director and only presented positive reports. No
matter how many times I took him aside and explained what I needed from him
in his reports, he simply could not allow himself to "look bad". I never
challenged him in our open meetings, but I had the extra duty of going
privately to the director and discussing what he'd left out of his reports.
Now, would you say that this man was doing his agency and his clients a good
service?
To my way of thinking, this is what we witnessed yesterday evening.
Golly gee, just a few little tweaks and we're still Number One.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
To: "'Blind Democracy Discussion List'" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:27 AM
Subject: RE: Obama's speech
And also, there was no mention of the NSA, not a word! And although most
Americans may feel it's patriotic to talk about how we are bigger and better
than anyone else and will continue to be so, and how we must beat the
competition which means all those other countries, I find it embarrassing as
an American to hear my President speak like that publicly. I am also
embarrassed by Obama's attempts to relate to "the common man" by mentioning
all these individual Americans by name, as examples of the point he is
trying to make; the woman whose unemployment benefits have run out, the
veteran who was so terribly wounded by war, the woman whose insurance began
on January 1 and needed surgery on January 3. I wonder if I listened to
FDR's speeches, if I would feel that he is talking down to his audience in
the same way.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 12:08 AM
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
Subject: Re: Obama's speech
fluff. Pie in the sky.
Obama, the magician has demonstrated the greatest trick of the year. He
shoves his head in the sand and still can articulate clearly.
But what he says is all fluff and no substance.
Okay, so he's going to raise federal contractors wages to $10.10 per hour.
Out in little old SeaTac they've gone him fifty percent better already.
$15, per hour.
But not one word about that pesky pipe line he was going to deal with last
year. Nothing about the sell out to the Pacific Trade Treaty. No worry
about the increasing pressure from billionaires bank accounts funding
politicians and backing certain legislation, or attacking unwanted
legislation.
All general talk, just like the last time he stood up and promised us all a
piece of the Moon, and a slice of grandma's home made apple pie.
And then I tried listening to the Republican rebuttal. I wanted to see how
a local representative would challenge what the president said. As she
began spouting her own platitudes and waving her own American/Republican
Flag, I became embarrassed. I mean, I'm an Eastern Washington product, born
in Spokane. My mother was born in Spokane, too, so was her mother. And my
great grandma came to Spokane when she was six years old, in 1875.
Anyway, I'm supposed to go to bed, resting in the knowledge that we are
bigger and better and safer than we've ever been.
But this nagging little voice keeps telling me that we're just being
suckered in by the amazing Wizard of Oz.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
To: "'Blind Democracy Discussion List'" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:02 PM
Subject: Obama's speech
I listened to it on the Green party website and then I heard a bit of the
Green Party commentary. Nothing that the Green Party said was a surprise.
Nothing that Obama said was a surprise either. The only meat in the speech
was the $10.10 an hour for federal contract workers. He mentioned all kinds
of issues and said things that would draw approving applause. He danced
around the TPP without ever mentioning it. He chided the Republicans for
their misguided behavior like a kind schoolteacher, something he's done
before. He took piles of you know what, and covered them with roses and then
displayed them as beautiful. He talked about how we are now ending a war
that has lasted for almost 12 years, as if we'd accomplished something. It
was really a bizarre experience, listening to that speech and it is bizarre
that all of the progressive emails I received, joyfully touted that $10.10
as if we'd won a huge battle. I started figuring out what it would be like
for a family to live on that if one person was working at that job for 40
hours a week.
Miriam
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
Obama's speech
Subject: Re: Obama's speech
fluff. Pie in the sky.
Obama, the magician has demonstrated the greatest trick of the year. He
shoves his head in the sand and still can articulate clearly.
But what he says is all fluff and no substance.
Okay, so he's going to raise federal contractors wages to $10.10 per hour.
Out in little old SeaTac they've gone him fifty percent better already.
$15, per hour.
But not one word about that pesky pipe line he was going to deal with last
year. Nothing about the sell out to the Pacific Trade Treaty. No worry
about the increasing pressure from billionaires bank accounts funding
politicians and backing certain legislation, or attacking unwanted
legislation.
All general talk, just like the last time he stood up and promised us all a
piece of the Moon, and a slice of grandma's home made apple pie.
And then I tried listening to the Republican rebuttal. I wanted to see how
a local representative would challenge what the president said. As she
began spouting her own platitudes and waving her own American/Republican
Flag, I became embarrassed. I mean, I'm an Eastern Washington product, born
in Spokane. My mother was born in Spokane, too, so was her mother. And my
great grandma came to Spokane when she was six years old, in 1875.
Anyway, I'm supposed to go to bed, resting in the knowledge that we are
bigger and better and safer than we've ever been.
But this nagging little voice keeps telling me that we're just being
suckered in by the amazing Wizard of Oz.
Carl Jarvis
fluff. Pie in the sky.
Obama, the magician has demonstrated the greatest trick of the year. He
shoves his head in the sand and still can articulate clearly.
But what he says is all fluff and no substance.
Okay, so he's going to raise federal contractors wages to $10.10 per hour.
Out in little old SeaTac they've gone him fifty percent better already.
$15, per hour.
But not one word about that pesky pipe line he was going to deal with last
year. Nothing about the sell out to the Pacific Trade Treaty. No worry
about the increasing pressure from billionaires bank accounts funding
politicians and backing certain legislation, or attacking unwanted
legislation.
All general talk, just like the last time he stood up and promised us all a
piece of the Moon, and a slice of grandma's home made apple pie.
And then I tried listening to the Republican rebuttal. I wanted to see how
a local representative would challenge what the president said. As she
began spouting her own platitudes and waving her own American/Republican
Flag, I became embarrassed. I mean, I'm an Eastern Washington product, born
in Spokane. My mother was born in Spokane, too, so was her mother. And my
great grandma came to Spokane when she was six years old, in 1875.
Anyway, I'm supposed to go to bed, resting in the knowledge that we are
bigger and better and safer than we've ever been.
But this nagging little voice keeps telling me that we're just being
suckered in by the amazing Wizard of Oz.
Carl Jarvis
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
The Cognitive Power of the President
the President
This is a great article. We need to send it far and wide. Urge everyone to
take up their teaspoon and bring a little sand to the bucket.
If the tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?
Even more certain is the knowledge that if no one speaks up, the Word will
not go out.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
To: "'Blind Democracy Discussion List'" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 7:16 PM
Subject: SOTU 2014: The Cognitive Power of the President
Lakoff writes: "There are enough people guessing what the president will do.
This is about what he almost certainly won't do, but what I would like him
to do."
President Barack Obama. (photo: Charles Dharapak/AP)
SOTU 2014: The Cognitive Power of the President
By George Lakoff, Reader Supported News
27 January 14
There are enough people guessing what the president will do. This is about
what he almost certainly won't do, but what I would like him to do.
The president has material power without the Congress, and personally, I
would like to see him use it. He could issue an executive order for the
government to grant contracts only to companies that pay their workers above
some higher minimum wage. Or he could reject the XL pipeline on two national
security grounds: its contribution to global warming and the dangers of
leaks, explosions; and he could stop the virtual pipeline of dangerous tar
sands and fracked oil shipments by train and waterway by insisting
immediately on safe puncture-proof tanks. He could direct federal agencies
to monitor and control dangerous chemical use and storage to prevent future
versions of the Great West Virginia Water Disaster. I would love to see him
act in dozens, if not hundreds, of areas for the public good, and give the
moral grounds in the SOTU.
Beyond material power, the president has even greater power -- cognitive
power -- and he hasn't used it much. Cognitive power is the power to put
important ideas in people's minds by shaping public discourse. He has the
unique power to change how America thinks simply by discussing crucial ideas
over and over.
American democracy is based on empathy -- citizens caring about other
citizens and working through their government to provide public resources
for all, making both decent lives and flourishing markets possible. He used
to speak of empathy as "the most important thing my mother taught me." But
he was misinterpreted by conservatives and dropped this most central idea.
He started talking, as Elisabeth Warren has so eloquently, about the crucial
nature of public resources, but he messed up once ("You didn't build it")
and stopped. He needs to take up that theme, get it right, and repeat it in
every speech.
We know he's going to talk about economic inequality, as he should. He will
probably mention worker salaries, which haven't risen in 30 years. But he
needs to state a simple truth: Workers are Profit Creators! Corporate
"productivity" -- the profit-per-worker -- has risen, but the profit
creators haven't been getting a fair share of the profits.
One of the reasons for low salaries is that out-of-work workers can't
bargain for fair wages as individuals. The absence, or weakening, of unions
leads to Wage Slavery: take what you are offered or someone else will. The
president needs to talk about Wage Slavery and how unions offer freedom from
wage slavery. This is a crucial idea missing from public discourse,
especially in states where conservatives are trying to legislate wage
slavery via so-called "Right to work laws," which are actually exploitation
laws. The president should be talking regularly about how unions contribute
to freedom -- and getting the unions themselves to talk about it. If the
idea isn't mentioned, it won't enter the public mind.
Next, pensions. Pensions are delayed payments for work already done. Say it,
Mr. President. When pensions are cut, the wages already earned by workers
are being stolen. Pension funds are often taken by companies and local
governments and spent on other things. That is theft. There needs to be
transparency -- public reporting yearly -- on what is being done with
pension funds. The president could issue and executive order that any
company, state, or municipality receiving money from the government must
adopt the transparency principle for pension funds.
The president has occasionally used the idea of investment where
conservatives talk of "spending." Drop "spending," Mr. President. When you
spend money, as when you buy a product, the money is gone. But when you
invest, the money is still there. Paying for early childhood education is a
wise major investment in the brains of our children. Remember that by the
time a child is five or six years old, half of his or her neural connections
have died off -- the half least used. A child's brain is shaped and
developed in those important pre-K years. Funding serious pre-K is one of
the most important investments out country could make. The investment isn't
gone. It is there in the child. Talk about brain shaping during pre-K, Mr.
President. Every one in the country should know about it.
Perhaps the most important cognitive power of the president concerns the
global extreme climate crisis. There are important ideas that need to be in
public discourse. First, nature is inside of us, not just outside, as the
world "environment" suggests. We breathe air, drink water, and eat food.
Pollutants and pesticides are in us, not somewhere else. They cause cancer
and other illnesses. In a drought, as in California right now, you need
water, clean water, to drink and raise food. IN a major hurricane, water is
can be deadly and devastating. Nature is in and around us, and supports all
life. Don't destroy it, poison it, or turn it into a destroyer.
Coal, oil, and natural gas are immoral fuels, dirty fuels. Say it. Our
planet, the only one we have -- nature itself -- is being sacrificed for
short-term private profit. Yet, our government is negotiating a trade
agreement that could outlaw all environmental laws, since it lets foreign
nations sue when state or local environmental laws cut the corporate profits
of foreign-owned corporations. It would be devastating to democracy,
politically, since it gives up the sovereignty of our own people over their
own lives. Don't give in and repeatedly tell us why you are you won't
fast-track that treaty.
You can't drink oil! Protect our water supplies from fracking, which both
uses a huge amount of water per well, puts vast amounts of poison in that
water, endangering water supplies. You can't drink oil. Say it, Mr.
President.
Species Are Us! We are part of the continuum of life with all species. Bees
matter. Don't let them die off. Songbirds matter. Frogs matter. Salmon
matter.
Invite to the SOTU 10 prominent pro-football players who have gotten
lifelong brain damage from concussions received in football. Have them stand
up in the balcony.
Finally, read labels out loud, Mr. President. Harmful chemicals are not just
stored near West Virginia rivers. They are in our food, our cosmetics, and
our toiletries. Use the Good Guide App in your SOTU and have Dara O'Rourke
stand up and take a bow for inventing it. Introduce to the American people
the idea of ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS, chemicals that affect hormones. Read the
Environmental Working Groups list of the dirty dozen, the 12 most dangerous,
and tell everyone where they show up in your refrigerator, larder and
medicine cabinet. Make sure Endocrine Disruptors are labeled as such, with a
brief note pointing out that they affect hormones. Contribute to the health
of our military and their families by an executive order keeping major
endocrine disruptors off the shelves of PX's and military hospitals. The
cognitive and material powers can sometimes work hand-in-hand.
Cognitive powers may seem small, but used over time they can have major
effects.
________________________________________
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
President Barack Obama. (photo: Charles Dharapak/AP)
http://www.readersupportednews.org/http://www.readersupportednews.org/
SOTU 2014: The Cognitive Power of the President
By George Lakoff, Reader Supported News
27 January 14
here are enough people guessing what the president will do. This is about
what he almost certainly won't do, but what I would like him to do.
The president has material power without the Congress, and personally, I
would like to see him use it. He could issue an executive order for the
government to grant contracts only to companies that pay their workers above
some higher minimum wage. Or he could reject the XL pipeline on two national
security grounds: its contribution to global warming and the dangers of
leaks, explosions; and he could stop the virtual pipeline of dangerous tar
sands and fracked oil shipments by train and waterway by insisting
immediately on safe puncture-proof tanks. He could direct federal agencies
to monitor and control dangerous chemical use and storage to prevent future
versions of the Great West Virginia Water Disaster. I would love to see him
act in dozens, if not hundreds, of areas for the public good, and give the
moral grounds in the SOTU.
Beyond material power, the president has even greater power -- cognitive
power -- and he hasn't used it much. Cognitive power is the power to put
important ideas in people's minds by shaping public discourse. He has the
unique power to change how America thinks simply by discussing crucial ideas
over and over.
American democracy is based on empathy -- citizens caring about other
citizens and working through their government to provide public resources
for all, making both decent lives and flourishing markets possible. He used
to speak of empathy as "the most important thing my mother taught me." But
he was misinterpreted by conservatives and dropped this most central idea.
He started talking, as Elisabeth Warren has so eloquently, about the crucial
nature of public resources, but he messed up once ("You didn't build it")
and stopped. He needs to take up that theme, get it right, and repeat it in
every speech.
We know he's going to talk about economic inequality, as he should. He will
probably mention worker salaries, which haven't risen in 30 years. But he
needs to state a simple truth: Workers are Profit Creators! Corporate
"productivity" -- the profit-per-worker -- has risen, but the profit
creators haven't been getting a fair share of the profits.
One of the reasons for low salaries is that out-of-work workers can't
bargain for fair wages as individuals. The absence, or weakening, of unions
leads to Wage Slavery: take what you are offered or someone else will. The
president needs to talk about Wage Slavery and how unions offer freedom from
wage slavery. This is a crucial idea missing from public discourse,
especially in states where conservatives are trying to legislate wage
slavery via so-called "Right to work laws," which are actually exploitation
laws. The president should be talking regularly about how unions contribute
to freedom -- and getting the unions themselves to talk about it. If the
idea isn't mentioned, it won't enter the public mind.
Next, pensions. Pensions are delayed payments for work already done. Say it,
Mr. President. When pensions are cut, the wages already earned by workers
are being stolen. Pension funds are often taken by companies and local
governments and spent on other things. That is theft. There needs to be
transparency -- public reporting yearly -- on what is being done with
pension funds. The president could issue and executive order that any
company, state, or municipality receiving money from the government must
adopt the transparency principle for pension funds.
The president has occasionally used the idea of investment where
conservatives talk of "spending." Drop "spending," Mr. President. When you
spend money, as when you buy a product, the money is gone. But when you
invest, the money is still there. Paying for early childhood education is a
wise major investment in the brains of our children. Remember that by the
time a child is five or six years old, half of his or her neural connections
have died off -- the half least used. A child's brain is shaped and
developed in those important pre-K years. Funding serious pre-K is one of
the most important investments out country could make. The investment isn't
gone. It is there in the child. Talk about brain shaping during pre-K, Mr.
President. Every one in the country should know about it.
Perhaps the most important cognitive power of the president concerns the
global extreme climate crisis. There are important ideas that need to be in
public discourse. First, nature is inside of us, not just outside, as the
world "environment" suggests. We breathe air, drink water, and eat food.
Pollutants and pesticides are in us, not somewhere else. They cause cancer
and other illnesses. In a drought, as in California right now, you need
water, clean water, to drink and raise food. IN a major hurricane, water is
can be deadly and devastating. Nature is in and around us, and supports all
life. Don't destroy it, poison it, or turn it into a destroyer.
Coal, oil, and natural gas are immoral fuels, dirty fuels. Say it. Our
planet, the only one we have -- nature itself -- is being sacrificed for
short-term private profit. Yet, our government is negotiating a trade
agreement that could outlaw all environmental laws, since it lets foreign
nations sue when state or local environmental laws cut the corporate profits
of foreign-owned corporations. It would be devastating to democracy,
politically, since it gives up the sovereignty of our own people over their
own lives. Don't give in and repeatedly tell us why you are you won't
fast-track that treaty.
You can't drink oil! Protect our water supplies from fracking, which both
uses a huge amount of water per well, puts vast amounts of poison in that
water, endangering water supplies. You can't drink oil. Say it, Mr.
President.
Species Are Us! We are part of the continuum of life with all species. Bees
matter. Don't let them die off. Songbirds matter. Frogs matter. Salmon
matter.
Invite to the SOTU 10 prominent pro-football players who have gotten
lifelong brain damage from concussions received in football. Have them stand
up in the balcony.
Finally, read labels out loud, Mr. President. Harmful chemicals are not just
stored near West Virginia rivers. They are in our food, our cosmetics, and
our toiletries. Use the Good Guide App in your SOTU and have Dara O'Rourke
stand up and take a bow for inventing it. Introduce to the American people
the idea of ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS, chemicals that affect hormones. Read the
Environmental Working Groups list of the dirty dozen, the 12 most dangerous,
and tell everyone where they show up in your refrigerator, larder and
medicine cabinet. Make sure Endocrine Disruptors are labeled as such, with a
brief note pointing out that they affect hormones. Contribute to the health
of our military and their families by an executive order keeping major
endocrine disruptors off the shelves of PX's and military hospitals. The
cognitive and material powers can sometimes work hand-in-hand.
Cognitive powers may seem small, but used over time they can have major
effects.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
This is a great article. We need to send it far and wide. Urge everyone to
take up their teaspoon and bring a little sand to the bucket.
If the tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?
Even more certain is the knowledge that if no one speaks up, the Word will
not go out.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
To: "'Blind Democracy Discussion List'" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 7:16 PM
Subject: SOTU 2014: The Cognitive Power of the President
Lakoff writes: "There are enough people guessing what the president will do.
This is about what he almost certainly won't do, but what I would like him
to do."
President Barack Obama. (photo: Charles Dharapak/AP)
SOTU 2014: The Cognitive Power of the President
By George Lakoff, Reader Supported News
27 January 14
There are enough people guessing what the president will do. This is about
what he almost certainly won't do, but what I would like him to do.
The president has material power without the Congress, and personally, I
would like to see him use it. He could issue an executive order for the
government to grant contracts only to companies that pay their workers above
some higher minimum wage. Or he could reject the XL pipeline on two national
security grounds: its contribution to global warming and the dangers of
leaks, explosions; and he could stop the virtual pipeline of dangerous tar
sands and fracked oil shipments by train and waterway by insisting
immediately on safe puncture-proof tanks. He could direct federal agencies
to monitor and control dangerous chemical use and storage to prevent future
versions of the Great West Virginia Water Disaster. I would love to see him
act in dozens, if not hundreds, of areas for the public good, and give the
moral grounds in the SOTU.
Beyond material power, the president has even greater power -- cognitive
power -- and he hasn't used it much. Cognitive power is the power to put
important ideas in people's minds by shaping public discourse. He has the
unique power to change how America thinks simply by discussing crucial ideas
over and over.
American democracy is based on empathy -- citizens caring about other
citizens and working through their government to provide public resources
for all, making both decent lives and flourishing markets possible. He used
to speak of empathy as "the most important thing my mother taught me." But
he was misinterpreted by conservatives and dropped this most central idea.
He started talking, as Elisabeth Warren has so eloquently, about the crucial
nature of public resources, but he messed up once ("You didn't build it")
and stopped. He needs to take up that theme, get it right, and repeat it in
every speech.
We know he's going to talk about economic inequality, as he should. He will
probably mention worker salaries, which haven't risen in 30 years. But he
needs to state a simple truth: Workers are Profit Creators! Corporate
"productivity" -- the profit-per-worker -- has risen, but the profit
creators haven't been getting a fair share of the profits.
One of the reasons for low salaries is that out-of-work workers can't
bargain for fair wages as individuals. The absence, or weakening, of unions
leads to Wage Slavery: take what you are offered or someone else will. The
president needs to talk about Wage Slavery and how unions offer freedom from
wage slavery. This is a crucial idea missing from public discourse,
especially in states where conservatives are trying to legislate wage
slavery via so-called "Right to work laws," which are actually exploitation
laws. The president should be talking regularly about how unions contribute
to freedom -- and getting the unions themselves to talk about it. If the
idea isn't mentioned, it won't enter the public mind.
Next, pensions. Pensions are delayed payments for work already done. Say it,
Mr. President. When pensions are cut, the wages already earned by workers
are being stolen. Pension funds are often taken by companies and local
governments and spent on other things. That is theft. There needs to be
transparency -- public reporting yearly -- on what is being done with
pension funds. The president could issue and executive order that any
company, state, or municipality receiving money from the government must
adopt the transparency principle for pension funds.
The president has occasionally used the idea of investment where
conservatives talk of "spending." Drop "spending," Mr. President. When you
spend money, as when you buy a product, the money is gone. But when you
invest, the money is still there. Paying for early childhood education is a
wise major investment in the brains of our children. Remember that by the
time a child is five or six years old, half of his or her neural connections
have died off -- the half least used. A child's brain is shaped and
developed in those important pre-K years. Funding serious pre-K is one of
the most important investments out country could make. The investment isn't
gone. It is there in the child. Talk about brain shaping during pre-K, Mr.
President. Every one in the country should know about it.
Perhaps the most important cognitive power of the president concerns the
global extreme climate crisis. There are important ideas that need to be in
public discourse. First, nature is inside of us, not just outside, as the
world "environment" suggests. We breathe air, drink water, and eat food.
Pollutants and pesticides are in us, not somewhere else. They cause cancer
and other illnesses. In a drought, as in California right now, you need
water, clean water, to drink and raise food. IN a major hurricane, water is
can be deadly and devastating. Nature is in and around us, and supports all
life. Don't destroy it, poison it, or turn it into a destroyer.
Coal, oil, and natural gas are immoral fuels, dirty fuels. Say it. Our
planet, the only one we have -- nature itself -- is being sacrificed for
short-term private profit. Yet, our government is negotiating a trade
agreement that could outlaw all environmental laws, since it lets foreign
nations sue when state or local environmental laws cut the corporate profits
of foreign-owned corporations. It would be devastating to democracy,
politically, since it gives up the sovereignty of our own people over their
own lives. Don't give in and repeatedly tell us why you are you won't
fast-track that treaty.
You can't drink oil! Protect our water supplies from fracking, which both
uses a huge amount of water per well, puts vast amounts of poison in that
water, endangering water supplies. You can't drink oil. Say it, Mr.
President.
Species Are Us! We are part of the continuum of life with all species. Bees
matter. Don't let them die off. Songbirds matter. Frogs matter. Salmon
matter.
Invite to the SOTU 10 prominent pro-football players who have gotten
lifelong brain damage from concussions received in football. Have them stand
up in the balcony.
Finally, read labels out loud, Mr. President. Harmful chemicals are not just
stored near West Virginia rivers. They are in our food, our cosmetics, and
our toiletries. Use the Good Guide App in your SOTU and have Dara O'Rourke
stand up and take a bow for inventing it. Introduce to the American people
the idea of ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS, chemicals that affect hormones. Read the
Environmental Working Groups list of the dirty dozen, the 12 most dangerous,
and tell everyone where they show up in your refrigerator, larder and
medicine cabinet. Make sure Endocrine Disruptors are labeled as such, with a
brief note pointing out that they affect hormones. Contribute to the health
of our military and their families by an executive order keeping major
endocrine disruptors off the shelves of PX's and military hospitals. The
cognitive and material powers can sometimes work hand-in-hand.
Cognitive powers may seem small, but used over time they can have major
effects.
________________________________________
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
President Barack Obama. (photo: Charles Dharapak/AP)
http://www.readersupportednews.org/http://www.readersupportednews.org/
SOTU 2014: The Cognitive Power of the President
By George Lakoff, Reader Supported News
27 January 14
here are enough people guessing what the president will do. This is about
what he almost certainly won't do, but what I would like him to do.
The president has material power without the Congress, and personally, I
would like to see him use it. He could issue an executive order for the
government to grant contracts only to companies that pay their workers above
some higher minimum wage. Or he could reject the XL pipeline on two national
security grounds: its contribution to global warming and the dangers of
leaks, explosions; and he could stop the virtual pipeline of dangerous tar
sands and fracked oil shipments by train and waterway by insisting
immediately on safe puncture-proof tanks. He could direct federal agencies
to monitor and control dangerous chemical use and storage to prevent future
versions of the Great West Virginia Water Disaster. I would love to see him
act in dozens, if not hundreds, of areas for the public good, and give the
moral grounds in the SOTU.
Beyond material power, the president has even greater power -- cognitive
power -- and he hasn't used it much. Cognitive power is the power to put
important ideas in people's minds by shaping public discourse. He has the
unique power to change how America thinks simply by discussing crucial ideas
over and over.
American democracy is based on empathy -- citizens caring about other
citizens and working through their government to provide public resources
for all, making both decent lives and flourishing markets possible. He used
to speak of empathy as "the most important thing my mother taught me." But
he was misinterpreted by conservatives and dropped this most central idea.
He started talking, as Elisabeth Warren has so eloquently, about the crucial
nature of public resources, but he messed up once ("You didn't build it")
and stopped. He needs to take up that theme, get it right, and repeat it in
every speech.
We know he's going to talk about economic inequality, as he should. He will
probably mention worker salaries, which haven't risen in 30 years. But he
needs to state a simple truth: Workers are Profit Creators! Corporate
"productivity" -- the profit-per-worker -- has risen, but the profit
creators haven't been getting a fair share of the profits.
One of the reasons for low salaries is that out-of-work workers can't
bargain for fair wages as individuals. The absence, or weakening, of unions
leads to Wage Slavery: take what you are offered or someone else will. The
president needs to talk about Wage Slavery and how unions offer freedom from
wage slavery. This is a crucial idea missing from public discourse,
especially in states where conservatives are trying to legislate wage
slavery via so-called "Right to work laws," which are actually exploitation
laws. The president should be talking regularly about how unions contribute
to freedom -- and getting the unions themselves to talk about it. If the
idea isn't mentioned, it won't enter the public mind.
Next, pensions. Pensions are delayed payments for work already done. Say it,
Mr. President. When pensions are cut, the wages already earned by workers
are being stolen. Pension funds are often taken by companies and local
governments and spent on other things. That is theft. There needs to be
transparency -- public reporting yearly -- on what is being done with
pension funds. The president could issue and executive order that any
company, state, or municipality receiving money from the government must
adopt the transparency principle for pension funds.
The president has occasionally used the idea of investment where
conservatives talk of "spending." Drop "spending," Mr. President. When you
spend money, as when you buy a product, the money is gone. But when you
invest, the money is still there. Paying for early childhood education is a
wise major investment in the brains of our children. Remember that by the
time a child is five or six years old, half of his or her neural connections
have died off -- the half least used. A child's brain is shaped and
developed in those important pre-K years. Funding serious pre-K is one of
the most important investments out country could make. The investment isn't
gone. It is there in the child. Talk about brain shaping during pre-K, Mr.
President. Every one in the country should know about it.
Perhaps the most important cognitive power of the president concerns the
global extreme climate crisis. There are important ideas that need to be in
public discourse. First, nature is inside of us, not just outside, as the
world "environment" suggests. We breathe air, drink water, and eat food.
Pollutants and pesticides are in us, not somewhere else. They cause cancer
and other illnesses. In a drought, as in California right now, you need
water, clean water, to drink and raise food. IN a major hurricane, water is
can be deadly and devastating. Nature is in and around us, and supports all
life. Don't destroy it, poison it, or turn it into a destroyer.
Coal, oil, and natural gas are immoral fuels, dirty fuels. Say it. Our
planet, the only one we have -- nature itself -- is being sacrificed for
short-term private profit. Yet, our government is negotiating a trade
agreement that could outlaw all environmental laws, since it lets foreign
nations sue when state or local environmental laws cut the corporate profits
of foreign-owned corporations. It would be devastating to democracy,
politically, since it gives up the sovereignty of our own people over their
own lives. Don't give in and repeatedly tell us why you are you won't
fast-track that treaty.
You can't drink oil! Protect our water supplies from fracking, which both
uses a huge amount of water per well, puts vast amounts of poison in that
water, endangering water supplies. You can't drink oil. Say it, Mr.
President.
Species Are Us! We are part of the continuum of life with all species. Bees
matter. Don't let them die off. Songbirds matter. Frogs matter. Salmon
matter.
Invite to the SOTU 10 prominent pro-football players who have gotten
lifelong brain damage from concussions received in football. Have them stand
up in the balcony.
Finally, read labels out loud, Mr. President. Harmful chemicals are not just
stored near West Virginia rivers. They are in our food, our cosmetics, and
our toiletries. Use the Good Guide App in your SOTU and have Dara O'Rourke
stand up and take a bow for inventing it. Introduce to the American people
the idea of ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS, chemicals that affect hormones. Read the
Environmental Working Groups list of the dirty dozen, the 12 most dangerous,
and tell everyone where they show up in your refrigerator, larder and
medicine cabinet. Make sure Endocrine Disruptors are labeled as such, with a
brief note pointing out that they affect hormones. Contribute to the health
of our military and their families by an executive order keeping major
endocrine disruptors off the shelves of PX's and military hospitals. The
cognitive and material powers can sometimes work hand-in-hand.
Cognitive powers may seem small, but used over time they can have major
effects.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
Monday, January 20, 2014
January 20, 1909, GM takes an interest in Oakland Motor Car Corp.
Remembering the 1940's at the Pike Place Market.
My dad collected back issues of National Geographic magazines.
At the time, he couldn't afford to subscribe, or even pay current price per
issue on the news stand. So on Saturdays, when the weather was drippy,
which was very often, Dad and I would drive to the Pike Place Market. This
marvelous public market consisted of a long, open air, but roofed over aisle
bordered on both sides by food stands. The front of the market was where
the "High Stands" were. These usually held the fruits and vegetables
trucked in from California and Mexico. Mounds of oranges and melons and
tomatoes, just about everything the heart desired was there the year around.
Down the aisle were the smaller stands where the local farmers hawked their
wares. Whatever was in season. In the early mornings the Italian, Japanese
and central European farmers would truck their wares in from the fertile
river bottom valleys south of Seattle.
Hard to understand, nevertheless they were very friendly, especially to
children. Down the way were the fresh fish mongers. They would toss the
fish back and forth, then tuck them in huge bins of chipped ice. Crab,
oysters, clams, they all were there in neat piles.
But what I loved most was the lower level. Down a broad staircase was a
world of second-hand shops. First was a shoe shop. The owner collected
unclaimed shoes from around the city's shoe repair shops, fixed them up and
put them out for sale. Later I used to buy my work shoes there for under
three dollars a pair.
Then there were the second-hand clothing shops, the second-hand furniture
shops, and a couple of restaurants. There were a couple of restaurants
upstairs, but they were pricey. Downstairs the prices were much lower, and
so were the fixtures.
But all the way to the end of the lower level was the second-hand book
store. This was the place where Dad and I spent our time, browsing the
musky old books and looking for back issues of the National Geographic.
These magazines dated back into the early teens. What I loved most were the
old advertisements The fancy old cars, still looking like carriages with
fancy tufted seats, real lanterns for headlights, and trunks that looked
more like seaman's chests.
One other bit of education I received through those old magazines were the
stories about ancient Greece and Rome. The pictures, all colored drawings,
showed me my first glimpses of bare breasts. Long before Playboy, I was
delighted by these lovely maidens, walking about in their robes with their
breasts fully exposed.
I wondered later if my Dad ever figured out why I loved to spend so much
time with him in that old second-hand book store.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Claude Everett" <ceverett@dslextreme.com>
To: "'Blind Democracy Discussion List'" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 10:42 AM
Subject: January 20, 1909, GM takes an interest in Oakland Motor Car Corp.
Joe might get a smile about this.
GM takes an interest in Oakland Motor Car Corp.
On January 20, 1909, newly formed automaker General Motors (GM) buys into
the Oakland Motor Car Corporation, which later becomes GM's long-running
Pontiac division.
Oakland Motor Car was founded in 1907 in Pontiac, Michigan, by Edward
Murphy, a manufacturer of horse-drawn carriages. The following year, another
former buggy company executive, William Durant, founded General Motors in
Flint, Michigan, as a holding company for the Buick Motor Company. GM soon
bought other automakers, including Oldsmobile and Cadillac. In 1909, Oakland
became part of GM. The first Pontiac model made its debut as part of the
Oakland line in the 1920s. The car, which featured a six-cylinder engine,
proved so popular that the Oakland name was eventually dropped and Pontiac
became its own GM division by the early 1930s.
Pontiac was initially known for making sedans; however, by the 1960s, it
gained acclaim for its fast, sporty muscle cars, including the GTO and the
Firebird. The GTO, which was developed by auto industry maverick John
DeLorean, was named after a Ferarri coupe--the Gran Turismo Omologato--and
is considered the first classic muscle car. According to The New York Times:
"More than any other G.M. brand, Pontiac stood for performance, speed and
sex appeal."
Pontiac's sales reached their peak in 1984, with approximately 850,000
vehicles sold (about four times as many as 2008), according to the Times,
which noted that experts believe GM hurt the Pontiac brand in the 1970s and
1980s by opting for a money-saving strategy requiring Pontiacs to share
platforms with cars from other divisions.
In 2008, GM, which since the early 1930s had sold more vehicles than any
other automaker, lost its sales crown to Toyota. That same year, the
American auto giant, hard hit by the global economic crisis and slumping
auto sales, was forced to ask the federal government for a
multi-billion-dollar loan in order to remain operational. On April 27, 2009,
GM announced plans to phase out the Pontiac brand, which had become
unprofitable, by 2010. A little over a month later, on June 1, GM filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and promised to emerge as a leaner, more
efficient company.
Fact Check We strive for accuracy and fairness. But if you see something
that doesn't look right, contact us!
Regards,
Claude Everett
"How could man rejoice in victory and delight in the slaughter of men?"
Lao Tzu
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
My dad collected back issues of National Geographic magazines.
At the time, he couldn't afford to subscribe, or even pay current price per
issue on the news stand. So on Saturdays, when the weather was drippy,
which was very often, Dad and I would drive to the Pike Place Market. This
marvelous public market consisted of a long, open air, but roofed over aisle
bordered on both sides by food stands. The front of the market was where
the "High Stands" were. These usually held the fruits and vegetables
trucked in from California and Mexico. Mounds of oranges and melons and
tomatoes, just about everything the heart desired was there the year around.
Down the aisle were the smaller stands where the local farmers hawked their
wares. Whatever was in season. In the early mornings the Italian, Japanese
and central European farmers would truck their wares in from the fertile
river bottom valleys south of Seattle.
Hard to understand, nevertheless they were very friendly, especially to
children. Down the way were the fresh fish mongers. They would toss the
fish back and forth, then tuck them in huge bins of chipped ice. Crab,
oysters, clams, they all were there in neat piles.
But what I loved most was the lower level. Down a broad staircase was a
world of second-hand shops. First was a shoe shop. The owner collected
unclaimed shoes from around the city's shoe repair shops, fixed them up and
put them out for sale. Later I used to buy my work shoes there for under
three dollars a pair.
Then there were the second-hand clothing shops, the second-hand furniture
shops, and a couple of restaurants. There were a couple of restaurants
upstairs, but they were pricey. Downstairs the prices were much lower, and
so were the fixtures.
But all the way to the end of the lower level was the second-hand book
store. This was the place where Dad and I spent our time, browsing the
musky old books and looking for back issues of the National Geographic.
These magazines dated back into the early teens. What I loved most were the
old advertisements The fancy old cars, still looking like carriages with
fancy tufted seats, real lanterns for headlights, and trunks that looked
more like seaman's chests.
One other bit of education I received through those old magazines were the
stories about ancient Greece and Rome. The pictures, all colored drawings,
showed me my first glimpses of bare breasts. Long before Playboy, I was
delighted by these lovely maidens, walking about in their robes with their
breasts fully exposed.
I wondered later if my Dad ever figured out why I loved to spend so much
time with him in that old second-hand book store.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Claude Everett" <ceverett@dslextreme.com>
To: "'Blind Democracy Discussion List'" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 10:42 AM
Subject: January 20, 1909, GM takes an interest in Oakland Motor Car Corp.
Joe might get a smile about this.
GM takes an interest in Oakland Motor Car Corp.
On January 20, 1909, newly formed automaker General Motors (GM) buys into
the Oakland Motor Car Corporation, which later becomes GM's long-running
Pontiac division.
Oakland Motor Car was founded in 1907 in Pontiac, Michigan, by Edward
Murphy, a manufacturer of horse-drawn carriages. The following year, another
former buggy company executive, William Durant, founded General Motors in
Flint, Michigan, as a holding company for the Buick Motor Company. GM soon
bought other automakers, including Oldsmobile and Cadillac. In 1909, Oakland
became part of GM. The first Pontiac model made its debut as part of the
Oakland line in the 1920s. The car, which featured a six-cylinder engine,
proved so popular that the Oakland name was eventually dropped and Pontiac
became its own GM division by the early 1930s.
Pontiac was initially known for making sedans; however, by the 1960s, it
gained acclaim for its fast, sporty muscle cars, including the GTO and the
Firebird. The GTO, which was developed by auto industry maverick John
DeLorean, was named after a Ferarri coupe--the Gran Turismo Omologato--and
is considered the first classic muscle car. According to The New York Times:
"More than any other G.M. brand, Pontiac stood for performance, speed and
sex appeal."
Pontiac's sales reached their peak in 1984, with approximately 850,000
vehicles sold (about four times as many as 2008), according to the Times,
which noted that experts believe GM hurt the Pontiac brand in the 1970s and
1980s by opting for a money-saving strategy requiring Pontiacs to share
platforms with cars from other divisions.
In 2008, GM, which since the early 1930s had sold more vehicles than any
other automaker, lost its sales crown to Toyota. That same year, the
American auto giant, hard hit by the global economic crisis and slumping
auto sales, was forced to ask the federal government for a
multi-billion-dollar loan in order to remain operational. On April 27, 2009,
GM announced plans to phase out the Pontiac brand, which had become
unprofitable, by 2010. A little over a month later, on June 1, GM filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and promised to emerge as a leaner, more
efficient company.
Fact Check We strive for accuracy and fairness. But if you see something
that doesn't look right, contact us!
Regards,
Claude Everett
"How could man rejoice in victory and delight in the slaughter of men?"
Lao Tzu
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
Needed: Three Obama Speeches for the People
Subject: Re: Needed: Three Obama Speeches for the People
Ralph Nader, a great American. I hope he is not seriously sitting
around waiting for president Obama to respond to this letter.
But for the rest of us, it's well worth reading and thinking about.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
To: "'Blind Democracy Discussion List'" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 6:21 PM
Subject: Needed: Three Obama Speeches for the People
Nader writes: "As has been said, democracy is not a spectator sport. It
requires a motivated citizenry, along with rights, remedies, and mechanisms
that facilitate people banding together as candidates, voters, workers,
taxpayers, consumers and communities."
President Obama delivers a campaign speech. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty
Images)
Needed: Three Obama Speeches for the People
By Ralph Nader, The Nader Page
18 January 14
Dear President Obama:
All the daily decisions and crises you have to confront must not preclude
occasional addresses to the country that rise to the level of statesmanship,
transcending the hurly-burly of politics and executive branch
administration.
There are three areas where the people need the views and vision of their
President.
1. A major address on the resources and preconditions necessary for the
government to wage peace as a continual policy of statecraft and not just
sporadic initiatives between waging war or engaging in other violent
conflicts. Consider the enormous disparity of time, power and money
allocated to preparing for or waging military assaults with what is devoted
to prevention of conflict and other fundamentals of securing the conditions
for peace. The tiny U.S. budgets for nuclear, chemical and biological arms
control with the Soviet Union and other nations over the years have
certainly produced positive returns of incalculable magnitude and
importance.
We have military academies but no peace academies. Vast sums are allocated
for research and teaching about war and military tactics, but very little
for peace studies at our schools and universities. You may wish to meet with
former Washington Post columnist, Colman McCarthy, who teaches peace in the
Washington D.C. area schools and has written pioneering books and articles
that include his compelling arguments for having peace studies adopted in
high schools and colleges around the country (see
http://www.salsa.net/peace/conv/ for more information).
2. Earlier in 2009 and again in 2011 I wrote to urge you to address a large
gathering, in a convenient Washington venue, for the leaders of nonprofit
civic organizations with tens of millions of members throughout the United
States. Not receiving a reply, I sent my request to the First Lady, Michelle
Obama, whose assistant replied saying you were too busy.
You were, however, not too busy to address many business groups and also to
walk over to the oppositional U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Well, it is the
second term and such a civic gathering could be scheduled at your
convenience. You could use this occasion to make a major speech on the
importance and means of advancing the quality and quantity of civic groups
and their chapters which, taken together, are major employers. Your advisers
could even justify the effort as stimulating a jobs program by urging larger
charitable contributions from the trillions of dollars of inert money in the
hands of the upper economic classes.
3. Strengthening democratic processes and expanding democratic institutions
and participation by the people are cardinal functions of the presidency.
Indeed, Harvard Law Professor, Richard Parker in his little, seminal book:
Here the People Rule (Harvard University Press, 1998) argues that the
constitution authorizes the President "to facilitate the political and civic
energies of the people."
A major address on this topic should be right up your experiential alley
from both your early experience in Chicago of observing and confronting the
power structures' many forms of exclusion and mistreatment of the populace
and your more recent accommodation to that power structure and its influence
over Congress.
As has been said, democracy is not a spectator sport. It requires a
motivated citizenry, along with rights, remedies, and mechanisms that
facilitate people banding together as candidates, voters, workers,
taxpayers, consumers and communities. Concentration of power and wealth in
the hands of the few who decide for the many is the great destroyer of any
society's democratic functions. It was Justice Louis Brandeis who,
memorably, stated that, "We can either have democracy in this country or we
can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have
both." And another well-regarded jurist, Judge Learned Hand declared, "If we
are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: thou shalt not
ration justice."
As "politics" is seen by more people as a dirty word and as the people move
from cynicism about political institutions to greater withdrawal from them,
including public meetings, primaries, elections and referenda, they need a
president who addresses these disabling symptoms of a weakening democratic
society from the local to the state to the national levels of our political
economy.
Such an address will have positive reverberations beyond the general public.
Depending on your scope, recommendations and announcements, it will reach
the youth of our country, our high schools, universities, workplaces and
professional schools. Why it may even affect the moribund, technical
routines of the Harvard Law Review (where you were president in 1990) as
well as other law schools, bar associations and lawyers who aspire to higher
estimates of their own professional significance (see my remarks "The
Majesty of the Law Needs Magisterial Lawyers" before the Connecticut Bar
Association June 17, 2013). If law means justice, as it should, then the
rule of law needs presidential refurbishing to strengthen the fiber of our
democracy.
I hope you will see the merit of these three suggestions. A copy of this
letter is being sent to the First Lady, Michelle Obama, whose staff may be
responsive in a different manner.
I look forward to your reaction.
Sincerely yours,
Ralph Nader
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
President Obama delivers a campaign speech. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty
Images)
http://nader.org/2014/01/16/needed-three-obama-speeches-people/http://nader.
org/2014/01/16/needed-three-obama-speeches-people/
Needed: Three Obama Speeches for the People
By Ralph Nader, The Nader Page
18 January 14
ear President Obama:
All the daily decisions and crises you have to confront must not preclude
occasional addresses to the country that rise to the level of statesmanship,
transcending the hurly-burly of politics and executive branch
administration.
There are three areas where the people need the views and vision of their
President.
1. A major address on the resources and preconditions necessary for the
government to wage peace as a continual policy of statecraft and not just
sporadic initiatives between waging war or engaging in other violent
conflicts. Consider the enormous disparity of time, power and money
allocated to preparing for or waging military assaults with what is devoted
to prevention of conflict and other fundamentals of securing the conditions
for peace. The tiny U.S. budgets for nuclear, chemical and biological arms
control with the Soviet Union and other nations over the years have
certainly produced positive returns of incalculable magnitude and
importance.
We have military academies but no peace academies. Vast sums are allocated
for research and teaching about war and military tactics, but very little
for peace studies at our schools and universities. You may wish to meet with
former Washington Post columnist, Colman McCarthy, who teaches peace in the
Washington D.C. area schools and has written pioneering books and articles
that include his compelling arguments for having peace studies adopted in
high schools and colleges around the country (see
http://www.salsa.net/peace/conv/ for more information).
2. Earlier in 2009 and again in 2011 I wrote to urge you to address a large
gathering, in a convenient Washington venue, for the leaders of nonprofit
civic organizations with tens of millions of members throughout the United
States. Not receiving a reply, I sent my request to the First Lady, Michelle
Obama, whose assistant replied saying you were too busy.
You were, however, not too busy to address many business groups and also to
walk over to the oppositional U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Well, it is the
second term and such a civic gathering could be scheduled at your
convenience. You could use this occasion to make a major speech on the
importance and means of advancing the quality and quantity of civic groups
and their chapters which, taken together, are major employers. Your advisers
could even justify the effort as stimulating a jobs program by urging larger
charitable contributions from the trillions of dollars of inert money in the
hands of the upper economic classes.
3. Strengthening democratic processes and expanding democratic institutions
and participation by the people are cardinal functions of the presidency.
Indeed, Harvard Law Professor, Richard Parker in his little, seminal book:
Here the People Rule (Harvard University Press, 1998) argues that the
constitution authorizes the President "to facilitate the political and civic
energies of the people."
A major address on this topic should be right up your experiential alley
from both your early experience in Chicago of observing and confronting the
power structures' many forms of exclusion and mistreatment of the populace
and your more recent accommodation to that power structure and its influence
over Congress.
As has been said, democracy is not a spectator sport. It requires a
motivated citizenry, along with rights, remedies, and mechanisms that
facilitate people banding together as candidates, voters, workers,
taxpayers, consumers and communities. Concentration of power and wealth in
the hands of the few who decide for the many is the great destroyer of any
society's democratic functions. It was Justice Louis Brandeis who,
memorably, stated that, "We can either have democracy in this country or we
can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have
both." And another well-regarded jurist, Judge Learned Hand declared, "If we
are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: thou shalt not
ration justice."
As "politics" is seen by more people as a dirty word and as the people move
from cynicism about political institutions to greater withdrawal from them,
including public meetings, primaries, elections and referenda, they need a
president who addresses these disabling symptoms of a weakening democratic
society from the local to the state to the national levels of our political
economy.
Such an address will have positive reverberations beyond the general public.
Depending on your scope, recommendations and announcements, it will reach
the youth of our country, our high schools, universities, workplaces and
professional schools. Why it may even affect the moribund, technical
routines of the Harvard Law Review (where you were president in 1990) as
well as other law schools, bar associations and lawyers who aspire to higher
estimates of their own professional significance (see my remarks "The
Majesty of the Law Needs Magisterial Lawyers" before the Connecticut Bar
Association June 17, 2013). If law means justice, as it should, then the
rule of law needs presidential refurbishing to strengthen the fiber of our
democracy.
I hope you will see the merit of these three suggestions. A copy of this
letter is being sent to the First Lady, Michelle Obama, whose staff may be
responsive in a different manner.
I look forward to your reaction.
Sincerely yours,
Ralph Nader
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
Ralph Nader, a great American. I hope he is not seriously sitting
around waiting for president Obama to respond to this letter.
But for the rest of us, it's well worth reading and thinking about.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
To: "'Blind Democracy Discussion List'" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 6:21 PM
Subject: Needed: Three Obama Speeches for the People
Nader writes: "As has been said, democracy is not a spectator sport. It
requires a motivated citizenry, along with rights, remedies, and mechanisms
that facilitate people banding together as candidates, voters, workers,
taxpayers, consumers and communities."
President Obama delivers a campaign speech. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty
Images)
Needed: Three Obama Speeches for the People
By Ralph Nader, The Nader Page
18 January 14
Dear President Obama:
All the daily decisions and crises you have to confront must not preclude
occasional addresses to the country that rise to the level of statesmanship,
transcending the hurly-burly of politics and executive branch
administration.
There are three areas where the people need the views and vision of their
President.
1. A major address on the resources and preconditions necessary for the
government to wage peace as a continual policy of statecraft and not just
sporadic initiatives between waging war or engaging in other violent
conflicts. Consider the enormous disparity of time, power and money
allocated to preparing for or waging military assaults with what is devoted
to prevention of conflict and other fundamentals of securing the conditions
for peace. The tiny U.S. budgets for nuclear, chemical and biological arms
control with the Soviet Union and other nations over the years have
certainly produced positive returns of incalculable magnitude and
importance.
We have military academies but no peace academies. Vast sums are allocated
for research and teaching about war and military tactics, but very little
for peace studies at our schools and universities. You may wish to meet with
former Washington Post columnist, Colman McCarthy, who teaches peace in the
Washington D.C. area schools and has written pioneering books and articles
that include his compelling arguments for having peace studies adopted in
high schools and colleges around the country (see
http://www.salsa.net/peace/conv/ for more information).
2. Earlier in 2009 and again in 2011 I wrote to urge you to address a large
gathering, in a convenient Washington venue, for the leaders of nonprofit
civic organizations with tens of millions of members throughout the United
States. Not receiving a reply, I sent my request to the First Lady, Michelle
Obama, whose assistant replied saying you were too busy.
You were, however, not too busy to address many business groups and also to
walk over to the oppositional U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Well, it is the
second term and such a civic gathering could be scheduled at your
convenience. You could use this occasion to make a major speech on the
importance and means of advancing the quality and quantity of civic groups
and their chapters which, taken together, are major employers. Your advisers
could even justify the effort as stimulating a jobs program by urging larger
charitable contributions from the trillions of dollars of inert money in the
hands of the upper economic classes.
3. Strengthening democratic processes and expanding democratic institutions
and participation by the people are cardinal functions of the presidency.
Indeed, Harvard Law Professor, Richard Parker in his little, seminal book:
Here the People Rule (Harvard University Press, 1998) argues that the
constitution authorizes the President "to facilitate the political and civic
energies of the people."
A major address on this topic should be right up your experiential alley
from both your early experience in Chicago of observing and confronting the
power structures' many forms of exclusion and mistreatment of the populace
and your more recent accommodation to that power structure and its influence
over Congress.
As has been said, democracy is not a spectator sport. It requires a
motivated citizenry, along with rights, remedies, and mechanisms that
facilitate people banding together as candidates, voters, workers,
taxpayers, consumers and communities. Concentration of power and wealth in
the hands of the few who decide for the many is the great destroyer of any
society's democratic functions. It was Justice Louis Brandeis who,
memorably, stated that, "We can either have democracy in this country or we
can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have
both." And another well-regarded jurist, Judge Learned Hand declared, "If we
are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: thou shalt not
ration justice."
As "politics" is seen by more people as a dirty word and as the people move
from cynicism about political institutions to greater withdrawal from them,
including public meetings, primaries, elections and referenda, they need a
president who addresses these disabling symptoms of a weakening democratic
society from the local to the state to the national levels of our political
economy.
Such an address will have positive reverberations beyond the general public.
Depending on your scope, recommendations and announcements, it will reach
the youth of our country, our high schools, universities, workplaces and
professional schools. Why it may even affect the moribund, technical
routines of the Harvard Law Review (where you were president in 1990) as
well as other law schools, bar associations and lawyers who aspire to higher
estimates of their own professional significance (see my remarks "The
Majesty of the Law Needs Magisterial Lawyers" before the Connecticut Bar
Association June 17, 2013). If law means justice, as it should, then the
rule of law needs presidential refurbishing to strengthen the fiber of our
democracy.
I hope you will see the merit of these three suggestions. A copy of this
letter is being sent to the First Lady, Michelle Obama, whose staff may be
responsive in a different manner.
I look forward to your reaction.
Sincerely yours,
Ralph Nader
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
President Obama delivers a campaign speech. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty
Images)
http://nader.org/2014/01/16/needed-three-obama-speeches-people/http://nader.
org/2014/01/16/needed-three-obama-speeches-people/
Needed: Three Obama Speeches for the People
By Ralph Nader, The Nader Page
18 January 14
ear President Obama:
All the daily decisions and crises you have to confront must not preclude
occasional addresses to the country that rise to the level of statesmanship,
transcending the hurly-burly of politics and executive branch
administration.
There are three areas where the people need the views and vision of their
President.
1. A major address on the resources and preconditions necessary for the
government to wage peace as a continual policy of statecraft and not just
sporadic initiatives between waging war or engaging in other violent
conflicts. Consider the enormous disparity of time, power and money
allocated to preparing for or waging military assaults with what is devoted
to prevention of conflict and other fundamentals of securing the conditions
for peace. The tiny U.S. budgets for nuclear, chemical and biological arms
control with the Soviet Union and other nations over the years have
certainly produced positive returns of incalculable magnitude and
importance.
We have military academies but no peace academies. Vast sums are allocated
for research and teaching about war and military tactics, but very little
for peace studies at our schools and universities. You may wish to meet with
former Washington Post columnist, Colman McCarthy, who teaches peace in the
Washington D.C. area schools and has written pioneering books and articles
that include his compelling arguments for having peace studies adopted in
high schools and colleges around the country (see
http://www.salsa.net/peace/conv/ for more information).
2. Earlier in 2009 and again in 2011 I wrote to urge you to address a large
gathering, in a convenient Washington venue, for the leaders of nonprofit
civic organizations with tens of millions of members throughout the United
States. Not receiving a reply, I sent my request to the First Lady, Michelle
Obama, whose assistant replied saying you were too busy.
You were, however, not too busy to address many business groups and also to
walk over to the oppositional U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Well, it is the
second term and such a civic gathering could be scheduled at your
convenience. You could use this occasion to make a major speech on the
importance and means of advancing the quality and quantity of civic groups
and their chapters which, taken together, are major employers. Your advisers
could even justify the effort as stimulating a jobs program by urging larger
charitable contributions from the trillions of dollars of inert money in the
hands of the upper economic classes.
3. Strengthening democratic processes and expanding democratic institutions
and participation by the people are cardinal functions of the presidency.
Indeed, Harvard Law Professor, Richard Parker in his little, seminal book:
Here the People Rule (Harvard University Press, 1998) argues that the
constitution authorizes the President "to facilitate the political and civic
energies of the people."
A major address on this topic should be right up your experiential alley
from both your early experience in Chicago of observing and confronting the
power structures' many forms of exclusion and mistreatment of the populace
and your more recent accommodation to that power structure and its influence
over Congress.
As has been said, democracy is not a spectator sport. It requires a
motivated citizenry, along with rights, remedies, and mechanisms that
facilitate people banding together as candidates, voters, workers,
taxpayers, consumers and communities. Concentration of power and wealth in
the hands of the few who decide for the many is the great destroyer of any
society's democratic functions. It was Justice Louis Brandeis who,
memorably, stated that, "We can either have democracy in this country or we
can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have
both." And another well-regarded jurist, Judge Learned Hand declared, "If we
are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: thou shalt not
ration justice."
As "politics" is seen by more people as a dirty word and as the people move
from cynicism about political institutions to greater withdrawal from them,
including public meetings, primaries, elections and referenda, they need a
president who addresses these disabling symptoms of a weakening democratic
society from the local to the state to the national levels of our political
economy.
Such an address will have positive reverberations beyond the general public.
Depending on your scope, recommendations and announcements, it will reach
the youth of our country, our high schools, universities, workplaces and
professional schools. Why it may even affect the moribund, technical
routines of the Harvard Law Review (where you were president in 1990) as
well as other law schools, bar associations and lawyers who aspire to higher
estimates of their own professional significance (see my remarks "The
Majesty of the Law Needs Magisterial Lawyers" before the Connecticut Bar
Association June 17, 2013). If law means justice, as it should, then the
rule of law needs presidential refurbishing to strengthen the fiber of our
democracy.
I hope you will see the merit of these three suggestions. A copy of this
letter is being sent to the First Lady, Michelle Obama, whose staff may be
responsive in a different manner.
I look forward to your reaction.
Sincerely yours,
Ralph Nader
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
Newly unearthed memo says Henry Kissinger gave the "green light" for Argentina's dirty war
Subject: Re: Newly unearthed memo says Henry Kissinger gave the "green
light" for Argentina's dirty war
When we wonder why so many people around the world hate or fear us, we only
need to say, "Henry Kissinger"
Not that he is alone on the world's most hated list, but he is right up
there.
Has anyone ever asked just how we can tell a Terrorist before he/she
performs an act of Terror? We know because we have such great examples to
learn from.
If we were really the peace loving people we pretend to be, Henry Kissinger,
the darling of the Empire, would be serving life in prison.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "S. Kashdan" <skashdan@scn.org>
To: "Blind Democracy List" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 8:08 AM
Subject: Newly unearthed memo says Henry Kissinger gave the "green light"
for Argentina's dirty war
Newly unearthed memo says Henry Kissinger gave the "green light" for
Argentina's dirty war
More evidence emerges the former secretary of state secretly approved a
government killing spree that resulted in about 30,000 dead.
By David Corn
Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:23 PM GMT
http://www.motherjones.com/print/243121
Only a few months ago, Henry Kissinger was dancing with Stephen Colbert [1]
in a funny bit on the latter's Comedy Central show. But for years, the
former secretary of state has sidestepped judgment for his complicity in
horrific human rights abuses abroad, and a new memo has emerged that
provides clear evidence that in 1976 Kissinger gave Argentina's neo-fascist
military junta the "green light" for the dirty war it was conducting against
civilian and militant leftists that resulted in the disappearance--that is,
deaths--of an estimated 30,000 people.
In April 1977, Patt Derian, a onetime civil rights activist whom President
Jimmy Carter had recently appointed assistant secretary of state for human
rights, met with the US ambassador in Buenos Aires, Robert Hill. A memo [2]
recording that conversation has been unearthed by Martin Edwin Andersen, who
in 1987 first reported that Kissinger had told the Argentine generals to
proceed with their terror campaign against leftists (whom the junta
routinely referred to as "terrorists"). The memo notes that Hill told Derian
about a meeting Kissinger held with Argentine Foreign Minister Cesar Augusto
Guzzetti the previous June. What the two men discussed was revealed in 2004
when the National Security Archive obtained and released [3] the secret
memorandum of conversation for that get-together. Guzzetti, according to
that document, told Kissinger, "our main problem in Argentina is terrorism."
Kissinger replied, "If there are things that have to be done, you should do
them quickly. But you must get back quickly to normal procedures." In other
words, go ahead with your killing crusade against the leftists.
The new document shows that Kissinger was even more explicit in encouraging
the Argentine junta. The memo recounts Hill describing the
Kissinger-Guzzetti discussion this way:
The Argentines were very worried that Kissinger would lecture to them on
human rights. Guzzetti and Kissinger had a very long breakfast but the
Secretary did not raise the subject. Finally Guzzetti did. Kissinger asked
how long will it take you (the Argentines) to clean up the problem. Guzzetti
replied that it would be done by the end of the year. Kissinger approved.
In other words, Ambassador Hill explained, Kissinger gave the Argentines the
green light.
That's a damning statement: a US ambassador saying a secretary of state had
egged on a repressive regime that was engaged in a killing spree.
In August 1976, according to the new memo, Hill discussed "the matter
personally with Kissinger, on the way back to Washington from a Bohemian
Grove [4] meeting in San Francisco." Kissinger, Hill told Derian, confirmed
the Guzzetti conversation and informed Hill that he wanted Argentina "to
finish its terrorist problem before year end." Kissinger was concerned about
new human rights laws passed by the Congress requiring the White House to
certify a government was not violating human rights before providing US aid.
He was hoping the Argentine generals could wrap up their murderous
eradication of the left before the law took effect.
Hill indicated to Derian, according to the new memo, that he believed that
Kissinger's message to Guzzetti had prompted the Argentine junta to
intensify its dirty war. When he returned to Buenos Aires, the memo notes,
Hill "saw that the terrorist death toll had climbed steeply." And the memo
reports, "Ambassador Hill said he would tell all of this to the Congress if
he were put on the stand under oath. 'I'm not going to lie,' the Ambassador
declared."
Hill, who died in 1978, never did testify that Kissinger had urged on the
Argentine generals, and the Carter administration reversed policy and made
human rights a priority in its relations with Argentina and other nations.
As for Kissinger, he skated--and he has been skating ever since, dodging
responsibility for dirty deeds in Chile [5], Bangladesh, [6] East Timor [7],
Cambodia, [8] and elsewhere. Kissinger watchers have known for years that he
at least implicitly (though privately) endorsed the Argentine dirty war, but
this new memo makes clear he was an enabler for an endeavor that entailed
the torture, disappearance, and murder of tens of thousands of people. Next
time you see him dancing on television, don't laugh.
Source URL:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/01/new-memo-kissinger-gave-green-light-argentina-dirty-war
Links:
[1]
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/08/stephen-colbert-henry-kissinger-daft-punk-video
[2]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/192087462/Patricia-Patt-Derian-Robert-C-Hill-et-al-and-the-Argentine-dirty-war-Draft-MemCon
[3] http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB133/
[4]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/bohemian-grove-where-the-rich-and-powerful-go-to-misbehave/2011/06/15/AGPV1sVH_blog.html
[5] http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB255/
[6]
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/jon-huntsman-glosses-over-genocide-bangladesh-pakistan
[7] http://www.yale.edu/gsp/east_timor/
[8] http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/cambodia/tl02.html
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
light" for Argentina's dirty war
When we wonder why so many people around the world hate or fear us, we only
need to say, "Henry Kissinger"
Not that he is alone on the world's most hated list, but he is right up
there.
Has anyone ever asked just how we can tell a Terrorist before he/she
performs an act of Terror? We know because we have such great examples to
learn from.
If we were really the peace loving people we pretend to be, Henry Kissinger,
the darling of the Empire, would be serving life in prison.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "S. Kashdan" <skashdan@scn.org>
To: "Blind Democracy List" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 8:08 AM
Subject: Newly unearthed memo says Henry Kissinger gave the "green light"
for Argentina's dirty war
Newly unearthed memo says Henry Kissinger gave the "green light" for
Argentina's dirty war
More evidence emerges the former secretary of state secretly approved a
government killing spree that resulted in about 30,000 dead.
By David Corn
Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:23 PM GMT
http://www.motherjones.com/print/243121
Only a few months ago, Henry Kissinger was dancing with Stephen Colbert [1]
in a funny bit on the latter's Comedy Central show. But for years, the
former secretary of state has sidestepped judgment for his complicity in
horrific human rights abuses abroad, and a new memo has emerged that
provides clear evidence that in 1976 Kissinger gave Argentina's neo-fascist
military junta the "green light" for the dirty war it was conducting against
civilian and militant leftists that resulted in the disappearance--that is,
deaths--of an estimated 30,000 people.
In April 1977, Patt Derian, a onetime civil rights activist whom President
Jimmy Carter had recently appointed assistant secretary of state for human
rights, met with the US ambassador in Buenos Aires, Robert Hill. A memo [2]
recording that conversation has been unearthed by Martin Edwin Andersen, who
in 1987 first reported that Kissinger had told the Argentine generals to
proceed with their terror campaign against leftists (whom the junta
routinely referred to as "terrorists"). The memo notes that Hill told Derian
about a meeting Kissinger held with Argentine Foreign Minister Cesar Augusto
Guzzetti the previous June. What the two men discussed was revealed in 2004
when the National Security Archive obtained and released [3] the secret
memorandum of conversation for that get-together. Guzzetti, according to
that document, told Kissinger, "our main problem in Argentina is terrorism."
Kissinger replied, "If there are things that have to be done, you should do
them quickly. But you must get back quickly to normal procedures." In other
words, go ahead with your killing crusade against the leftists.
The new document shows that Kissinger was even more explicit in encouraging
the Argentine junta. The memo recounts Hill describing the
Kissinger-Guzzetti discussion this way:
The Argentines were very worried that Kissinger would lecture to them on
human rights. Guzzetti and Kissinger had a very long breakfast but the
Secretary did not raise the subject. Finally Guzzetti did. Kissinger asked
how long will it take you (the Argentines) to clean up the problem. Guzzetti
replied that it would be done by the end of the year. Kissinger approved.
In other words, Ambassador Hill explained, Kissinger gave the Argentines the
green light.
That's a damning statement: a US ambassador saying a secretary of state had
egged on a repressive regime that was engaged in a killing spree.
In August 1976, according to the new memo, Hill discussed "the matter
personally with Kissinger, on the way back to Washington from a Bohemian
Grove [4] meeting in San Francisco." Kissinger, Hill told Derian, confirmed
the Guzzetti conversation and informed Hill that he wanted Argentina "to
finish its terrorist problem before year end." Kissinger was concerned about
new human rights laws passed by the Congress requiring the White House to
certify a government was not violating human rights before providing US aid.
He was hoping the Argentine generals could wrap up their murderous
eradication of the left before the law took effect.
Hill indicated to Derian, according to the new memo, that he believed that
Kissinger's message to Guzzetti had prompted the Argentine junta to
intensify its dirty war. When he returned to Buenos Aires, the memo notes,
Hill "saw that the terrorist death toll had climbed steeply." And the memo
reports, "Ambassador Hill said he would tell all of this to the Congress if
he were put on the stand under oath. 'I'm not going to lie,' the Ambassador
declared."
Hill, who died in 1978, never did testify that Kissinger had urged on the
Argentine generals, and the Carter administration reversed policy and made
human rights a priority in its relations with Argentina and other nations.
As for Kissinger, he skated--and he has been skating ever since, dodging
responsibility for dirty deeds in Chile [5], Bangladesh, [6] East Timor [7],
Cambodia, [8] and elsewhere. Kissinger watchers have known for years that he
at least implicitly (though privately) endorsed the Argentine dirty war, but
this new memo makes clear he was an enabler for an endeavor that entailed
the torture, disappearance, and murder of tens of thousands of people. Next
time you see him dancing on television, don't laugh.
Source URL:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/01/new-memo-kissinger-gave-green-light-argentina-dirty-war
Links:
[1]
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/08/stephen-colbert-henry-kissinger-daft-punk-video
[2]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/192087462/Patricia-Patt-Derian-Robert-C-Hill-et-al-and-the-Argentine-dirty-war-Draft-MemCon
[3] http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB133/
[4]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/bohemian-grove-where-the-rich-and-powerful-go-to-misbehave/2011/06/15/AGPV1sVH_blog.html
[5] http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB255/
[6]
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/jon-huntsman-glosses-over-genocide-bangladesh-pakistan
[7] http://www.yale.edu/gsp/east_timor/
[8] http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/cambodia/tl02.html
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
Jobless rate drops without, recovery in employment
Subject: Re: Jobless rate drops without, recovery in employment
That old adage, Figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure, certainly
applies here. Over the years I have seen our government manipulate numbers,
or even change the basic rules for gathering statistics.
My measuring stick is to watch what is going on around me. Are there more
street people? Are more small business' closing their doors? Are the
Charities announcing serious shortages of food and shelter for the needy?
Are there longer lines of workers applying for the few job openings in town?
Are my neighbors and my own family cutting back on basics due to rising
costs?
All of my indicators tell me that the government can't be trusted to give us
a straight look at our economy.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Loran Bailey" <rogerbailey81@aol.com>
To: "Blind Democracy Discussion List" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 5:13 PM
Subject: Jobless rate drops without, recovery in employment
http://www.themilitant.com/2014/7803/780301.html
The Militant (logo)
Vol. 78/No. 3 January 27, 2014
(lead article)
Jobless rate drops without
recovery in employment
Because unemployment rate doesn't count jobless workers Labor Department
says have given up, rate has declined over last four years, despite lack
of any real recovery. At same time figures mask jobs crisis, they also
point to real trend: over time discouraged workers do drop out of
workforce, which begins to shrink.
BY BRIAN WILLIAMS
Although the Labor Department reported a decline in the unemployment
rate in December, actual joblessness remains at the same high level it
has been for the past four-and-a-half years of the so-called recovery
from the 2007-2009 recession.
Official unemployment figures dropped to 6.7 percent last month from 7
percent in November. This was the result of nothing other than the way
government statisticians handle joblessness by not counting those whom
they consider have given up looking for work. The number of
"discouraged" workers has risen by nearly 2 million over the past year.
As this category grows, the unemployment rate is pushed down.
The government also reported that only 74,000 new jobs were created in
December, the lowest figure in three years. There are still more than 1
million fewer jobs since the onset of the recession at the end of 2007,
according to the Wall Street Journal. And if population growth is taken
into account, there are 7.8 million fewer jobs available.
"The saving grace may be that winter weather is responsible for some of
the sharp decline," stated a Jan. 11 Journal editorial, seeking to cast
these figures in the best light.
But the weather, besides resulting in a decline in construction jobs,
doesn't have much to do with the years of stagnant employment facing
working people. Bosses are not expanding investment in production and
hiring workers because under current conditions it would be less
profitable for them to do so. At the heart of the problem is a long-term
tendency toward declining rates of industrial profit, which has led to a
slowdown in capitalist production and trade on a world scale.
The percentage of the population with a job in December was 58.6 percent
— around the same level it has hovered at since it sharply declined from
63 percent in 2007.
As of December nearly 92 million adults are not counted in the labor
force, a figure that has risen by 11.2 million over the past five years.
Long-term unemployment remains at record-high levels. Nearly 38 percent
of those receiving unemployment benefits have been out of work for more
than six months. Each week that Congress debates whether to provide
federal jobless benefits, another 72,000 workers will see their benefits
end as state compensation expires. This is in addition to the 1.3
million jobless workers who stopped getting federal benefits Jan. 1.
Under these conditions, bosses have been driving against wages and
working conditions. With a 2-cent hourly increase in workers' paychecks
in December, wages rose just 1.8 percent for the year, a decline in real
wages given rising energy and food prices. During the recession, median
household income declined by $1,006, according to Sentier Research.
Since the recession ended in June 2009, it has dropped by another $2,535.
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
That old adage, Figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure, certainly
applies here. Over the years I have seen our government manipulate numbers,
or even change the basic rules for gathering statistics.
My measuring stick is to watch what is going on around me. Are there more
street people? Are more small business' closing their doors? Are the
Charities announcing serious shortages of food and shelter for the needy?
Are there longer lines of workers applying for the few job openings in town?
Are my neighbors and my own family cutting back on basics due to rising
costs?
All of my indicators tell me that the government can't be trusted to give us
a straight look at our economy.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Loran Bailey" <rogerbailey81@aol.com>
To: "Blind Democracy Discussion List" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 5:13 PM
Subject: Jobless rate drops without, recovery in employment
http://www.themilitant.com/2014/7803/780301.html
The Militant (logo)
Vol. 78/No. 3 January 27, 2014
(lead article)
Jobless rate drops without
recovery in employment
Because unemployment rate doesn't count jobless workers Labor Department
says have given up, rate has declined over last four years, despite lack
of any real recovery. At same time figures mask jobs crisis, they also
point to real trend: over time discouraged workers do drop out of
workforce, which begins to shrink.
BY BRIAN WILLIAMS
Although the Labor Department reported a decline in the unemployment
rate in December, actual joblessness remains at the same high level it
has been for the past four-and-a-half years of the so-called recovery
from the 2007-2009 recession.
Official unemployment figures dropped to 6.7 percent last month from 7
percent in November. This was the result of nothing other than the way
government statisticians handle joblessness by not counting those whom
they consider have given up looking for work. The number of
"discouraged" workers has risen by nearly 2 million over the past year.
As this category grows, the unemployment rate is pushed down.
The government also reported that only 74,000 new jobs were created in
December, the lowest figure in three years. There are still more than 1
million fewer jobs since the onset of the recession at the end of 2007,
according to the Wall Street Journal. And if population growth is taken
into account, there are 7.8 million fewer jobs available.
"The saving grace may be that winter weather is responsible for some of
the sharp decline," stated a Jan. 11 Journal editorial, seeking to cast
these figures in the best light.
But the weather, besides resulting in a decline in construction jobs,
doesn't have much to do with the years of stagnant employment facing
working people. Bosses are not expanding investment in production and
hiring workers because under current conditions it would be less
profitable for them to do so. At the heart of the problem is a long-term
tendency toward declining rates of industrial profit, which has led to a
slowdown in capitalist production and trade on a world scale.
The percentage of the population with a job in December was 58.6 percent
— around the same level it has hovered at since it sharply declined from
63 percent in 2007.
As of December nearly 92 million adults are not counted in the labor
force, a figure that has risen by 11.2 million over the past five years.
Long-term unemployment remains at record-high levels. Nearly 38 percent
of those receiving unemployment benefits have been out of work for more
than six months. Each week that Congress debates whether to provide
federal jobless benefits, another 72,000 workers will see their benefits
end as state compensation expires. This is in addition to the 1.3
million jobless workers who stopped getting federal benefits Jan. 1.
Under these conditions, bosses have been driving against wages and
working conditions. With a 2-cent hourly increase in workers' paychecks
in December, wages rose just 1.8 percent for the year, a decline in real
wages given rising energy and food prices. During the recession, median
household income declined by $1,006, according to Sentier Research.
Since the recession ended in June 2009, it has dropped by another $2,535.
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
Intelligence chair: NSA leaker Edward Snowden may have had Russian help - The Guardian
Subject: Re: Intelligence chair: NSA leaker Edward Snowden may have had
Russian help - The Guardian
Flap our lips and point fingers at everybody else. Anything to distract our
attention from the fact that we are playing just as dirty as the other
nations jockeying for Empire status. Let's just admit it. We want to be
top dog and we're willing to do anything to get there. After all, Nice Guys
Finish Last!
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
To: "'Blind Democracy Discussion List'" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:04 PM
Subject: Intelligence chair: NSA leaker Edward Snowden may have had Russian
help - The Guardian
Intelligence chair: NSA leaker Edward Snowden may have had Russian help
Dominic Rushe in New York . Edward Snowden is currently in Russia, where he
was granted asylum. Photograph: The Guardian/AFP/Getty Images Russia may
have helped the former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden to
reveal details of surveillance programmes and escape US authorities last
year, the chairman of the House intelligence committee claimed on Sunday.
Mike Rogers, a Republican representative from Michigan, interviewed by NBC's
Meet the Press , said Snowden was "a thief whom we believe had some help".
"I believe there's questions to be answered there," Rogers said. "I don't
think it was a gee-whiz luck event that he ended up in Moscow under the
handling of the [Russian intelligence service] FSB. Rogers added: "Let me
just say this. I believe there's a reason he ended up in the hands, the
loving arms, of an FSB agent in Moscow. I don't think that's a coincidence.
Rogers' comments were backed by Michael McCaul, chairman of the House
committee on homeland security. Speaking from Moscow, the Texas Republican
told ABC's This Week: "I believe he [Snowden] was cultivated by a foreign
power to do what he did. McCaul said he could not "definitively" say it was
Russia that helped Snowden. "Hey, listen, I don't think ... Mr Snowden woke
up one day and had the wherewithal to do this all by himself. I think he was
helped by others. Again, I can't give a definitive statement on that ... but
I've been given all the evidence, I know Mike Rogers has access to, you
know, that I've seen that I don't think he was acting alone. Snowden was
granted temporary asylum in Russia last August, after travelling to Moscow
from Hong Kong. Last year, in an interview with the New York Times , Snowden
said he did not take any of the documents he obtained to Russia, "because it
wouldn't serve the public interest". Snowden said there was "zero-percent
chance" that Russia had received any documents and that he had handed all
his NSA data to journalists from media outlets including the Guardian,
before leaving Hong Kong. "What would be the unique value of personally
carrying another copy of the materials onward? he said. Snowden has
consistently denied any involvement with foreign spying agencies and said he
leaked the documents because he believed the NSA programmes were against the
best interests of the US people. "I don't want to live in a society that
does these sort of things," he told the Guardian last year. Rogers did not
give any supporting evidence for his claims, but suggested Snowden "used
methods beyond his technical capabilities" and had help with his travel
arrangements. "He was stealing information that had to do with how we
operate overseas to collect information to keep Americans safe ... and some
of the things he did were beyond his technical capabilities," Rogers said.
Mike Rogers is chair of the House intelligence committee. Photograph: AP
Rogers' comments came after President Barack Obama outlined possible reforms
to surveillance practices and a review of the NSA's programmes on Friday .
The speech met with a mixed reaction from privacy advocates and tech and
telecoms companies, all of whom said there was too little detail and little
clarity on how or if the system was being reformed. Some Democrats have also
been critical . Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate judiciary
committee, told Fox News Sunday that further checks and balances were
needed. "There's a concern that we have gone too much into Americans'
privacy," he said. "There's still going to be legislation on this. Rogers
was also critical of Obama. Also on Sunday, he told CNN's State of the Union
that Friday's speech had created more uncertainty in the intelligence
community and was potentially dangerous. "We really did need a decision on
Friday and what we got was lots of uncertainty," he said. "And just in my
conversations over the weekend with intelligence officials, that level of
uncertainty is already having a bit of an impact on our ability to protect
Americans by finding terrorists trying to reach into the United States. He
added: "I just don't think we want to go to pre-9/11 just because we haven't
had an attack. Sign up for the Guardian Today Our editors' picks for the
day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Sign up
for the daily email .
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
Russian help - The Guardian
Flap our lips and point fingers at everybody else. Anything to distract our
attention from the fact that we are playing just as dirty as the other
nations jockeying for Empire status. Let's just admit it. We want to be
top dog and we're willing to do anything to get there. After all, Nice Guys
Finish Last!
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
To: "'Blind Democracy Discussion List'" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:04 PM
Subject: Intelligence chair: NSA leaker Edward Snowden may have had Russian
help - The Guardian
Intelligence chair: NSA leaker Edward Snowden may have had Russian help
Dominic Rushe in New York . Edward Snowden is currently in Russia, where he
was granted asylum. Photograph: The Guardian/AFP/Getty Images Russia may
have helped the former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden to
reveal details of surveillance programmes and escape US authorities last
year, the chairman of the House intelligence committee claimed on Sunday.
Mike Rogers, a Republican representative from Michigan, interviewed by NBC's
Meet the Press , said Snowden was "a thief whom we believe had some help".
"I believe there's questions to be answered there," Rogers said. "I don't
think it was a gee-whiz luck event that he ended up in Moscow under the
handling of the [Russian intelligence service] FSB. Rogers added: "Let me
just say this. I believe there's a reason he ended up in the hands, the
loving arms, of an FSB agent in Moscow. I don't think that's a coincidence.
Rogers' comments were backed by Michael McCaul, chairman of the House
committee on homeland security. Speaking from Moscow, the Texas Republican
told ABC's This Week: "I believe he [Snowden] was cultivated by a foreign
power to do what he did. McCaul said he could not "definitively" say it was
Russia that helped Snowden. "Hey, listen, I don't think ... Mr Snowden woke
up one day and had the wherewithal to do this all by himself. I think he was
helped by others. Again, I can't give a definitive statement on that ... but
I've been given all the evidence, I know Mike Rogers has access to, you
know, that I've seen that I don't think he was acting alone. Snowden was
granted temporary asylum in Russia last August, after travelling to Moscow
from Hong Kong. Last year, in an interview with the New York Times , Snowden
said he did not take any of the documents he obtained to Russia, "because it
wouldn't serve the public interest". Snowden said there was "zero-percent
chance" that Russia had received any documents and that he had handed all
his NSA data to journalists from media outlets including the Guardian,
before leaving Hong Kong. "What would be the unique value of personally
carrying another copy of the materials onward? he said. Snowden has
consistently denied any involvement with foreign spying agencies and said he
leaked the documents because he believed the NSA programmes were against the
best interests of the US people. "I don't want to live in a society that
does these sort of things," he told the Guardian last year. Rogers did not
give any supporting evidence for his claims, but suggested Snowden "used
methods beyond his technical capabilities" and had help with his travel
arrangements. "He was stealing information that had to do with how we
operate overseas to collect information to keep Americans safe ... and some
of the things he did were beyond his technical capabilities," Rogers said.
Mike Rogers is chair of the House intelligence committee. Photograph: AP
Rogers' comments came after President Barack Obama outlined possible reforms
to surveillance practices and a review of the NSA's programmes on Friday .
The speech met with a mixed reaction from privacy advocates and tech and
telecoms companies, all of whom said there was too little detail and little
clarity on how or if the system was being reformed. Some Democrats have also
been critical . Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate judiciary
committee, told Fox News Sunday that further checks and balances were
needed. "There's a concern that we have gone too much into Americans'
privacy," he said. "There's still going to be legislation on this. Rogers
was also critical of Obama. Also on Sunday, he told CNN's State of the Union
that Friday's speech had created more uncertainty in the intelligence
community and was potentially dangerous. "We really did need a decision on
Friday and what we got was lots of uncertainty," he said. "And just in my
conversations over the weekend with intelligence officials, that level of
uncertainty is already having a bit of an impact on our ability to protect
Americans by finding terrorists trying to reach into the United States. He
added: "I just don't think we want to go to pre-9/11 just because we haven't
had an attack. Sign up for the Guardian Today Our editors' picks for the
day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Sign up
for the daily email .
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
"...I am a product of original sin."
"...I am a product of original sin."
So said President Obama. Well Mister President, I hate to burst your little
pink bubble, but there is no such thing as Original Sin. Unless you believe
that a figment of the imagination can actually be a tangible, solid thing.
Original Sin, Mister President, was invented by men in order to explain
their natural animal instincts and lusts.
Of course once you have original sin, you need a loving God who can take
that sin from you. And just to jazz the story up a bit, God sends His Son
and allows Him to be crucified in order to take our sins. This replaced our
earlier practice of animal and human sacrifices to a whole bunch of Gods.
Anyway, if you want to be mired in that original sin, so be it. But for the
record, I am a product of Clyde and Elsie Jarvis. No sin was involved, and
none was laid upon me.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
To: "'Blind Democracy Discussion List'" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 8:37 PM
Subject: quote from a very long New Yorker article on Obama and the print
link
"I have strengths and I have weaknesses, like every President, like every
person," Obama said. "I do think one of my strengths is temperament. I am
comfortable with complexity, and I think I'm pretty good at keeping my moral
compass while recognizing that I am a product of original sin. And every
morning and every night I'm taking measure of my actions against the options
and possibilities available to me, understanding that there are going to be
mistakes that I make and my team makes and that America makes; understanding
that there are going to be limits to the good we can do and the bad that we
can prevent, and that there's going to be tragedy out there and, by
occupying this office, I am part of that tragedy occasionally, but that if I
am doing my very best and basing my decisions on the core values and ideals
that I was brought up with and that I think are pretty consistent with those
of most Americans, that at the end of the day things will be better rather
than worse."
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/01/27/140127fa_fact_remnick?printabl
e=true¤tPage=all
The article has a date of Jan. 27. So perhaps you can find it on Newsline.
I've saved it, but dividing it so it will fit onto the list may be
difficult.
Miriam
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
So said President Obama. Well Mister President, I hate to burst your little
pink bubble, but there is no such thing as Original Sin. Unless you believe
that a figment of the imagination can actually be a tangible, solid thing.
Original Sin, Mister President, was invented by men in order to explain
their natural animal instincts and lusts.
Of course once you have original sin, you need a loving God who can take
that sin from you. And just to jazz the story up a bit, God sends His Son
and allows Him to be crucified in order to take our sins. This replaced our
earlier practice of animal and human sacrifices to a whole bunch of Gods.
Anyway, if you want to be mired in that original sin, so be it. But for the
record, I am a product of Clyde and Elsie Jarvis. No sin was involved, and
none was laid upon me.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
To: "'Blind Democracy Discussion List'" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 8:37 PM
Subject: quote from a very long New Yorker article on Obama and the print
link
"I have strengths and I have weaknesses, like every President, like every
person," Obama said. "I do think one of my strengths is temperament. I am
comfortable with complexity, and I think I'm pretty good at keeping my moral
compass while recognizing that I am a product of original sin. And every
morning and every night I'm taking measure of my actions against the options
and possibilities available to me, understanding that there are going to be
mistakes that I make and my team makes and that America makes; understanding
that there are going to be limits to the good we can do and the bad that we
can prevent, and that there's going to be tragedy out there and, by
occupying this office, I am part of that tragedy occasionally, but that if I
am doing my very best and basing my decisions on the core values and ideals
that I was brought up with and that I think are pretty consistent with those
of most Americans, that at the end of the day things will be better rather
than worse."
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/01/27/140127fa_fact_remnick?printabl
e=true¤tPage=all
The article has a date of Jan. 27. So perhaps you can find it on Newsline.
I've saved it, but dividing it so it will fit onto the list may be
difficult.
Miriam
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
controvercial thoughts stirred by Robert Reich's blog
Subject: Re: controvercial thoughts stirred by Robert Reich's blog
It's a pretty good bet that those born after 1970, have not a clue what the
American society was like just a few years earlier.
The world I grew up in seems to have been from another planet. I remember
delivering the Seattle Star, a daily paper, to homes filled with children
romping about in the yard, and older folks sitting on the front porches.
Mothers bustled about caring for the needs of the elders and the children,
preparing dinner for their husbands when they arrived home. Door to door
salesmen worked up and down the streets, selling everything from Fuller
Brush to Watcon's, to Americana Encyclopedias.
The Green Grocer drove a truck up and down the roads, parking at
intersections and opening up the side panels of his wagon to display the
fresh vegetables and fruits for sale. The bread trucks came along, too.
Fresh smelling bread and pastries waiting for eager housewives to buy. In
the morning the milk trucks rolled down the street leaving milk, butter,
cottage cheese and other dairy products in little insulated boxes on the
porches.
Even the meat truck took its turn driving around, bringing fresh product
almost to the front door.
And of course, on hot summer days you could always hear the tinkle of the
Good Humor wagon's bell, announcing delicious ice-cream bars, fudge bars,
sidewalk sundae's and popsicles.
Few women in these neighborhoods worked outside the home. Perhaps they
would do some volunteer work, but they made certain it did not interfere
with their household duties. If asked what they did, most would say, "I'm
just a housewife".
In most states a woman could be locked out of the house by an angry husband.
She had no claim to "his" belongings. If it seemed practical for the woman
to drive, the husband had to sign for the car.
Women all wore hats or scarves to church. This had something to do with Eve
having coaxed Adam into eating the forbidden fruit.
Attitudes were so very different that I won't even try to explain.
And we did have different values. We assumed that we younger folks would
finish school, college if we could afford it, get a job, marry our childhood
sweetheart, have children, and after some years we would be able to buy a
home similar to the homes of our parents. We would buy a second hand Junker
and do our own repairs until we could afford a newer second hand car. Most
of us moved our new brides into fairly plain apartments, picking up second
hand furniture to "make do" until we could afford better.
My first wife and I(1960-1970), picked up a clunky old TV from some family
member. Of course it was black and white. I never owned a color TV until
1979.
My first wife and I played lots of cards for entertainment. We had many
friends, other young couples, from church. We had card parties and thought
we were really living on the wild side when we bought 7 Up and wine and made
wine flips.
We walked a lot. We took up square dancing. We had picnics and watched the
local kids play ball in the parks. We could rent a row boat for a dollar
for the afternoon, and we'd row out to this little island and eat a basket
lunch, then row back home. I was a cub master and my wife was a den mother.
There was no pressure to keep up with the Jones'. But even back then the TV
was beginning to merchandise products in an effort to make us all want
whatever it was.
Today we are so conditioned that we don't even notice the onslaught. We are
bombarded over and over until it is part of us.
But there was a day...yes, there was a day!
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
To: "'Blind Democracy Discussion List'" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 12:13 PM
Subject: RE: controvercial thoughts stirred by Robert Reich's blog
Ted,
Once upon a time, probably before you were born, we were all satisfied with
less. We wanted to have adequate shelter, enough good food to eat, some
leisure time, entertainment. But it was Corporate America, through mainly TV
commercials, that convinced my children and all the generations that
followed, and members of my generation as well, eventually, that we needed
bigger houses, many TV's, hundreds of cable channels that cost money rather
than a few channels paid for by advertisers, several cars rather than public
transportation, central air conditioning, vacations on cruise ships, cell
phones rather than public pay phones, a computer in every household which
has to be replaced every fiveyears with smart phones and tablets in
addition, books purchased from Amazon rather than borrowed from our local
libraries, etc. It was the banking industry that convinced people that all
of the products being advertised could be their's for the asking if they
used credit cards, not one, not two, but numerous credit cards which kept
appearing magically in the mail. And then, since the credit cards weren't
sufficient, one could take out second mortgages or home equity loans in
order to have the money for things that used to be luxuries and had suddenly
become necessities. None of this was accidental. It was planned and executed
by banks and corporations in order to enrich a tiny slice of the population.
As for women replacing men in certain positions and causing the men's
salaries to drop, I think you need to give some specific examples of that. I
can give a reverse example. Social Work used to be a female profession. But
when I attended graduate school, in 1959 to 1961, we had many men in our
class. Interestingly, they were all concentrating in Administration with a
few concentrating in Community Organization. When they left graduate school,
they were going straight into administration where the salaries were higher
than they were for other social workers. The rest of us, who were women,
were going to be caseworkers or groupworkers. Most of us would be just
starting our careers with low salaries. In New York in 1961, a social worker
in a private agency received a starting salary of $5,400. A few women in my
class had been working for several years for public agencies which paid for
their graduate education. When they returned to work, they would receive
promotions and higher salaries because of graduate school attendance.
However, they were not going into administrative positions. I know a female
attorney who runs a branch office of a private law firm in New York along
with a male attorney. They do exactly the same kind of work and his salary
is approximately $20,000 a year higher than her's. Perhaps you have some
specific statisfics about the general employment picture, but my personal
experience has been that men continue to earn more for the same work than
women.
Having been a homemaker and a mother, I can certainly attest to how tedious
the chores can be at times and how lonely it can be to be alone at home with
a toddler. But that's one side of the experience, and not the entire
experience, and no matter what job you have, it does become tedious and
boring at times. Nevertheless, the tasks of caring for children and a home,
of holding it all together, are necessary. Someone has to do them if we're
going to have children and live in families. And choices have to be made.
But we can't freely make choices when the value of our money diminishes and
the necessities of life are all privatized and become more and more
expensive. If we had a high quality public child care system like they have
in France, family life would be supported and women could choose to work,
perhaps part-time if they chose to, but we're far from that and from the
public's willingness to pay for the high quality services that we want for
our children.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of ted chittenden
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 1:52 PM
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
Subject: Re: controvercial thoughts stirred by Robert Reich's blog
Miriam:
First, and most importantly, this is not all part of "some diabolical social
plan" as you put it; rather, it is the belated realization that 1) we can't
have it all; and 2) every path we choose has both strengths and weaknesses.
Let's look at the latter point in a little more detail.
1) The reason that salt was initially added to food was to keep it (mainly
meats) from spoiling. More salt was added as people found they liked the
taste of salt, just as they liked the taste of sugar and fats. What we have
discovered, however (and I commented on this in an earlier post), is that
having all of the salt, sugar, and fats you want at any given time isn't
good for you--it can lead to heart disease, diabetes, and an early death.
But we are ruled by our emotions, and we love the taste of these foods (and
our businesses make sure they make the taste just right so we will come back
for more and increase their profits), and we are now hooked on them, for
better or worse.
2) You mentioned the upside of women staying at home, but there were also
some big downsides. Many married women found that taking care of children a
husband all the time without getting any reward was boring--cleaning and
cooking are tedious tasks (as a blind male, I have done both). They wanted
out of their imposed-by-males isolation and into the mainstreams of social
and political life. They didn't want marriage to be the end of their
productivity (save for the reproduction of children). So many sought out
work during the 1960s and 1970s, and this was part of a larger process. The
problem was (and what I am going to say is very controversial) that the
number of available jobs did not expand to accommodate all of the women in
the workforce. Yes, there was some expansion; but what really happened was
that when men and women begin applying for basically the same number of
available jobs, then employers found they didn't have to pay the men so
high--the supply of available wo!
rkers had shot up by 30 or 40% with the new female entrants into the market
for jobs and the result was that the salaries of males fell (in freemarket
terms, the supply of workers became much greater than the demand for them).
This trend has continued with NAFTA and the offshoring of jobs in which the
employees didn't have to see their customers face-to-face, and I predict
this trend will continue without abatement in the future.
But the whole truth is that because of the number of available hours in a
day and the demands on their times, neither working women nor working men
(think about it) can really get all they aspire for, and ultimately, they
will have to make the choice as to whether to keep on being the corporate
person with increasing job responsibilities and less leisure time or become
full-time parents with little or no real money available to do the kinds of
family things that many families used to do. Unfortunately, we haven't
learned this lesson yet.
--
Ted Chittenden
Every story has at least two sides if not more.
---- Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
First, for the record, I believe that women should be able to freeely choose
whether or not to devote their lives to a career, homemaking, childdrearing,
or one or more of these choices. But a sentence in Robert Reich's piece
caused me to remember that there was a time when a family could live
comfortably on the salary of one person, usually, the husband's. He worked
away from home. The wife was at home and her day was full. She cooked the
meals. Until the food industry seduced her into using more and more
processed convenience foods, she cooked meals with wholesome, natural
products. My awareness of how this began to change in the 60's was raised by
reading Ssalt: Sugar: Fat. But as women had less and less time, it became
easier to use the food, corrupted by salt, sugar, fat, and chemicals, that
the food industry was pushing. When women were at home, there was time to do
the errands, make the necessary phone calls, supervise children's
activities, create a comfortable and welcoming home environment, maintain
friendships, visit the children's schools, volunteer one's time to worthy
organizations, etc. And that meant that you didn't have to do all the
errands on weekends. You could do them during the work week. And that meant
that many businesses could be closed during weekends which meant that
everyone could count on two days off, two days of leisure and relaxation to
be spent with family and friends. Mothers were at home when children came
home after school. And then women began to work. At first it seemed like
they were working because they were now freed to do so. Being a working
mother was now respectable. But what really happened was that the husband's
salary was worth less and less. Little by little, it became apparent that a
family needed two incomes in order to live comfortably. That meant a lack of
time to cook good food, to spend with children, to do errands, to care for
the home, to enjoy leisure. to socialize with people, to talk on the phone.
Necessary work that used to be done by volunteers, work to help in the
community, now has to become paid work. But somehow, there is never enough
money to pay for it so many community services have disappeared. Because
both parents work, arrangements have to be made for who is responsible for
getting children to school and for caring for them after school or during
the times when children are off from school. Part of the family income must,
therefore, be set aside for child care, and parents need to find people whom
they feel they can trust to care for the children. Weekends are taken up
with doing the errands for which there's no time during the week. How
convenient that we have email and texting because no one chats on the phone
anymore. Plans have to be made way in advance for a leisurely weekend,
usually away from home and the pressures of everyday life.
I'm wondering if the women's movement and the simultaneous drop in value of
middle class incomes is a coincidence or if the convergence is a result of a
diabolical social plan. It's also interesting that the poor have always had
to deal with some of these issues, lack of time, poor quality of food,
concern about child care. Now, people who consider themselves to be middle
class or more economically advantaged, are facing these issues without
realizing how much the social fabric has been damaged.
Miriam
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
It's a pretty good bet that those born after 1970, have not a clue what the
American society was like just a few years earlier.
The world I grew up in seems to have been from another planet. I remember
delivering the Seattle Star, a daily paper, to homes filled with children
romping about in the yard, and older folks sitting on the front porches.
Mothers bustled about caring for the needs of the elders and the children,
preparing dinner for their husbands when they arrived home. Door to door
salesmen worked up and down the streets, selling everything from Fuller
Brush to Watcon's, to Americana Encyclopedias.
The Green Grocer drove a truck up and down the roads, parking at
intersections and opening up the side panels of his wagon to display the
fresh vegetables and fruits for sale. The bread trucks came along, too.
Fresh smelling bread and pastries waiting for eager housewives to buy. In
the morning the milk trucks rolled down the street leaving milk, butter,
cottage cheese and other dairy products in little insulated boxes on the
porches.
Even the meat truck took its turn driving around, bringing fresh product
almost to the front door.
And of course, on hot summer days you could always hear the tinkle of the
Good Humor wagon's bell, announcing delicious ice-cream bars, fudge bars,
sidewalk sundae's and popsicles.
Few women in these neighborhoods worked outside the home. Perhaps they
would do some volunteer work, but they made certain it did not interfere
with their household duties. If asked what they did, most would say, "I'm
just a housewife".
In most states a woman could be locked out of the house by an angry husband.
She had no claim to "his" belongings. If it seemed practical for the woman
to drive, the husband had to sign for the car.
Women all wore hats or scarves to church. This had something to do with Eve
having coaxed Adam into eating the forbidden fruit.
Attitudes were so very different that I won't even try to explain.
And we did have different values. We assumed that we younger folks would
finish school, college if we could afford it, get a job, marry our childhood
sweetheart, have children, and after some years we would be able to buy a
home similar to the homes of our parents. We would buy a second hand Junker
and do our own repairs until we could afford a newer second hand car. Most
of us moved our new brides into fairly plain apartments, picking up second
hand furniture to "make do" until we could afford better.
My first wife and I(1960-1970), picked up a clunky old TV from some family
member. Of course it was black and white. I never owned a color TV until
1979.
My first wife and I played lots of cards for entertainment. We had many
friends, other young couples, from church. We had card parties and thought
we were really living on the wild side when we bought 7 Up and wine and made
wine flips.
We walked a lot. We took up square dancing. We had picnics and watched the
local kids play ball in the parks. We could rent a row boat for a dollar
for the afternoon, and we'd row out to this little island and eat a basket
lunch, then row back home. I was a cub master and my wife was a den mother.
There was no pressure to keep up with the Jones'. But even back then the TV
was beginning to merchandise products in an effort to make us all want
whatever it was.
Today we are so conditioned that we don't even notice the onslaught. We are
bombarded over and over until it is part of us.
But there was a day...yes, there was a day!
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
To: "'Blind Democracy Discussion List'" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 12:13 PM
Subject: RE: controvercial thoughts stirred by Robert Reich's blog
Ted,
Once upon a time, probably before you were born, we were all satisfied with
less. We wanted to have adequate shelter, enough good food to eat, some
leisure time, entertainment. But it was Corporate America, through mainly TV
commercials, that convinced my children and all the generations that
followed, and members of my generation as well, eventually, that we needed
bigger houses, many TV's, hundreds of cable channels that cost money rather
than a few channels paid for by advertisers, several cars rather than public
transportation, central air conditioning, vacations on cruise ships, cell
phones rather than public pay phones, a computer in every household which
has to be replaced every fiveyears with smart phones and tablets in
addition, books purchased from Amazon rather than borrowed from our local
libraries, etc. It was the banking industry that convinced people that all
of the products being advertised could be their's for the asking if they
used credit cards, not one, not two, but numerous credit cards which kept
appearing magically in the mail. And then, since the credit cards weren't
sufficient, one could take out second mortgages or home equity loans in
order to have the money for things that used to be luxuries and had suddenly
become necessities. None of this was accidental. It was planned and executed
by banks and corporations in order to enrich a tiny slice of the population.
As for women replacing men in certain positions and causing the men's
salaries to drop, I think you need to give some specific examples of that. I
can give a reverse example. Social Work used to be a female profession. But
when I attended graduate school, in 1959 to 1961, we had many men in our
class. Interestingly, they were all concentrating in Administration with a
few concentrating in Community Organization. When they left graduate school,
they were going straight into administration where the salaries were higher
than they were for other social workers. The rest of us, who were women,
were going to be caseworkers or groupworkers. Most of us would be just
starting our careers with low salaries. In New York in 1961, a social worker
in a private agency received a starting salary of $5,400. A few women in my
class had been working for several years for public agencies which paid for
their graduate education. When they returned to work, they would receive
promotions and higher salaries because of graduate school attendance.
However, they were not going into administrative positions. I know a female
attorney who runs a branch office of a private law firm in New York along
with a male attorney. They do exactly the same kind of work and his salary
is approximately $20,000 a year higher than her's. Perhaps you have some
specific statisfics about the general employment picture, but my personal
experience has been that men continue to earn more for the same work than
women.
Having been a homemaker and a mother, I can certainly attest to how tedious
the chores can be at times and how lonely it can be to be alone at home with
a toddler. But that's one side of the experience, and not the entire
experience, and no matter what job you have, it does become tedious and
boring at times. Nevertheless, the tasks of caring for children and a home,
of holding it all together, are necessary. Someone has to do them if we're
going to have children and live in families. And choices have to be made.
But we can't freely make choices when the value of our money diminishes and
the necessities of life are all privatized and become more and more
expensive. If we had a high quality public child care system like they have
in France, family life would be supported and women could choose to work,
perhaps part-time if they chose to, but we're far from that and from the
public's willingness to pay for the high quality services that we want for
our children.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of ted chittenden
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 1:52 PM
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
Subject: Re: controvercial thoughts stirred by Robert Reich's blog
Miriam:
First, and most importantly, this is not all part of "some diabolical social
plan" as you put it; rather, it is the belated realization that 1) we can't
have it all; and 2) every path we choose has both strengths and weaknesses.
Let's look at the latter point in a little more detail.
1) The reason that salt was initially added to food was to keep it (mainly
meats) from spoiling. More salt was added as people found they liked the
taste of salt, just as they liked the taste of sugar and fats. What we have
discovered, however (and I commented on this in an earlier post), is that
having all of the salt, sugar, and fats you want at any given time isn't
good for you--it can lead to heart disease, diabetes, and an early death.
But we are ruled by our emotions, and we love the taste of these foods (and
our businesses make sure they make the taste just right so we will come back
for more and increase their profits), and we are now hooked on them, for
better or worse.
2) You mentioned the upside of women staying at home, but there were also
some big downsides. Many married women found that taking care of children a
husband all the time without getting any reward was boring--cleaning and
cooking are tedious tasks (as a blind male, I have done both). They wanted
out of their imposed-by-males isolation and into the mainstreams of social
and political life. They didn't want marriage to be the end of their
productivity (save for the reproduction of children). So many sought out
work during the 1960s and 1970s, and this was part of a larger process. The
problem was (and what I am going to say is very controversial) that the
number of available jobs did not expand to accommodate all of the women in
the workforce. Yes, there was some expansion; but what really happened was
that when men and women begin applying for basically the same number of
available jobs, then employers found they didn't have to pay the men so
high--the supply of available wo!
rkers had shot up by 30 or 40% with the new female entrants into the market
for jobs and the result was that the salaries of males fell (in freemarket
terms, the supply of workers became much greater than the demand for them).
This trend has continued with NAFTA and the offshoring of jobs in which the
employees didn't have to see their customers face-to-face, and I predict
this trend will continue without abatement in the future.
But the whole truth is that because of the number of available hours in a
day and the demands on their times, neither working women nor working men
(think about it) can really get all they aspire for, and ultimately, they
will have to make the choice as to whether to keep on being the corporate
person with increasing job responsibilities and less leisure time or become
full-time parents with little or no real money available to do the kinds of
family things that many families used to do. Unfortunately, we haven't
learned this lesson yet.
--
Ted Chittenden
Every story has at least two sides if not more.
---- Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
First, for the record, I believe that women should be able to freeely choose
whether or not to devote their lives to a career, homemaking, childdrearing,
or one or more of these choices. But a sentence in Robert Reich's piece
caused me to remember that there was a time when a family could live
comfortably on the salary of one person, usually, the husband's. He worked
away from home. The wife was at home and her day was full. She cooked the
meals. Until the food industry seduced her into using more and more
processed convenience foods, she cooked meals with wholesome, natural
products. My awareness of how this began to change in the 60's was raised by
reading Ssalt: Sugar: Fat. But as women had less and less time, it became
easier to use the food, corrupted by salt, sugar, fat, and chemicals, that
the food industry was pushing. When women were at home, there was time to do
the errands, make the necessary phone calls, supervise children's
activities, create a comfortable and welcoming home environment, maintain
friendships, visit the children's schools, volunteer one's time to worthy
organizations, etc. And that meant that you didn't have to do all the
errands on weekends. You could do them during the work week. And that meant
that many businesses could be closed during weekends which meant that
everyone could count on two days off, two days of leisure and relaxation to
be spent with family and friends. Mothers were at home when children came
home after school. And then women began to work. At first it seemed like
they were working because they were now freed to do so. Being a working
mother was now respectable. But what really happened was that the husband's
salary was worth less and less. Little by little, it became apparent that a
family needed two incomes in order to live comfortably. That meant a lack of
time to cook good food, to spend with children, to do errands, to care for
the home, to enjoy leisure. to socialize with people, to talk on the phone.
Necessary work that used to be done by volunteers, work to help in the
community, now has to become paid work. But somehow, there is never enough
money to pay for it so many community services have disappeared. Because
both parents work, arrangements have to be made for who is responsible for
getting children to school and for caring for them after school or during
the times when children are off from school. Part of the family income must,
therefore, be set aside for child care, and parents need to find people whom
they feel they can trust to care for the children. Weekends are taken up
with doing the errands for which there's no time during the week. How
convenient that we have email and texting because no one chats on the phone
anymore. Plans have to be made way in advance for a leisurely weekend,
usually away from home and the pressures of everyday life.
I'm wondering if the women's movement and the simultaneous drop in value of
middle class incomes is a coincidence or if the convergence is a result of a
diabolical social plan. It's also interesting that the poor have always had
to deal with some of these issues, lack of time, poor quality of food,
concern about child care. Now, people who consider themselves to be middle
class or more economically advantaged, are facing these issues without
realizing how much the social fabric has been damaged.
Miriam
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
It's not just 2 pesos; It's the country Mexico City's #PosMeSalto Movement Protests Rising Transit Costs
Subject: Re: It's not just 2 pesos; It's the country Mexico City's
#PosMeSalto Movement Protests Rising Transit Costs
This is absolutely obscene.
Two thoughts occur to me.
1. The Ruling Class, regardless of the name of the country, continues to
use the same tactics which have kept them in power. What they fail to
understand is that the masses are growing in number and in poverty. Once
they have nothing left to give up, the Masses will give up their lives, in
an all out crush of the Ruling Class.
2. Combine the need for money with the fear of abject poverty and the
Ruling Class has an unlimited pool of workers willing to take jobs as police
officers. This has also worked from the Dawn of Property Rights. But
again, times they are a changing.
Growing Masses around the world will rise up when it becomes their only
option for survival. The bought and paid for police officers will begin to
see that they are on the losing side, and as quickly as they licked the
Master's boots for his money, they will turn on him and steal not only the
Master's boots, but everything he possesses.
The day will come because the Ruling Classes cannot conceive that it will
ever happen. They are the last to know in every revolution or uprising in
history.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "S. Kashdan" <skashdan@scn.org>
To: "Blind Democracy List" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 10:38 PM
Subject: It's not just 2 pesos; It's the country Mexico City's #PosMeSalto
Movement Protests Rising Transit Costs
It's not just 2 pesos; It's the country Mexico City's #PosMeSalto Movement
Protests Rising Transit Costs
by Andalusia Knoll
Friday, January 10, 2014 1528
http://www.upsidedownworld.org/main/mexico-archives-79/4635-qits-not-just-2-pesos-its-the-countryq-mexico-citys-posmesalto-movement-protests-rising-transit-costs?tmpl=component&print=1&page=
Mexico City's extensive subway system, constantly packed with its 5 million
daily users, has just become one of the most expensive public transit
systems in the world. On December 13th, 2013 the subway fare was raised from
three pesos (roughly 25 cents ) to five pesos (roughly 40 cents.) Basic
mathematics informs you that this is a whopping 66.66% increase, placing
Mexico City transit costs at the top of the list among the top 30 countries
within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). To
understand how a 50 cent fare is considered one of the most expensive in the
world, you have to take into account Mexico City's minimum wage which has
stagnated around 64 pesos, just shy of five dollars for a day's work.
Therefore, a basic daily commute can account for a minimum of one sixth of
one's daily salary and sometimes up to one half if the commuter has to pay
extra for buses or minivans to travel from their house or job to the subway
stop.
Confronted by this daunting reality of prohibitively expensive public
transit, hundreds of students and young people, largely coordinated via
social networks, organized #PosMeSalto on the first day of the fare
increase. #PosMeSalto loosely translates into, "guess, i'll just jump," a
city wide transportation protest which took place in the majority of major
train stations on the first day of the fare hike. In the stations,
participants assisted thousands of commuters in jumping over the turnstiles,
ducking under them or sliding through sideways. Even subway police officers
declines to intervene, and some even assisted passengers to duck below,
begging them not to vault over the turnstile.
One of the popular chants during the #PosMeSalto actions was "they didn't
survey me, I'm just gonna duck below." Chanters were referencing a Mitofsky
survey that was conducted over two days with only 2400 participants, or a
mere .05% of the commuter population of the city. The questions were front
loaded, asking commuters if they would be in favor of a two peso increase if
the government promised to improve service, increase ventilation and up
security in the wagons. The population of the metropolitan area of Mexico
City is currently estimated at 21 million people and has far outgrown the
current system. Often commuters have to wait for three trains to pass by
before they can even board a wagon in which people are literally packed in
like sardines. With these kind of frustrations and questions worded with a
focus on the improvements, 52% of the 2400 people surveyed said they would
be in support of a fare hike. This government later plastered the statistic
all over the subway system in slick advertising promoting the fare hike. In
the months before the fare hike, many commuters, including the author of
this article, noted a worsening of the subway service, and some suspected
that the transit authorities slowed service to convince people of the
necessity of a fare hike.
One student spoke anonymously in a video published by Subversiones AAC about
what he viewed as the metro's false promises. "We didn't see any
improvements when they raised the fare before, it continued to be the same,
so it's ridiculous for them to raise it," commented the young man. Like him,
many commuters were outraged by the Mitofsky survey and pointed out the
small percentage of people who were surveyed, affirming their opposition to
the fare hike.
In contrast, an independent group of multidisciplinary researchers from the
Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) conducted an online study in which
over 34,000 people participated, of which close to 30,000 entries were
considered valid. Of these 30,000, who hailed from neighborhoods all across
the city and metropolitan region, 93% said they were against the fare hike.
A popular sign among protesters read "It's not just two pesos, it's the
country." The fare hike was implemented the same week in December as the
passage of an energy reform bill which facilitates the privatization of
Mexico's nationalized oil company Pemex. Also, a new Mexico City protest law
which restricts freedom of expression, was fast tracked through city
government a few days before the hike. The protest law will confine protests
to certain streets, impose a limited schedule, require government sanction
and prohibit any activities that counter "good customs" however they may be
defined. However, this law did not seem to prevent any subway stop actions.
Johann Rodriguez, an organizer with #PosMeSalto says direct actions like the
turnstile takeovers are "the only way we can be heard, any other way the
government wouldn't pay attention to us." [1]
In addition to the subway stops, participants of #PosMeSalto have also taken
to the streets. There they have been met with repeated police repression.
During two successive large protests, hundreds of protesters were surrounded
by police and not allowed to march from their starting point of the Angel of
Independence on Reforma, one of the city's major avenues. Eventually, after
a few hours delay, the marchers were allowed to proceed. However, the police
encapsulation was a clear sign of the restrictions sanctioned by the new
protests law. Even before the law was passed, Mexico City experienced an
increase in repression of social movements under the leadership of newly
elected mayor Miguel Mancera. During protests taking place over the past
year, hundreds of people have been arbitrarily detained or beaten including
bystanders and street vendors who were not even participating. A few
thousand people participated in these #PosMeSalto mobilizations but,
considering the general outrage to the fare increase, it seems likely that
many did not take to the streets, fearing probable police repression.
Diana Cortaza participated in the actions in the subway with her daughter
and says that she already couldn't afford the subway and that the fare hike
just makes her life more difficult. A few years back, she dropped out of the
free public university because she couldn't afford her commute. The
government of Mexico City has said that they will issue close to 30,000
tickets for discount fares. However, statistics indicate that there are over
2 million people living below the poverty rate, and these discount fares won't
even make a dent. It is also important to note that there are no discount
weekly or monthly passes or cards that allow free transfers to buses.
This fare hike coincided with the announcement of a 2.50 peso increase in
minimum wage, an amount that is not even enough to cover the hike for a
round trip ticket. These 2.50 pesos represent a 3 percent increase, roughly
in line with inflation, thus hardly an increase at all. Meanwhile the cost
of essential goods continues to rise, especially the price of food including
the corn tortilla, which is a staple of the Mexican diet.
Cortaza says residents are going to keep protesting and she is convinced
that they can revoke the fare hike. "The government has passed their reforms
because we haven't protested, subjecting us to more misery," commented
Cortaza, urging more people to participate in the actions. Some members of
the Passe Libre movement from Brazil participated in the protests and shared
strategies from the successful mobilizations that revoked Brazil's transit
hike in 2013. Their movement brought together students and workers to
protest the hike, declaring that accessible or free transit is a basic
social right.
While it's unclear whether or not the #PosMeSalto movement will gather more
force and continue to brake the train fare hike, it is clear that Mexicans
will continue to suffer economically in a neoliberalized economy. In the
first few weeks of the fare hike, the subway service has not improved at all
and the government has not complied with their promise to make the subway
more "secure" by evicting the thousands of vendors who sell goods in the
wagons. They have merely put up offensive signs stating "If you don't buy
from them, they will disappear." How thoroughly the government intends for
the evicted and already vulnerable ambulatory vendors to "disappear" is
unclear. In an interview with Desinformemonos, Homero Aguilar, a leader of
an organization of workers in the informal economy commented "Creating a
source of employment is not a crime. Annihilating alternatives for survival
for poor people is essentially annihilating them." [2]
The people of Mexico City, however, are resisting this annihilation in
ubiquitous as well as organized ways. These days it is hard to enter the
subway without seeing a defiant young person, awaiting the aversion of a
police officer's glance to slide under the turnstile.
Andalusia Knoll is a multimedia journalist based in Mexico City. She is a
frequent contributor to Free Speech Radio News,Truthout and The Real News
Network and collaborates with various independent media collectives
throughout Mexico includingSubversiones. You can follow her on Twitter at
@andalalucha and view more or her work on her blog.
[1] Ramos, Dulce, " Los puntos que debes conocer de Ley de Manifestaciones."
Animal Politico (December 11, 2013).
[2] Barro, Tonelada, "Los vagoneros del metro, los otros damnificados de
Mancera." Desinformemonos (December 15, 2013).
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
#PosMeSalto Movement Protests Rising Transit Costs
This is absolutely obscene.
Two thoughts occur to me.
1. The Ruling Class, regardless of the name of the country, continues to
use the same tactics which have kept them in power. What they fail to
understand is that the masses are growing in number and in poverty. Once
they have nothing left to give up, the Masses will give up their lives, in
an all out crush of the Ruling Class.
2. Combine the need for money with the fear of abject poverty and the
Ruling Class has an unlimited pool of workers willing to take jobs as police
officers. This has also worked from the Dawn of Property Rights. But
again, times they are a changing.
Growing Masses around the world will rise up when it becomes their only
option for survival. The bought and paid for police officers will begin to
see that they are on the losing side, and as quickly as they licked the
Master's boots for his money, they will turn on him and steal not only the
Master's boots, but everything he possesses.
The day will come because the Ruling Classes cannot conceive that it will
ever happen. They are the last to know in every revolution or uprising in
history.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "S. Kashdan" <skashdan@scn.org>
To: "Blind Democracy List" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 10:38 PM
Subject: It's not just 2 pesos; It's the country Mexico City's #PosMeSalto
Movement Protests Rising Transit Costs
It's not just 2 pesos; It's the country Mexico City's #PosMeSalto Movement
Protests Rising Transit Costs
by Andalusia Knoll
Friday, January 10, 2014 1528
http://www.upsidedownworld.org/main/mexico-archives-79/4635-qits-not-just-2-pesos-its-the-countryq-mexico-citys-posmesalto-movement-protests-rising-transit-costs?tmpl=component&print=1&page=
Mexico City's extensive subway system, constantly packed with its 5 million
daily users, has just become one of the most expensive public transit
systems in the world. On December 13th, 2013 the subway fare was raised from
three pesos (roughly 25 cents ) to five pesos (roughly 40 cents.) Basic
mathematics informs you that this is a whopping 66.66% increase, placing
Mexico City transit costs at the top of the list among the top 30 countries
within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). To
understand how a 50 cent fare is considered one of the most expensive in the
world, you have to take into account Mexico City's minimum wage which has
stagnated around 64 pesos, just shy of five dollars for a day's work.
Therefore, a basic daily commute can account for a minimum of one sixth of
one's daily salary and sometimes up to one half if the commuter has to pay
extra for buses or minivans to travel from their house or job to the subway
stop.
Confronted by this daunting reality of prohibitively expensive public
transit, hundreds of students and young people, largely coordinated via
social networks, organized #PosMeSalto on the first day of the fare
increase. #PosMeSalto loosely translates into, "guess, i'll just jump," a
city wide transportation protest which took place in the majority of major
train stations on the first day of the fare hike. In the stations,
participants assisted thousands of commuters in jumping over the turnstiles,
ducking under them or sliding through sideways. Even subway police officers
declines to intervene, and some even assisted passengers to duck below,
begging them not to vault over the turnstile.
One of the popular chants during the #PosMeSalto actions was "they didn't
survey me, I'm just gonna duck below." Chanters were referencing a Mitofsky
survey that was conducted over two days with only 2400 participants, or a
mere .05% of the commuter population of the city. The questions were front
loaded, asking commuters if they would be in favor of a two peso increase if
the government promised to improve service, increase ventilation and up
security in the wagons. The population of the metropolitan area of Mexico
City is currently estimated at 21 million people and has far outgrown the
current system. Often commuters have to wait for three trains to pass by
before they can even board a wagon in which people are literally packed in
like sardines. With these kind of frustrations and questions worded with a
focus on the improvements, 52% of the 2400 people surveyed said they would
be in support of a fare hike. This government later plastered the statistic
all over the subway system in slick advertising promoting the fare hike. In
the months before the fare hike, many commuters, including the author of
this article, noted a worsening of the subway service, and some suspected
that the transit authorities slowed service to convince people of the
necessity of a fare hike.
One student spoke anonymously in a video published by Subversiones AAC about
what he viewed as the metro's false promises. "We didn't see any
improvements when they raised the fare before, it continued to be the same,
so it's ridiculous for them to raise it," commented the young man. Like him,
many commuters were outraged by the Mitofsky survey and pointed out the
small percentage of people who were surveyed, affirming their opposition to
the fare hike.
In contrast, an independent group of multidisciplinary researchers from the
Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) conducted an online study in which
over 34,000 people participated, of which close to 30,000 entries were
considered valid. Of these 30,000, who hailed from neighborhoods all across
the city and metropolitan region, 93% said they were against the fare hike.
A popular sign among protesters read "It's not just two pesos, it's the
country." The fare hike was implemented the same week in December as the
passage of an energy reform bill which facilitates the privatization of
Mexico's nationalized oil company Pemex. Also, a new Mexico City protest law
which restricts freedom of expression, was fast tracked through city
government a few days before the hike. The protest law will confine protests
to certain streets, impose a limited schedule, require government sanction
and prohibit any activities that counter "good customs" however they may be
defined. However, this law did not seem to prevent any subway stop actions.
Johann Rodriguez, an organizer with #PosMeSalto says direct actions like the
turnstile takeovers are "the only way we can be heard, any other way the
government wouldn't pay attention to us." [1]
In addition to the subway stops, participants of #PosMeSalto have also taken
to the streets. There they have been met with repeated police repression.
During two successive large protests, hundreds of protesters were surrounded
by police and not allowed to march from their starting point of the Angel of
Independence on Reforma, one of the city's major avenues. Eventually, after
a few hours delay, the marchers were allowed to proceed. However, the police
encapsulation was a clear sign of the restrictions sanctioned by the new
protests law. Even before the law was passed, Mexico City experienced an
increase in repression of social movements under the leadership of newly
elected mayor Miguel Mancera. During protests taking place over the past
year, hundreds of people have been arbitrarily detained or beaten including
bystanders and street vendors who were not even participating. A few
thousand people participated in these #PosMeSalto mobilizations but,
considering the general outrage to the fare increase, it seems likely that
many did not take to the streets, fearing probable police repression.
Diana Cortaza participated in the actions in the subway with her daughter
and says that she already couldn't afford the subway and that the fare hike
just makes her life more difficult. A few years back, she dropped out of the
free public university because she couldn't afford her commute. The
government of Mexico City has said that they will issue close to 30,000
tickets for discount fares. However, statistics indicate that there are over
2 million people living below the poverty rate, and these discount fares won't
even make a dent. It is also important to note that there are no discount
weekly or monthly passes or cards that allow free transfers to buses.
This fare hike coincided with the announcement of a 2.50 peso increase in
minimum wage, an amount that is not even enough to cover the hike for a
round trip ticket. These 2.50 pesos represent a 3 percent increase, roughly
in line with inflation, thus hardly an increase at all. Meanwhile the cost
of essential goods continues to rise, especially the price of food including
the corn tortilla, which is a staple of the Mexican diet.
Cortaza says residents are going to keep protesting and she is convinced
that they can revoke the fare hike. "The government has passed their reforms
because we haven't protested, subjecting us to more misery," commented
Cortaza, urging more people to participate in the actions. Some members of
the Passe Libre movement from Brazil participated in the protests and shared
strategies from the successful mobilizations that revoked Brazil's transit
hike in 2013. Their movement brought together students and workers to
protest the hike, declaring that accessible or free transit is a basic
social right.
While it's unclear whether or not the #PosMeSalto movement will gather more
force and continue to brake the train fare hike, it is clear that Mexicans
will continue to suffer economically in a neoliberalized economy. In the
first few weeks of the fare hike, the subway service has not improved at all
and the government has not complied with their promise to make the subway
more "secure" by evicting the thousands of vendors who sell goods in the
wagons. They have merely put up offensive signs stating "If you don't buy
from them, they will disappear." How thoroughly the government intends for
the evicted and already vulnerable ambulatory vendors to "disappear" is
unclear. In an interview with Desinformemonos, Homero Aguilar, a leader of
an organization of workers in the informal economy commented "Creating a
source of employment is not a crime. Annihilating alternatives for survival
for poor people is essentially annihilating them." [2]
The people of Mexico City, however, are resisting this annihilation in
ubiquitous as well as organized ways. These days it is hard to enter the
subway without seeing a defiant young person, awaiting the aversion of a
police officer's glance to slide under the turnstile.
Andalusia Knoll is a multimedia journalist based in Mexico City. She is a
frequent contributor to Free Speech Radio News,Truthout and The Real News
Network and collaborates with various independent media collectives
throughout Mexico includingSubversiones. You can follow her on Twitter at
@andalalucha and view more or her work on her blog.
[1] Ramos, Dulce, " Los puntos que debes conocer de Ley de Manifestaciones."
Animal Politico (December 11, 2013).
[2] Barro, Tonelada, "Los vagoneros del metro, los otros damnificados de
Mancera." Desinformemonos (December 15, 2013).
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)