Re: [blind-democracy] Legislators in Texas push to make every abortion illegal

Here is a clear example of just how the Ruling Class muddies basic
human rights.
The issue is who should have control over a woman's body. But anti
abortionists fog up the subject by making it a tug of war between
unfeeling women and innocent little cuddly fetus'. Once control is
exercised over the abortion issue, will a "safe" dress code be next?
Curfew hours might be needed in order to "protect" our women folk.
Next we will "protect"them by insisting that they only be in public
with a responsible adult male. To make certain our women folk are not
taken advantage of, they will not be allowed to sign any official
documents, hold personal bank accounts, or write checks without a
cosigner. We might need to take a look at the old practice once
popular in Asia, that of binding the female babies feet.
And of course, if our women folk get themselves into a compromising
position...and get caught, they must be flogged in public so other
naughty girls do not think that they can go about tempting innocent
young men.
On another subject, I'm beginning to wonder if the average IQ really
is 100. Maybe 70 would be closer to the norm?

Carl Jarvis


On 04/24/19, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@freelists.org> wrote:
> https://themilitant.com/2019/04/20/legislators-in-texas-push-to-make-every-abortion-illegal/
>
>
> Legislators in Texas push to make every abortion illegal
>
>
>
>
> By Brian Williams
>
> Vol. 83/No. 17
>
> April 29, 2019
>
>
> The Texas state legislative Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee
> held unprecedented public hearings April 8-9 on a proposed bill to
> authorize criminal prosecution of all women who have an abortion and of
> the doctors who perform them. All abortions would be outlawed, including
> for rape, incest and the health of the woman.
>
> While the bill failed to make it to the floor of the House, the
> publicity given to it was hailed as making it a legitimate part of the
> "debate" over abortion by anti-woman forces. It is the latest in a
> series of attacks by capitalist politicians in a growing number of state
> legislatures against family planning, including a woman's right to
> choose abortion.
>
> The bill, called the Abolition of Abortion in Texas Act, would also
> strike down an exception for abortion from the Texas penal code for
> homicide. That would mean women and physicians could be prosecuted for
> murder and subject to the death penalty.
>
> The bill says state and local government officials should enforce the
> legislation "regardless of any contrary federal law, executive order, or
> court decision."
>
> Hundreds of people testified at the hearings over the course of the two
> days, both opponents of women's rights and those backing a woman's right
> to choose. "It was the first time in the state's history," the
> Washington Post noted, "that public testimony had been heard on a
> measure holding women criminally liable for their abortions."
>
> Republican state Rep. Tony Tinderholt, who sponsored the bill, told the
> media that it would make people "consider the repercussions" of having
> sex. Tinderholt had introduced the same legislation in 2017 but it had
> been unceremoniously set aside without a hearing.
>
> Even some who oppose women's access to abortion expressed misgivings
> over the criminal penalties that the bill would impose on women. Texas
> state Rep. Jeff Leach, who allowed the hearing before the judiciary
> committee to take place, said in a statement that while he's "pro-life,"
> this legislation was a step in the "wrong direction." The anti-abortion
> group Texans for Life also said it was against the bill.
>
> The intent of legislators promoting it, and many other bills being
> adopted that impose increasingly far-reaching restrictions on women's
> right to abortion, is to force a court fight to reach the U.S. Supreme
> Court to attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized
> abortion.
>
> In Mississippi, for example, Gov. Phil Bryant signed a bill last month
> that bans abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, often just six
> weeks into pregnancy — when many women aren't even aware they're
> pregnant. The Ohio Legislature approved a similar bill April 10. Similar
> laws are being considered by legislators in Kentucky, Missouri,
> Tennessee, West Virginia and Florida.
>
> In Alabama, legislation was recently introduced to criminalize
> performing all abortions, with the only exception being a threat to the
> woman's life.
>
> These attacks have been made easier by the character of the Roe v. Wade
> ruling. It "was based not on a woman's right 'to equal protection of the
> laws' guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, but on
> medical criteria instead," Jack Barnes, national secretary of the
> Socialist Workers Party, wrote in The Clintons' Anti-Working-Class
> Record: Why Washington Fears Working People.
>
> "During the first three months ('trimester'), the court ruled, the
> decision to terminate a pregnancy 'must be left to the medical judgment
> of a pregnant woman's attending physician' (not to the woman herself,
> but to a doctor!).
>
> "At the same time, the court allowed state governments to ban most
> abortions after 'viability,' … something that medical advances
> inevitably make earlier and earlier in pregnancy."
>
> The SWP supports a woman's right to choose whether and when to have a
> child, free from state interference, and calls for working people to
> mobilize to defend clinics that offer women family planning, including
> the right to safe and secure abortions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Related Articles
>
>
>
> Defend a woman's right to abortion!
> The following statement was released April 17 by Alyson Kennedy,
> Socialist Workers Party candidate for mayor of Dallas. Supporters of
> women's rights must condemn the attempt by Texas legislators to use the
> failed Abolition of Abortion in Texas Act to…
>
> 66-year South Korean ban on abortion ruled unconstitutional
> Cheers erupted from hundreds of demonstrators chanting "New world! Right
> now!" outside South Korea's Constitutional Court in Seoul April 11 when
> the justices ruled 7-2 that a 66-year-old law banning abortion was
> unconstitutional. The court majority said the anti-abortion law…
>
>
> In This Issue
>
> Front Page Articles •New England Stop & Shop workers strike against cuts
> •Legislators in Texas push to make every abortion illegal
> •Protesters in Sudan say: 'The regime must fall!'
> •SWP campaign builds May 1 actions, demands amnesty for all immigrants
> •Fight against ban on Washington prisoners getting used books wins
> •Cuban Revolution 'put workers in the best position to take on racism'
>
> Feature Articles •Today's fighters can learn from Algeria's 1962-65
> revolution
>
> Also In This Issue •Quebec protests hit gov't ban on wearing religious
> symbols on job
> •'Why do workers face so many problems today?'
> •Quebec taxi, Uber drivers need union to fight boss, gov't attacks
> •66-year South Korean ban on abortion ruled unconstitutional
> •Defend a woman's right to abortion!
> •Campaign to expand reach of 'Militant,' books, fund (week one)
>
>
>
> On the Picket Line •Toronto teachers, students protest education cuts
> •Autoworkers in Russia start 'work to rule' against layoffs
>
> Books of the Month •New battalions of working-class fighters in
> formation in China
>
>
>
>
>
> 25, 50 and 75 years ago
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> © Copyright 2019 The Militant - 306 W. 37th Street, 13th floor - New
> York, NY 10018 - themilitant@mac.co
>
> --
>
>
> ---
>
> Christopher Hitchens
> " What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
> evidence. "
> ― Christopher Hitchens,
>
>
>

Re: [blind-democracy] Shoulder Squeeze: Friendly gesture? or reminder of her place.

See how different we all are? I enjoyed flirting, but never touched.
Roger admits to a lingering touching. It's all connected to the Time
in which we grew up, and with our family values, and the way in which
friendship was acknowledged between family members and friends.
But also, down through the Ages our behavior between women and men
was, and is, directly related to our insecurity and to our inability
to demonstrate honest respect for those people we must interact with.
Also, if we taught our children to be forthright and stand up for
themselves, such behavior as unwanted touching or muzzling would not
be so apt to occur.
Rather than stewing for months or years over such unwanted advances, a
woman of Tomorrow might turn to Uncle Joe and ask, "Are you squeezing
my shoulders and nuzzling my hair because of my great beauty and
sexual desire, or is it your attempt to dominate me and put me in my
place?
But of course this can't happen because the woman must remember that
she really is in a subservient status, and this powerful male can
cause great harm to her career.
And even Joe instinctively understands this, even if he seems shocked
if confronted. Each of us subconsciously understands our status in
our present society. I am far more apt to be successful as a blind
man because I am a blind man, not a blind woman. And I am a White
Blind Man, living in a society of mostly White People whose dominant
members are White Males. Do I think about all of my advantages over
blind women and blind people of color? Even if I convince you that I
do not, I know beyond a doubt that my success in life, such as it has
been, has been enhanced by my White Maleness, which I subconsciously
used when necessary.
Carl Jarvis


On 4/18/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@aol.com> wrote:
> Actually, I can't help being at least a little sympathetic toward Joe in
> this matter. I will say that I have never kissed the top of the head of
> a woman I just met. I can't say that I have ever kissed the top of the
> head of a woman I knew well either. That is just not a body part that
> ever entered my mind as being all that kissable. However, I have on
> occasion engaged in some of the other gestures that he is accused of. I
> mean an occasional shoulder squeeze, touching an arm as I was speaking,
> shaking hands and letting my grasp linger until the other person
> withdrew and things like that. I did this with both men and women, but
> it was probably more frequent with women. What were my intentions? One
> intention was no conscious intention at all. That is, it felt like just
> an automatic and natural thing to do and I had no thoughts concerning
> what I might be trying to accomplish. But secondly, when I did have a
> conscious intention it really was to make a friendly gesture, a way of
> saying I like you. I did that kind of stuff mostly when I was sighted. I
> had to make something of a conscious effort to stop when I became blind
> because I can't see what body part I am reaching for and I just might
> grab something that it would be hard to pass off as a friendly gesture.
> Still, though, I think I may still be guilty of the lingering handshake.
> I have also made an effort to refrain from doing that with men. I think
> I have detected some amount of discomfort with it from men, but not from
> women. Men do seem to be more uncomfortable with a lingering touch on
> the hand, the shoulder, the arm than women do. But I assure you that it
> never entered my mind that doing things like that are the equivalent of
> groping.
>
> ---
>
> Christopher Hitchens
> " What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
> evidence. "
> ― Christopher Hitchens,
>
> On 4/18/2019 9:13 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
>> There's no way I can get inside another person's head. Nor do I ever
>> want to. So I have to decide what Uncle Joe meant by his "laying on
>> of hands" when he came up behind a woman he knew, and squeezed her
>> shoulders in full view of others. Joe would want us to believe that
>> he is a touchy sort of guy from the old school. People in the old
>> school touched more than folks seem to do today. "Just a friendly
>> gesture", he would have us understand. But the woman complained. At
>> best this made it a one way friendly gesture. I don't know what Joe
>> said to the complainent, but I know what I would have said. "Please
>> forgive me. I'm sorry. It was purely thoughtless behavior on my
>> part. I assure you that I will not do it again." I've mentioned
>> before how confused a message was sent out to us teenagers back in the
>> 50's. We guys wanted to do the Macho sort of thing so we'd be seen as
>> real men. We lived in a time when men took the lead. Women were
>> supposed to "melt in our arms". A woman pulling back and saying,
>> "No!" would respond with a kiss if we just pushed a little harder.
>> But that was then, those days when a woman must have her husband or
>> father cosign for any expensive purchase she wanted to make.
>> Those were the days when we still looked at working women as taking a
>> man's job. And on and on. But those were the days I grew up in.
>> Still, it made good sense to me when women began to seriously push the
>> boundaries in the early 70's.
>> Many men stood up beside the women and supported their efforts to
>> achieve equality. Many men jeered and called those men as P---y
>> Whipped. They were not willing to let the girls stand shoulder to
>> shoulder with them.
>> Things got very ugly at times. But we did finally begin to see a dim
>> light at the end of that long dark tunnel. And then we put Donald
>> Trump in the president's office.
>> Remember that this is the man who promised to return America to her
>> former greatness. Putting women back in the kitchen and the bedroom
>> is one piece of that glorious return to our former Glory. And women
>> have had the right to vote for less than half of this nation's
>> history. My grandmother Jarvis was in her mid 40's before women had
>> the vote.
>> So what goes through Uncle Joe's head when he comes up behind a woman
>> and squeezes her shoulders, may remain a mystery to us. But we other
>> men should take heed to the message sent out via the woman's protest.
>> When in doubt, keep your hands to yourself...and that goes with your
>> funny comments, too.
>> Carl Jarvis
>> -------------------
>>
>

from the Spokesman Review, Monday April 22, 2019

From staff reports

State Rep. Matt Shea participated in an online chat in 2017 that
discussed taking violent action against leftist protesters, according
to
a report from the Guardian.
The group also suggested that it conduct surveillance on its opponents.

The Guardian said it received copies of the conversation from someone
who participated in the chat but who requested anonymity. The chat
apparently took
place in the days leading up to a rumored "antifa" event. Antifa is
short for anti-fascist and refers to groups who protest white
supremacists, sometimes
with violence. The event never materialized.

The report doesn't show Shea making threats of violence himself, but
it also indicates that he didn't attempt to dissuade the other
participants in the
conversation, according to portions of the chat released by the
Guardian. He appeared to back the idea of conducting surveillance when
he asked chat participants
for a list of people on whom he should perform background checks.

In response to the report, Lt. Gov. Cyrus Habib, a Democrat, called on
Republican leaders to discipline Shea.

"I call on House Republicans to do the right thing and eject Matt Shea
from their caucus. Obtaining background checks on people for the
purpose of planning
violence against them is a crime, and even offering to do so is
clearly 100% unacceptable in the Legislature," Habib tweeted.

[blind-democracy] Re: Isolating the Elderly: Is It an act of kindness? or just good business.

Absolutely right, Miriam.
While our imaginations have us back in the late 1800's, down on the
farm, small town USA, extended families, over the river and through
the woods to grandmother's house we go, our real world has changed to
the point that many of our basic values, once believed to be handed to
us by God Almighty, no longer apply.
When I first entered college in 1954, my Sociology professor talked
about the shift from the "Extended Family", to the "Nuclear Family".
That began with a mother, a father and 3.5 children. In a quick move
that nuclear family became, A Parent or Guardian and those for whom
they are responsible.
Today we have trimmed down to a definition of a single unit. The
Libertarian. I'm for me, First, Last and Always Me! Self Serving.
"Get it while the getting's good". "Them what has, gets".

And so what appears to be an act of kindness and generosity, building
a pretty prison for our Seniors, turns out to be linked to our move
toward Isolated Libertarian ism.
Of course it's a complex situation, not clear cut. Since we are
driven by our Capitalistic Culture, it is important that we place a
monetary value on everything. We exploit our children, our health,
and our Seniors. At the rate we're changing, the day will come when
we will simply dispose of any part of our population that cannot
generate profit.
But back to those long forgotten days of the 40's and 50's when
grandma or grandpa had a back bedroom in the family house. And often
times it was actually their own house. But they were a problem,
cleaning up after them, feeding them, listening to them bitch and
complain. We convinced ourselves that it was for their own good to
move into a "Senior's Center", where they could "enjoy" retirement
with other folks of similar age. Financial investors saw this as an
opportunity to turn a buck. Build a fancy facility and then put it on
the market. Large corporations began to figure how to squeeze profit
out of these Elder Care Facilities by cutting corners just a
little...at first. We've seen, over the past 25 years, beautiful,
well staffed facilities trimmed back to bare bones. Light
housekeeping extended from weekly, to twice a month. Activity
directors terminated. Office staff reduced to part time. Dining
room servers replaced by volunteer high school students. The list
goes on, anywhere a corner can be cut. But worst of all is the fact
that these Seniors have been placed outside of their communities.
They are in a pretty prison. A few "busy" activities, but no real
purpose in life. Just waiting for the grim reaper to wander through.
One day Cathy and I entered the Willows, an upper end Senior Apartment
Facility, with all the amenities, and we beheld the most beautiful
display of quilts. It was the culmination of a quilting contest. At
the time I said to Cathy, "next thing you know, they'll be selling the
quilts to pay for some of the "free" services." About ten years later
we entered the same building and beheld the display of quilts and
other home made items, with price tags on them. The money from the
sales of these items would go toward paying the building's van driver.
This service had been provided as part of the huge rent folks paid,
but had to be cut back because of the cost. One client told us that
she had been there for five years, and each year her rent had gone up
$50 a month. In five years she was paying $250 per month more than
her original rent. But her fixed income had barely increased. She
feared she would not be able to afford another increase.
And here's the sad news. Many of these folks living in the Senior
Apartments are good, lifelong Republicans.
My grandma Ludwig(1892-1985)proudly said, "I'm an Abraham Lincoln
Republican". But old Abe had been dead 27 years prior to Grandma's
birth. Abe would not have recognized the world Grandma lived in.
Which reminds me, I just deleted a Spam Message telling me that FBI
statistics show that States with laws permitting concealed weapons,
have 8.5% lower crime rates than those States without such laws. Of
course the note was placed by a company selling me hand guns and
ammunition via the internet.
What a delightful plan! We really ought to drop any age limits to
purchasing guns. After all, it seems that Idiocy knows no age limits.

Carl Jarvis

On 4/20/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> Carl,
>
> Those luxury facilities for the elderly which you mention and which,
> immediately deteriorate because of lack of funding, they are the symbol of
> how our society feels about the elderly. Everyone else is so busy making a
> living, trying to care for themselves and their children, that segregating
> old people has seemed like a perfect answer. That doesn't happen in
> traditional cultures and it never used to happen here. Jusst as children
> were integrated into families, so were the elderly. Now we talk about child
> care and elder care. It's a sign of the times. It's a whole change in family
> kinship systems. And what kind of work do we honor? We honor tech experts
> and experts in finance. We don't honor people who care for our children or
> our elderly or our sick. Yes doctors, the people who look at our charts on
> computers, but not so much nurses or nurses' aides.
>
> Miriam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> <blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 10:10 PM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Attempted murder
>
> Hi Miriam,
> Yes. I do understand. But I'm also driven to do what I can do to prevent
> our clients from killing themselves, or others.
> Because of our Capitalist System, we are constantly struggling to make gains
> in conditions for older folks. We gain a little ground, and some
> corporation swallows it up and triples the cost, or shuts it down as
> unwanted competiition.
> We arrived where we are today, as much through Greed as through Compassion.
> One day we enter a new senior facility full of all sorts of amenities. A
> couple of yuears pass buy and some national corporation buys the facility
> and begins cutting services iuntil the building is falling into disrepair
> and the staff only work part time.
> We fight for door to door transportation. We finally begin to see a system
> that meets the basic needs of Seniors and Disabled folks. Then the next
> budget cuts funding, and it becomes harder and harder to arrange for basic
> transportation. But we got ourselves into this mess, and we'll need to be
> the ones to get us out. The Ruling Class finds ways of diverting our tax
> dollars, insisting that we can take care of our own special needs. Let
> churches and volunteer services pick up the services being cut from our
> budgets.
> It's taken many years to come to such a social mess. It's going to take a
> long time to get out of it...if we have enough time.
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
>
> On 4/19/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>> Carl,
>>
>> The thing is that we have a society which has been organized to depend
>> on individually owned vehicles. Becoming old, finding that one's
>> health isn't as good as it was, losing some eyesight, some hearing,
>> becoming forgetful, all of that is terribly hard for people in a world
>> which worships youth and beauty. And then their independence is taken
>> away. Being unable to drive in our world means for most people that
>> that you are like a dependent child. I understand why they will hold onto
>> driving for as long as they can.
>>
>> Miriam
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>> <blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
>> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 8:20 PM
>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Attempted murder
>>
>> Roger and Miriam,
>> I'm assuming that your adventure happened at the time you still had
>> decent vision.
>> But it brings to mind many, many stories Cathy and I have heard from
>> older clients who just can't face the fact that their sight has dimmed
>> to the point that they should quit driving. Because of never having
>> had decent vision, I grew up knowing that driving after dark, or at
>> dusk, or on grey rainy days, would endanger both myself and anyone
>> within striking range. So I seldom drove, and as a result I did not
>> miss the freedom which so many of our clients missed. Even so,
>> because I learned to drive with only one eye, it took a great deal of
>> energy to "see" all that was going on around me.
>> Also it took considerable luck.
>> "Oh, I can see distances just fine," they tell us. "It's just up real
>> close that things get fuzzy." We patiently explain the impact on the
>> Retina, and how our brain can trick us into believing we're seeing
>> more than we really do see, but they are wanting to believe that they
>> are the exception. "Even if you do see distances well enough", I
>> insist, "what you miss is the ability to see quickly enough to avoid
>> disaster in an emergency". And in today's heavy traffic that is a daily
>> event.
>> One dark winter evening a year ago, Cathy and I were coming home
>> after a rather long day. We came off highway 101, onto Snow Creek
>> Road, our county gravel road, and made the long sweeping right hand curve
>> up a steep hill.
>> Suddenly Cathy hit the brakes. I felt the thump. "Oh God!" Cathy
>> groaned, "I hit a deer. It just jumped from the hill right into our
>> path". After driving that road since 1987, this was the first
>> encounter we'd had with a deer...or anything other than a suicidal
>> bird. As many miles as she's driven, and as sharp as her night vision
>> is, there was no way of avoiding that deer. Our headlights confused
>> it and it bolted for the far side of the road, and the safety of the
>> forest. It rolled and then jumped up and dashed into the brush.
>> Hopefully it was just bruised, not damaged fatally.
>> But our new Toyota Tacoma had over $1,000 damage to the grill. That
>> repair, which, thankfully, was covered, reminded me of how cheaply
>> today's vehicles are put together. Inside our truck we feel safe.
>> But when one bump can cause so much damage, what would we look like if
>> we'd struck an oncoming vehicle at 25 miles an hour, each?
>>
>> Carl Jarvis
>>
>>
>> On 4/19/19, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@freelists.org> wrote:
>>> I didn't hit him. He jumped out of the way just in time. That image
>>> of him that I have burnt into my brain was the sight of him in mid leap.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Christopher Hitchens
>>> " What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
>>> evidence. "
>>> ― Christopher Hitchens,
>>>
>>> On 4/19/2019 9:18 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
>>>> Other people might not have laughed in that situation. I've never
>>>> driven a car, but if it were me, I'd have been horrified that I'd
>>>> inadvertently hit someone whom I hadn't seen, relieved that he
>>>> wasn't hurt, and terrified about being arrested. I suspect that if
>>>> you were African American, he probably would have arrested you for
>>>> attempted murder, and you might not be here to tell the tale.
>>>>
>>>> Miriam
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>>>> <blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org> On Behalf Of Roger Loran
>>>> Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 10:10 PM
>>>> To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@freelists.org>
>>>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Attempted murder
>>>>
>>>> Since I was using attempted murder as an example of how one could be
>>>> charged with a crime when the intended crime was not committed I
>>>> reminded myself of the time a cop threatened to arrest me for
>>>> attempted murder. I tell you this only because I thought you might
>>>> find it amusing. In retrospect I do. I was driving along once at
>>>> night. I came up to an elementary school on my left and sitting in
>>>> the parking lot was a police car with its blue lights flashing, its
>>>> headlights on and a door standing open. There was no cop in it nor
>>>> outside of it that I could see. That made me curious and so I was
>>>> looking at it wondering what was going on. As I passed it I returned
>>>> my eyes to the road just in time to see the cop. The image I saw was
>>>> burned into my brain and I still recall it in detail.
>>>> Right there in my headlights was an airborne cop. He was actually in
>>>> the air above the road with arms and legs spread out, with a
>>>> flashlight also in the air and detached from his right hand by
>>>> several inches, and a look on his face that could only be utter
>>>> panic. I hit my brakes just in time to avoid hitting the stopped car
>>>> that was partially in the road and partially in a deep ditch. I
>>>> could see that the car was stuck and that the cop had been directing
>>>> traffic around it, but because I was distracted by his cop car with
>>>> all of its lights flashing I did not see him until too late. It was
>>>> his leap that I caught part of in my headlights that saved him, not
>>>> my application of the brakes. The application of the brakes only
>>>> saved me from hitting the car. Once I had stopped here came the cop
>>>> from the foliage that he had leaped into. From his mouth came a
>>>> flurry of invectives each of which was preceded by the words god
>>>> damn. It was god damn idiot, god damn moron, god damn fool and god
>>>> damn everything else.
>>>> Between the god damns he threatened to arrest me for reckless
>>>> driving, attempted murder and numerous attempted other crimes. Even
>>>> while all this name calling and threats were going on I was hard
>>>> pressed to not laugh.
>>>> What struck me as so funny were all the leaves and twigs adorning
>>>> his uniform and his hair too. He must have landed in a real thicket.
>>>> Amazingly enough, though, he finally said that he had other things
>>>> to deal with other than me and he told me to get out of there before
>>>> he really did arrest me. I left without even a ticket.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Fwd: [blind-democracy] The New Deal: Roosevelt’s answer to ‘radicalism’

This article on the depression days and FDR is pretty accurate.
Dad/Grandpa

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 10:45:12 -0700
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] The New Deal: Roosevelt's answer to 'radicalism'
To: blind-democracy@freelists.org

To Quote Teddy Roosevelt, "Bully! Bully!"
Back in the mid 1950's, Westbrook Peglar, Hearst's fair haired Op/Ed
writer, continued to trash FDR, dead for a dozen years, and even
carried the attack forward to Eleanor Roosevelt.
Hearst, like so many "self-made" millionaires of the day, was so full
of himself that he never did figure out that his well being was
directly tied to FDR's New Deal.
When FDR first ran in 1932, my folks were just courting. Married in
April of 1933, they lived in what today would be considered to be
Shacks. A single dangling light bulb, a wood stove, a water pump just
outside the kitchen door, and a path to the Out House. After four
years of President Herbert Hoover, they grabbed onto the New Deal as
if it were the last life boat on the Titanic.

Carl Jarvis, just one of the Depression Babies.


On 4/19/19, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@freelists.org> wrote:
> https://socialistaction.org/2019/04/19/the-new-deal-roosevelts-answer-to-radicalism/
>
>
> The New Deal: Roosevelt's answer to 'radicalism'
>
> / 8 hours ago
>
>
> April 2019 Roosevelt
> Franklin D. Roosevelt.
>
> By DAVID RIEHLE
>
> Four score and seven years ago … Franklin Roosevelt brought forth in
> this country a New Deal. Not a Square Deal (Teddy Roosevelt) or a Fair
> Deal (Truman) but a NEW DEAL. New York Governor Roosevelt was nominated
> for president at the Democratic Party national convention in Chicago on
> July 2, 1932. In his acceptance speech he said, "I pledge you and I
> pledge myself to a new deal for the American people."*
>
> FDR's Labor Secretary, Frances Perkins, revealed that when Roosevelt
> took office in March 1933, "the New Deal was not a plan with form or
> content. It was a happy phrase he had coined during the campaign and its
> value was psychological. It made people feel better."
>
> Fundamentally, the New Deal was a series of recovery programs designed
> as aids to businesses and banks. Congress passed and Roosevelt signed
> during his first 100 days in office the First New Deal Program (1933–5),
> including an Emergency Banking Act (March 1933), an Economy Act (March
> 1933), and the establishment of a Federal Emergency Relief
> Administration (March 1933), to be followed in June by the creation of a
> National Recovery Administration.
>
> Participation in the NRA was merely voluntary, and participating
> businesses were supposed to put the NRA's symbol, the Blue Eagle, in
> their windows. The Wobblies called it "The Blue Vulture." At the same
> time, there was a program of public works legislation, the WPA. Most
> significant and enduring for workers are three measures:
>
> 1) The National Labor Relations Act, passed in 1935, which gives unions
> whatever legal status they have in this country.
>
> 2) The Social Security Act, passed in 1935, was a watered down version
> of Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party Representative Ernest Lundeen's bill
> proposing a comprehensive social insurance system "for all workers,
> including all wage earners, all salaried workers, farmers, professional
> workers and the self-employed." The bill provided for compensation equal
> to average earnings for wages lost due to layoffs, injuries, illnesses,
> maternity, and old age. Mothers of children under 18 also would receive
> allowances if they lacked male support.
>
> The Lundeen Bill was reported out of the House Labor Committee in 1935,
> but Congress failed to enact it. Instead, the Congress passed and
> President Roosevelt signed the restrictive and discriminatory Social
> Security Act, which excluded almost all African American workers—i.e.,
> agricultural laborers, as in the cotton fields—and (mostly African
> American) female domestic workers.
>
> 3) The Fair Labor Standards Act, passed in 1938, which required overtime
> pay after 40 hours at the time and one half rate, outlawed most child
> labor and established a national minimum wage. Most embedded in the
> memory of the working class, perhaps, is the public works program known
> as the Works Progress Administration, or WPA. I happen to remember that
> Mad magazine, reviewing FDR's first term in office, with its alphabet
> soup of new federal agencies and programs, (NIRA, AAA, FCA, FSA, CCC,
> TVA, WPA, CCC, FHA FTC) said "Roosevelt's first term was an initial
> success." It's probably needless to say that all three of these
> threshold standards are under relentless attack and have been for the
> last 40 years or so.
>
> In July 1932, Roosevelt was speaking as unemployment, which had surged
> up from around 4% after the October 1929 stock market crash, was now,
> nearly three years into the Depression, approaching 25% and still
> rising. There was virtually no social safety net, and people were
> obviously desperate.
> Men Waiting Outside Al Capone Soup Kitchen
> Despite the New Deal, high unemployment persisted during the Roosevelt
> administration until the beginning of World War II.
>
> There had been depressions before in American history, but FDR assured
> the delegates that "the great social phenomenon of this depression,
> unlike others before it, is that it has produced but a few of the
> disorderly manifestations that too often attend upon such times.
>
> "Wild radicalism has made few converts, and the greatest tribute that I
> can pay to my countrymen is that in these days of crushing want there
> persists an orderly and hopeful spirit on the part of the millions of
> our people who have suffered so much. To fail to offer them a new chance
> is not only to betray their hopes but to misunderstand their patience."
>
> Of course, this was in July 1932. Their patience wore thin pretty
> quickly. "To meet by reaction that danger of radicalism is to invite
> disaster," Roosevelt said. "Reaction is no barrier to the radical. It is
> a challenge, a provocation. The way to meet that danger is to offer a
> workable program of reconstruction, and the party to offer it is the
> party with clean hands."
>
> Why did FDR have the danger of "wild radicalism" on his mind? This was
> not just an abstract consideration, or even simply a recollection of the
> social turmoil during the depressions of the late 19th century.
> Roosevelt, in fact, had every reason to be especially aware of and
> sensitive to "wild radicalism."
>
> FDR had been involved in New York and national politics for decades. At
> the time of his nomination for president he had been serving as governor
> of New York for the previous four years, and he had earlier been a
> member of the New York state legislature. New York, and New York City in
> particular, was the center of working-class radicalism in the United
> States, with tens of thousands of workers who supported left-wing
> parties and made up the membership of militant unions, particularly in
> the garment industry. In 1920, five socialists whom workers in New York
> City had elected to the state legislature were denied their seats by the
> Democratic/Republican majority on the grounds that they were "elected on
> a platform that is absolutely inimical to the best interests of the
> state of New York and the United States."
>
> By 1938, when FDR was serving his second term, "wild radicalism" had
> made enough converts to produce a wave of mass strikes in 1934, the
> formation of the Congress of Industrial Organizations by the seceding
> unions from the American Federation of Labor, and the semi-revolutionary
> occupation in late 1936 of the giant General Motors plant in Flint
> Michigan, led by radical autoworkers.
>
> As socialist journalist Art Preis wrote in "Labor's Giant Step," his
> history of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), "The picture
> of Roosevelt as a 'friend of labor' giving the people concessions out of
> the tenderness of his heart—this portrait painted by both the
> conservative trade union officialdom and the Stalinists—is completely
> false. Roosevelt was a clever, adroit politician who carefully gauged
> popular sentiment. His slightest concession to the workers was given
> grudgingly out of fear of the masses and to prevent their moving left.
>
> "He voiced this in his 1932 acceptance speech, saying that 'a resentment
> against the failure of Republican leadership … the failure of Republican
> leaders to solve our troubles may degenerate into unreasoning
> radicalism. … To meet by reaction that danger of radicalism is to invite
> disaster.'"
>
> Preis quotes Raymond Moley, one of Roosevelt's closest associates of the
> early "New Deal," who wrote in his book, "After Seven Years": "It cannot
> be emphasized too strongly that the policies which vanquished the bank
> crisis were thoroughly conservative policies. If ever there was a moment
> when things hung in a balance, it was on March 5, 1933—when unorthodoxy
> would have drained the last remaining strength of the capitalist system.
> Capitalism was saved in eight days."
>
> And he cites Ferdinand Lundberg, in "America's 60 Families," the classic
> study of the big capitalists who run this country, who concluded that
> the New Deal was neither "revolutionary nor radical; in reality it was
> 'conservative.' He wrote that 'its mild tentative reformist coloration'
> was a concession in the face of widespread unrest."
>
> The original draft of NIRA (National Industrial Recovery Administration)
> said nothing about collective bargaining rights. Long afterwards, Miss
> Perkins admitted that Section 7(a) was written into the bill only after
> protests by William Green (then president of the American Federation of
> Labor). She comments: "Written in general terms, 7(a) was a problem in
> semantics. It was a set of words to suit labor leaders, William Green in
> particular."
>
> Of course, everyone knows that FDR came from the upper class, but does
> anybody really know where the family got its wealth? It wasn't from
> operating a farm in upstate New York (FDR identified himself on the
> census as a "farmer.") Franklin Roosevelt was a member of the oldest
> section of the American ruling class, what is sometimes called the
> "Knickerbocker Aristocracy." This group's original fortunes derived from
> vast land grants along the Hudson River from the Dutch West Indies
> Company in the 17th century. Eventually the Roosevelt family fortunes
> came to rest on banking, railroads, and shipping. FDR's grandfather,
> Warren Delano II, made a fortune in the highly profitable China opium
> trade.
>
> It is interesting to note that no less than five members of the extended
> Roosevelt clan served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy: Theodore
> Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt Jr. who served from
> 1921 through 1924 under Harding and Coolidge, Theodore Douglas Robinson
> (the son of Corinne Roosevelt) who served from 1924 through 1929 under
> Coolidge, and finally Henry Latrobe Roosevelt, a descendant of Robert
> Fulton's old friend "Steamboat Nicholas" Roosevelt, who served from 1933
> through 1936 under FDR.
>
> FDR, who received presidential compensation of $75,000 annually, also
> was given a $75,000 yearly allowance by his mother, Sara Delano
> Roosevelt, while he was in the White House. If Roosevelt knew anything
> about poor people, it was that God must have loved them, because he made
> so many of them.
>
> Now: The Green New Deal
>
> The first problem in calling for a Green New Deal is that it
> misrepresents the original, which was, if anything, miserly and
> conservative. It happened to coincide with the most massive labor
> uprising in U.S. history, but it didn't create it. At this point in
> time, it is doubtful if many people under 60 years old except students
> of history and Democratic Party politicians have ever heard of the "New
> Deal." And trying to rally people around a false version of history has
> obvious complications, to say the least.
>
> The "Green New Deal" that we're hearing about now is a response to an
> October 2018 report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on
> Climate Change, which found that in order to avoid catastrophic
> consequences worldwide, the global temperature must be prevented from
> increasing by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius over the next 12 years. To
> reach this goal, global greenhouse gas emissions need to be 45 percent
> below 2010 levels by 2030 and be net zero by 2050.
>
> This will require, they say, in a very limited time frame,
> "extraordinary transitions in transportation; in energy, land, and
> building infrastructure; and in industrial systems."
>
> Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has achieved instant
> celebrity as an electoral phenom, at least presents the GND proposition
> in more sweeping terms. She calls the Green New Deal proposed in Obama's
> 2008 platform a "half measure" that "will not work." She says, "The
> Green New Deal we are proposing will be similar in scale to the
> mobilization efforts seen in World War II or the Marshall Plan. It will
> require the investment of trillions of dollars and the creation of
> millions of high-wage jobs. We must again invest in the development,
> manufacturing, deployment, and distribution of energy but this time
> green energy."
>
> In other words, if this statement is to be taken seriously, the model is
> not FDR's "New Deal," but an all-out and continuing mobilization of
> national (and international) resources of the scale and intensity of
> World War II, but directed at saving the ecosystem, and not destroying
> it in the name of "democracy."
>
> The Marshall Plan, it should be noted, was a forthright attempt, largely
> successful, to resuscitate capitalist Western Europe and inaugurate the
> Cold War, notably with the help of Nazi war criminals in West Germany.
>
> This at least has the merit of posing or strongly implying that the
> challenge to humanity demands an unprecedented social, economic and
> political effort. However, it is historically out of context. The
> economic, military, and human mobilizations by the United States during
> World War II were directed towards achieving maximum human and material
> destruction, the only goal around which the ruling class could coalesce
> effectively. The greatest technical accomplishment was at the same time
> the most sinister—the atom bomb—used to immediately extinguish the lives
> of more than 200,000 non-combatant human beings in Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki, Japan, in August 1945.
>
> All these things were carried out with the full force and credit of the
> U.S. ruling class, and primarily through executive fiat by FDR. (Nuclear
> war against Japan was authorized by Harry Truman after FDR's death in
> April 1945.)
>
> But how is this green transformation to be accomplished? Several
> socialist organizations have explored this question.
>
> For example, Socialist Alternative, the newspaper of the organization of
> the same name, writes (Dec. 18, 2018), "We have seen young people
> propelled into action on this issue, as shown by the occupations of
> Nancy Pelosi's office in November demanding a 'Green New Deal,' and it
> is likely this movement for climate justice will develop further in the
> coming year. We need a massive green infrastructure program to create
> millions of good paying jobs transitioning the U.S. away from fossil
> fuels and to renewable energy!"
>
> The goals enunciated are compelling, but vague. There is little sense
> here of the utter urgency of taking on the unpostponable crisis of
> climate change. While Socialist Alternative scores what it calls the
> "corporate Democrats," like Pelosi, it champions the Democratic Party's
> main proponent of the Green New Deal, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. This
> reinforces the delusion that any progress can be achieved by people of
> good will, through the medium of the capitalist Democratic Party, not to
> say the Congress of the United States.
>
> Directing this movement into the Democratic Party, and the U.S.
> Congress, will suffocate it: "Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate"
> ("Abandon all hope, ye who enter here").
>
> Even FDR, with all the unilateral power of the Oval Office and the
> momentum of a landslide victory, was repeatedly stymied by the Supreme
> Court and reactionary inertia and sabotage of Congress. And all he was
> trying to do was save capitalism.
>
> It is absolutely true that the emerging crisis cannot be seriously and
> effectively addressed without the elimination of fossil fuels. But the
> extraction and use of fossil fuels is not even slowing down; pipelines,
> crude oil trains, supertankers—it's too fabulously profitable and it has
> been so for over a century. This is the most arrogant and richest class
> in the history of the world—and the most destructive. They will not give
> this up; they are incapable of it. They want more. What are they doing
> in Venezuela, which has the world's largest proven reserves of oil?
>
> Leon Trotsky explained, in his introduction to "The History of the
> Russian Revolution," what makes a revolution possible: "The most
> indubitable feature of a revolution is the direct intervention of the
> masses in historical events. In ordinary times the state, be it
> monarchical or democratic, elevates itself above the nation, and history
> is made by specialists in that line of business—kings, ministers,
> bureaucrats, parliamentarians, journalists. But at those crucial moments
> when the old order becomes no longer endurable to the masses, they break
> over the barriers excluding them from the political arena, sweep aside
> their traditional representatives, and create by their own intervention
> the initial groundwork for a new regime….
>
> "The history of a revolution is for us first of all a history of the
> forcible entrance of the masses into the realm of rulership over their
> own destiny."
>
> It's no accident that the majority of young people express a preference
> for socialism over capitalism. They don't know much about the theory of
> surplus value or dialectical materialism, but they sense that capitalism
> is dog-eat-dog and that socialism holds out the promise of a society of
> peace and human solidarity, and a genuinely green planet.
>
> And they are beginning to move into the streets to demand change. We've
> recently seen demonstrations of hundreds of thousands of young
> people—people under 18—in many countries. This is the beginning. This is
> the vanguard that doesn't want to compromise with self-serving
> politicians, that demands action now. These are the youthful legions
> that are on the threshold of becoming the vanguard of the working class
> of the world—a movement in the streets that can begin to express
> political independence and can educate and inspire others.
>
> It is clear from the testimony of history that there is no other social
> force that can push aside, overthrow, and repress the architects of the
> overwhelming disaster facing the human race other than the masses, the
> workers, the farmers, the wretched of the earth. Can it be done in time?
> That is, of course, impossible to say. But we do know that when a window
> opens up, when an opening is created by a social and human crisis of
> unprecedented depth and intensity, the historic possibility is there.
>
> If a crucial minority has been assembled that is prepared to act
> decisively to "create by their own intervention the initial groundwork
> for a new regime," it can be done. And all history shows there is no
> other way.
>
> *FDR's distant cousin, Theodore Roosevelt, had introduced the "Square
> Deal: "…if there is one thing that I do desire to stand for it is for a
> square deal, for an attitude of kindly justice as between man and man,
> without regard to what any man's creed or birthplace or social position
> may be, so long as, in his life and in his work, he shows the qualities
> that entitle him to the respect of his fellows."
>
>
>
>
> Share this:
>
> Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
> Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
>
>
> April 19, 2019 in Economy, Environment, Marxist Theory & History.
>
>
> Related posts
>
>
>
> The Real Deal on the 'New Deal'
>
>
>
>
>
> Challenges posed by the 'Green New Deal'
>
>
>
>
>
> Democrats fail symbolic vote on Green New Deal
>
>
> Post navigation
>
> ← Stop & Shop strike: One huge fist
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Get Involved!
> Donate to help support our work
> Get email updates
> Join Socialist Action
>
>
> Newspaper Archives
> Newspaper Archives Select Month April 2019 (7) March 2019 (13)
> February 2019 (10) January 2019 (16) December 2018 (12) November
> 2018 (15) October 2018 (10) September 2018 (8) August 2018 (12) July
> 2018 (13) June 2018 (11) May 2018 (19) April 2018 (15) March 2018
> (17) February 2018 (14) January 2018 (13) December 2017 (13) November
> 2017 (13) October 2017 (16) September 2017 (15) August 2017 (16)
> July 2017 (17) June 2017 (16) May 2017 (17) April 2017 (14) March
> 2017 (13) February 2017 (19) January 2017 (13) December 2016 (12)
> November 2016 (19) October 2016 (12) September 2016 (10) August 2016
> (10) July 2016 (14) June 2016 (14) May 2016 (9) April 2016 (12)
> March 2016 (14) February 2016 (8) January 2016 (11) December 2015
> (11) November 2015 (9) October 2015 (8) September 2015 (10) August
> 2015 (7) July 2015 (13) June 2015 (9) May 2015 (10) April 2015 (12)
> March 2015 (9) February 2015 (11) January 2015 (10) December 2014
> (12) November 2014 (11) October 2014 (9) September 2014 (6) August
> 2014 (10) July 2014 (11) June 2014 (10) May 2014 (11) April 2014
> (10) March 2014 (9) February 2014 (11) January 2014 (11) December
> 2013 (10) November 2013 (11) October 2013 (17) September 2013 (13)
> August 2013 (10) July 2013 (11) June 2013 (15) May 2013 (14) April
> 2013 (14) March 2013 (12) February 2013 (10) January 2013 (17)
> December 2012 (7) November 2012 (8) October 2012 (19) September 2012
> (2) August 2012 (27) July 2012 (18) June 2012 (3) May 2012 (19)
> April 2012 (14) March 2012 (17) February 2012 (19) January 2012 (17)
> December 2011 (3) November 2011 (33) October 2011 (14) September
> 2011 (13) August 2011 (34) July 2011 (24) June 2011 (19) May 2011
> (19) April 2011 (15) March 2011 (15) February 2011 (15) January 2011
> (15) December 2010 (17) November 2010 (1) October 2010 (6) September
> 2010 (3) August 2010 (8) July 2010 (7) June 2010 (2) May 2010 (10)
> April 2010 (3) March 2010 (8) February 2010 (3) January 2010 (9)
> December 2009 (6) November 2009 (5) October 2009 (16) September 2009
> (3) August 2009 (2) July 2009 (5) June 2009 (2) May 2009 (7) April
> 2009 (6) March 2009 (16) February 2009 (9) January 2009 (10) December
> 2008 (11) November 2008 (8) October 2008 (16) September 2008 (14)
> August 2008 (18) July 2008 (12) June 2008 (3) May 2008 (2) April
> 2008 (3) March 2008 (14) February 2008 (11) January 2008 (11)
> December 2007 (8) November 2007 (1) July 2007 (1) June 2007 (1)
> April 2007 (1) March 2007 (1) February 2007 (3) December 2006 (11)
> November 2006 (11) October 2006 (13) September 2006 (15) August 2006
> (11) July 2006 (18) June 2006 (7) May 2006 (14) April 2006 (6) March
> 2006 (14) February 2006 (5) January 2006 (2) December 2005 (9)
> November 2005 (8) October 2005 (13) September 2005 (12) August 2005
> (9) July 2005 (16) June 2005 (16) May 2005 (16) April 2005 (12)
> March 2005 (14) February 2005 (19) January 2005 (15) December 2004
> (14) November 2002 (17) October 2002 (19) September 2002 (22) August
> 2002 (21) July 2002 (15) May 2002 (21) April 2002 (21) February
> 2002 (15) January 2002 (15) December 2001 (17) October 2001 (24)
> September 2001 (18) July 2001 (19) June 2001 (18) October 2000 (17)
> September 2000 (21) August 2000 (19) July 2000 (16) June 2000 (26)
> May 2000 (21) April 2000 (22) March 2000 (28) February 2000 (18)
> January 2000 (20) December 1999 (20) November 1999 (26) October 1999
> (25) September 1999 (18) August 1999 (40) July 1999 (38) June 1999
> (24) May 1999 (27) April 1999 (25) March 1999 (26) February 1999
> (29) January 1999 (24) July 1998 (12)
>
> Search
>
> View socialistactionusa's profile on Facebook
> View SocialistActUS's profile on Twitter
> View SocialistActionCT's profile on YouTube
>
>
> Subscribe to Our Newspaper
>
>
> Upcoming Events
>
> No upcoming events
>
>
> Category Cloud
>
> Actions & Protest Africa Anti-War Arts & Culture Black Liberation Canada
> Caribbean Civil Liberties Cuba East Asia Economy Education & Schools
> Elections Environment Europe Immigration Indigenous Rights International
> Labor Latin America Latino Civil Liberties Marxist Theory & History
> Middle East Palestine Police & FBI Prisons South Asia Trump / U.S.
> Government Uncategorized Women's Liberation
>
>
> View Calendar
>
>
> Blog at WordPress.com.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Follow
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> :)
>
> --
>
>
> ---
>
> Christopher Hitchens
> " What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
> evidence. "
> ― Christopher Hitchens,
>
>
>