Interesting article by Ben Norton; with commentary by Carl Jarvis

""Accusing the press of treason is dangerous," the Times
communications team said."
Personally, I'd say a better term would be, "Brown Nosing".
But after all, just who is the "Press"? Who pays the staff and
printers and press men's wages? And why shouldn't the "Press" get
more into clearing its news releases with the Government, than
reporting on some far off major heatwave in Central Europe? It's only
a stupid dog that bites the hand that feeds it. If there is anyone on
this list who still believes in our "Free Press", then I have ten
million dollars I'd like to send off to their bank account.
It's way past time that we hold those who own the Press to be accountable.
Donald Trump is fond of crying, "Fake News!!!" And for once he is not
lying. But dear Donald, it's always been "Fake News". We, who want
to understand what is actually going on, have always had to read
between the lines, and seek out other news sources in order to get
some balance.
For years, during my life as a sighted man, I read a variety of
papers, the Seattle Times, the New York Times, the Wall Street
Journal, the Christian Science Monitor, the Daily Worker, Northern
Neighbors, People's World, and more. There was little in the way of
"in depth" reporting on either radio or on the budding TV networks,
but at least what passed for objective news was reported in a straight
forward manner. No grinning, posturing "Plastic People" prancing
about the Set.
We, the Working Class, have always had to rely on the news according
to the interests of those who own the presses...or the microphone.
Donald Trump seems to be the last to realize this. Actually, The
Trumpster is using the cry of "Fake News", like the boy who shouted,
"Wolf, Wolf", to gain attention to himself, and to cause turmoil in
the Village.
Donald Trump, and we need to underscore this, Donald Trump *Knows
*What *He *Is *Doing!!!
He is a Master of Fake Reality Television.
Donald Trump knows what he's doing. He is leading the American Empire
on its never ending Course of Expansion. From that fateful day when
the first Pilgrims landed, Expansion has been the name of the game.
Expansion is what keeps Capitalism Alive and Well!
But how does a Public that has been dominated by the propaganda of the
American Empire, learn how to fight back? At the moment we appear to
be tossing in the towel, heading for the TV or off to the ball park,
or the local Sports Bar, or cranking up our iPhone to some mindless
popular music.
Once our minds are controlled, the war is lost. And probably, so is
the Human Experiment.

Carl Jarvis...trying hard not to sound gloomy...

ARTICLE
by Ben Norton
Media    June 24, 2019

NY Times admits it sends stories to US government for approval before
publication

The New York Times casually acknowledged that it sends major scoops to
the US government before publication, to make sure "national security
officials"
have "no concerns."

By Ben Norton

The New York Times has publicly acknowledged that it sends some of its
stories to the US government for approval from "national security
officials" before
publication.

This confirms what veteran New York Times correspondents like James
Risen have said: The American newspaper of record regularly
collaborates with the US
government, suppressing reporting that top officials don't want made public.

On June 15, the Times reported that the US government is escalating
its cyber attacks on Russia's power grid. According to the article,
"the Trump administration
is using new authorities to deploy cybertools more aggressively," as
part of a larger "digital Cold War between Washington and Moscow."

In response to the report, Donald Trump attacked the Times on Twitter,
calling the article "a virtual act of Treason."

The New York Times PR office replied to Trump from its official
Twitter account, defending the story and noting that it had, in fact,
been cleared with
the US government before being printed.

"Accusing the press of treason is dangerous," the Times communications
team said. "We described the article to the government before
publication."

"As our story notes, President Trump's own national security officials
said there were no concerns," the Times added.

Indeed, the Times report on the escalating American cyber attacks
against Russia is attributed to "current and former [US] government
officials." The scoop
in fact came from these apparatchiks, not from a leak or the dogged
investigation of an intrepid reporter.

'Real' journalists get approval from 'national security' officials

The neoliberal self-declared "Resistance" jumped on Trump's reckless
accusation of treason (the Democratic Coalition, which boasts, "We
help run #TheResistance,"
responded by calling Trump "Putin's puppet"). The rest of the
corporate media went wild.

But what was entirely overlooked was the most revealing thing in the
New York Times' statement: The newspaper of record was essentially
admitting that
it has a symbiotic relationship with the US government.

In fact, some prominent American pundits have gone so far as to insist
that this symbiotic relationship is precisely what makes someone a
journalist.

In May, neoconservative Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen — a
former speechwriter for President George W. Bush — declared that
WikiLeaks publisher
and political prisoner Julian Assange is "not a journalist"; rather,
he is a "spy" who "deserves prison." (Thiessen also once called
Assange "the devil.")

What was the Post columnist's rationale for revoking Assange's
journalistic credentials?

Unlike "reputable news organizations, Assange did not give the U.S.
government an opportunity to review the classified information
WikiLeaks was planning
to release so they could raise national security objections," Thiessen
wrote. "So responsible journalists have nothing to fear."

In other words, this former US government speechwriter turned
corporate media pundit insists that collaborating with the government,
and censoring your
reporting to protect so-called "national security," is definitionally
what makes you a journalist.

This is the express ideology of the American commentariat.

NY Times editors 'quite willing to cooperate with the government'

The symbiotic relationship between the US corporate media and the
government has been known for some time. American intelligence
agencies play the press
like a musical instrument, using it it to selectively leak information
at opportune moments to push US soft power and advance Washington's
interests.

But rarely is this symbiotic relationship so casually and publicly acknowledged.

In 2018, former New York Times reporter James Risen published a
15,000-word article in The Intercept providing further insight into
how this unspoken alliance
operates.

Risen detailed how his editors had been "quite willing to cooperate
with the government." In fact, a top CIA official even told Risen that
his rule of
thumb for approving a covert operation was, "How will this look on the
front page of the New York Times?"

There is an "informal arrangement" between the state and the press,
Risen explained, where US government officials "regularly engaged in
quiet negotiations
with the press to try to stop the publication of sensitive national
security stories."

"At the time, I usually went along with these negotiations," the
former New York Times reported said. He recalled an example of a story
he was writing
on Afghanistan just prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Then-CIA
Director George Tenet called Risen personally and asked him to kill
the story.

"He told me the disclosure would threaten the safety of the CIA
officers in Afghanistan," Risen said. "I agreed."

Risen said he later questioned whether or not this was the right
decision. "If I had reported the story before 9/11, the CIA would have
been angry, but
it might have led to a public debate about whether the United States
was doing enough to capture or kill bin Laden," he wrote. "That public
debate might
have forced the CIA to take the effort to get bin Laden more seriously."

This dilemma led Risen to reconsider responding to US government
requests to censor stories. "And that ultimately set me on a collision
course with the
editors at the New York Times," he said.

"After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration began asking the
press to kill stories more frequently," Risen continued. "They did it
so often that I
became convinced the administration was invoking national security to
quash stories that were merely politically embarrassing."

In the lead-up to the Iraq War, Risen frequently "clashed" with Times
editors because he raised questions about the US government's lies.
But his stories
"stories raising questions about the intelligence, particularly the
administration's claims of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, were
being cut, buried,
or held out of the paper altogether."

The Times' executive editor Howell Raines "was believed by many at the
paper to prefer stories that supported the case for war," Risen said.

In another anecdote, the former Times journalist recalled a scoop he
had uncovered on a botched CIA plot. The Bush administration got wind
of it and called
him to the White House, where then-National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice ordered the Times to bury the story.

Risen said Rice told him "to forget about the story, destroy my notes,
and never make another phone call to discuss the matter with anyone."

"The Bush administration was successfully convincing the press to hold
or kill national security stories," Risen wrote. And the Barack Obama
administration
subsequently accelerated the "war on the press."

CIA media infiltration and manufacturing consent

In their renowned study of US media, "Manufacturing Consent: The
Political Economy of the Mass Media," Edward S. Herman and Chomsky
articulated a "propaganda
model," showing how "the media serve, and propagandize on behalf of,
the powerful societal interests that control and finance them,"
through "the selection
of right-thinking personnel and by the editors' and working
journalists' internalization of priorities and definitions of
newsworthiness that conform to
the institution's policy."

But in some cases, the relationship between US intelligence agencies
and the corporate media is not just one of mere ideological policing,
indirect pressure,
or friendship, but rather one of employment.

In the 1950s, the CIA launched a covert operation called Project
Mockingbird, in which it surveilled, influenced, and manipulated
American journalists
and media coverage, explicitly in order to direct public opinion
against the Soviet Union, China, and the growing international
communist movement.

Legendary journalist Carl Bernstein, a former Washington Post reporter
who helped uncover the Watergate scandal, published a major cover
story for Rolling
Stone in 1977 titled "The CIA and the Media: How America's Most
Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence
Agency and Why the
Church Committee Covered It Up."

Bernstein obtained CIA documents that revealed that more than 400
American journalists in the previous 25 years had "secretly carried
out assignments for
the Central Intelligence Agency."

Bernstein wrote:

"Some of these journalists' relationships with the Agency were tacit;
some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap.
Journalists
provided a full range of clandestine services—from simple intelligence
gathering to serving as go‑betweens with spies in Communist countries.
Reporters
shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some
of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished
reporters who considered
themselves ambassadors without‑portfolio for their country. Most were
less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association
with the Agency
helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in
the derring‑do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the
smallest category,
full‑time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many
instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform
tasks for the CIA
with the consent of the managements of America's leading news organizations."

Virtually all major US media outlets cooperated with the CIA,
Bernstein revealed, including ABC, NBC, the AP, UPI, Reuters,
Newsweek, Hearst newspapers,
the Miami Herald, the Saturday Evening Post, and the New York Herald‑Tribune.

However, he added, "By far the most valuable of these associations,
according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and
Time Inc."

These layers of state manipulation, censorship, and even direct
crafting of the news media show that, as much as they claim to be
independent, The New
York Times and other outlets effectively serve as de facto
spokespeople for the government — or at least for the US national
security state.

Ben Norton

Ben Norton is a journalist and writer. He is a reporter for The
Grayzone, and the producer of the Moderate Rebels podcast, which he
co-hosts with Max Blumenthal.
His website is BenNorton.com, and he tweets at @BenjaminNorton.

Capitalism at its ugliest

I've been asked, "Why do you put all the blame on Capitalists? Aren't
they people, just like the rest of us?" Well sure they are. And I
don't deny it. But while they do look and act much like the rest of
us, there are huge differences, even among themselves.
Take a self employed truck driver, a small business owner. An
independent Capitalist. for example. He has a load to be delivered
in the next town. On the way he stops for a quick beer at Joe's Bar
and Grill. Then he sees that he has time for two...three...maybe four
more. Back behind the wheel he misses a curve and slams into a guard
rail and totals out his rig, winding up in intensive care. His
carelessness has cost him a considerable amount, possibly even putting
him out of business. But compare it to the damage done by a
Capitalist Company in the article below, and tell me why we should not
demand government intervention to protect our citizens?

Carl Jarvis


Burning Down the Future
Chris Hedges

Burning Down the Future
Mr. Fish / Truthdig

LONDON-The hulk of Grenfell Tower, its charred sides covered by sheets of
white plastic, stands as a mute and ominous testament to the disposability
of the poor and the primacy of corporate profit. On June 14, 2017, a fire
leaped up the sides of the 24-story building, clad in highly flammable
siding, leaving 72 dead and 70 injured. Almost 100 families were left
homeless. It was Britain's worst residential fire since World War II. Those
burned to death, including children, would not have died if builders had
used costlier cladding that was incombustible and if the British government
had protected the public from corporate predators. Grenfell is the face of
the new order. It is an order in which you and I do not count.

I walked the streets around the tower on the two-year anniversary of the
fire with Kareem Dennis, better known by his rapper name, Lowkey (watch his
music video about Grenfell)-and Karim Mussilhy, who lost his uncle, Hesham
Rahman, in the blaze and who has been abruptly terminated from two jobs
since the disaster apparently because of his fierce public denunciations of
officials responsible for the deaths. Families, some wearing T-shirts with
photos of loved ones who died in the conflagration, solemnly entered a
building for a private memorial. A stage was being prepared for a rally that
night a block from the tower. It would draw over 10,000 people. Flowers and
balloons lay at the foot of the wall that surrounds the tower. Handwritten
messages of pain, loss and love, plus photos of the dead, covered the wall.
The demolition of Grenfell Tower will take 18 more months as each floor is
methodically dismantled.

Re: [blind-democracy] Clueless and Shameless: Joe Biden, Staggering Frontrunner

With all due respect, I continue to consider all of us who are not
members in good standing of the Ruling Class, to be members of the
Working Class. Unless we are homeless or chronically unemployed,
which would put us in the Lower Class.
Middle implies halfway between something and something else. In the
economic structure of the American Empire, there is no "Middle"
anything.
My wife and I earned, back in the early 1990's, a bit over $100,000
per year between us. So $100,000 would put us mid way between
$000,000 and $200,000. But in order to be midway between $000,000,000
and $100,000,000, we would need to come in around $50,000,000.
Middle Class is just another make believe term that soothes the Soul,
but means absolutely nothing.
But hey! All of the rest of you can call it anything you want,
because the fact of the matter is that all of us who are not members
in good standing in the Ruling Class are owned by one or more members
of that Ruling Class.
Remember, when you get set to disagree, a Monkey on a golden chain is
just as much of a prisoner as a Monkey on an Iron chain.

Carl Jarvis


On 6/20/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> Clueless and Shameless: Joe Biden, Staggering Frontrunner
> By Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News
> 20 June 19
>
> Joe Biden just put a spotlight on his mindset when he explicitly refused to
> apologize for fondly recalling how the Senate "got things done" with
> "civility" as he worked alongside some of the leading racist lawmakers of
> the 20th century. For Biden, the personal is the political; he knows that
> he's virtuous, and that should be more than good enough for African
> Americans, for women, for anyone.
>
> "There's not a racist bone in my body," Biden exclaimed Wednesday night,
> moments after demanding: "Apologize for what?" His deep paternalism
> surfaced
> during the angry outburst as he declared: "I've been involved in civil
> rights my whole career, period, period, period."
>
> Biden has been "involved" in civil rights his "whole career" all right. But
> at some crucial junctures, he was on the wrong side. He teamed up with
> segregationist senators to oppose busing for school desegregation in the
> 1970s. And he played a leading role - while pandering to racism with a
> shameful Senate floor speech - for passage of the infamous 1994 crime bill
> that fueled mass incarceration.
>
> Such aspects of Biden's record provide context for his comments this week -
> praising an era of productive "civility" with the virulent segregationist
> Dixiecrat senators Herman Talmadge of Georgia and James Eastland of
> Mississippi (known as the "Voice of the White South"), who often called
> black people "an inferior race."
>
> Said Biden at a New York fundraiser Tuesday night: "Well guess what? At
> least there was some civility. We got things done. We didn't agree on much
> of anything. We got things done. We got it finished."
>
> To Biden, any assessment of his past conduct that clashes with his high
> self-regard is unfair; after all, he really means well. On the campaign
> trail now, his cloying paternalism is as evident as his affinity for
> wealthy
> donors.
>
> Biden shuttles between the billionaire class and the working class - funded
> by the rich while justifying the rich to everyone else. His aspirations are
> bound up in notions of himself as comforter-in-chief.
>
> "I get it, I get it," Biden said during his brief and self-adulatory
> non-apology video in early April to quiet the uproar over his invasive
> touching of women and girls. He was actually saying: I get it that I need
> to
> seem to get it.
>
> "I want to talk about gestures of support and encouragement that I've made
> to women and some men that have made them uncomfortable," Biden said in the
> video. "In my career I've always tried to make a human connection - that's
> my responsibility, I think. I shake hands, I hug people, I grab men and
> women by the shoulders and say, 'You can do this' . It's the way I've
> always
> been. It's the way I've tried to show I care about them and I'm listening."
>
> Weeks later, appearing on ABC's "The View," he declared: "I have never in
> my
> life, never, done anything in approaching a woman that has been other than
> trying to bring solace." It was not a credible claim; consider Lucy Flores,
> or the countless other women and girls he has intrusively touched over the
> years.
>
> For several decades, Biden has made his way through the political terrain
> as
> a reflexive glad-hander. But times have changed a lot more than he has.
> "What the American people do not know yet is whether Biden has actually
> internalized any of the blowback he's earned over the years for his
> treatment of women," journalist Joe Berkowitz wrote last week. "So far,
> it's
> not looking good."
>
> What's also looking grim is Biden's brazen adoration of wealthy elites who
> feed on corporate power. His approach is to split the rhetorical difference
> between the wealthy and the workers. And so, days ago, at a fundraiser
> filled with almost 180 donors giving his campaign the legal limit of $2,800
> each - an event where he tried and failed to get funding from a pro-Trump
> billionaire - Biden declared: "You know, you guys are great but Wall Street
> didn't build America. You guys are incredibly important but you didn't
> build
> America. Ordinary, hard-working, middle-class people given half the chance
> is what built America."
>
> The formula boils down to throwing the "hard-working middle class" some
> rhetorical bones while continuing to service "you guys" on Wall Street.
> Given his desire to merely revert the country to pre-Trump days, no wonder
> Biden keeps saying that a good future can stem from finding common ground
> with Republicans. But for people who understand the present-day GOP and
> really want a decent society, Biden's claims are delusional.
>
> Biden sees his public roles of winking patriarch, civility toward racists,
> and collaborator with oligarchs as a winning political combination. But if
> he becomes the Democratic presidential nominee, Biden will suppress turnout
> from the party's base while providing Republicans with plenty of effective
> (albeit hypocritical) fodder. Already the conservative press is salivating
> over the transparently fraudulent pretenses of Lunch Bucket Joe, as in this
> headline Tuesday in the right-wing Washington Examiner: "Biden Rubs Elbows
> With Billionaires in $34M Penthouse."
>
> When Bernie Sanders (who I continue to actively support) denounces the
> political power of billionaires and repeats his 2020 campaign motto - "Not
> Me. Us." - it rings true, consistent with his decades-long record. But
> Biden
> can't outrun his own record, which is enmeshed in his ongoing mentality.
> And
> so, the former vice president is in a race between his pleasant image and
> unpleasant reality.
>
> As the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, Joe Biden is
> the biggest threat to Joe Biden's political future. He continues to be who
> he has been, and that's the toxic problem.
>
>
>
> Email This Page
>
>
>
>
> Norman Solomon is cofounder and national coordinator of RootsAction.org. He
> was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 Democratic
> National Convention and is currently a coordinator of the relaunched
> independent Bernie Delegates Network. Solomon is the author of a dozen
> books
> including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to
> Death.
>
> 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.
>
>
> e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
>
>
>
>

Re: [acb-chat] This will scare you - Why Technology Favors Tyranny

"It is much harder to struggle against irrelevance than against exploitation"
Have we come to the edge? Is this the place in the science fiction
tale where Man invents Himself out of existence?

Carl Jarvis




On 6/17/19, Demaya, Diego via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
> Why Technology Favors Tyranny
> Artificial intelligence could erase many practical advantages of democracy,
> and erode the ideals of liberty and equality. It will further concentrate
> power among a small elite if we don't take steps to stop it.
> I. The Growing Fear of Irrelevance
>
> There is nothing inevitable about democracy. For all the success that
> democracies have had over the past century or more, they are blips in
> history. Monarchies, oligarchies, and other forms of authoritarian rule have
> been far more common modes of human governance.
>
> The emergence of liberal democracies is associated with ideals of liberty
> and equality that may seem self-evident and irreversible. But these ideals
> are far more fragile than we believe. Their success in the 20th century
> depended on unique technological conditions that may prove ephemeral.
>
> In the second decade of the 21st century, liberalism has begun to lose
> credibility. Questions about the ability of liberal democracy to provide for
> the middle class have grown louder; politics have grown more tribal; and in
> more and more countries, leaders are showing a penchant for demagoguery and
> autocracy. The causes of this political shift are complex, but they appear
> to be intertwined with current technological developments. The technology
> that favored democracy is changing, and as artificial intelligence develops,
> it might change further.
>
> Information technology is continuing to leap forward; biotechnology is
> beginning to provide a window into our inner lives—our emotions, thoughts,
> and choices. Together, infotech and biotech will create unprecedented
> upheavals in human society, eroding human agency and, possibly, subverting
> human desires. Under such conditions, liberal democracy and free-market
> economics might become obsolete.
>
> Ordinary people may not understand artificial intelligence and biotechnology
> in any detail, but they can sense that the future is passing them by. In
> 1938 the common man's condition in the Soviet Union, Germany, or the United
> States may have been grim, but he was constantly told that he was the most
> important thing in the world, and that he was the future (provided, of
> course, that he was an "ordinary man," rather than, say, a Jew or a woman).
> He looked at the propaganda posters—which typically depicted coal miners and
> steelworkers in heroic poses—and saw himself there: "I am in that poster! I
> am the hero of the future!"
>
> In 2018 the common person feels increasingly irrelevant. Lots of mysterious
> terms are bandied about excitedly in ted Talks, at government think tanks,
> and at high-tech conferences—globalization, blockchain, genetic engineering,
> AI, machine learning—and common people, both men and women, may well suspect
> that none of these terms is about them.
>
> In the 20th century, the masses revolted against exploitation and sought to
> translate their vital role in the economy into political power. Now the
> masses fear irrelevance, and they are frantic to use their remaining
> political power before it is too late. Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump
> may therefore demonstrate a trajectory opposite to that of traditional
> socialist revolutions. The Russian, Chinese, and Cuban revolutions were made
> by people who were vital to the economy but lacked political power; in 2016,
> Trump and Brexit were supported by many people who still enjoyed political
> power but feared they were losing their economic worth. Perhaps in the 21st
> century, populist revolts will be staged not against an economic elite that
> exploits people but against an economic elite that does not need them
> anymore. This may well be a losing battle. It is much harder to struggle
> against irrelevance than against exploitation.
>
> The revolutions in information technology and biotechnology are still in
> their infancy, and the extent to which they are responsible for the current
> crisis of liberalism is debatable. Most people in Birmingham, Istanbul, St.
> Petersburg, and Mumbai are only dimly aware, if they are aware at all, of
> the rise of AI and its potential impact on their lives. It is undoubtable,
> however, that the technological revolutions now gathering momentum will in
> the next few decades confront humankind with the hardest trials it has yet
> encountered.
>
> II. A New Useless Class?
>
> Let's start with jobs and incomes, because whatever liberal democracy's
> philosophical appeal, it has gained strength in no small part thanks to a
> practical advantage: The decentralized approach to decision making that is
> characteristic of liberalism—in both politics and economics—has allowed
> liberal democracies to outcompete other states, and to deliver rising
> affluence to their people.
>
> Liberalism reconciled the proletariat with the bourgeoisie, the faithful
> with atheists, natives with immigrants, and Europeans with Asians by
> promising everybody a larger slice of the pie. With a constantly growing
> pie, that was possible. And the pie may well keep growing. However, economic
> growth may not solve social problems that are now being created by
> technological disruption, because such growth is increasingly predicated on
> the invention of more and more disruptive technologies.
>
> Fears of machines pushing people out of the job market are, of course,
> nothing new, and in the past such fears proved to be unfounded. But
> artificial intelligence is different from the old machines. In the past,
> machines competed with humans mainly in manual skills. Now they are
> beginning to compete with us in cognitive skills. And we don't know of any
> third kind of skill—beyond the manual and the cognitive—in which humans will
> always have an edge.
>
> At least for a few more decades, human intelligence is likely to far exceed
> computer intelligence in numerous fields. Hence as computers take over more
> routine cognitive jobs, new creative jobs for humans will continue to
> appear. Many of these new jobs will probably depend on cooperation rather
> than competition between humans and AI. Human-AI teams will likely prove
> superior not just to humans, but also to computers working on their own.
>
> However, most of the new jobs will presumably demand high levels of
> expertise and ingenuity, and therefore may not provide an answer to the
> problem of unemployed unskilled laborers, or workers employable only at
> extremely low wages. Moreover, as AI continues to improve, even jobs that
> demand high intelligence and creativity might gradually disappear. The world
> of chess serves as an example of where things might be heading. For several
> years after IBM's computer Deep Blue defeated Garry Kasparov in 1997, human
> chess players still flourished; AI was used to train human prodigies, and
> teams composed of humans plus computers proved superior to computers playing
> alone.
>
> Yet in recent years, computers have become so good at playing chess that
> their human collaborators have lost their value and might soon become
> entirely irrelevant. On December 6, 2017, another crucial milestone was
> reached when Google's AlphaZero program defeated the Stockfish 8 program.
> Stockfish 8 had won a world computer chess championship in 2016. It had
> access to centuries of accumulated human experience in chess, as well as
> decades of computer experience. By contrast, AlphaZero had not been taught
> any chess strategies by its human creators—not even standard openings.
> Rather, it used the latest machine-learning principles to teach itself chess
> by playing against itself. Nevertheless, out of 100 games that the novice
> AlphaZero played against Stockfish 8, AlphaZero won 28 and tied 72—it didn't
> lose once. Since AlphaZero had learned nothing from any human, many of its
> winning moves and strategies seemed unconventional to the human eye. They
> could be described as creative, if not downright
> genius<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.theatlantic.com_technology_archive_2017_10_alphago-2Dzero-2Dthe-2Dai-2Dthat-2Dtaught-2Ditself-2Dgo_543450_&d=DwMFAg&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=-FYD0W_FTWzmRJtbtpSMWRa7Al2i1-9TYvYk-Hd56h0&s=D3ZufyeXgkkeLzocxRZMznzcHjsb9MoTYqI1NBgV3kw&e=>.
>
> Can you guess how long AlphaZero spent learning chess from scratch,
> preparing for the match against Stockfish 8, and developing its genius
> instincts? Four
> hours<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.newsweek.com_google-2Dai-2Dchess-2Dplayer-2Dchampion-2D741168&d=DwMFAg&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=-FYD0W_FTWzmRJtbtpSMWRa7Al2i1-9TYvYk-Hd56h0&s=p1vBjackhmwT6qqxNenG0BJ0BkT28POoGmUGnhWp0Z8&e=>.
> For centuries, chess was considered one of the crowning glories of human
> intelligence. AlphaZero went from utter ignorance to creative mastery in
> four hours, without the help of any human guide.
>
> AlphaZero is not the only imaginative software out there. One of the ways to
> catch cheaters in chess tournaments today is to monitor the level of
> originality that players exhibit. If they play an exceptionally creative
> move, the judges will often suspect that it could not possibly be a human
> move—it must be a computer move. At least in chess, creativity is already
> considered to be the trademark of computers rather than humans! So if chess
> is our canary in the coal mine, we have been duly warned that the canary is
> dying. What is happening today to human-AI teams in chess might happen down
> the road to human-AI teams in policing, medicine, banking, and many other
> fields.
>
> What's more, AI enjoys uniquely nonhuman abilities, which makes the
> difference between AI and a human worker one of kind rather than merely of
> degree. Two particularly important nonhuman abilities that AI possesses are
> connectivity and updatability.
>
> For example, many drivers are unfamiliar with all the changing traffic
> regulations on the roads they drive, and they often violate them. In
> addition, since every driver is a singular entity, when two vehicles
> approach the same intersection, the drivers sometimes miscommunicate their
> intentions and collide. Self-driving cars, by contrast, will know all the
> traffic regulations and never disobey them on purpose, and they could all be
> connected to one another. When two such vehicles approach the same junction,
> they won't really be two separate entities, but part of a single algorithm.
> The chances that they might miscommunicate and collide will therefore be far
> smaller.
>
> Similarly, if the World Health Organization identifies a new disease, or if
> a laboratory produces a new medicine, it can't immediately update all the
> human doctors in the world. Yet even if you had billions of AI doctors in
> the world—each monitoring the health of a single human being—you could still
> update all of them within a split second, and they could all communicate to
> one another their assessments of the new disease or medicine. These
> potential advantages of connectivity and updatability are so huge that at
> least in some lines of work, it might make sense to replace all humans with
> computers, even if individually some humans still do a better job than the
> machines.
>
> All of this leads to one very important conclusion: The automation
> revolution will not consist of a single watershed event, after which the job
> market will settle into some new equilibrium. Rather, it will be a cascade
> of ever bigger disruptions. Old jobs will disappear and new jobs will
> emerge, but the new jobs will also rapidly change and vanish. People will
> need to retrain and reinvent themselves not just once, but many times.
>
> Just as in the 20th century governments established massive education
> systems for young people, in the 21st century they will need to establish
> massive reeducation systems for adults. But will that be enough? Change is
> always stressful, and the hectic world of the early 21st century has
> produced a global epidemic of stress. As job volatility increases, will
> people be able to cope? By 2050, a useless class might emerge, the result
> not only of a shortage of jobs or a lack of relevant education but also of
> insufficient mental stamina to continue learning new skills.
>
> III. The Rise of Digital Dictatorships
>
> As many people lose their economic value, they might also come to lose their
> political power. The same technologies that might make billions of people
> economically irrelevant might also make them easier to monitor and control.
>
> AI frightens many people because they don't trust it to remain obedient.
> Science fiction makes much of the possibility that computers or robots will
> develop consciousness—and shortly thereafter will try to kill all humans.
> But there is no particular reason to believe that AI will develop
> consciousness as it becomes more intelligent. We should instead fear AI
> because it will probably always obey its human masters, and never rebel. AI
> is a tool and a weapon unlike any other that human beings have developed; it
> will almost certainly allow the already powerful to consolidate their power
> further.
>
> Consider surveillance. Numerous countries around the world, including
> several democracies, are busy building unprecedented systems of
> surveillance. For example, Israel is a leader in the field of surveillance
> technology, and has created in the occupied West Bank a working prototype
> for a total-surveillance
> regime<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__theintercept.com_2016_10_17_how-2Disrael-2Dbecame-2Da-2Dhub-2Dfor-2Dsurveillance-2Dtechnology_&d=DwMFAg&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=-FYD0W_FTWzmRJtbtpSMWRa7Al2i1-9TYvYk-Hd56h0&s=dJz_P-EEqy5guGZCX-pQIGry13hjIa46gfSbZ00QJKk&e=>.
> Already today whenever Palestinians make a phone call, post something on
> Facebook, or travel from one city to another, they are likely to be
> monitored by Israeli microphones, cameras, drones, or spy software.
> Algorithms analyze the gathered data, helping the Israeli security forces
> pinpoint and neutralize what they consider to be potential threats. The
> Palestinians may administer some towns and villages in the West Bank, but
> the Israelis command the sky, the airwaves, and cyberspace. It therefore
> takes surprisingly few Israeli soldiers to effectively control the roughly
> 2.5 million Palestinians who live in the West Bank.
>
> In one incident in October 2017, a Palestinian laborer posted to his private
> Facebook account a picture of himself in his workplace, alongside a
> bulldozer. Adjacent to the image he wrote, "Good morning!" A Facebook
> translation algorithm made a small error when transliterating the Arabic
> letters. Instead of Ysabechhum (which means "Good morning"), the algorithm
> identified the letters as Ydbachhum (which means "Hurt them"). Suspecting
> that the man might be a terrorist intending to use a bulldozer to run people
> over, Israeli security forces swiftly arrested
> him<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.theguardian.com_technology_2017_oct_24_facebook-2Dpalestine-2Disrael-2Dtranslates-2Dgood-2Dmorning-2Dattack-2Dthem-2Darrest&d=DwMFAg&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=-FYD0W_FTWzmRJtbtpSMWRa7Al2i1-9TYvYk-Hd56h0&s=6GPFxPJJIckLpsWudh0sMCRuKFFxOeB85kvgZ5A94CY&e=>.
> They released him after they realized that the algorithm had made a mistake.
> Even so, the offending Facebook post was taken down—you can never be too
> careful. What Palestinians are experiencing today in the West Bank may be
> just a primitive preview of what billions of people will eventually
> experience all over the planet.
>
> Imagine, for instance, that the current regime in North Korea gained a more
> advanced version of this sort of technology in the future. North Koreans
> might be required to wear a biometric bracelet that monitors everything they
> do and say, as well as their blood pressure and brain activity. Using the
> growing understanding of the human brain and drawing on the immense powers
> of machine learning, the North Korean government might eventually be able to
> gauge what each and every citizen is thinking at each and every moment. If a
> North Korean looked at a picture of Kim Jong Un and the biometric sensors
> picked up telltale signs of anger (higher blood pressure, increased activity
> in the amygdala), that person could be in the gulag the next day.
>
> And yet such hard-edged tactics may not prove necessary, at least much of
> the time. A facade of free choice and free voting may remain in place in
> some countries, even as the public exerts less and less actual control. To
> be sure, attempts to manipulate voters' feelings are not new. But once
> somebody (whether in San Francisco or Beijing or Moscow) gains the
> technological ability to manipulate the human heart—reliably, cheaply, and
> at scale—democratic politics will mutate into an emotional puppet show.
>
> We are unlikely to face a rebellion of sentient machines in the coming
> decades, but we might have to deal with hordes of bots that know how to
> press our emotional buttons better than our mother does and that use this
> uncanny ability, at the behest of a human elite, to try to sell us
> something—be it a car, a politician, or an entire ideology. The bots might
> identify our deepest fears, hatreds, and cravings and use them against us.
> We have already been given a foretaste of this in recent elections and
> referendums across the world, when hackers learned how to manipulate
> individual voters by analyzing data about them and exploiting their
> prejudices. While science-fiction thrillers are drawn to dramatic
> apocalypses of fire and smoke, in reality we may be facing a banal
> apocalypse by clicking.
>
> ***
>
> The biggest and most frightening impact of the AI revolution might be on the
> relative efficiency of democracies and dictatorships. Historically,
> autocracies have faced crippling handicaps in regard to innovation and
> economic growth. In the late 20th century, democracies usually outperformed
> dictatorships, because they were far better at processing information. We
> tend to think about the conflict between democracy and dictatorship as a
> conflict between two different ethical systems, but it is actually a
> conflict between two different data-processing systems. Democracy
> distributes the power to process information and make decisions among many
> people and institutions, whereas dictatorship concentrates information and
> power in one place. Given 20th-century technology, it was inefficient to
> concentrate too much information and power in one place. Nobody had the
> ability to process all available information fast enough and make the right
> decisions. This is one reason the Soviet Union made far worse decisions than
> the United States, and why the Soviet economy lagged far behind the American
> economy.
>
> However, artificial intelligence may soon swing the pendulum in the opposite
> direction. AI makes it possible to process enormous amounts of information
> centrally. In fact, it might make centralized systems far more efficient
> than diffuse systems, because machine learning works better when the machine
> has more information to analyze. If you disregard all privacy concerns and
> concentrate all the information relating to a billion people in one
> database, you'll wind up with much better algorithms than if you respect
> individual privacy and have in your database only partial information on a
> million people. An authoritarian government that orders all its citizens to
> have their DNA sequenced and to share their medical data with some central
> authority would gain an immense advantage in genetics and medical research
> over societies in which medical data are strictly private. The main handicap
> of authoritarian regimes in the 20th century—the desire to concentrate all
> information and power in one place—may become their decisive advantage in
> the 21st century.
>
> New technologies will continue to emerge, of course, and some of them may
> encourage the distribution rather than the concentration of information and
> power. Blockchain technology, and the use of cryptocurrencies enabled by it,
> is currently touted as a possible counterweight to centralized power. But
> blockchain technology is still in the embryonic stage, and we don't yet know
> whether it will indeed counterbalance the centralizing tendencies of AI.
> Remember that the Internet, too, was hyped in its early days as a
> libertarian panacea that would free people from all centralized systems—but
> is now poised to make centralized authority more powerful than ever.
>
> IV. The Transfer of Authority to Machines
>
> Even if some societies remain ostensibly democratic, the increasing
> efficiency of algorithms will still shift more and more authority from
> individual humans to networked machines. We might willingly give up more and
> more authority over our lives because we will learn from experience to trust
> the algorithms more than our own feelings, eventually losing our ability to
> make many decisions for ourselves. Just think of the way that, within a mere
> two decades, billions of people have come to entrust Google's search
> algorithm with one of the most important tasks of all: finding relevant and
> trustworthy information. As we rely more on Google for
> answers<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.theatlantic.com_magazine_archive_2008_07_is-2Dgoogle-2Dmaking-2Dus-2Dstupid_306868_&d=DwMFAg&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=-FYD0W_FTWzmRJtbtpSMWRa7Al2i1-9TYvYk-Hd56h0&s=38WaIKITjcJcKPTRzYb3s3UzDTEldAV7ysNuuXz8t1w&e=>,
> our ability to locate information independently diminishes. Already today,
> "truth" is defined by the top results of a Google search. This process has
> likewise affected our physical abilities, such as navigating space. People
> ask Google not just to find information but also to guide them around.
> Self-driving cars and AI physicians would represent further erosion: While
> these innovations would put truckers and human doctors out of work, their
> larger import lies in the continuing transfer of authority and
> responsibility to machines.
>
> Humans are used to thinking about life as a drama of decision making.
> Liberal democracy and free-market capitalism see the individual as an
> autonomous agent constantly making choices about the world. Works of art—be
> they Shakespeare plays, Jane Austen novels, or cheesy Hollywood
> comedies—usually revolve around the hero having to make some crucial
> decision. To be or not to be? To listen to my wife and kill King Duncan, or
> listen to my conscience and spare him? To marry Mr. Collins or Mr. Darcy?
> Christian and Muslim theology similarly focus on the drama of decision
> making, arguing that everlasting salvation depends on making the right
> choice.
>
> What will happen to this view of life as we rely on AI to make ever more
> decisions for us? Even now we trust Netflix to recommend movies and Spotify
> to pick music we'll like. But why should AI's helpfulness stop there?
>
> Every year millions of college students need to decide what to study. This
> is a very important and difficult decision, made under pressure from
> parents, friends, and professors who have varying interests and opinions. It
> is also influenced by students' own individual fears and fantasies, which
> are themselves shaped by movies, novels, and advertising campaigns.
> Complicating matters, a given student does not really know what it takes to
> succeed in a given profession, and doesn't necessarily have a realistic
> sense of his or her own strengths and weaknesses.
>
> It's not so hard to see how AI could one day make better decisions than we
> do about careers, and perhaps even about relationships. But once we begin to
> count on AI to decide what to study, where to work, and whom to date or even
> marry, human life will cease to be a drama of decision making, and our
> conception of life will need to change. Democratic elections and free
> markets might cease to make sense. So might most religions and works of art.
> Imagine Anna Karenina taking out her smartphone and asking Siri whether she
> should stay married to Karenin or elope with the dashing Count Vronsky. Or
> imagine your favorite Shakespeare play with all the crucial decisions made
> by a Google algorithm. Hamlet and Macbeth would have much more comfortable
> lives, but what kind of lives would those be? Do we have models for making
> sense of such lives?
>
> ***
>
> Can parliaments and political parties overcome these challenges and
> forestall the darker scenarios? At the current moment this does not seem
> likely. Technological disruption is not even a leading item on the political
> agenda. During the 2016 U.S. presidential race, the main reference to
> disruptive technology concerned Hillary Clinton's email debacle, and despite
> all the talk about job loss, neither candidate directly addressed the
> potential impact of automation. Donald Trump warned voters that Mexicans
> would take their jobs, and that the U.S. should therefore build a wall on
> its southern border. He never warned voters that algorithms would take their
> jobs, nor did he suggest building a firewall around California.
>
> So what should we do?
>
> For starters, we need to place a much higher priority on understanding how
> the human mind works—particularly how our own wisdom and compassion can be
> cultivated. If we invest too much in AI and too little in developing the
> human mind, the very sophisticated artificial intelligence of computers
> might serve only to empower the natural stupidity of humans, and to nurture
> our worst (but also, perhaps, most powerful) impulses, among them greed and
> hatred. To avoid such an outcome, for every dollar and every minute we
> invest in improving AI, we would be wise to invest a dollar and a minute in
> exploring and developing human consciousness.
>
> More practically, and more immediately, if we want to prevent the
> concentration of all wealth and power in the hands of a small elite, we must
> regulate the ownership of data. In ancient times, land was the most
> important asset, so politics was a struggle to control land. In the modern
> era, machines and factories became more important than land, so political
> struggles focused on controlling these vital means of production. In the
> 21st century, data will eclipse both land and machinery as the most
> important asset, so politics will be a struggle to control data's flow.
>
> Unfortunately, we don't have much experience in regulating the ownership of
> data, which is inherently a far more difficult task than regulating land or
> machines. Data are everywhere and nowhere at the same time, they can move at
> the speed of light, and you can create as many copies of them as you want.
> Do the data collected about my DNA, my brain, and my life belong to me, or
> to the government, or to a corporation, or to the human collective?
>
> The race to accumulate data is already on, and is currently headed by giants
> such as Google and Facebook and, in China, Baidu and Tencent. So far, many
> of these companies have acted as "attention merchants"—they capture our
> attention by providing us with free information, services, and
> entertainment, and then they resell our attention to advertisers. Yet their
> true business isn't merely selling ads. Rather, by capturing our attention
> they manage to accumulate immense amounts of data about us, which are worth
> more than any advertising revenue. We aren't their customers—we are their
> product.
>
> Ordinary people will find it very difficult to resist this process. At
> present, many of us are happy to give away our most valuable asset—our
> personal data—in exchange for free email services and funny cat videos. But
> if, later on, ordinary people decide to try to block the flow of data, they
> are likely to have trouble doing so, especially as they may have come to
> rely on the network to help them make decisions, and even for their health
> and physical survival.
>
> Nationalization of data by governments could offer one solution; it would
> certainly curb the power of big corporations. But history suggests that we
> are not necessarily better off in the hands of overmighty governments. So we
> had better call upon our scientists, our philosophers, our lawyers, and even
> our poets to turn their attention to this big question: How do you regulate
> the ownership of data?
>
> Currently, humans risk becoming similar to domesticated animals. We have
> bred docile cows that produce enormous amounts of milk but are otherwise far
> inferior to their wild ancestors. They are less agile, less curious, and
> less resourceful. We are now creating tame humans who produce enormous
> amounts of data and function as efficient chips in a huge data-processing
> mechanism, but they hardly maximize their human potential. If we are not
> careful, we will end up with downgraded humans misusing upgraded computers
> to wreak havoc on themselves and on the world.
>
> If you find these prospects alarming—if you dislike the idea of living in a
> digital dictatorship or some similarly degraded form of society—then the
> most important contribution you can make is to find ways to prevent too much
> data from being concentrated in too few hands, and also find ways to keep
> distributed data processing more efficient than centralized data processing.
> These will not be easy tasks. But achieving them may be the best safeguard
> of democracy.
>
> Yuval Noah
> Harari<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.theatlantic.com_author_yuval-2Dnoah-2Dharari_&d=DwMFAg&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=-FYD0W_FTWzmRJtbtpSMWRa7Al2i1-9TYvYk-Hd56h0&s=YkwbTURbQctiaMjqRUSNZkP5Cw6edA4Ld36TUXiJbK4&e=>
> is a historian and philosopher at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the
> author of 21 Lessons for the 21st
> Century<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_exec_obidos_ISBN-3D0525512179_theatla05-2D20_&d=DwMFAg&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=-FYD0W_FTWzmRJtbtpSMWRa7Al2i1-9TYvYk-Hd56h0&s=8aDlqeaAu3DaZ_tit8dgGYc3gT7JGOgCk4umlQuqD9I&e=>,
> from which this article has been adapted.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Just what do we mean by "The Government".

We all like to dump on "The Government". Well, some of us do like to
dump on the Ruling Class, too.
But the rich dump on "the government" for passing legislation that
hampers their expansion efforts. The middle class(whatever that is
today)dumps on "the government" because it over taxes them and passes
laws that allow corporations to expand. The working Class dumps on
"the government" because it passes laws that insist on corporate
compliance's which cause industry to flee American soil and to settle
in Mexico, Asia or Antarctica. Those Penguins work cheaper than
Chinese Women!

So, just who is "The Government"? First, if it were not doing the job
it is being paid for, why is it still in business? That would mean
that we, the People have let down, allowing an inept bunch of mealy
mouths to push us around.
Just maybe "the government" is doing the job it is being paid for. So
who is benefiting from this government? Well, we can see who is most
successful under the laws set up by "the government". We worship
financial success as the primo measure of Success in America. So we
can look to such "First Class Citizens" as Microsoft, Amazon, Google,
Face Book, Boeing and the entire Military/Industrial Complex,
Macdonalds and all international fast food Corporations, the Health
Industry which cleans up, literally, after the health breakdown from
too many Big Macs, and the list is endless but needs most certainly
to include the huge international banks that we still call Wall
Street.
Remember back in high school when we would grab the basketball and
head onto the playing court? Well our Corporate Masters have a court,
too. It's called the Judicial System. Currently our Masters are
packing their Court with very conservative judges who will make and
interpret laws which will effect all of us for years to come.
Then there is the second court in which our Masters are skilled at
controlling, using our dollars which we carelessly squandered in
meeting the demands of "the government"to pay up all our
taxes...unless we happen to be one of the Master Race. This court,
called Congress, swears to a man...and to a few women, that it is not
affected by Payola! Huh? Not only crooked, but stupid, too?
So, if "the government" is doing a pretty fair job of clearing the
field for our First Class Citizens, the Corporations, then why do they
spend so much time and effort bad mouthing it? Well, it might be that
they use "the government" as a buffer, directing our wrath at "the
government" rather than at the Ruling Class. This has been the tried
and true method the Ruling Class has used with our Mass Media. Just
who owns the Mass Media? The working class? The homeless? The fast
disappearing middle Class? Nope. A close look behind the veneer
shows us that ownership, and thus, control belongs to our Master Race,
the Ruling Class.
So, my little ones, before toddling off to bed, we can say we know one
thing for absolute certainty. Whoever each of us believes "the
government" is, we can say for sure that we know it is not "Our
Government". It was bought and paid for. We, the average American
cannot afford the high price...probably because we frittered away our
money.
So nighty night, and snuggle into your comfy beds...because tomorrow
we'll be sleeping in the car...if they haven't repossessed it yet.

Carl Jarvis

On 6/10/19, Demaya, Diego via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
> Hi William,
>
> You mean to say that if the middle class only stopped eating Big Macs and
> stopped buying $49 tablets at Wal-Mart they would also become Trillionaires
> like Bill Gates, or Kotch Brothers, or Steve Jobs, or heck even Trump? Wow,
> you really have a grip on the meat of things sir!
>
> Then, what Capitalism would you be referring to? We have not had any such
> economic system here since, what, late 1880s or so? I do agree with you,
> though, government has made a mess of things by encouraging and supporting
> corporate greed and avarice at our expense....
>
> As for choices, again, I am puzzled as to who in our income grade has
> "choices..." for where and how to work... unless you mean becoming a starvng
> Uver driver??
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Grussenmeyer via acb-chat [mailto:acb-chat@acblists.org]
> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2019 10:41 PM
> To: General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a wide range
> of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or whatever comes to
> mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion list.
> Cc: William Grussenmeyer
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [acb-chat] This is truly scary: No matter which
> political party has been in power in Washington, the middle class has
> continued to shrink and more wealth and power has become concentrated in the
> hands of the elite.
>
> It is not the fault of the wealthy that the middle class are losing
> out on wealth. This is the result of the middle class being
> irresponsible in their spending and not saving their money. If you
> look at any wealthy people, their common denominator is not greed and
> ruthless exploitation but in fact patient saving and thrifty spending
> for many many years. The cost of housing and the cost of education
> and the cost of many other things going up to high levels is the fault
> of the government regulations which with their zoning laws and
> construction regulations have caused many housing developers to stop
> creating affordable housing and instead focus on the high end market.
> California passed many environmental and energy law requirements on
> construction which have caused construction costs to sky rocket. If
> the government would get off regulating construction and let the free
> market work its magic, there would be affordable housing for all.
> Furthermore, capitalism has not been made to suck all the wealth into
> the elite classes while keeping everyone else poor. This is an
> ignorant fallacy of many socialists and communists. Many people
> immigrate to the US because they can make more money here and live a
> better life here than in their home countries which are many times
> socialistic or communistic. The accumulation of wealth is a different
> problem from wages. The free market provides people the economic
> freedom to choose who they work for, where they work, and what kind of
> profession they go into. If you want socialistic government, the
> result will be that no one will have any choice in what they do or
> where they work or who they work for. Besides the fact that
> government run economies are extremely inefficient, very poor, and
> restrict the freedoms of the people. If there were less government
> regulation in education, health care, and housing, then there would be
> better competition and would result in lower prices for all and better
> wages for everyone.
> Big government will always make a country and its people even worse
> off then they are. Utopian government control is a fantasy and a
> delusion that makes people think they will be saved, but really their
> lives will be much worse than before.
> Free market capitalism always makes everyone richer and improves
> everyone's standard of living despite what this article says. For
> example more people than ever have access to buy cheap computers --
> cheaper than ever before and have access to cheap online education,
> all because government does not regulate the internet or the tech
> companies and their threats to try to do so will spell doom for cheap
> technology and cheap online services.
>
> On 6/8/19, Andy Baracco via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>> I got only a $93 refund on my 2018 taxes. Much less than in the past.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "R. E. Driscoll Sr via acb-chat" <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>> To: "General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a wide
>> range
>>
>> of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or whatever comes
>> to
>>
>> mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion list."
>> <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>> Cc: "R. E. Driscoll Sr" <llocsirdsr@att.net>
>> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2019 10:37 AM
>> Subject: Re: [acb-chat] This is truly scary: No matter which political
>> party
>>
>> has been in power in Washington, the middle class has continued to shrink
>> and more wealth and power has become concentrated in the hands of the
>> elite.
>>
>>
>>> Diego: In my case I got a $700 refund on my 2018 Federal Taxes. That is
>>> the first time in about eight years of Obama/Democrat incumbent control.
>>> Richard Driscoll
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On Jun 8, 2019, at 11:18 AM, Demaya, Diego via acb-chat
>>>> <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> being
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.acblists.org_mailman_listinfo_acb-2Dchat&d=DwICaQ&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=DBZiAQGL0jpt2lnbpfYQ49A16IoiYQ9wtcQqtl673T8&s=nZGwn9Fs-U_CpRDSNj0S6XHIQE5gVBda8NnhBJgzTg4&e=
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> acb-chat mailing list
>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.acblists.org_mailman_listinfo_acb-2Dchat&d=DwICaQ&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=DBZiAQGL0jpt2lnbpfYQ49A16IoiYQ9wtcQqtl673T8&s=nZGwn9Fs-U_CpRDSNj0S6XHIQE5gVBda8NnhBJgzTg4&e=
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> acb-chat mailing list
> acb-chat@acblists.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.acblists.org_mailman_listinfo_acb-2Dchat&d=DwICaQ&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=DBZiAQGL0jpt2lnbpfYQ49A16IoiYQ9wtcQqtl673T8&s=nZGwn9Fs-U_CpRDSNj0S6XHIQE5gVBda8NnhBJgzTg4&e=
>
> _______________________________________________
> acb-chat mailing list
> acb-chat@acblists.org
> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>

Ramble for June 6, 2019

carjar82@gmail.com>
wrote:
block quote
One thing to think about, Helen, is just whose government it is that rules us.
The total purpose of the current administration, and I'm afraid of all
past administrations, is to enable the corporate Ruling Class to
plunder the nation's resources.  Under past administrations there has
been some give and take, but the Ruling Class has never lost control,
always having the last word.
While the Working Class outnumbers the Ruling Class, they, the Ruling
Class  control the nation's wealth and have the ability to hire the
bright upcoming members of the Lower Classes to do their bidding.
Many of those who have sold their souls to the Devil, have come to
believe that they are part of the Ruling Class, and serve their Master
by doing the dirty work.  Such jobs as policing the masses,
controlling interest rates, seizing public lands and institutions and
selling them off to private or foreign interests, and holding public
office to ensure that the Ruling Classes laws are upheld.
We should be surprised if the Masters did not go after the piles of
money used for social service programs such as Medicare, Medicaid,
social security disability and social security.  Like retirement
funds, these funds are just too enticing to be left alone.  What we
are losing is the little bit of protection we once had, protecting our
investments from the Sharks and Greedy Rodents.
It greatly pains me to think of desperate people, trudging across
Mexico and across the desert lands of Arizona and Texas, believing
that they might find relief in a nation controlled by Corporate
Capitalism.
I say, "corporate capitalism" for lack of a better identifier, but it
is really an evil force named Greed that has a strangle hold on the
wealthy of our land.
Carl Jarvis

Fwd: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] “Joe Biden’s Support of the Hyde Amendment Makes Him Unfit to Lead”

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 10:26:52 -0700
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] "Joe Biden's
Support of the Hyde Amendment Makes Him Unfit to Lead"
To: blind-democracy@freelists.org

I'm sorry to see the Super Democrats and the DNC pushing Joe Biden.
He is being repackaged as Uncle Joe, carrying his lunch bucket and
shaking the hands of a construction worker. But under all the makeup,
he is still the guy who sat by quietly watching as Barack Obama
increased pressure on immigrants and attacks on journalists and the
murder of countless innocent men, women and children in "far off"
lands that " threatened our freedom". And we are reminded that he is
also in favor of government meddling in women's personal lives,
determining for them how they may care for their health needs.
We need a strong, outspoken candidate who will point out the rape and
plunder that is going on under the shadow of Donald Trump's Tom
Foolery.
The courts, already the strong buffer for protecting the freedom of
the Ruling Class, are now far toward the conservative side. A warning
should be posted above each court building in the country saying,
"Working Class, Beware!"

Carl Jarvis


On 6/6/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> This is his way of trying to get Trump's voters?
>
> Miriam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> <blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2019 9:45 AM
> To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@freelists.org>
> Subject: [blind-democracy] "Joe Biden's Support of the Hyde Amendment Makes
> Him Unfit to Lead"
>
> Food for thought.
> Carl Jarvis
>
> images/biden
> When the news broke yesterday, even many of Joe Biden's supporters voiced
> alarm. The New York Times reported that his campaign had confirmed Biden
> supports the Hyde Amendment, "a measure that prohibits the use of federal
> funds for abortion" -- with the only exceptions being "cases involving rape,
> incest and when the life of the mother is in danger."
>
> The Hyde Amendment "disproportionately affects economically disadvantaged
> women and women of color," the Times noted. Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL
> Pro-Choice America, "said Mr. Biden's stance would be disqualifying for an
> endorsement during the primary." She declared: "We would never support
> someone who supported Hyde, period."
>
> Biden has doubled down on favoring extremely discriminatory policies
> -- depriving low-income women of their rights to reproductive choice.
>
> Unfortunately, despite his "Lunch Bucket Joe" image, Biden has often backed
> policies unfair to people without economic privilege. But we're not getting
> much accurate information about his record from corporate media.
>
> That's why RootsAction is now launching the Biden Fact Squad.
>
> Here are two important ways you can help get the Biden Fact Squad off to a
> strong start.
>
> ** Click here and contribute what you can to support the launch of the
> Biden Fact Squad nationwide.
>
> ** Share via social media the contents of a RootsAction flier that had
> major impact at last weekend's California Democratic Party convention. You
> can do that by clicking on " Joe Biden: Facts ."
>
> Last weekend, we helped change the narrative at the gathering of California
> Democrats. As the Washington Post reported: "Anyone who spent more than 10
> minutes at the convention was handed a two-sided document from the group
> RootsAction."
>
> Bloomberg News explained that our organization had distributed fliers
> "featuring quotes in which Biden praised Vice President Mike Pence and
> defended billionaires."
> Bloomberg also reported that "anti-Biden sentiment was palpable throughout
> the convention, where delegates expressed frustration with both his
> candidacy and his absence" -- and RootsAction "even distributed fliers that
> featured quotes from Biden and criticisms of his record."
>
> What we did in California last weekend needs to happen elsewhere around the
> country. With your help, RootsAction's new Biden Fact Squad can have a big
> impact.
>
> Your help now can
> make a real difference
> as the Biden Fact Squad gets rolling!
>
> Corporate power and corporate media have elevated Joe Biden to frontrunner
> status. But if we organize effectively, we can clear the path for a
> progressive Democratic ticket that can defeat Donald Trump and help
> transform our country.
>
> images/RA_Donate_button
>
> Thank you!
> Background:
>>> Danielle Campoamor, Washington Post:
> Food for Thought.
> Carl Jarvis
>
>
>
>

“Joe Biden’s Support of the Hyde Amendment Makes Him Unfit to Lead”

Food for thought.
Carl Jarvis

images/biden
When the news broke yesterday, even many of Joe Biden's supporters
voiced alarm. The New York Times reported that his campaign had
confirmed Biden supports
the Hyde Amendment, "a measure that prohibits the use of federal funds
for abortion" -- with the only exceptions being "cases involving rape,
incest and
when the life of the mother is in danger."

The Hyde Amendment "disproportionately affects economically
disadvantaged women and women of color," the Times noted. Ilyse Hogue,
president of NARAL Pro-Choice
America, "said Mr. Biden's stance would be disqualifying for an
endorsement during the primary." She declared: "We would never support
someone who supported
Hyde, period."

Biden has doubled down on favoring extremely discriminatory policies
-- depriving low-income women of their rights to reproductive choice.

Unfortunately, despite his "Lunch Bucket Joe" image, Biden has often
backed policies unfair to people without economic privilege. But we're
not getting
much accurate information about his record from corporate media.

That's why RootsAction is now launching the Biden Fact Squad.

Here are two important ways you can help get the Biden Fact Squad off
to a strong start.

**  Click here and contribute what you can to support the launch of
the Biden Fact Squad nationwide.

**  Share via social media the contents of a RootsAction flier that
had major impact at last weekend's California Democratic Party
convention. You can
do that by clicking on "
Joe Biden: Facts
."

Last weekend, we helped change the narrative at the gathering of
California Democrats. As the Washington Post reported: "Anyone who
spent more than 10
minutes at the convention was handed a two-sided document from the
group RootsAction."

Bloomberg News explained that our organization had distributed fliers
"featuring quotes in which Biden praised Vice President Mike Pence and
defended billionaires."
Bloomberg also reported that "anti-Biden sentiment was palpable
throughout the convention, where delegates expressed frustration with
both his candidacy
and his absence" -- and RootsAction "even distributed fliers that
featured quotes from Biden and criticisms of his record."

What we did in California last weekend needs to happen elsewhere
around the country. With
your help,
RootsAction's new Biden Fact Squad can have a big impact.

Your help now can
make a real difference
as the Biden Fact Squad gets rolling!

Corporate power and corporate media have elevated Joe Biden to
frontrunner status. But if we organize effectively, we can clear the
path for a progressive
Democratic ticket that can defeat Donald Trump and help transform our country.

images/RA_Donate_button

Thank you!
Background:
>>  Danielle Campoamor, Washington Post:
Food for Thought.
Carl Jarvis

share with all who care

I was deeply moved by the following:
From: "Rabbi Arthur Waskow" <
awaskow@theshalomcenter.org>
To:
Subject: [PnaiOrPhila] Faith Leaders Challenge White House
Date:
Mon, 3 Jun 2019 09:26:38 -0400

Faith Leaders Challenge White House
#JeremiahJustiiceJune12
Dear friends of compassion, justice, peace, and healing --

 I am writing to share more details of the #JeremiahJusticeJune12
gathering of faith leaders at the White House, led by Rev. Dr. William
Barber. I very much hope you will join in that gathering.

We are  facing an extremely grievous attack by those in power on two
sacred Covenants.

When the rulers of our society violate, scorn, and shatter both our
sacred Covenants, it is time for the upholders of those Covenants to bring
our Prophetic Calling into action. Time to challenge and resist the
arrogant and cruel.

One Covenant is the Constitution -- a Covenant agreed on by the American
people to organize our governmental process so that it leans toward
justice. Despite its long evolution toward expanding and deepening
democracy, it still has faults that undercut democracy.

But it is the most democratic elements in it (such as the free press,
freedom of religion, equal protection of the laws, and Congressional power
of the purse and of declaring or refusing to declare war) that are now
under assault from the White House.
The other Covenant is made up of the deep teachings of all the great
religious traditions that give a grounding of justice, compassion, and love
to the content of our governmental decisions.

When the rulers of our society violate, scorn, and shatter both our
sacred Covenants, it is time for the upholders of those Covenants to bring
our Prophetic Calling into action. Time to challenge and resist the
arrogant and cruel.

 The spiritual leaders of our country need to come together to say No! to
these assaults on our covenantal truth  -- and I hope you'll join with us.

"Faith leaders" is a broader category than "clergy." Nuns are in Roman
Catholic parlance not called "clergy" - but they are certainly faith
leaders. Islam does not consider "imams "clergy, though they are certainly
leaders of the faith community. Quakers will often say that either they
have no clergy or all of them are clergy - certainly many are among our
most dedicated faith leaders. Jewish women who are taught in the emerging
tradition of Kohanot - the guild of "Hebrew priestesses" - do not call
themselves "clergy,"  but they are certainly faith leaders. And within many
many congregations of the faith-filled are some who clearly lead without a
title. All faith leaders are welcome!

On June 12, faith leaders wearing the sacred garb of their traditions
will gather in Washington DC, beginning at 9 am, at the "New York Avenue
Presbyterian Church," four blocks from the White House, at 1313 New York
Avenue NW.

At the church there will be explanations of the procession to the White
House, of the legal plans for those who choose to risk arrest by
persevering in nonviolent protest even if they are ordered to stop, and of
the program. There will be prayers. And at 10:30, we will recite a litany
of challenge and affirmation as we go forth into the faith-filled
procession to the White House.

By clicking to
https://www.breachrepairers.org/moralwitnesswednesday
you
will find two forms of support and participation in this action. One is
signing a petitionary Letter of Spiritual Challenge and Affirmation, and
the other is signing up to take part in the June 12 action. You can choose
one or both of them. And if you choose to be present on June 12, you can
choose whether to risk arrest or not.

I mentioned the Litany we will join in as we begin our faith-filled
procession to the White House. Whether you can come to Washington or not on
June 12, I suggest you share it with others in your own communities --
perhaps reading it together in conjunction with Jumaa prayer services this
coming Friday, with prayer services for Shabbat and Shavuot this coming
weekend, and with this coming Sunday services for Sabbath and Pentecost.
Here is the Litany:

To the present President and all Governmental Officials:

The Covenant calls you to nurture children, not cage them.

We call you to join in the Covenant.

The Covenant calls you to heal all the sick.

We call you to join in the Covenant.

The Covenant calls you to ensure pure air and water.

We call you to join in the Covenant.

The Covenant calls you to welcome the Stranger.

We call you to join in the Covenant.

The Covenant calls you to lift up the Forgotten.

We call you to join in the Covenant.

The Covenant calls you to repair us from racism.

We call you to join in the Covenant.

The Covenant calls you to respect women's choices.

We call you to join in the Covenant.

The Covenant calls you to empower the poor.

We call you to join in the Covenant.

The Covenant calls you to restrain the rich.

We call you to join in the Covenant.

The Covenant calls you to defend all faiths.

We call you to join in the Covenant.

The Covenant calls you to affirm the free press.

We call you to join in the Covenant.

The Covenant calls you to accord everyone equal protection of the laws.

We call you to join in the Covenant.

The Covenant calls you to beat bombs into plowshares.

We call you to join in the Covenant.

The Covenant calls you to heal Earth, not to burn her.

We call you to join in the Covenant.

The Covenant calls you to speak only truth.

We call you to join in the Covenant.

The Covenant commands you to fulfill all these teachings

Or bring disaster on us all, dishonor on yourself.

The Covenant commands us to resist your misdeeds,

For where some are guilty, all are responsible.

We join in commitment to  uphold the Covenant

And act to create the Beloved Community!

Amen, Ameyn, Amin!

Fwd: [blind-democracy] Re: Monday Morning Ramble

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 08:24:39 -0700
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: Monday Morning Ramble
To: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@aol.com>

Your differences are noted. But look at this constitution of ours.
Sure, it demands the right to self rule and denies that our rulers are
given to us by a Higher Power. It does say that our leaders will not
be protected by God, but must be chosen by the people. But then we
define just who those people are. White men 21 years of age and
older, Land Holders or men of great wealth.
Slaves, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans and the Working Class are
not trusted(respected)enough to be given a voice in the new
government. It is this taint of aristocracy, this unspoken belief
that some Men are created more equal than others, that parrots the
existing views of what government is, and who qualifies to run it.
Yes, we did end slavery...in name only. And yes, we did make some
inroads in which women gained the right to vote and even to hold
office, and for a period of time there was an effort to register all
citizens to vote, even as methods of limiting and controlling who
could vote began to replace the old poll taxes and literacy tests.
Gerrymandering and voter register purges as well as limiting access to
voting, through the removal of many voting places, handing out fake
ballots, voting machines that are rigged, all give the lie to the
great promises of our elected(bought)leaders. Perhaps the Holy
Emperor is dead, but he leaves behind his ample treasury. His
underlings have the great wealth to buy loyalty and to bury those who
stand in opposition. Generations of brain washing have produced a
short term mind and a lack of interest in politics by the majority of
People. We go all
gah gah over our Sports and Entertainment Kings and Queens, but don't
know who the vice president is. We are trained to accept the window
dressing, the veneer that is presented as who our leaders are, while
they hide behind gated palaces and giggle as they plot against us.
But we are expected to pay them respect, and treat them as if they
care.
Oops! I'm getting off on another rant. Enough! I honestly feel much
stronger on the subject than I allow myself to express.

Cordially,
Carl Jarvis


On 6/3/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@aol.com> wrote:
>
> But it did not just parrot the ruling class it replaced. A worker in a
> factory is oppressed, but not as oppressed as a slave in a field. A road to
> enter the bourgeoisie is an advance even if the majority of workers don't
> become a part of it. When your station in life is rigidly determined by
> inheritance the economic system is less advanced than one that provides for
> some class mobility.
> ---
>
> Carl Sagan
> ??? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ???
> ??? Carl Sagan
>
>
>
> On 6/3/2019 9:54 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
>> But was it really a step forward for humanity? The bourgeoisie
>> replaced the British Aristocracy and drafted a Constitution designed
>> to protect their Ruling Class status. Historians have spun it as a
>> step toward freedom, but a ruling class is still a ruling class
>> regardless of its nature. Control over the working class has come in
>> all kinds of shapes. But when it ends up simply parroting the Ruling
>> Class it replaced, it is nothing but a futile effort, and a waste of
>> lives and resources.
>> Carl Jarvis
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/3/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@aol.com> wrote:
>>> What should be remembered is that the American revolution was a
>>> bourgeois revolution. They succeeded in throwing off the oppression of
>>> the British aristocracy over them and that was a step forward for
>>> humanity in general, but they were not concerned about the people that
>>> they, the bourgeoisie, were oppressing.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Carl Sagan
>>> ??? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ???
>>> ??? Carl Sagan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/3/2019 1:37 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
>>>> Absolutely right, Miriam.
>>>> We have built up so many myths that I doubt Americans will ever see
>>>> our nation for what it is. Sure, it was a bold move back in 1776, but
>>>> our forefathers were not the statesmen we like to make them out to be.
>>>> Some very bright and innovative people, but still they were products
>>>> of their times. And that is my point. They were "of their time", not
>>>> of ours. We keep fiddling with a document that was based on totally
>>>> different conditions and times, trying to make it fit today. Like
>>>> trying to send the Wright Brothers to do battle with a fighter jet.
>>>> Anyway, gotta get on the road.
>>>>
>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/3/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>> Coincidentally, at the same time that I'm reading, "These Truths", I'm
>>>>> also
>>>>> reading a novel, "My Dear Hamilton", which describes a lot more of the
>>>>> history around the period between 1876 and the early 1800's. Alexander
>>>>> Hamilton was in charge of the Treasury Department. He'd written the
>>>>> underlying philosophy and the economic rules for the new nation.
>>>>> Everything
>>>>> was focused on business and profits as a way of getting the country
>>>>> out
>>>>> of
>>>>> debt. The emphasis was never on individuals, certainly not on workers
>>>>> and
>>>>> farmers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Miriam
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>>>>> <blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2019 11:59 AM
>>>>> To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@freelists.org>
>>>>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Monday Morning Ramble
>>>>>
>>>>> Discussion on another list got my brain to groaning and then stirring.
>>>>> The writer suggested that we need to wake up to the fact that war has
>>>>> been
>>>>> declared upon the Working Class, by the Ruling Class.
>>>>> My contention is that our Founding Fathers, the Landed Gentry and
>>>>> those
>>>>> who
>>>>> held fortunes, drafted an amazing Constitution that declared their
>>>>> right
>>>>> to
>>>>> rule.
>>>>> That Constitution, although battered and bent at times, has endured.
>>>>> Here's more of what I wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, if you wander back through our nation's history, you will
>>>>> find
>>>>> that the Founding Fathers, the Landed Gentry, established a government
>>>>> that
>>>>> put them in charge. And despite taking a few batterings over the
>>>>> years,
>>>>> most notably the Great Depression, this US Constitution has done its
>>>>> job.
>>>>> The Oligarchy endures. Concessions have been made, such as ending
>>>>> slavery,
>>>>> women's vote, wage minimum, social security, medicare, the 8 hour work
>>>>> day,
>>>>> an end to child labor, nation-wide postal system, free public
>>>>> education,
>>>>> and
>>>>> on and on. These changes were fought for, one at a time. The
>>>>> Founding
>>>>> Fathers viewed them as socialistic and later on as Marxist, but in
>>>>> truth
>>>>> they were the result of the Working Class fighting back. Labor was
>>>>> never
>>>>> included at the planning table when our Constitution was drafted. The
>>>>> theory at the time was if you didn't own or control a piece of the
>>>>> Land,
>>>>> you
>>>>> were not entitled to have a say in its use. This continues today with
>>>>> corporations telling their workers that they do not have a right in
>>>>> the
>>>>> decisions that direct the corporation. Of course you will note that
>>>>> these
>>>>> same corporate spokesmen feel that they have the right to control the
>>>>> lives
>>>>> of their employees. That's the beauty of Control.
>>>>> So, my point being that we, the Working Class, have been in a war from
>>>>> the
>>>>> beginning. Our gains were fought for, long and hard. And with each
>>>>> gain
>>>>> has come concentrated effort by the Oligarchy to roll them back.
>>>>> We, the Working Class are in trouble. Even if Donald Trump is not
>>>>> elected
>>>>> again in 2020, he has set in place a wide number of very conservative
>>>>> judges
>>>>> in federal districts, and begun, through his cabinet, the dismantling
>>>>> of
>>>>> fundamental programs and regulations that we have come to believe are
>>>>> our
>>>>> right. And, most important, we are in the process of losing our
>>>>> "right"
>>>>> to
>>>>> independent thought. Our very minds are being taken over by the
>>>>> sophisticated brain washing technology developed by the Think Tanks
>>>>> supported by the Oligarchy.
>>>>> We have allowed, and been led, into allowing others to think for us.
>>>>> We are trained to turn to our Great Leaders, and if they are not
>>>>> Great,
>>>>> they
>>>>> will be made over, to appear Great Leaders. Until each of us begins
>>>>> to
>>>>> think for ourselves, and act upon our conclusions, we will continue to
>>>>> drift
>>>>> toward enabling a Dictator to rise to power at the head of our
>>>>> American
>>>>> Empire.
>>>>> Of course there are other possibilities. One that I've mentioned
>>>>> before
>>>>> is
>>>>> the possible breakup of our nation. International Mega Corporations
>>>>> might
>>>>> rise up to control what once were nations or parts of nations, and
>>>>> begin
>>>>> struggling for international control, dragging the Working Class into
>>>>> battle.
>>>>> For sure, we're in The End Days, as far as our American Empire is
>>>>> concerned.
>>>>> Better start thinking and pick a side.
>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>