More from LUV News: Wednesday, April 17, 2013

    The American Indians recognized from the get go that the United States government spoke with forked tongue. 

Talking out of both sides of the mouth is as American as Apple Pie and Mother.  After 247 years, it is a wonder that anyone in the world would believe our mouthing's. 

If someone out there has the ear of President Obama, please tell him to put on his "Big Boy Pants" and congratulate President Nicolás Maduro for his election on Sunday, April 14, 2013. 

Carl Jarvis

----

 

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK IN VENEZUELA

Russian news reports "On Sunday, the 14th of April 2013, Nicolás Maduro won the presidential elections with 50.66 percent of all votes in Venezuela and was congratulated by all progressive Latin American leaders."  It then goes on to list president after president congratulating Maduro on his victory.

Omitted from congratulating the winner is President Obama, whose administration has backed the oligarch candidate, Henrique Capriles, who has fomented violence as 7 people have been killed and a large number injured by his followers in protesting the loss.

Those killed were publicly celebrating the Maduro victory, which apparently upset Capriles supporters, who want to bring back thinly veiled oligarch rule.

Venezuela's National Electoral Council has refused to hold a recount, saying an audit of ballots from 54 percent of the polling centers, in a widely respected electronic voting system, had already been done. 

Most of the American mainstream media appear to support further recounts from the rhetoric they display, so one should ask, where were they in 2000, when the US Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court ruling that votes in that state should be recounted?  In that presidential election, recall that the popular vote went to the loser, unlike the case in Venezuela, so there should have been even more democratic interest in counting votes, one would think.  But in the Empire its "do as we say, not as we do."

---

 

 

***

 "We do not inherit the land from
our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."

can violence put an end to violence?

Can Violence Put An End To Violence? 

 

As hard as it is to remember when such a tragic work of violence occurs, Violence does Begat Violence. 

It makes no difference if our Cause is just or not, it makes no difference if we did not intend to murder innocents, once we have turned to violence to solve our problems, we will be paid back in violence. 

And it makes no difference who these insane killers believe they're serving.  Do we think these heartless fools went to some special killer school, learning how to build bombs and get the most bodies for the bang?  Maybe, but more likely they were trained up right here under the watchful eye of our violent TV, videos and our Might makes Right ideology.  We have violence because we teach violence.  We tolerate it and even encourage it.  What is our reaction to this massacre?  Violence.  Kill the Bastards!  Find them and torture them and chop off their arms and legs.  And then we can all go home secure in the belief that we have put an end to violence.  Until the bomb comes through our window, or our loved ones are gunned down as they leave their homes.  To all of those who long for that great uprising of the people in full revolution, this is what it will look like multiplied thousands of times. 

There is only one way to end violence, and that way will still cost many lives as the violent ones stomp and storm about, killing all resisters.  But it will never end unless a massive nonviolent uprising takes place. 

Sad to say, there is little support for nonviolence. 

Carl Jarvis

 

Obama Allegedly to Cutback Social Security and Medicare in New Budget, Accepts GOP Austerity Cat Food War on the

Certainly Barak Obama is not from the American Black culture.  But his roots do travel back to Africa.  And we "Middle Class" Americans did vote for him in the belief that we were getting our very first "Black" president. 

So he has either deliberately used his color to gain votes, or he has been used by his Masters, being paraded as a Black Man, while doing the Empire's business. 

Maybe I'm overly sensitive because I've worked with so many "professional" blind people who refused to see themselves as part of our blind minority group.  They would reach down to help blind people, but they travelled in sighted circles and used other words to describe their vision loss.  They joined none of the organizations, gave no dollars to support any of the Causes, or attended any blind functions.  They spoke of their work and their clients as Jerry Lewis referred to "My Children". 

 

Carl Jarvis

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Roger Loran Bailey

To: Blind Democracy Discussion List

Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 9:00 AM

Subject: Re: Obama Allegedly to Cutback Social Security and Medicare in New Budget, Accepts GOP Austerity Cat Food War on the

Frankly, I doubt very much that Barack Obama regards African Americans as his people. First, he is not a descendent of slaves and he did not grow up among African Americans and did not absorb the African American culture. Second, he did grow up in a white family and grew up surrounded by white people. The exposure he did have to African American culture was as an outsider visiting it. The main effect that his African ancestry has had on him is as something of a barrier in his political career and he has handled that by avoiding racial issues as much as he can. He cannot deny his racial background, because anyone with working eyes can look right at him and see it, but he does his best to avoid even speaking of racial issues and when he cannot avoid it he passes over it as quickly as possible. That has apparently worked for him, but it does point up that it is very unlikely that he regards African Americans as his people.

On 4/6/2013 11:22 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:

Bob and All,

I wonder if Barak Obama had the same history books I was "taught" from?  Among the many misrepresentations, the wars, and the great industrialists who "built" this great nation, among all that garbage was a lesson about the Black Americans having been deliberately cut off from their roots as part of their Master's efforts to keep them enslaved. 

Has Barak Obama been so bleached of his color that he no longer cares or even thinks about his own roots? 

Has he been duped?  Or has he deliberately chosen to turn his back on his people? 

Does he even know his people?  Or are they some fiction that has no place in his "self-made" life? 

Well Mister Barak Obama, I know my people.  I know the Ludwig's who came to these shores in 1752, The Alexander's who reached Pennsylvania in 1834, The Hickman's, the Davis's and the Jarvis's who may have been here from the very early 1700's, and finally, the Black Foot and the Osage who were driven from this land. 

These people were Working Men and Women.  Farmers, miners, carpenters, dock hands, the very people who built this mighty land. 

Mister Barak Obama, you won't read much about my people, unless you take the time to read Howard Zinn's, A People's History of the United States. 

Go on believing your little myth that the wealthy Masters are the real movers and shakers.  But at least be honest and tell us that you have lied to us in order to gain our temporary support.  Tell us the truth, how you really are envious of your wealthy Masters. 

One other lesson I should remind you of Mister Barak Obama, and I know the the word I am about to write offends even you, but it must be said to make my point.  Remember those Black folk in Massa's mansion who did his bidding and spied and lied on their fellow Blacks?  They were the House Niggers, Mister Barak Obama. 

Is that the statement you want to leave the world when you finally step down from your position as the King Puppet? 

 

Carl Jarvis

----- Original Message -----

From: Bob Hachey

To: Blind Democracy Discussion List

Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 11:28 PM

Subject: Re: Obama Allegedly to Cutback Social Security and Medicare in New Budget, Accepts GOP Austerity Cat Food War on the

To the whimpy oreo cookie of a president, I say a loud and proud FUCK YOU
for perpetuating economic slavery and suffering. I wonder what he means by
actions to protect the poor from the chains of the chained CPI.
AS for the por watching helplessly? I say get up off your asses and throw
off the chains of Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan and the University of Chicago
school of economic slavery. Do we really have that much to lose that we're
afraid to stand up and fight for our share of the American Pie?
FUCK NO.
bob Hachey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
To: "'Blind Democracy Discussion List'" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 9:15 PM
Subject: Obama Allegedly to Cutback Social Security and Medicare in New
Budget, Accepts GOP Austerity Cat Food War on the


Friday, 05 April 2013 16:52
Obama Allegedly to Cutback Social Security and Medicare in New Budget,
Accepts GOP Austerity Cat Food War on the Unwealthy

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
 It's back to the Simpson-Bowles cat food for the elderly and poor budget as
far as the White House is concerned, according to The New York Times (NYT)
on Friday:
President Obama next week will take the political risk of formally proposing
cuts to Social Security and Medicare in his annual budget in an effort to
demonstrate his willingness to compromise with Republicans and revive
prospects for a long-term deficit-reduction deal, administration officials
say.
Once again, a Democratic president is conceding to the GOP "frame" of
austerity being vital to the future of America, when it was the Republicans
who ran up the deficit - after Clinton left Bush a balanced budget - with a
profligate tax cut for the super rich, two wars, and things like a
multi-billion gift to the pharmaceutical industry by prohibiting government
negotiations on drug prices in Medicare Part D.
This amidst a historical moment when income redistribution and asset
ownership disparities have reached record levels in the US. But Obama
appears to have an aversion to discussing or rectifying a morally
unacceptable imbalance in wealth in America.
In return, Obama will get some crumbs of revenue enhancement, but take at a
look at some of his leaked proposed reductions:
Deficits would be reduced another $930 billion through 2023 as a result of
spending cuts and other cost-saving changes to domestic programs, and $200
billion more due to reduced interest payments on the federal debt.
Mr. Obama's proposed spending reductions include about $400 billion from
health programs and $200 billion from other areas, including farm subsidies,
federal employee retirement programs, the Postal Service and the
unemployment compensation system.
Cutting domestic programs such as pensions and unemployment?
In its defense, the White House claims that it is proposing increased
infrastructure investment (too little) and more taxes on the wealthy (not a
whole lot more).
Meanwhile the elderly on a pittance of Social Security will have imposed on
them the dreaded chained CPI, says the NYT:
Besides the tax increases that most Republicans continue to oppose, Mr.
Obama's budget will propose a new inflation formula that would have the
effect of reducing cost-of-living payments for Social Security benefits,
though with financial protections for low-income and very old beneficiaries,
administration officials said. The idea, known as chained C.P.I., has
infuriated some Democrats and advocacy groups to Mr. Obama's left, and they
have already mobilized in opposition.
Obama either continues to believe in the now inexcusably naïve notion of
"bi-partisanship" or he is, as some will argue, at heart a fiscal corporate
neo-liberal Wall Street true believer:
Together with the $2.5 trillion in deficit reductions that Mr. Obama and
Congressional Republicans have agreed to since 2010, that would bring the
total deficit reduction to more than $4.3 trillion over 10 years by the
administration's computations - just over the goal that both parties have
set for stabilizing the growth of the national debt.
The NYT, which clearly received the leak about the Obama budget from White
House sources, is reflecting an Oval Office viewpoint that the president is
compromising in order to win over "moderate" Republican votes. Say what?
Earth to planet Obama: have you learned nothing from continually starting
negotiations with the Republicans letting them advance to 10 yards of their
goal - and them allowing them to walk over into the end zone for a victory
twist and shake?
If you want to know the low threshold of weakness Obama is negotiating from,
read the viewpoint of his aides, as reported in the NYT:
Neither the president nor senior aides privately hold much hope that
Republican leaders - Mr. Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky,
the Senate Republican leader - will compromise. So Mr. Obama's strategy of
reaching out to other Senate Republicans reflects a calculation that enough
of them might cut a budget deal with the Democratic Senate majority. If that
happens, the reasoning goes, a Senate-passed compromise would put pressure
on the House to go along.
Uh, so the White House can't get even a basically Republican budget passed -
with some crumbs of federal spending. They have to, as they see it, concede
grovel and pray.
Bill Clinton said a long time back: "We [Democrats] have got to be strong.
When we look weak in a time where people feel insecure, we lose. When people
feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than
somebody's who's weak and right."
Doesn't Obama run the danger, in his budget and many of his legislative
proposals of appearing both weak and wrong?
Or is it that he actually believes in what he is proposing?
BuzzFlash at Truthout is not clairvoyant, so we can't say.
But history will judge him - and the seniors, unemployed, and poor who watch
helplessly -- as President Obama thrusts a stake through the heart of the
New Deal, while perpetuating a system of systemic oligarchy.
(Photo: DonkeyHotey)

Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Friday, 05 April 2013 16:52
Obama Allegedly to Cutback Social Security and Medicare in New Budget,
Accepts GOP Austerity Cat Food War on the Unwealthy
http://www.reddit.com/submithttp://www.reddit.com/submit
. font sizeError! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
 It's back to the Simpson-Bowles cat food for the elderly and poor budget as
far as the White House is concerned, according to The New York Times (NYT)
on Friday:
President Obama next week will take the political risk of formally proposing
cuts to Social Security and Medicare in his annual budget in an effort to
demonstrate his willingness to compromise with Republicans and revive
prospects for a long-term deficit-reduction deal, administration officials
say.
Once again, a Democratic president is conceding to the GOP "frame" of
austerity being vital to the future of America, when it was the Republicans
who ran up the deficit - after Clinton left Bush a balanced budget - with a
profligate tax cut for the super rich, two wars, and things like a
multi-billion gift to the pharmaceutical industry by prohibiting government
negotiations on drug prices in Medicare Part D.
This amidst a historical moment when income redistribution and asset
ownership disparities have reached record levels in the US. But Obama
appears to have an aversion to discussing or rectifying a morally
unacceptable imbalance in wealth in America.
In return, Obama will get some crumbs of revenue enhancement, but take at a
look at some of his leaked proposed reductions:
Deficits would be reduced another $930 billion through 2023 as a result of
spending cuts and other cost-saving changes to domestic programs, and $200
billion more due to reduced interest payments on the federal debt.
Mr. Obama's proposed spending reductions include about $400 billion from
health programs and $200 billion from other areas, including farm subsidies,
federal employee retirement programs, the Postal Service and the
unemployment compensation system.
Cutting domestic programs such as pensions and unemployment?
In its defense, the White House claims that it is proposing increased
infrastructure investment (too little) and more taxes on the wealthy (not a
whole lot more).
Meanwhile the elderly on a pittance of Social Security will have imposed on
them the dreaded chained CPI, says the NYT:
Besides the tax increases that most Republicans continue to oppose, Mr.
Obama's budget will propose a new inflation formula that would have the
effect of reducing cost-of-living payments for Social Security benefits,
though with financial protections for low-income and very old beneficiaries,
administration officials said. The idea, known as chained C.P.I., has
infuriated some Democrats and advocacy groups to Mr. Obama's left, and they
have already mobilized in opposition.
Obama either continues to believe in the now inexcusably naïve notion of
"bi-partisanship" or he is, as some will argue, at heart a fiscal corporate
neo-liberal Wall Street true believer:
Together with the $2.5 trillion in deficit reductions that Mr. Obama and
Congressional Republicans have agreed to since 2010, that would bring the
total deficit reduction to more than $4.3 trillion over 10 years by the
administration's computations - just over the goal that both parties have
set for stabilizing the growth of the national debt.
The NYT, which clearly received the leak about the Obama budget from White
House sources, is reflecting an Oval Office viewpoint that the president is
compromising in order to win over "moderate" Republican votes. Say what?
Earth to planet Obama: have you learned nothing from continually starting
negotiations with the Republicans letting them advance to 10 yards of their
goal - and them allowing them to walk over into the end zone for a victory
twist and shake?
If you want to know the low threshold of weakness Obama is negotiating from,
read the viewpoint of his aides, as reported in the NYT:
Neither the president nor senior aides privately hold much hope that
Republican leaders - Mr. Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky,
the Senate Republican leader - will compromise. So Mr. Obama's strategy of
reaching out to other Senate Republicans reflects a calculation that enough
of them might cut a budget deal with the Democratic Senate majority. If that
happens, the reasoning goes, a Senate-passed compromise would put pressure
on the House to go along.
Uh, so the White House can't get even a basically Republican budget passed -
with some crumbs of federal spending. They have to, as they see it, concede
grovel and pray.
Bill Clinton said a long time back: "We [Democrats] have got to be strong.
When we look weak in a time where people feel insecure, we lose. When people
feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than
somebody's who's weak and right."
Doesn't Obama run the danger, in his budget and many of his legislative
proposals of appearing both weak and wrong?
Or is it that he actually believes in what he is proposing?
BuzzFlash at Truthout is not clairvoyant, so we can't say.
But history will judge him - and the seniors, unemployed, and poor who watch
helplessly -- as President Obama thrusts a stake through the heart of the
New Deal, while perpetuating a system of systemic oligarchy.
(Photo: DonkeyHotey)

Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.


_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy

_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy

_______________________________________________  Blind-Democracy mailing list  Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org  http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy

---

_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy

Obama Allegedly to Cutback Social Security and Medicare in New Budget, Accepts GOP Austerity Cat Food War on the

Bob and All,

I wonder if Barak Obama had the same history books I was "taught" from?  Among the many misrepresentations, the wars, and the great industrialists who "built" this great nation, among all that garbage was a lesson about the Black Americans having been deliberately cut off from their roots as part of their Master's efforts to keep them enslaved. 

Has Barak Obama been so bleached of his color that he no longer cares or even thinks about his own roots? 

Has he been duped?  Or has he deliberately chosen to turn his back on his people? 

Does he even know his people?  Or are they some fiction that has no place in his "self-made" life? 

Well Mister Barak Obama, I know my people.  I know the Ludwig's who came to these shores in 1752, The Alexander's who reached Pennsylvania in 1834, The Hickman's, the Davis's and the Jarvis's who may have been here from the very early 1700's, and finally, the Black Foot and the Osage who were driven from this land. 

These people were Working Men and Women.  Farmers, miners, carpenters, dock hands, the very people who built this mighty land. 

Mister Barak Obama, you won't read much about my people, unless you take the time to read Howard Zinn's, A People's History of the United States. 

Go on believing your little myth that the wealthy Masters are the real movers and shakers.  But at least be honest and tell us that you have lied to us in order to gain our temporary support.  Tell us the truth, how you really are envious of your wealthy Masters. 

One other lesson I should remind you of Mister Barak Obama, and I know the the word I am about to write offends even you, but it must be said to make my point.  Remember those Black folk in Massa's mansion who did his bidding and spied and lied on their fellow Blacks?  They were the House Niggers, Mister Barak Obama. 

Is that the statement you want to leave the world when you finally step down from your position as the King Puppet? 

 

Carl Jarvis

----- Original Message -----

From: Bob Hachey

To: Blind Democracy Discussion List

Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 11:28 PM

Subject: Re: Obama Allegedly to Cutback Social Security and Medicare in New Budget, Accepts GOP Austerity Cat Food War on the

To the whimpy oreo cookie of a president, I say a loud and proud FUCK YOU
for perpetuating economic slavery and suffering. I wonder what he means by
actions to protect the poor from the chains of the chained CPI.
AS for the por watching helplessly? I say get up off your asses and throw
off the chains of Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan and the University of Chicago
school of economic slavery. Do we really have that much to lose that we're
afraid to stand up and fight for our share of the American Pie?
FUCK NO.
bob Hachey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
To: "'Blind Democracy Discussion List'" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 9:15 PM
Subject: Obama Allegedly to Cutback Social Security and Medicare in New
Budget, Accepts GOP Austerity Cat Food War on the


Friday, 05 April 2013 16:52
Obama Allegedly to Cutback Social Security and Medicare in New Budget,
Accepts GOP Austerity Cat Food War on the Unwealthy

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
 It's back to the Simpson-Bowles cat food for the elderly and poor budget as
far as the White House is concerned, according to The New York Times (NYT)
on Friday:
President Obama next week will take the political risk of formally proposing
cuts to Social Security and Medicare in his annual budget in an effort to
demonstrate his willingness to compromise with Republicans and revive
prospects for a long-term deficit-reduction deal, administration officials
say.
Once again, a Democratic president is conceding to the GOP "frame" of
austerity being vital to the future of America, when it was the Republicans
who ran up the deficit - after Clinton left Bush a balanced budget - with a
profligate tax cut for the super rich, two wars, and things like a
multi-billion gift to the pharmaceutical industry by prohibiting government
negotiations on drug prices in Medicare Part D.
This amidst a historical moment when income redistribution and asset
ownership disparities have reached record levels in the US. But Obama
appears to have an aversion to discussing or rectifying a morally
unacceptable imbalance in wealth in America.
In return, Obama will get some crumbs of revenue enhancement, but take at a
look at some of his leaked proposed reductions:
Deficits would be reduced another $930 billion through 2023 as a result of
spending cuts and other cost-saving changes to domestic programs, and $200
billion more due to reduced interest payments on the federal debt.
Mr. Obama's proposed spending reductions include about $400 billion from
health programs and $200 billion from other areas, including farm subsidies,
federal employee retirement programs, the Postal Service and the
unemployment compensation system.
Cutting domestic programs such as pensions and unemployment?
In its defense, the White House claims that it is proposing increased
infrastructure investment (too little) and more taxes on the wealthy (not a
whole lot more).
Meanwhile the elderly on a pittance of Social Security will have imposed on
them the dreaded chained CPI, says the NYT:
Besides the tax increases that most Republicans continue to oppose, Mr.
Obama's budget will propose a new inflation formula that would have the
effect of reducing cost-of-living payments for Social Security benefits,
though with financial protections for low-income and very old beneficiaries,
administration officials said. The idea, known as chained C.P.I., has
infuriated some Democrats and advocacy groups to Mr. Obama's left, and they
have already mobilized in opposition.
Obama either continues to believe in the now inexcusably naïve notion of
"bi-partisanship" or he is, as some will argue, at heart a fiscal corporate
neo-liberal Wall Street true believer:
Together with the $2.5 trillion in deficit reductions that Mr. Obama and
Congressional Republicans have agreed to since 2010, that would bring the
total deficit reduction to more than $4.3 trillion over 10 years by the
administration's computations - just over the goal that both parties have
set for stabilizing the growth of the national debt.
The NYT, which clearly received the leak about the Obama budget from White
House sources, is reflecting an Oval Office viewpoint that the president is
compromising in order to win over "moderate" Republican votes. Say what?
Earth to planet Obama: have you learned nothing from continually starting
negotiations with the Republicans letting them advance to 10 yards of their
goal - and them allowing them to walk over into the end zone for a victory
twist and shake?
If you want to know the low threshold of weakness Obama is negotiating from,
read the viewpoint of his aides, as reported in the NYT:
Neither the president nor senior aides privately hold much hope that
Republican leaders - Mr. Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky,
the Senate Republican leader - will compromise. So Mr. Obama's strategy of
reaching out to other Senate Republicans reflects a calculation that enough
of them might cut a budget deal with the Democratic Senate majority. If that
happens, the reasoning goes, a Senate-passed compromise would put pressure
on the House to go along.
Uh, so the White House can't get even a basically Republican budget passed -
with some crumbs of federal spending. They have to, as they see it, concede
grovel and pray.
Bill Clinton said a long time back: "We [Democrats] have got to be strong.
When we look weak in a time where people feel insecure, we lose. When people
feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than
somebody's who's weak and right."
Doesn't Obama run the danger, in his budget and many of his legislative
proposals of appearing both weak and wrong?
Or is it that he actually believes in what he is proposing?
BuzzFlash at Truthout is not clairvoyant, so we can't say.
But history will judge him - and the seniors, unemployed, and poor who watch
helplessly -- as President Obama thrusts a stake through the heart of the
New Deal, while perpetuating a system of systemic oligarchy.
(Photo: DonkeyHotey)

Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Friday, 05 April 2013 16:52
Obama Allegedly to Cutback Social Security and Medicare in New Budget,
Accepts GOP Austerity Cat Food War on the Unwealthy
http://www.reddit.com/submithttp://www.reddit.com/submit
. font sizeError! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
 It's back to the Simpson-Bowles cat food for the elderly and poor budget as
far as the White House is concerned, according to The New York Times (NYT)
on Friday:
President Obama next week will take the political risk of formally proposing
cuts to Social Security and Medicare in his annual budget in an effort to
demonstrate his willingness to compromise with Republicans and revive
prospects for a long-term deficit-reduction deal, administration officials
say.
Once again, a Democratic president is conceding to the GOP "frame" of
austerity being vital to the future of America, when it was the Republicans
who ran up the deficit - after Clinton left Bush a balanced budget - with a
profligate tax cut for the super rich, two wars, and things like a
multi-billion gift to the pharmaceutical industry by prohibiting government
negotiations on drug prices in Medicare Part D.
This amidst a historical moment when income redistribution and asset
ownership disparities have reached record levels in the US. But Obama
appears to have an aversion to discussing or rectifying a morally
unacceptable imbalance in wealth in America.
In return, Obama will get some crumbs of revenue enhancement, but take at a
look at some of his leaked proposed reductions:
Deficits would be reduced another $930 billion through 2023 as a result of
spending cuts and other cost-saving changes to domestic programs, and $200
billion more due to reduced interest payments on the federal debt.
Mr. Obama's proposed spending reductions include about $400 billion from
health programs and $200 billion from other areas, including farm subsidies,
federal employee retirement programs, the Postal Service and the
unemployment compensation system.
Cutting domestic programs such as pensions and unemployment?
In its defense, the White House claims that it is proposing increased
infrastructure investment (too little) and more taxes on the wealthy (not a
whole lot more).
Meanwhile the elderly on a pittance of Social Security will have imposed on
them the dreaded chained CPI, says the NYT:
Besides the tax increases that most Republicans continue to oppose, Mr.
Obama's budget will propose a new inflation formula that would have the
effect of reducing cost-of-living payments for Social Security benefits,
though with financial protections for low-income and very old beneficiaries,
administration officials said. The idea, known as chained C.P.I., has
infuriated some Democrats and advocacy groups to Mr. Obama's left, and they
have already mobilized in opposition.
Obama either continues to believe in the now inexcusably naïve notion of
"bi-partisanship" or he is, as some will argue, at heart a fiscal corporate
neo-liberal Wall Street true believer:
Together with the $2.5 trillion in deficit reductions that Mr. Obama and
Congressional Republicans have agreed to since 2010, that would bring the
total deficit reduction to more than $4.3 trillion over 10 years by the
administration's computations - just over the goal that both parties have
set for stabilizing the growth of the national debt.
The NYT, which clearly received the leak about the Obama budget from White
House sources, is reflecting an Oval Office viewpoint that the president is
compromising in order to win over "moderate" Republican votes. Say what?
Earth to planet Obama: have you learned nothing from continually starting
negotiations with the Republicans letting them advance to 10 yards of their
goal - and them allowing them to walk over into the end zone for a victory
twist and shake?
If you want to know the low threshold of weakness Obama is negotiating from,
read the viewpoint of his aides, as reported in the NYT:
Neither the president nor senior aides privately hold much hope that
Republican leaders - Mr. Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky,
the Senate Republican leader - will compromise. So Mr. Obama's strategy of
reaching out to other Senate Republicans reflects a calculation that enough
of them might cut a budget deal with the Democratic Senate majority. If that
happens, the reasoning goes, a Senate-passed compromise would put pressure
on the House to go along.
Uh, so the White House can't get even a basically Republican budget passed -
with some crumbs of federal spending. They have to, as they see it, concede
grovel and pray.
Bill Clinton said a long time back: "We [Democrats] have got to be strong.
When we look weak in a time where people feel insecure, we lose. When people
feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than
somebody's who's weak and right."
Doesn't Obama run the danger, in his budget and many of his legislative
proposals of appearing both weak and wrong?
Or is it that he actually believes in what he is proposing?
BuzzFlash at Truthout is not clairvoyant, so we can't say.
But history will judge him - and the seniors, unemployed, and poor who watch
helplessly -- as President Obama thrusts a stake through the heart of the
New Deal, while perpetuating a system of systemic oligarchy.
(Photo: DonkeyHotey)

Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.


_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy

_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy

The Urge to Purge

Stop me if I've told this story before. 

Cathy and I went with my folks to a museum in Spokane.  One of the buildings was the original home built in the 1890's.  A graceful mansion.  The carriage house still stood beside the house, along with a more modern museum building. 

As we wandered through the mansion, the huge living room with the balcony where the orchestra played for the gala parties, to the vast dining room and the hotel sized kitchen, down to the game room, and up to the numerous bedrooms, each one bigger than my living room, I turned to my dad and said, "I would love to have lived in the 1890's". 

As we climbed the wooden stairs to the top floor, divided into small bare servant's quarters tucked under the rafters, my dad said to me, "Here is where our people lived". 

Shouldn't each of us ask the question, "How many workers does it take to support one millionaire?" 

 

Carl Jarvis

 

----- Original Message -----

From: ted chittenden

To: Blind Democracy Discussion List

Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 9:16 PM

Subject: Re: The Urge to Purge

Joe:
A lot of the people who both write and read the newsletters I (sometimes) forward from David C. are people who fervently believe that the 1870s was the best time in U.S. economic history. They disagree with Mark Twain's assessment of the time as being a "gilded age", and you cannot get them to believe anything else. The same can be said for the causes of the Great Depression and its aftermath. I have, in fact, forwarded to this list at least a couple of commentaries saying that the Keynsian policies that the U.S. followed during the Great Depression actually prolonged it and not helped it to end. As I have mentioned many times before, people believe what they want to believe no matter what the factual information may indicate.
--
Ted Chittenden

Unfit for Work: The startling riseof disabilityinAmerica

Subject: Unfit for Work: The startling rise of disabilityinAmerica

My dear Ann,

Thank you for saying it so succinctly.  We are, all of us, far more than what we do for a living.  We have had the "work ethic" hammered at us our entire lives, and so narrowly defined that we believe that we must hold down a paying job in order to be someone.  In a word, we allow our job to define us.  "I am a doctor", or, "I am a legal secretary".  Once the job title is laid on us, the person has been defined.  We all know what doctors are, and we know how efficient legal secretaries are. 

We can even cash in on someone else's job.  "I was having lunch with my close friend Doctor Jones the other day".  That tells you that I hob knob with pretty important people. 

Just as we blind people are identified by our Universal Blind Stereotype, so are other people identified by their job stereotypes. 

We actually seem to forget that we are each unique, complex human beings. 

Each of us might consider taking some time to think about who we are and then write a list.  We might even share that with folks on this list.  For certain, we will amaze ourselves by all of the pieces that go into making us who we are. 

Once we are free of being defined by what we do for a living, or what we are blocked from doing, we will be able to go forth into the world and bring meaning to our lives. 

On the day my dad retired, he said, "Now I can do all of the things that having to work kept me from doing".  And Dad became far busier than he'd ever been when he slaved away at his job. 

For those of us who desire a job, and all that a job brings, we will find that by becoming active, doing the things that bring meaning to us, at some point we will discover that employment doors open.  For those of us who feel life has passed us by, becoming active, offering our services in whatever places we can, we will discover that life has been waiting for us to come out of hiding. 

Let's rebel against being defined in this one demensional manner. 

We are more than what we do for a living.  Let's put that idea in its place.  We are no longer held prisoner by how others define us.  We shall define ourselves as whole, complex Beings.  We have something to offer the world, and ourselves.  We will hop out of bed each morning and begin the day by saying, "I shall find value and meaning in my life today."  Then go have your cup of coffee. 

 

Carl Jarvis

 

Fw: THE FIVE PERCENT GOD

Subject: Re: THE FIVE PERCENT GOD

In the far distant future a group of scientists will announce to all Mankind, "We have made a major break through!  We have communicated with a Force which informs us that It is the Being that brought this Universe into being". 

They will then give us the bad news.  "In an even more complex Universe, a young Being was playing with what we might call his chemistry set.  He mixed up several ingredients and, Poof!  our Universe was formed.  Since he had been told not to mix chemicals without parental guidance, he has been afraid to admit to his mistake.  But now things are out of hand and his parents are about to "put out the fire". 

The End. 

 

Carl Jarvis

----- Original Message -----

From: Alice Dampman Humel

To: Blind Democracy Discussion List

Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:20 AM

Subject: Re: THE FIVE PERCENT GOD

Miriam, 

I don't think that is the case…it's not that an agnostic does not have the "courage of his convictions, " it is that his "conviction" is that it is unknowable and impossible to prove   whether God exists or not. That is the primary component of agnosticism as I see it. 

Alice 

On Mar 27, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:

If you're right, you're an atheist, but you don't have the courage of your
convictions, just like most other people who call themselves agnostics.

Miriam

________________________________

From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 11:30 AM
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
Subject: Re: THE FIVE PERCENT GOD


Roger,  please never leave this list.  I am absolutely enchanted by your
explanations.  On the one hand, you cause me to think, an exercise we should
all be doing daily, and on the other hand, as you march step by step through
your logical explanations, I find myself grinning from ear to ear.  
You are about the most methodical thinker I've met in a long time.  
Nonetheless, I am going to continue to call myself an Agnostic.  At least
until I stumble upon a better word.  I place no percentages on whether God
exists in any form, or not.  I simply see no way of proving that which
cannot be measured.  
As I've said before, I believe that God had to be invented to answer
unanswerable questions that troubled Man.  
If I'm right, then there is no room for a 5% or 50% possibility of some sort
of God.  
Of course Believers everywhere will tell me that I'm wrong, that God does
exist, and that He created Man.  They are 100% positive that they are right.
But they have 0% proof.  
They would be better off trying to prove that the Easter Bunny exists.  At
least they can show the numbers of colored eggs that mysteriously appear
hidden on Easter Day.  Some might argue that the eggs were placed there by
Mom and Dad, while others would say that a Rabbit came around during the
night.  The young child can't prove either claim.  All they can see are the
eggs tucked in open hiding.  And a big basket of tooth decay sitting at the
end of their beds.  
When the children grow wiser, they figure out just what is going on.  
But our Universe is so vast and time is so eternal that we may never become
wise enough to figure it all out.  So until then, I say we can't prove the
unprovable.  

Carl Jarvis(the Agnostic)


----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Loran Bailey <mailto:rogerbailey81@aol.com>  
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
<mailto:blind-democracy@octothorp.org>  
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 7:50 AM
Subject: THE FIVE PERCENT GOD

I am just getting on my computer for the first time today and I have
not
yet checked my email. Since I have an off line life it will be some
time
before I do check it too, but I have been thinking about Bob's post
about estimating a five percent probability of a god and I feel
compelled to add to my response to him. First, Let's look at how an
estimate of      five percent probability is established. To
estimate a
five percent probability it is necessary to run at least twenty
trials.
Since we are talking about looking for an event that would be the
existence of a creator of the universe then each trial would consist
of
examining a universe and either detecting a god or not detecting
one. If
you looked at twenty universes and found nineteen of them without a
god
and one with a god then you could estimate that the probability of
finding a god for the next one was five percent. Twenty is the
minimum
though. If you examined a hundred universes and found five gods or
if
you examined a thousand universes and found fifty gods then your
estimate of five percent would be a more and more accurate estimate
and
your degree of confidence in that estimate would increase. In order
to
speak of a probability, though, you must have not examined the
universe
that you are estimating a five percent probability of a god for. I
suppose that is this universe. So why do you not examine this
universe
using the same techniques that you used for the other minimum of
twenty
universes and then you could establish a certainty of either a god
or no
god for this universe? Then, have you examined any universes at all?
The
traditional definition of the word universe is everything. That
would
leave you with only one universe to examine at all. It means that
you
only get one trial and you either find one or you don't find one and
so
you either establish a one hundred percent probability or you
establish
a zero probability if your method is unambiguous. If you do not have
an
unambiguous method for detecting a god and you find no evidence of a
god
then you are back at a probability of one in infinity and that
amounts
to zero. Now, there are some cutting edge physicists who propose the

existence of parallel universes. They are really only revising the
definition of the word universe. They posit the existence of
something
that they call the multiverse that contains all of the universes. In
the
way they use those words they are only calling everything the
multiverse
and the word universe is demoted to something less than everything.
This
still remains only a proposal though. It is based on the behavior of

certain subatomic particles and a mathematical model. They have not
actually detected or examined another universe. Have you found a way
to
examine the other universes in the multiverse? If you have I would
be
interested in learning about your technique and you will be looking
at a
Nobel prize. Then, if you have found a way to examine the various
universes in the multiverse, what technique do you use to detect a
god  
for these universes? That would be worthy of a nobel prize too. If,
on
the other hand, you have examined only the universe in which you
reside
then what technique do you use to establish a that five percent
probability and why does it not establish the existence of a god one
way
or another? Is it that it is unreliable and you must run a trial on
the
same universe many times? Does it show the existence of a god only
one
time out of twenty times you use it. I suppose that there are many
unreliable techniques around that might produce results like that in
a
number of fields, but it would be very useful to look closely at the

technique and see if there is a way to refine it to make it more
reliable. The real question is, how do you determine that five
percent
probability of a god? I will tell you what I suspect and if I am
wrong
then I would be very interested in knowing what your method really
is
and that could also be a basis for a nobel prize. I suspect that you
are
just pulling the five percent figure out of thin air. If that is the

case then the figure has no more meaning than the implied
probability of
fifty percent that most agnostics advocate with actually giving
figures.
If that is the case also, then I would expect that you will try to
justify your figure with arguments like, I just feel it or I just
think
it or it just seems that way to me. In other words, you would be
using
the very same arguments that the proponents of a hundred percent
probability use and it would be just as valid, that is, not valid at

all. Unless you can produce a god detector or at least some way that
a
god detector would work, that is, a falsifiable theory of god that
can
be tested, you are right back to making an assertion with no
supporting
evidence and it will be only one of the set of assertions that have
no
support and that set numbers a total of infinity. That is, the
assertion
of a five percent probability of the existence of a god would have
exactly the probability of being true as the assertion that there is
a
hundred percent probability of a god, one in infinity.

_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy



_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy

---

_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy