Right Guy, Wrong Town

Ruminating on the Left & Right Divide in American Discourse

2012-01-15T12:21:00.000-08:00

It is rare when my thoughts about America's divided political citizenry are so clear to me. Today, yet again, has me ruminating on the American Right or more specifically, the modern conservative or neoconservative.

There are many discrete ideas and positions embraced by American neoconservatives, in fact, too many to tackle in this short post. My larger point, however, intends to concisely describe what divides the American Left from the American Right, and that is the the Left's embrace of and trust in the University institution, and the Right's dismissal and frankly, glib skepticism of that institution. Furthermore, the Right seems equally skeptical of the idea of detrimental multinational corporations, conglomerates, monopolies and oligopolies pushing their way to the center of American discourse and engaging in financed skepticism and disinformation.

This divide largely explains why the average neoconservative one might run into (probably at least one in every family, and most likely to refer to his or herself as a "conservative") dismisses the scientific consensus on global warming. Neoconservatives tend to mistake a political dispute for a scientific one. If the Right believed in the University institution, the Right would turn to the scientists and climatologists and discover there is in fact a verifiable consensus: global warming is occurring and industrial carbons (a human cause) are culpable. Being capable of matching a climate change denial article for every article warning of the imminent global threat doesn't mitigate or undermine the consensus. It merely illustrates the aggressive and pernicious nature of financed skepticism and disinformation.

But a neoconservative is unlikely to remove himself from his long relied upon, comforting world view. He will continue to believe electricity provided by coal-fired power plants is so cheap, and either fail to appreciate or remain ignorant about the fact that American subsidization is responsible for his lighter electric bill. On the other hand (no pun intended), the woman from the Left will continue to dig up verifiable fact and research data provided by the University institution.

Let the Market Mantra Die & Save Yourselves!

2011-12-16T09:02:00.000-08:00

I've got an itch and it really needs scratched. The right wing mantra, "let the market decide" is a glib one-liner that the politically minded hears quite often these days. It's the republican solution to everything from health care to smoking bans. Now, when concerning health care, I'm for single payer and against the corporate socialism masked in good will and commonly referred to as ObamaCare. A smoking ban in public places, however, is one example of legislative action the state of Pennsylvania has gotten right, I think.

Taken from the Pennsylvania Restaurant Association's website: "On June 13, 2008, Governor Ed Rendell signed the Clean Indoor Air Act. This Act prohibits smoking in most public areas and workplaces, protecting the majority of citizens in Pennsylvania from tobacco smoke. On September 10, 2008, the new law will take full effect everywhere in the state except for in the City of Philadelphia, which will be permitted to preserve its existing local smoking ban - the Clean Indoor Air Worker Protection Law."

I did not do any research on Philly, but I've come to understand that usually when state governments allow local governments to maintain a law in the wake of statewide legislation, it's because the local government's current law exceeds expectations, but I digress.

There was a time, not too long ago, that saw me accepting this overwhelmingly baseless assertion--let the market decide!--despite holding progressive views. It made sense; if non-smokers don't want to smell like a pack of cancer sticks, they'll talk with their wallets and force bar owners (in particular) to make a decision that determines which customer is more important to the survival of their business: the smoker with 19 other friends, or the non-smoker with 79. Of course, I'm referring to the percentage of smokers vs non-smokers. In fact, I found an article that claims the percentage of smokers in America has even declined to below the 20% mark, sitting at 19.8% according to WebMD.

So what does "let the market decide!" really mean? Sounds like an endorsement of boycotts, but I don't buy its effectiveness. Seriously, you're telling me that after working all week, the majority of the adult population that would like to go out for drinks or head to a restaurant for a nice meal on a Friday or Saturday night (and maybe a glass or two of beer and wine) without the harmful interference of tobacco smoke should have to organize, engage in a boycott and monetarily inform the market that they're "Mad as hell, and [they're] not going to take it anymore!"?

I agree, that's nuts! And you're certainly bonkers if you think everything the government does and everything the majority wants are two mutually exclusive ideas. Sometimes they are (being molested by the TSA and being detained indefinitely without being charged with a crime are a few examples that come to mind), but in the case of the Pennsylvania smoking ban and others across the U.S., the state government got it right. Hmm, maybe it's the Fed that we only need to worry about.

Really though, "let the market decide!" is a tough one to sell to me. At the very least, how does it read? There could be a host of reasons a bar or restaurant owner is seeing a decline in clientele and sales. Maybe his beer selection sucks. Maybe her food is crap. Who knows? One thing is for sure, if I'm a restaurant owner and I start to doubt my cook due to a loss in sales, I don't ban smoking, I find a new cook!

To be fair and totally honest, though, maybe the market actually has decided to a degree, or maybe it's just that owners of Pennsylvania establishments have finally "got it": that the health of the majority of one's customers is directly related to whether one's business thrives or not, and that there's no reason why a minority of people who choose to negatively impact their health by way of smoking should be able to externalize those detrimental effects on to people who've chosen not to do so. Yeah, we're both at a bar, Joe Camel, but my drinking doesn't effect you or anyone else (unless of course I drive drunk and kill an innocent person or I talk incessantly and tell boring stories while sloppily quaffing a few too many pints).

Note: If you're a resident of Pennsylvania, you might already know that the smoking ban law states that smoking is still permitted in establishments that report less than 20% food sales. I'm willing to bet that there are a number of bars that fit in that category and have still decided to disallow smoking inside their walls. Look at the clock...it's time we let the logic decide!

Response to CH 17 of Life-Span: Human Development

2011-11-30T11:35:00.000-08:00

Issues, concerns, concepts & theories surrounding our “final challenge,” death and dying, are thoroughly discussed in CH 17 of Life-Span: Human Development. Questions such as “what is death?” and “what kills us and when?” are addressed before delving into various theories that attempt to answer our concerns about a subject that affects us all on multiple occasions throughout our life span.

One topic I found interesting during my reading discussed the various behavior, culturally, that we as humans express in response to death. For instance, Japanese Americans tend not to express their grief in public for fear of shaming themselves. I find that to be a cruel and unhelpful practice. I feel expressing one’s grief is liberating, comforting and appropriate. It’s healthy for loved ones of a person who has died to see that friends and family cared for him or her. I ball my eyes out at every funeral I attend as long as I had made some sort of connection with the person who has passed. It’s even possible for me to merely look at the pictures of someone I was only acquainted with and start getting teary-eyed. It’s perfectly natural, and I’m not ashamed of crying as a form of mourning, whether for myself or for the people who were most close to the person who just passed. This leads me to some of the theories addressing our reactions to the prognosis of death on one’s doorstep.

Kubler-Ross’s “Stages of Dying” include (1) denial and isolation, (2) anger, (3) bargaining, (4) depression and (5) acceptance. While an interesting and in some areas plausible theory, I don’t think the third stage, bargaining, functions for everyone who faces death. Bargaining is said to occur between a person who’s learned he/she is dying and God. The dying individual allegedly asks for either a pass or more time to experience aspects of life they’ve put off until that moment of desperation. That being said, atheists would seemingly skip that step in the process toward acceptance.

This fallibility in the theory is touched upon in other ways. Criticisms of Kubler-Ross’s stages take shape in the idea that only a minority of dying people experience all the emotions suggested and medical professionals naively feel it is important to push patients to experience the emotional stages in order.

Despite some of the uncertainties about the accuracy of particular theories, one thing is certain: bereavement is unmistakable and an experience we all must bear. Bereavement is said to be expressed through grief, an emotional response to the loss, and mourning, a cultural reaction to the loss such as funeral attendance or visiting graves with flowers every year.

The Parkes/Bowlby Attachment Model serves as a clarifying paradigm that helps explain the bereavement process just noted in the preceding paragraph. According to the model, (1) numbness is followed by (2) yearning, which is followed by (3) disorganization and despair and lastly (4) reorganization. From my own perspective, the Parkes/Bowlby Attachment Model is perfectly plausible, believable and relevant. The numbness stage certainly correlates to the disbelief feeling that so many loved ones of those lost tend to express. As reality sets in, yearning of course follows because the loss is unmistakable and undoubtedly irreversible; the result is agony and emotional pain. This leads to depression, despair and a lack of organization in one’s life. This culminates into feelings of apathy, which eventually comes to an end in the form of reorganization.

I relate to this model (Parkes/Bowlby...) in its entirety. My best friend from college (Cal-U) committed suicide almost 2 years ago now. He jumped off the Homestead bridge a few days before Christmas in 2009. I learned of his death through my mother in law who recognized his name from my wife and I’s wedding invitations when his suicide was reported on the local news. I couldn’t believe the news. I had to see for myself, and when I saw what seemed like a high school photo of him in the news report online, I immediately started to weep. I called our closest mutual friends with the terrible news.

It was at my friend’s viewing in Pittsburgh that I met his parents for the first time. They immediately knew who I was when I told them my name. His mother cried in my arms repeating my name over and over again. Apparently I was talked about in my friend’s home. It touched me, but I felt so bad for my friend’s parents. I still run through in my head how “I could have done this” or “done that” and my humorous, talented and amazing great friend might still be alive today.

I cried for a long time. I still visit the online guest book that his mother set up in his memory. She visits the page often to write to her son; to tell him how much she misses him. I can’t imagine how hard it is for her and her husband to wake up every morning remembering that their son is no longer around. I hope they’ve begun to reorganize their lives, despite the indescribable grief they must still feel over their son’s suicide. Most of all, I hope they don’t blame themselves.

Like the chapter notes, due to family attachments, deaths of family members are usually the hardest to bear. Statistically, in terms of the loss of a spouse, women are more likely to experience this damage to the family system. The loss of a husband tends to have an extensive impact on the life of a widow. Emotional issues aside, the widow might need to move, get a job or change careers and/or take on single-parenthood.

Relevant to the emotional states of my late friend’s parents, the loss of a child is said to be more difficult than any other loss for adults. Mixed emotions begin to take over: anger, guilt, depression and longing. Unfortunately, the book notes that only 12% of parents whose young adult child committed suicide found meaning in the loss a year after the tragic event. Honestly though, why would they? The number purportedly jumps to over 50% after 5 years, but the study included accidental deaths and homicides as well, so it’s hard to say how much the parents of adolescents and young adult children who committed suicide augment that statistic.

As hard as it is for me to imagine the feelings of loss my late friend’s parents must experience on a day to day basis, the grief work perspective, a process that essentially leads to reorganization, provides some comfort when concerning their health. According to the perspective, “bereaved people must confront their loss, experience painful emotions, work through those emotions, and move toward a detachment from the deceased.”

While I highly doubt my friend’s mother will ever reach detachment from her son, I do feel, judging from the online guestbook, that she has confronted and continues to confront the loss, is certainly experiencing painful emotions, and working toward getting a handle on her intense emotions and moving forward with the family she still has and the life she still must live. A degree of detachment for one’s mere sanity is possible, but full detachment--especially a mother from her son--is unlikely. There will never be a day she doesn’t wake up thinking about him. The bonds will never be severed, and the idea that they must be is partially responsible for the grief work perspective recently coming under some criticism.

Critics argue that the grief work perspective is culturally biased, and incidentally, I’d like to note that just like the cultural differences expressed through our public responses to death (see page 1 “...Japanese Americans...”), our private handling of bereavement may vary as a result of differences among cultural norms.

In conclusion, it seems grief takes many forms and isn’t always a cut and dry response to loss. That being said, it is very clear to me that the most important factor in reaching reorganization after the loss of a loved one is social support. This could come in the form of close friends, family members, spouses, churches and community organizations and anyone kind enough to be compassionate, sympathetic, empathetic and sensitive toward a person experiencing bereavement.

References:

Sigelman, C. K., & Rider, E. A. (2006). Life-span: Human development. (5 ed., p. 521). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.

An Essay on Television & Cognitive Development

2011-11-02T11:13:00.000-07:00

The main thrust of this essay is to explore the notion that excessive television viewing during the early stages of child development impacts the cognitive development of children.
The conventional wisdom suggests that excessive television does have a negative effect on the cognitive development of children and the axiom is at least somewhat culpable for the decline in the younger generation’s school performance (Munasib & Bhattacharya, 2010).

Some of the argument for a correlation between excessive television and poor cognitive development stems from negative statistical associations that plainly link poor achievement in school to heavy television viewers. In simpler terms, people who watch a lot television achieve less academically (Anderson & Collins, 1988).

However, through my research I’ve encountered compelling arguments and enlightening empirical data from both sides.

A few assertions countering the argument for a correlation between excessive television and poor cognitive development are as follows:

(1) There is no evidence that children are overstimulated by television because of factors like leaving the room and looking away.

(2) There is little evidence that television detrimentally affects cognitive development or interrupts cognitive activities because homework that may be done during television viewing has not been found to be of a lesser quality than homework completed away from a television.

(3) Television viewing may actually increase one’s attention span, and the most poignant assertion of all,

(4) “There is no evidence that television asymmetrically influences brain development.” (Anderson & Collins, 1988).

With the last assertion taken into account, it is worth noting that the psychologists who made that claim simultaneously believe there is no way, currently, to unequivocally prove that television viewing has no major impact on cognitive development.

One particular study I came across examined the hypothesis that background television negatively impacts play behavior of very young children and thus alters their cognitive development. The television programming imperative to the study was adult in nature, or in other words, incomprehensible to young children. As part of a naturalistic observation, the study involved videotaping 2-year-olds in their homes. The study found that the children played with their toys about one-third of the time when television was playing in the background. This finding is particularly troubling if one subscribes to the conventional view on child development which asserts that play has a positive role to play in terms of a child’s cognitive and social development (Schmidt, Pempek, Kirkorian & Lund, 2008).

One theory that seems to hold water (even amongst psychologists who’ve concluded that television really has no substantial impact on cognitive development) is the probability that excessive or high levels of television viewing among very young children results in poor attention capabilities. A longitudinal study found that children between the ages of 1 and 3 who watched television for 7 hours or more per day showed attention problems at age 7. As a result, the psychologists concluded that moderate television viewing by young children is harmless (Foster & Watkins, 2010).

Notwithstanding what seems like a credible conclusion on the matter, the study just referenced above has its limitations.

Most critical to the validity of the study is the fact that the data utilized to draw a conclusion was maternally reported. This means that the findings relied solely upon the honestly and accuracy of the mothers who participated in the study, and it is quite possible that some mothers may have under-reported the amount of television their children watched for fear of embarrassment.

Also, the effects of television may rely on more than just the amount watched. Factors such as content that is watched and parental co-viewing are likely as important as how much television is actually viewed. One aspect of a theoretical position submitted by the psychologists presented the idea that television may have negative effects on children who watch a lot of a certain kind of television programming (Foster & Watkins, 2010).

In conclusion, although I agree with the authors/psychologists who suggest that analysis on the subject of television viewing and its effects on cognitive development is still in the early stages, I believe there is at least some degree of credibility to the argument that says excessive television viewing can potentially limit a child’s attention capabilities and hinder one’s cognitive development, and as a result, the cognitive loss certainly spurs implications about a child’s future achievements, aspirations and ability to function as a cooperative and contributing member of society.

Bibliography
Anderson, D. R., & Collins, P. A. (1988). The impact on children's education: Television's influence on cognitive development. working paper no. 2. Massachusetts Univ., Amherst. Dept. of Psychology, 98. doi: ED295271

Foster, E. M., & Watkins, S. (2010). The value of reanalysis: Tv viewing and attention problems. Child Development, 81(1), 368-375. doi: 47898690
Munasib, A., & Bhattacharya, S. (2010). Is the "idiot's box" raising idiocy? early and middle childhood television watching and child cognitive outcome. Economics of Education Review, 29(5), 873-883. doi: EJ894576

Schmidt, M. E., Pempek, T. A., Kirkorian, H. L., & Lund, A. (2008). The effects of background television on the toy play behavior of very young children. Child Development, 79(4), 1137-1151. doi: EJ802187

Response to "A Brief History of Social Studies," (Chapter 1 by Diane Ravitch)

2011-09-26T11:20:00.000-07:00

After reading the chapter, my position on what social studies should be is no different than before. The reforms of the early 20th century, as noted in the chapter, brought an emphasis on an applied form of study, in complete opposition to the insipid, academic nature of history. While I believe in the importance of the latter to the lives of our students (the academic part, not the dull), the reforms are beneficial to students and ultimately to the society they will be a part of to a greater extent upon their departure from formal education institutions.
Historically, history was first the central subject within the umbrella of social studies. However, the chapter implies that liberals in the field began to belittle the original model of history because it appealed to conservatives or individuals who cared little for societal improvements. “Dull recitations of political events” were replaced with a telling of history that incorporated “political, social, and economic events.”

Today, the status of history is one in which “chronological history” is less and less examined due to a wider focus on “immediate personal and social problems,” or the study of social studies. These would be what the chapter alludes to in the first paragraph: career education, ethnic studies, gender studies, consumer education, environmental studies, peace education, character education and drug education. My question is: what’s wrong with that?

Diane Ravitch seems to argue for the past which, ironically, didn’t offer a variety of views, despite being an element in the classroom she insists is our responsibility to provide. I do believe it to be of great importance that we provide a variety of views in our instruction, however, I don’t think we would be doing our students a favor if were to artificially present a lack of consensus surrounding particular issues. One example would be the issue of climate change.

There is no legitimate “apples to apples” dispute over the existence of climate change, only manufactured confusion spurred by powerful political proponents. This has been proven time and time again through the discovery of financed skepticism via giant corporations like Exxon and more recently by journalists in Texas who challenged Texas Governor Rick Perry and his assertion that many scientists who once believed in climate change had since “switched sides.” The Perry administration “backed up” the claim with a list of names, most of which was made up of meteorologists (not exactly climatologists) and scientists who neither knew they were on the list nor changed their position on the issue.

My point is this: various view points are only as valid as their plausibility backed up by some semblance of evidence, and their worthiness in the classroom relies solely on that test of credibility. History within the social studies umbrella should be a tool to relate to the contemporary concerns of today. Parallels should be drawn, solutions should be deliberated upon and our society as a whole should learn to appreciate history again. That is, however, what SHOULD occur.

Response to the Foreword & Introduction of "Where Did Social Studies Go Wrong?" by Finn, Lemming & Ellington

2011-09-22T07:23:00.000-07:00

In Chester Finn’s Foreword, he argues that social studies education became a conduit for apologist indoctrination following the 911 attacks. As a result, overt patriotism became tantamount to prejudice and the biggest threat to American diversity. Social studies education avoided specifying why the American way of life should be preserved and rather, encouraged examining where we’ve gone wrong in the eyes of a global community.

Finn argues that a second path to decline came in the form of NCLB. Social studies was removed from any form of accountability in order to focus on proficiency in core subjects like math and science. In doing so, the standards have been left to the professionals in the field, the very people Finn blames for the subjects all too sudden decline.

In my view, Finn is clearly a hawkish conservative. A jingoist, to use a term he referred to when characterizing the implications of social studies education following 911. His views are absolutely the opposite of my own. Finn, like many others who share in the pounding of chests over American exceptionalism, believe being a true American patriot and being honest with ourselves and accepting the axiom that America’s foreign policy and Intelligence adventures played a role in the attacks on 911 are mutually exclusive. Those who raise points about the CIA-coined “blowback” concept justify the attacks. Those who tell a crowd of Tea Partiers that Osama Bin Laden was explicit when explaining why America was attacked and that it clearly had nothing to do with the superficial idea that radical Muslims hate “our freedom” are booed and ridiculed (read: Ron Paul at the CNN Republican Debate, Sept 12, 2011). I vehemently disagree with Finn’s position.

While I largely disagree with the implication introduced by Lemming and Ellington that social justice and environmental concerns are contrary to the societal priorities of most Americans, I do sense how the perceived agenda of SS professionals could be undermining a more objective purpose: effective practice. What is effective practice? Research skills, higher order thinking development (e.g. analysis, interpretation) and public speaking are a few of my educated guesses.

However, my observations in a number of social studies classrooms place me in opposition to the position of the contrarian professionals who describe the state of social studies education as “moribund.” In the classroom, I see a focus on substantive content trumping all other approaches. That being said, I cannot speak for the grand scheme of things. Numbers talk, and there is a legitimate argument to be made on the side of the experienced professionals who sense a dramatic decline and a radical change in not only the education of students, but also the educators themselves.

Wake Up America, They're Ignoring the Majority

2011-09-08T08:12:00.000-07:00

Last night's Republican Debate on MSNBC (Sept 7, 2011) was a disgrace. I had a night class so I wasn't able to watch it live, but MSNBC put the debate up on it's website, which currently is blowing up the headline, "Analysis: Romney and Perry Make it Look Like a 2-Man Race." Really?

MSNBC is pretending like they had nothing to do with the manner of the programmed debate or the questions that were asked. Pundits are acting as if candidates could somehow earn attention during the debate and alter the line of questioning, as if the order of questioning wasn't contrived.

ABC's Amy Walter and her editors should be ashamed of themselves for not even mentioning Ron Paul, the candidate who clearly has won across the board in online polls. The only folks who are saying "no" are a minority of poll participants and the establishment media. Just take a look at this one, that one, this one and that one (query: who won republican debate 2011, first two pages on Google). Rick Perry's earned as low as third place in some polls, but hasn't won any that I've come across. Romney's landed second, but still no win online.

Are we to let a clearly dishonest media establishment decide for us who will challenge President Barack Obama in 2012? Do we lack the self respect required to opt out of voting in an election that contains at least one candidate no one really wanted on the ballot in the first place? Am I wasting my breath? Probably.

Like Thom Hartmann said on the radio a few weeks ago, most Americans are low information voters. They'll go with whom they're given, not with whom they'd want if they actually paid closed attention to politics.

A Primary Challenge and a Republican Nomination, That's the Ticket

2011-08-16T08:05:00.000-07:00

Two truths could not be clearer in my mind as I write this today: (1) without a primary challenge to President Obama and the nomination of Ron Paul as the Republican Party's pick for president, I will not cast a vote in the 2012 presidential election. (2) I will not be casting a vote in 2012.

I'm fair. If at least one part of the first truth statement above were to be met I'd vote. A primary challenge for President Obama (awfully tired of neoconservatives referring to him as "Obama") would likely mean someone from the genuine left of the political spectrum actually showed up to play ball (Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold?).

That is at least what some folks on the left are pushing for: a primary challenge. Sounds nice, but these same folks weren't able to get our current president to stick Elizabeth Warren in the driver seat of the freshly established Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Fat chance for a primary challenge to President Obama? I'd say so.

Then on the other side of the coin is Ron Paul's campaign. I like Ron Paul, and I don't think his son Rand is racist either. Sure, he's offered alternatives to Social Security and Medicare, and has said other things that make leftists want to vomit in their soup, but Ron Paul is serious about auditing the Fed, bringing jobs back home and ending our numerous wars overseas, not to mention minding our own business. Who on the left doesn't agree with his primary thesis?

I'd vote for Ron Paul in half a heart beat. Unfortunately the mainstream press is once again exposing its subservience to the status quo and the political establishment. Paul took second at last week's Iowa straw poll, losing to the hyper-religious, overtly bigoted Michelle Bachman by less than 200 points (some 16,000 votes were cast). Despite Ron Paul's popularity, pundits write him off and don't include him in their collectively manufactured "top tier" of candidates (who likes Romney anyway?).

My wife laughed when she heard I'd vote for a Republican (she knows how much I loathe the party's policies). I responded that it wouldn't be a vote for a Republican, because Paul is a paleo-Republican, one who actually holds conservative beliefs, which alongside the mainstream press's contribution to the mess we call American politics, is also why Ron Paul will not get the nomination.

The Republican party wants somebody who will carry the sword of intransigence, hand even more subsidies over to oil companies, expand our wars to kill Muslims and steal natural (yet depleting) resources and never even whisper the idea of auditing the Federal Reserve.

I'd love for President Obama to face a primary challenge. After juxtaposing his campaign rhetoric to his efforts in office, he really deserves to. I'd equally relish the nomination of Ron Paul as the Republican Party's choice. Maybe in the end I won't waste my vote by not voting and I'll just cast my ballot for all independents or third party candidates like I do on any other election day. Yeah, I might as well.

An Open Letter to Giant Eagle: Natural Gas Isn't Green

2011-07-15T08:35:00.000-07:00

Dear Giant Eagle, Inc:

Let me start off by saying that while I don't think you're a person, the Supreme Court does, and that's why I've chosen the expression "dear," because I'm sure you've convinced yourself that you have all the rights of real human beings. After all, why shouldn't you? There are at least five justices on the Supreme Court as we speak that are more than willing to defend that notion, but forgive me, I digress.

Before we go any further, let me admit to you without any significant regret that I am a routine, and I'm sure, a valued customer of yours. 70-80% (a rough guesstimate) of my diet is described by organic foods. I thank you for your determination to provide myself and people with the same environmental and physical health concerns with largely untainted whole foods, frozen and boxed goods.

That being said, your prices are at times ludicrous. Your displays, in particular, are deceptive and misleading. I was in your Washington, PA store just the other day and saw a nice bag of organic red grapes. $3.99 I thought I read, but at check-out the scanner charged $8.38. When I challenged that price with one of your employees (she was polite), I learned that the grapes were $3.99 a pound, and I had failed to notice you were only selling 2 lb bags. Really? Who needs 2 lbs of grapes to begin with? Something tells me you purposely want customers to overlook these instances when stocking up their kitchen with enough food for 2 weeks. I'm sure in some cases folks don't notice their mistake until sitting at home reviewing their receipt.

Then there's the innocent looking "Organic Apples" display. I wonder how many customers greet that fantastic lie with so much excitement that they fail to look at the code sticker on each individual apple they pick up for purchase (you know, to identify whether the apple's been sprayed with chemicals, genetically modified or actually is organic)? I'm all for individual responsibility, but I gotta say, Giant Eagle, that's some pretty tricky marketing.

And amidst all the incessant examples of sale-on-display to check-out counter discrepancies--which when unnoticed probably account for millions in profits every year--your now on record promoting the falsehood that claims natural gas is green.

The simple and plain truth about natural gas is that it is a dirty energy, not a clean one. The data on this axiom is endless: cleaner than coal, but barely. Bottom line, though natural gas "burns cleaner than other fuels and releases lower carbon dioxide emissions," the methods of extraction, namely "fracking," do enough damage to counter the current-administration-touted-positives. While the Great Capitulator, President Obama, addresses the environmental concerns, his urging for incrementalism weakens the likelihood of a successful transition from "cleaner" dirty energy to genuine clean energy. Besides, how much time does the political elite think we have to save ourselves? Are we to believe this farce that after we prop up the natural gas industry with subsidies, tax breaks and rhetorical encouragement from the political class, that the financially robust industry will make way for clean alternatives without an enormous fight in Washington? Just look at the health care reform battle of 2009 for a political parallel.

I know there are millions in this country who disagree with the position that I and many others of the same understanding subscribe to. A quote that refutes the infinite value of popular opinion? "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain

Giant Eagle, Inc, I think you would do the Mid-Atlantic well by implementing true clean energy initiatives. Here are a few suggestions: install solar panels on the roofs of all stores (including the small Get-n-Go gas station stores and the roofs above the pumps and), install charging stations for electric/hybrid vehicles at applicable gas stations (I understand the numbers aren't there yet in some areas in terms of electric/hybrid vehicles on the road) and install/utilize clean energy sources at all Giant Eagle manufacturing warehouses. As a fairly large provider of jobs and consumer needs, Giant Eagle, these initiatives could make a real impact and a huge difference for the future.

One of your many valued customers,

Derek Postlewaite
Meadow Lands, PA

Weiner Should Have Whipped the Washingtonian Media Complex

2011-06-17T07:25:00.000-07:00

News of congressman Anthony Weiner's resignation yesterday saddened me. As much of a schmuck he clearly is, I can't help but feel sorry for him and his family, who he's both publicly embarrassed and personally hurt.

But in terms of national discourse, a notion was brought to my mind regarding the spectacle and the outcome that could have been.

For weeks now we've heard from the mouths of the media about Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic Congress members who've insisted that Weiner should resign. Meanwhile, there have been numerous independent media outlets/journalists that have published pieces emphasizing a sad truth: there are so many more important issues that are being overlooked while we voyeuristically scoff, point our fingers, & disapprove of Weiner's voyeurism (See this and brace yourself for this).

This cuts to a larger point: the actions of our censuring Congress members (and President) may be more inappropriate and offensive than Anthony Weiner's Tweeter affairs.

So a 9.1% unemployment rate--more like 15-16%--should take a backseat to the Weiner scandal (in more ways than one)? That's certainly what I'm hearing from the top of the hour news segments on the radio, and according to my wife, who catches clips of Fox News and other major news networks while working as a personal care assistant in the homes of clients, the mainstream media is just wild for Weiner's public perversion and the attention the media machine has decidely generated.

It certainly does seem like the media and Congress is overly distracted, in fact, they tend to let their focus shift from the barely important to the utterly unimportant anytime a sex-oriented scandal hits the headlines (of their own accord it should be noted).

Weiner's public resignation emphasized an important and obvious truth: he has become a distraction. But he didn't take it home, so to speak. Really, what does he have to lose at this point, aside from what I can only assume is a loving and committed wife?

Anthony Weiner, the congressman who made the Republicans look like heartless pigs when they refused to vote for a bill to provide medical benefits to 9/11 responders, could have made a game changing impact on our culture, our politics, on how we view the corporate media (or don't), & forced us to examine what we expect from members of the press and the news organizations they serve.

Anthony Weiner should have expounded on his "distraction" point. He should have screamed at his colleagues who've repeatedly censured him like he screamed at the Republicans over the 9/11 Responders Bill. Not because they censured him, just because they've spent so much time doing so.

Anthony Weiner should have laid out a dozen or so important current issues in front of the press who witnessed and documented his resignation. He should have done so, and asked a room full of journalists why they've spent so much time ignoring the overt significance of those issues.

He missed his chance to have a positive, lasting effect. Unfortunately, he was and is as distracted as the Washingtonian Media Complex that surrounded him with so much unwanted attention.

A clean picture for a change...

Phone Problems

2011-06-14T07:56:00.000-07:00

On the weekends I work for a beer distributor, carrying out cases to customers' cars. It's a job that provides me both good and bad interaction, and in some cases, just plain sad observation.

I found it ironic this past weekend when I observed two consecutive examples of societies ever imploding piss poor standards. Moreover on the degree of irony, the parent-to-child paradigm--explained in my forthcoming story--is inverted when the two examples are juxtaposed.

The first story occurred this past Friday. While heading inside from another carry-out, I caught an "exchange" between a grown man, in his mid-to-late 30s, and his daughter, no more than 6 years old, judging from how she looked and talked. She sounded cute and adorable like little girls at that age normally are. I overheard her father say something to the extent of "Okay, you can come in, but be quiet while you're in there." Then the daughter asked what he would think if she did something or wore something; the details of the question I failed to catch. The point is, it had all the charm and innocence that little girls tend to smother their actions and words with at that age. The little girl was interested in her daddy's attention.

Unfortunately, the father was more interested in his cell phone. I watched as he waded through his toy or sent a text message, barely noticing his daughter. He meekly validated her thoughts with a slight nod, eyes still glued to the device, and finished the painful compromise with an almost incomprehensible, "Yeah...uh huh."

The following day, an exchange between a father and a son, nearly sharing the same age difference as the father and daughter from the exchange the day before. On this occasion, the little boy, who may have been 7-8 years old, was mindlessly punching numbers on his cell phone (Why a 7-year-old needs a cell phone? I have no idea). The child wasn't even sending a text message or playing a game. He was merely bashing numbers on the phone as if to partake in some serious hands, fingers and muscles exercise.

His father was at the counter buying a case of beer. The little boy was near the entrance. His father commanded the little one to "come here." The boy responded disrespectfully, "No!"

As I carried out a case for another customer, myself and the customer caught the whole interaction as it took place only a few feet from our eyes and ears. I watched as the customer--no relation to the child or father--remarked to the little boy, "Bad answer," and walked out the door. As I trailed him out the door, I commented on the situation. "He should take his cell phone away from him."

"Yep..." and something I couldn't clearly hear followed his agreement. After I carried the case to his trunk, I walked back in to the store. Stocking some cases shortly after, I said to a coworker, "And I thought I was bad growing up..."

Jobless Report No Longer, Webmaster Terminated (Satire)

2011-06-03T07:47:00.000-07:00

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today that it will no longer issue monthly employment reports. When asked why, the interim spokesperson for the bureau had the following to say:

"The position of Webmaster is hereby terminated as part of a long list of baby steps budget cuts. In order to increase the debt limit, the Republicans demand that we cut back on spending. With guidance from the White House, that is exactly what we are trying to do. Unfortunately, that means that we will no longer be able to issue monthly reports on employment in the United States, due to the fact that our Webmaster for bls.gov typically acts as a conduit between the bureau and the White House."

Pressed for a broader explanation, specifically as to why someone else in the Bureau can't simply hand deliver the monthly report to the White House, the interim spokesperson responded, "We all have our own jobs to do, and we all play our part to ensure the Bureau is an effective mechanism for employment analysis, but we're not willing to pass the buck. Congress is not willing to do so in regards to the deficit, and neither is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That you can quote."

Perplexed, members of the press cornered Speaker of the House John Boehner after they tracked him down in the Capitol Building.

"Look, I just want to say that I think it's a smart move on the part of the president. Like I've said before, I like him personally, but he simply does not know how to run our economy. In light of that fact, cutting back on wasteful spending is one of his only options, and a good one at that. We already know there's not going to be any job growth until he's out of office; that's a fact. A monthly report about how poor our economy is fairing isn't going to help matters. We've got a spending problem, not a revenue problem. I think the president is informally admitting, finally, that he agrees with our assessment," Boehner said.

As for the webmaster, not much was known or divulged about him until a few hours ago, when the editors of the NY Times received an angry e-mail from a sender whose alias was reportedly "WebSerferDude99."

"This is bullshit. All the money in the world for 3 wars in the Middle East, but as a pretense for handling our debt, we cut back on services and real jobs in America. I made $42,379 a year running the website for the BLS, and I'm exploding the deficit? Give me a break. I didn't push for tax cuts for the super rich. I didn't fork over billions to the already extremely profitable pharmaceudical companies in the name of Medicare Part D! Our political discourse is disgraceful; a huge joke, and it's not funny anymore."

When asked about his plans, WebSerferDude99 said he intends on applying for a job at McDonalds early next week.

The Torture Debate & the Bigger Mouth

2011-05-09T09:47:00.000-07:00

The debate over whether or not torture or "enhanced interrogation" led to the finding of Osama bin Laden is over for some. For me, it's been a fascinating, albeit frustrating, lesson on just what war our country is fighting at home: the information war.

The Right, when descriptive, says the detainee who gave valuable information regarding the courier that led to bin Laden's hideout was waterboarded. The Left says he was not. Sometime soon our country needs to come together and demand the truth, and that goes for all information, not just in regards to the debate over whether or not torture had any part to play in the Navy SEALS operation in Pakistan two Sunday's ago.

After reading Glenn Greenwald's opinion piece, "The Illogic of the Torture Debate," I believe the following points and assertions should be considered by all who care to discuss the issue honestly:

1. No one that should be taken seriously has argued that torture unequivocally CAN'T lead to useful information, just that it USUALLY DOESN'T. Experienced professional interrogators have cited examples where our intelligence chased fictional characters as a result of utilizing false leads produced from the torture of detainees.

2. The case against torture has a number of variables. (1) it's illegal, (2) it's used by al-Qaeda to recruit, (3) our application of torture justifies it's application against our own troops in the minds of our enemies, (4) it does in fact USUALLY result in bad information, and, as former military interrogator Matthew Alexander said on DemocracyNow! a few days ago, its use likely slowed down the discovery and neutralization of bin Laden and other public enemies because of false information which, consequently, resulted in wasted time and squandered resources. (5) last but certainly not least, torture is by all means immoral. No amount of violence can justify its application.

3. You've likely heard this assertion before: GOVERNMENTS LIE. I keep this in mind anytime a network host is attempting to have mandarins like Donald Rumsfeld persuade me one way or another on a particular issue. Furthermore, why would I take Rumsfeld at his word in regards to torture and the justice brought upon bin Laden when both his own and the reputation of the administration he worked for is being questioned? He's simply making a case in his own defense.

Am I wrong to assert that torture or the euphemism of enhanced interrogation, including waterboarding, did not lead to the discovery of bin Laden? Maybe in a few years new information will contradict what's now considered fact from the Left: the detainee who gave U.S. intelligence info on the courier did so under extreme duress, but he reportedly wasn't waterboarded (just ask the CIA).

Clearly, the case against torture has far more strength in professional numbers, i.e. professional interrogators, than the case for it, which is championed by ideologues with something to lose; who've gone on the offensive in preparation for the inevitable time spent in a defensive position. The Left has strength in numbers, details & documented experiences. The Right just might have a more deluding, bigger mouth.

"Let the Market Decide!" The Mantra Monster Lives On

2011-04-13T10:54:00.000-07:00

If you’ve had even the most mundane, cliché political discussion (which is not hard to experience) with a conservative or heard just 5 minutes, on a few separate occasions, of conservative dogma on cable news and radio, you’ve likely heard the mantra, “let the market decide!”

If there’s one thing missing from traditional conservative arguments it’s empirical evidence and data. It’s exactly this void that is filled with general statements that brush aside elaborate details and concrete proof, and it disturbs me to see this mantra monster take shape while our leaders debate the deficit and gutless Democrats feign strength by hinting that they might not agree to the entire 38 billion in cuts, instead of taking the logical route in asking why we should cut anything from the budget at all?

In December of last year, President Obama, Democratic leaders and especially Republicans had the chance to prevent $700 billion from being racked up on top of our national debt over the next ten years. What I am referring to is the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% that was scheduled to expire, but didn’t because of the cowardice--and servitude to all beings wealthy--of all parties involved.

Now, just 4 months later, fact-based news outlets like NPR and stigmatically framed “public” programming channels like PBS--which by some accounts are not even overtly liberal safe havens—(see Ralph Nader’s “PBS-NPR-Leaning Right”) face large cuts (NPR faces the potential for all federal funding to halt), as did Planned Parenthood, until the deal reached over the weekend between Republican & Democratic leaders excluded that from the proposal, resulting in 38 billion in cuts, well…elsewhere. From the NY Times:

“Speaking from the White House after the Republican meeting ended, Mr. Obama said that both sides gave ground in reaching the bargain and that some of the cuts accepted by Democrats ‘will be painful.’ ‘Programs people rely on will be cut back,’ said Mr. Obama, who said Americans had to begin to live within their means.”

With millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans, what means is he referring to? If America is facing such a colossal budget crisis, why are the poor and middle class America being asked to live within their means when a simple commitment to an expiration date on tax cuts for the richest Americans--men and women who individually live far beyond the means of hundreds of average citizens combined—would have cut nearly 20 times more than the amount that the two parties have reluctantly agreed upon? This is madness! It’s deceitful, dishonest and completely cynical of both President Obama and our Congressional leadership to have first, had this debate, and second, to have agreed to some semblance of terms. Welcome to Pluto (read: plutocracy)! American leadership knows the general population doesn’t pay attention, is only technically literate, and far too busy with their own lives and evening entertainment rituals to even ponder, let alone identify this hypocrisy and inconsistency.

“Let the market decide!” It has, it does, and it will continue to do so until we all say “no.” Until enough partisans from both parties vote outside of the establishment, our leaders have no reason to stop betraying and misleading us. Until Tea Party activists realize a Tea Party “candidate” is still a Republican leader, they’re all just kidding themselves into believing they successfully altered the establishment’s political system. After all, a country that belittles authentic third parties and independent candidacies exposes its weakness in mandating policy changes when pretending to create something new, rather than progressing toward the viability of a legitimate alternative. If you haven’t already begun that progression, it’s about time you did so.

Greatest Accomplishments: The Story of the Greatest President of the United States of America (A Satire)

2011-03-27T17:19:00.000-07:00

As a result of the economic recession of 2008, the President demanded that Congress formulate a robust bill to tackle the trickery on Wall Street; credit default swaps were banned, and hedge fund managers were taxed 50%.

Because of the irresponsibility and predatory practices of big banks like AIG, Citibank, Goldman Sachs & Bank of America, all Americans facing foreclosure were told to stay in their homes; a moratorium on foreclosures was established indefinitely.

The political polarization in the country had reached new heights, and everyone felt it did more harm than good. In 2010, the President of the U.S. insisted that the Fairness Doctrine, stripped away during the Reagan years, be enforced by the FCC once more. The doctrine ensured more than one side of an issue was given time on the public airwaves, and, consequently, the overbearing dynamic of ideological talking heads was rendered minimal. Scores of citizens praised the initiative as hundreds of thousands gathered outside of the White House chanting in unison, “THEIR MOUTHS WERE WIDE & FOUL...I BET THEY HEAR OURS NOW!!” One onlooker, approached by the Associated Press, remarked that “the loud guy on the radio that always rattled on about ‘American exceptionalism’” (read: Sean Hannity) had confused him in regards to the issue of climate change. “Now I know that Exxon has spent millions financing skepticism since the 1990s, and peer reviewed studies prove we need to make dramatic changes to our energy policy before it’s too late!”

With the public behind the President, and the President wholly behind the public, the greatest initiative yet was promulgated to an inspired nation: the end of all war efforts. As if public support and progressive momentum sent them to the Capitol building (as opposed to corporate lobbyists), members of Congress made the next move: the 28th Amendment was passed. It stated boldly and unequivocally:

“Neither Congress, nor the President, nor the Supreme Court, nor the Pentagon, nor the State Department, nor the military, nor any security/intelligence organization, agency or federal bureau may declare or conduct, neither secretly or openly, a preemptive war against another country. This Amendment supersedes any and all U.N. Security Council resolutions, as pertaining to the crime of preemptive war. The crime and action is obvious! The terminology may be deceitfully altered, but the Public knows a preemptive war like they know a hard day’s work! Furthermore, because of the conflict of interest in regards to a profiteering private military firm’s (...and so on and so on) handling, “preventing,” and mongering for war, private military contractors (...and so on and so on) are hereby rendered an illegitimate business entity. As of the date of this writing, all government contracts with private military firms, companies, etc, are hereby terminated.”

As if all this was not enough, the President, in a Farewell Address that changed the public’s impact on their politics more than any action ever before, called upon Congress to “get big money out of politics, and let the people’s voice be heard.” In translation, public financing of elections became a political norm, and like the President, a nation healer.

A Short Essay on "Conservative America" & Diversity in the University

2011-03-21T06:25:00.000-07:00

In the U.S. today, some of our fellow citizens are convinced that we are a Christian nation. Talking heads on talk radio and cable tv remind us of that fatuous assertion almost every day. These men, and a few women, with a microphone and a far reach over American airwaves, are a microcosm of a population that is convinced of America’s inherent conservatism. If the Republicans stood up for these values, the American people would be proud and stand behind them. Notice the banal remark--frequently made by radio/tv host Sean Hannity--declares the entire American population as endorsers of conservative values, instead of designating, specifically, the Americans with conservative values as being the population that would be proud of Republican leadership in such an instance.

There are many tools in use for promulgating the deceitful narrative of a conservative America. The one that’s been the most effective is the idea that there’s a “mainstream media” outside of right-wing radio and Fox News--an arm of giant corporations and the GOP--and it reeks of a “liberal bias.” This false axiom has resulted in millions of conservatives running to Fox News, receiving skewed and false information, and, as a result, never hearing about Fox’s lies and misinformation from more traditional news outlets, or reading reports on studies that show viewers of Fox News are more likely to be incorrect in terms of positions, results & outcomes of, unarguably, black & white issues, than are viewers of other news channels.

For example, a recent study conducted by World Public Opinion, a project directed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that a majority, or at the very least, a plurality of viewers of Fox News believe that income taxes have gone up since President Obama took office, that there were not any tax cuts in the stimulus package and that most Republicans opposed TARP, just to name a few. These inarguable facts--taxes have not gone up since President Obama took office, just under ⅓ of the $787 billion TARP was made up of tax cuts for individuals and businesses, and out of 249 Republicans from the House and Senate, 126, or about 51%, voted “Aye” for the TARP bill--coupled with Fox’s misinformed viewership, culminate into a serious implication as to why viewers of Fox are so misinformed, and why these misinformed ideas are pushed through the rhetoric pronounced and measures proposed by the Republican Party. Is Fox News manufacturing the political agenda of the Republican Party, or vice versa? Bearing these notions in mind, one could certainly argue so.

Lastly, before we meet the point I’ve been reaching in a long-winded manner, there’s the conservative assertion that higher education, especially publicly-funded higher education, is predominately left-leaning, and beleaguered with bleeding heart liberals. In response to this paranoid notion, I’d like to quote the facetious, tongue-in-cheek and satirical tv host Stephen Colbert: “Reality has a liberal bias.”

From my own observation and knowledge gathered from both sides of the argument that colleges & universities in the U.S. are tantamount to liberal cesspools, it’s not that higher education collectively indoctrinates young adults with the tenets of liberalism, it’s that colleges & universities in the U.S. are active, reliable safe havens for diversity. Even when faults and discriminatory obstacles exist in higher education, the uproar of a tolerable and accepting student population renders that college or university susceptible to reform. Take for example, less than two months ago, a Christian school in Michigan, Hope College, finally opened its classrooms to the discussion and study of homosexuality. Dave Murray, a writer for the Grand Rapids Press, wrote the following:

“The issue flared in March [2010] when a number of influential alumni lined up against college policies they believed shun homosexuality on campus and createed [sic] an unwelcome environment for faculty, students and guests.
The alumni group formed in the wake of the college rejecting Academy Award-winning screenwriter Dustin Lance Black's offer to show his film and hold a discussion about sexuality.”

What’s important to note, other than the achievement of reform at Hope College in the
name of diversity, is the fact that some alumni, former students of Hope College, joined in
solidarity to disapprove of Hope’s policy and position on homosexuality. Call it what you will--tolerance, diversity, acceptance, understanding--but bear in mind, those former students opposed the position of the school they attended and graduated from; they weren’t indoctrinated by Hope College to believe that homosexuality was normal, acceptable, or anything in a positive light, in fact, just the opposite. In this case, it was likely the experience with diversity outside of the classroom that resulted in a group of alumni taking a stand against their Alma mater. The notion of liberal indoctrination of students at colleges & universities in the U.S. is either a gross misinterpretation or a deceitful, cynical campaign against liberalism all together; one that results in enormous budget cuts to higher education, like that which was proposed by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett just a week or so ago.

State-Wide College Walk Out & Protest 3-18-2011

2011-03-17T12:39:00.000-07:00

In light of the recent proposal by Pennsylvania's new governor, Tom Corbett (a promulgation of enormous budget cuts, including a 52% reduction in funding to public universities), students, and likely the faculty at universities across the state of Pennsylvania, will walk out in protest tomorrow, Friday, the 8th of March, 2011, at 11:30 AM, in response to the governor's extreme austerity agenda.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/event.php?eid=206512806025956

I will join friends and fellow students at California University of Pennsylvania in solidarity to send a message to Governor Corbett and the Republican Party: austerity is not the answer to budget deficits. Rescind the proposal, and end the subsidization of giant corporations that do little to grow our economy.

Let's hope a strong turnout establishes itself across the state of Pennsylvania tomorrow. As for Cal U students and like-minded individuals in and around California, PA, I hope to see you all there!

We're Not All Capitalists

2011-03-04T08:24:00.000-08:00

The first thought that came to mind after reading the synopsis to an Associated Press video of President Obama revealing a plan to allow individual states to opt out of the health care law or the Affordable Care Act was, "Dennis Kucinich...Bernie Sanders...single-payer."

President Obama said the option--provided the petitioning individual state has a better idea--will be accessible in 2017, but noted that a number of Congressional leaders have put forth a proposal to push for the option sooner, i.e. 2014. Naturally, the President wants to give the law he spearheaded a chance to show its qualities. So far, we've seen its weak spots: dozens of companies have received waivers, allowing them to circumvent some of the new requirements (i.e. raising the minimum annual benefit in low-cost health plans), and mandating the purchase of health care coverage from HMO's that should have been punished instead of rewarded with 32 million new customers; precisely why the President's rhetoric rings hollow in my ears.

What's the harm in being open to the proposal led by Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio to allow individual states to implement a single-payer health care system? Well, it's clearly tied to our system of legalized bribery, in which corporations decide whose electable for the general electorate, not to mention Obama's blatant connection with Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs & JPMorgan Chase & Co; not exactly the most reputable banks in existence.

In the end, there's no money to be had in a single-payer system, just more efficiency, and real primary care for all. But, like the self-important Bill Oreilly would have us remember, we're capitalists. Honestly though, are we? Bill Gates is. Steve Jobs is. Donald Trump is. But the average, lower to middle class American is as much a capitalist as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch are in need of permanent tax breaks. We're not capitalists, we're the millions of individuals that make a capitalist system work largely for the benefit of the few; the crumbs that capitalists capitalize on.

This reality is precisely why teachers in Wisconsin are being attacked, despite declaring they'd agree to the benefits concessions, but wouldn't relinquish their collective bargaining rights. In no way should the private sector be held accountable for our economic decline; that's the mantra sung by these oligarchs. It's the leeching public sector that is responsible for state and federal deficits. And the gutless Democrats blend in like zebras on a checkered floor to "prevent" a FEDERAL SHUTDOWN! in the form of a, far from nail biting, 335-91 House vote. The similarities these two parties share are enough to make one nauseous after all the manufactured, loud disagreement on policy that's fed to us like the Republicans and Democrats are tantamount to the North and South Pole.

In reality, Republicans and Democrats are no different than professional sports teams, and the general electorate? No different than partisan sports fans. However, if these fans paid as much attention to their political team as they do to their athletic favorite, our "leaders" would truly answer to us, and ideally, when one political team loses to another that fights its way to the Super Bowl (read: progressive reform), the loser would root for the team they lost to. The only problem is, there's clearly a difference between sports ethics and political ethics, and in sports, teams that make it to the final game don't typically forfeit the game in order to hand the reins to the team they already whupped.

A Short Essay on Class Status

2011-02-27T06:39:00.000-08:00

I grew up in a middle class household where middle class values were always kept in mind. Despite my father’s progressive income from his job as a systems (IT) manager for a fairly large construction company, my parents instilled middle class values in me and my two siblings. Our parents gave us everything we needed while stressing the differences between us and spoiled children.

Still, there were times that I can look back on now and see that we weren’t so unspoiled as I may have suggested up to this point. Christmas was a big deal for us. I can remember circling everything I wanted for Christmas in the Toys R Us catalogue every December with my little sister, 3 years my junior. We generally got 90% or better of the gifts we requested. Were we spoiled on Christmas? Maybe not by today’s standards, but I certainly think our parents gave us more than we probably deserved.

I can remember tennis shoes being an important materialistic possession growing up. Friends and neighbors of mine would show off their $100 pair of Nike’s and laugh at me for wearing a modest pair of off-brand tennis shoes, bought for a fraction of the cost my friends’ parents were coughing up every year, not to mention for multiple children. My brother still talks about how embarrassed he was when my mother bought him a pair of shoes, off-brand of course, that had “5,000s” in the name. I guess “5,000s” was supposed to convince kids that the higher number, the cooler the pair of shoes. Unfortunately, the Nike swoosh is all that mattered to our generation.

Most of my neighbors were middle class as well, and a number of the households ostensibly managed the class status because both parents were working. My mother, however, did not work while we were growing up. She was (and still is) an amazing housewife and mother, who cooked a hot meal for us 9 times out of 10. Her famous, yet seldom declaration of “fend for yourselves” meant that no hot meal would be served up for us that night and we would have to make a sandwich with lunch meat or heat up leftovers in the microwave.

A close friend of mine, who I’ve known since preschool, and who was raised just up the road from me in our oddly extended neighborhood, lived in a middle class household with both parents working, and an older brother, two years his senior. It was sometime between grade school and junior high that I discovered his parents’ combined income matched that of my father’s. The revelation made me proud of my father, but I did not gloat or act like I was above my friend or any friends for that matter. I did not think less of my friend’s parents either. After all, despite my father’s fortunate income, everyone knew that a pair of brothers, mutual friends of ours in the neighborhood, had parents who owned a supermarket in town. Their house was the largest in the neighborhood, and they had an in-ground pool with a hot tub.

With that in mind, I’m happy to report that our mutual friends from the big house never gloated or showed off their status. They shared their games, welcomed us all into their home, and were the obvious products of good parenting; parents who instilled the value of hard work in the mind frame of their children.

My high school classmates came from far more diverse backgrounds. I had friends who lived with only one parent whose single-parent income was likely blue collar, though the job itself gave the appearance of middle class income. That is, they worked in an office, front desk at a hospital, etc, but were paid blue collar salaries.

Other friends and classmates had fathers who were mechanics, police officers, or worked in an office setting, and mothers who were housewives like my own. There were certainly classmates of mine whose mother and father both worked and still only made a combined income of $40-45,000/yr. Nearly ten years out of high school, that reality still exists for some of today’s younger American households.

My middle to upper-middle class status (as I mentioned before, my father’s income grew substantially as I progressed through high school) had an average impact on my educational aspirations in high school. I knew college was where I’d end up, but I had a less conventional idea as to where I’d be in five years and how I’d make a living (touring musician). In a way, the combination of my maturity level (the typical teenager’s) and the perception I had of my father’s stressful office job, led me in the opposite direction of that which one might expect a person with my background to pursue.

My feelings changed after the pizza shop I worked for--since the summer after my freshman year at college--came under new ownership sometime in 2006. My hours were cut back, as was my hourly wage. It was around this time that my father introduced me to the idea of taking a job with the company he worked for. By the spring of 2007, I was sent down to Cheshire, OH, to work as an office manager in a construction trailer at Kyger Creek, a coal-fired power plant.

The combination of my hourly wage and monthly per diem put my income--after taxes & 401K deductions--slightly above the median of the U.S. (middle class!). While I saved, I also spent more than I should have. I guess you could say I splurged because it was the first time I had earned enough money to support myself and my girlfriend, and still have enough left over to save, buy things we wanted, go out to dinner, etc. Did my values change? Not really. I still new the value of a dollar. I still new the value of a hard day’s work. I certainly wasn’t being handed a paycheck for nothing. I just wasn’t mature enough to think about long-term goals, and therefore I wasn’t prudent enough to save more than I actually did. By the time the economy went south and a lay-off was knocking on my door in June of 2009, I regretted my financial naivete.

On the other hand, a friend I’ve known since high school has always managed to save his money. In high school he was reading books on how to manage one’s money. He’d buy Reese’s Cups at Garbriel Brothers for a quarter a piece, and turn around and sell them for a dollar each in class. He’d grab a handful of napkins from the lunchroom cafeteria and sell them to classmates for a few nickels when they needed to blow their nose and there was no box of tissues in sight. I once saw him lick a piece of hard candy off the cafeteria wall for ten cents and a few pennies while the entire study hall watched in disgust. I credit his parents for his responsible and disciplined frame of mind, but I doubt they’d like to take credit for the candy on the wall incident.

My friend didn’t go to college. He joined the Air Force immediately out of high school, and he’s been to Kuwait/Iraq probably half a dozen times. He bought a house in Georgia, but last time I talked to him I believe he said he had moved to Missouri. When he’s home for the holidays, we see each other about every other Christmas or Thanksgiving season. I can still remember talking to him during lunch in the cafeteria when he told me he planned to retire by the time he was 35. He’s the cheapest person I know, and I’m going to hold him to that assertive aspiration.

Third Place or Third World?

2011-01-24T10:19:00.000-08:00

In 2011, would it be un-American to suggest that America is in decline? Beyond the blatant effects of the recession, has this country not already caught a glimpse of its economic descent?

Profits in the financial sector have become the poster child or symbol for American success and strength, but the symbol is a facade that deflects what it deserves, scrutiny and denunciation.

While millions of Americans hear reports of Democratic congressmen accusing Republicans of framing the health care law in the fashion of Nazi propaganda, others read reports of judges beginning to take a harder, closer look at foreclosure cases, deeming one after the other fraudulent and illegal.

While the extended adolescents of America are reading the latest issue of their choice, trashy shopping counter magazine, eyes glazed over the top 10 ways to get him going, the adults of America enjoy with a side of disgust the end of the year top 6 worst banks award, detailing the rap sheet of the most corrupt, rapacious and greedy banks on American soil.

As Americans, our lifestyle has rewarded us, from the lower to upper-middle class, with an ability that once was only in the hands of the wealthy; the ability to choose our own reality. After work, provided one has a job, all one must do is decide what reality they plan to accept. It might be a reality in which you worry about the future of the society you live in, or it might be a reality that precludes tough questions in exchange for mindless stimulation and routine narcissism in the form of posts and other contributions to social networks like Facebook, which has become, for some, an adult playground.

What we have here is a reality dichotomy, where one side says reality is the movie, while the other defends reality's autonomy and hand in writing the movie's storyline. Ralph Nader once said, "Let us not mistake personal freedoms for civic freedoms." The quote follows a comparison between American society and societies under the rule of dictators. Outside of personal freedoms, which both free and repressed societies have, there's not really much difference between the alleged opposites. Our politics are just as restrictive, just shinier in appearance.

One only needs to open up Theresa Amato's Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two Party Tyranny to discern a first hand account of just how restrictive American politics is, especially toward political competition rendered by third parties and independent political campaigns. The apparatus that is the two party system, the gerrymandering in practice all over this country, electoral fraud, the dysfunction in the way the Senate operates, and the Electoral College, are collective forces that may be harder to overthrow than a dictatorial regime.

President Obama's recent piece in the Wall Street Journal proves just how hollow presidential campaigns have now become. They are as empty, self serving, and void of description as the promises of Republicans and conservatives. A lot of talk about liberty and freedom, but a lot of action hampering those qualities and conditions just the same.

Critics from the left see Obama's suddenly more transparent leaning to the center as merely a Clinton-esque attempt at polishing his image. Contrary to Obama's puppeteering, regulations are not holding back businesses from investing some of the 2 trillion dollars they are sitting on back into the economy to create jobs. Incidentally, endless subsidies for profitable corporations are in fact holding back the private sector from playing in a truly free market, one where small businesses receive the real cuts and bruises.

Our leaders in Washington, and the lobbyists who run them like a 9 year old's battery-powered toy car, have sold us out for short term goals, ignoring the long term ramifications. What we have to decide as citizens is whether we're willing to accept third place, or worse, third world. Myself being a reasonable, rational (at least I think) young man, I'll take the former and smile the whole way down. After all, with leaders like this and a population so awfully full of itself, what better choice do we have standing in front of us?

Let Them Deny it, Compel Them to Change

2011-01-12T06:44:00.000-08:00

If this is the 100th piece you've read in regards to the horrible tragedy that occurred in Tucson, Arizona, last weekend, I offer a sincere apology of understanding. After reading a number of columns myself, I've come to the conclusion that it's very unlikely we'll see an admittance of any guilt or culpability by the right wing of this country, or any half-hearted attempt at an apology from conservative radio and tv personalities on behalf of conservative media.

The truth is, the most rational among us neither need nor expect an apology from right wing political forces. News that the infamous and overly discussed Sarah Palin toned down her website after the shooting in Arizona is assurance that she at least gets it, although she'll never publicly admit it. Palin recently posted on Facebook, which of course is being reported on a myriad of websites, that violent metaphors are nothing more than violent metaphors. "When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote." Am I reaching to say that she and her political council intentionally chose the branch of her political rhetoric that presented her in the defensive, rather than the offensive and aggressive "Don't retreat, RELOAD?"

Despite my criticisms of Sarah Palin, I don't blame her for the tragedy. Her response does, however, further expose the hollowness of her commitment to American liberty. The usage of crosshairs as a way to target political districts is the Palin brand's transparent attempt at targeting the appeals of gun toting, second amendment crazies that spend too much time defending the right to carry superfluous firearms, and too little time reading the rest of the Constitution. Americans with guns on the brain do not seem the least bit interested in reinstating habeas corpus or ending the use of torture for the end result of bad information and dubious confessions. Americans with brown skin terrorists on their mind and who have simultaneously gotten this deep into my piece are now screaming "Terrorists don't deserve the same rights!" and "Julian Assange is a terrorist and he should be executed!" Do they ever wonder why we continue to torture and continue to utilize bad information from guilty-before-proven-innocent "terrorists?" Could it be that the practice fuels our wars?

The right wing is shameless and pathetic. Sean Hannity prefaces a response of appall and surprise with expressions of sadness and sorrow over the tragic shooting to a screened-caller who rips him in an unfortunately near-illiterate manner. Hannity then mechanically follows the indignant call with a full-court press on why the left in this country has every reason to be on the defensive. A streamlined catalog of audio clips plays such "nasty" remarks from Ed Schultz, "We're going to kick some ass!" and Ray Nagin, "New Orleans will be a chocolate city!" But wait a minute, Sean. In the spirit of Sarah Palin, "look, when we talk about a 'chocolate city,' what we mean is that the rivers and lakes that run through the city will be made of milk chocolate, and little fat boys from Germany will eagerly scoop it up in the palm of their hands, only to fall in and be shot up a conduit tube."

It should be noted that the Sean Hannity radio show had continuously exposed a disturbing form of chauvinism during show interludes before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was relegated to House Minority Leader. Her purported fallibility and weakness as Speaker was simulated and accented by female shrieks, tantamount to a woman being mugged or chased by a rapist in a dark alley.

Last but not the least bit surprising was the conspicuous censoring on Fox News of a man at a candelight vigil in Tucson, Arizona. Fox went to commercial immediately after "Sarah Palin" spilled out of the man's mouth. He was clearly on the road to criticizing her.

In the end, maybe the "emotional consistency" (as Chris Hedges calls it) that Fox News transmits to the most gullible Americans will transcend into a silent retreat. The organ of the Republican Party and conservative values--manufactured as they may be--will never admit it had any role in last weekend's events, nor will it ever correlate the Arizona shooter, Jared Loughner, with conservative values and/or portray his actions as a response to conservative rhetoric. But let us hope that the "gratuitous," widespread criticism that the right of this country is experiencing right now, compels it to change its style, tone and format.

The Threat of Limitless Corporate Contributions to American Democracy: A Case Study of Citizens United vs. FEC

2011-01-03T08:01:00.000-08:00

In January 2008, the nonprofit organization Citizens United, released a documentary criticizing Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination. In anticipation of the primary elections, Citizens United produced television ads to promote the film, and out of concern for penalties and/or fines that could be imposed if found in violation of §441b (referring to “electioneering communication” which was made illegal by §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002), the nonprofit organization requested “declaratory and injunctive relief,” (Dec 2007) only to be denied a “preliminary injunction,” while the Federal Election Commission, the appellee, was granted “summary judgment.”^¹

In the Memorandum Opinion of the United States District Court, District of Columbia (Civil Action No. 07-2240), the Court stated “Citizens [United] plans to broadcast the three advertisements and possibly other advertisements within 30 days before the Democratic National Committee Convention and within 60 days before the November general election — both periods are within BCRA's definition of an electioneering communication.”

As defined by the BCRA, electioneering communication is described by

“any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which —

(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office; (II) is made within —

(aa) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election for the office sought by the candidate; or (bb) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for the office sought by the candidate.”^²

§ 434 further clarifies that in the case of presidential candidates, for the advertisement/political persuasion to be considered a form of electioneering communication, it must be capable of reaching 50,000 people.^³ Considering the vast number of people who utilize the Internet for political information, including details on the records of representatives and the positions of candidates, everything from a YouTube video to a local radio podcast could match the description.

On 21 January 2010, the New York Times reported that “a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.” The decision overturned two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 ruling which sustained restrictions on the spending of corporations for political speech, and McConnell v. FEC, “a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 [electioneering communications] that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions.”^⁴

In 2.A of the Supreme Court’s syllabus for Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court asserted that “Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions,” on the strength that Political Action Committees (PACs), “created by a corporation,” should still have a voice because they are separate from a given corporation. Furthermore, in a purported attempt at considering the importance of democracy, the Court asserted that laws which suppress political speech, whether by “design or inadvertence,” must be dissolved.

Towards the end of 2.A, the Court suggested that “The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers.” In other words, the laws which up until the Court’s decision limited the “political speech” of corporations, were premised on large donors and corporations exercising a negative influence on American politics, therefore rendering a preference for political contributions by average citizens. It is my assertion that the Supreme Court majority is wrong, and that the Government had not identified “certain preferred speakers,” but merely recognized the distorting effects of limitless financial contributions to American politics, favoring (and rightfully so) the collective and dissenting voices of citizens, regardless of political affiliation, industry in which an individual is employed, or the amount of money that one is financially capable of contributing to a politician and/or party. In fact, the codified distrust of unlimited contributions & the influence of big money from artificial entities like corporations into American politics is consistent with the founding fathers’ opposition (through experience) to unchecked power.

Many of America’s founding fathers foreboded the coming of unchecked power and foresaw the end of the republic’s sovereignty through the burgeoning development of political parties. In his farewell Farewell Address in 1796, George Washington spoke of this threat:

“There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep live the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party, but in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”^⁵

Despite Washington’s warning, and despite the general public’s current dissatisfaction with the two party system, America’s choices for political leadership are slimmer than ever before, rendering Washington’s centuries old admonishment a piece of political gospel. Americans have not only accepted the fire and failed “to prevent its bursting into a flame,” they’ve also split the flame in two and naively decided one section of the dichotomy is less harmful than the other, or weighed the flames on a “lesser of two evils” scale.

The problem buried deep inside this voting philosophy is as insidious as it is simple. The status quo operatives of the two party system are well aware of the weakness voters expose by refusing to vote outside of the two parties. Out of this conspicuous weakness has grown a stronger, pseudo anonymous entity of unchecked power.

Over $700 billion dollars were raised and spent during Barack Obama’s campaign for President in 2008. After the election, his Presidential Inauguration celebration was paid for by the wealthy, and to be more specific, higher ups from recently bailed out banks like Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. As revealed by Public Citizen, “Almost 80 percent of the $35.3 million in contributions disclosed by President-elect Obama’s Presidential Inauguration Committee has come from 211 “bundlers” whom the committee credits with raising $27.6 million. More than half of these individuals bundled vast sums of money for Obama’s presidential campaign, and some bundled contributions for the campaigns of John Edwards or Hillary Clinton.”^⁶

The recently completed 2010 Midterm Elections were no small matter either. Reported on their website, OpenSecrets.org, the Center for Responsive Politics, in late October, predicted that campaign spending would “obliterate spending records for a midterm contest, surpassing the previous high-water mark set in 2006 by about $1 billion.”^⁷ Considering the Center declared the prediction less than one week from the election day, it was hardly a prediction, and more like an advantageous current estimate. The point is that the the Midterm Elections were expensive, and at a time when the economy is in a recession, and millions of Americans are unemployed and underemployed, the two major, established political parties spent less time sympathizing with suffering citizens than they did playing politics as usual, bashing opponents with incessant attack ads.

In American politics today, enormous amounts of money in campaign contributions have become so routine and accepted that the now political norm undermines the mandate of the majority vote. As noted by Lawrence Lessig in The Nation magazine on February 22, 2010, “[Max Baucus] has gladly opened his campaign chest to $3.3 million in contributions from the healthcare and insurance industries since 2005, a time when he has controlled healthcare in the Senate.” Baucus is the senator who declared single payer health care to be “off the table” at the beginning of the health care debate in the spring of 2009. Lessig also mentions “Senators Lieberman, Bayh and Nelson, who took millions from insurance and healthcare interests and then opposed the (in their states) popular public option for healthcare.”^⁸

The Obama administration is culpable as well for the opposition (albeit more subtle) and ultimate absence of a public option in the health care bill, signed by President Obama in March of this year. In August of 2009, the Huffington Post revealed that it had obtained an internal memo containing concessions between the White House and Big Pharma, regarding the proposed health care reforms.

While President Obama never explicitly opposed the public option, his adjustment in rhetoric from “What I am trying to do - and what a public option will help do - is put affordable health care within reach for millions of Americans” in June of 2009,^¹⁰ to “But either way, whether there's a public option in there or not, if you don't have health insurance, you are going to have now the option of getting it at a reasonable cost” in late December of that same year,^¹¹ may have helped its opponents exclude it from the Senate bill. Considering the insurance mandate, which he opposed during his campaign, but supported late in the health care debate,^¹² then approved once the health care bills from the House and Senate were conciliated, one could argue that President Obama used the term “option” quite loosely.

WHERE IT ALL STARTED & WHERE IT IS NOW

In Essays in the Earlier History of American Corporations, Joseph Stancliffe Davis wrote that “by the time this continent [North America] was discovered the corporation had attained a definite status in the social constitution of England. During the first century of European contact with the New World the number of uses to which the corporate form was put was considerably enlarged.” Joint stocks & common capital both were part of the corporate formula long before America’s forefathers declared Independence from the British empire. In 1587, Sir Walter Raleigh gave the task of colonizing Virginia to a corporation. More than a century before the American Revolution, the colonies of Rhode Island & Connecticut were respectively governed by a “Governor and Company,” chartered by the English crown.^¹³

With the preceding examples in mind, one may have an easier time recognizing how deep rooted the relationship between government & corporations is in America. Pundits and leaders from either side of the aisle agree, this deep rooted relationship has grown into an unhealthy, unsustainable, & fiscally irresponsible pandemic with little to no accountability as it fattens an already bloated military budget, subsidizes commercial advertising, spurs the revolving door which turns regulators into lobbyists (and vice versa), and ships American jobs overseas, all together undermining the sovereignty of American citizens. The erosion of American sovereignty is what makes the Citizens United vs. FEC case so important and the Court’s position so perilous.

In the October 25, 2010 issue of The Nation magazine, journalist John Nichols discussed the influx of 2010 campaign spending, which many pundits believed would exceed $5 billion--”almost twice what was spent in 2006.” Nichols asserted, “it’s clear the Supreme Court’s decision to remove restraints on corporate spending has created a scenario where “big money” is moving to monopolize the democratic discourse.”

Even before the Supreme Court’s decision, it was clear to some that corporate influence on American government posed a real and sizable threat to American democracy. More than a decade earlier, Charles Derber wrote in his book, Corporation Nation, that “corporations have now amassed vast pubic and quasi-public powers, both by privatizing large parts of government and by buying influence over what is left of it.” Attacks on corporate subsidization (similar to chartering, often referred to as corporate welfare) are refuted with claims of expansive job creation and the strengthening of the American economy. In the chapter, “The Dependent Corporation,” Charles Derber cites Johanna Schneider of the Business Roundtable. Schneider argues, “the term welfare is not accurate. Nobody’s subsidizing companies to do nothing. These programs generate revenue and business and jobs.”^¹⁴

If we take Johanna Schneider’s word as the honest truth, the question becomes, “what kind of jobs are being created and/or perpetuated, and are they vital to our existence or wasteful and unsustainable?”

Derber, citing The Cato Institute, tells his reader that “In 1991, American taxpayers spent $2.9 million advertising Pillsbury muffins and pies, $10 million promoting Sunkist oranges, $465,000 advertising McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets, $1.2 million boosting the international sales of American Legend mink coats, and $2.5 million extolling the virtues of Dole pineapples, nuts, and prunes.”^¹⁵

Some suggest advertising is an unsustainable industry depending on the medium it is channeled through. Former New York Times war correspondent, Chris Hedges, in a column on Truthdig.com in February 2010, spoke with Jaron Lanier--an accomplished computer scientist, musician, and author--about the erosive culture of the internet.

“Funding a civilization through advertising is like trying to get nutrition by connecting a tube from one’s anus to one’s mouth. The body starts consuming itself. That is what we are doing online. As more and more human activity is aggregated, people huddle around the last remaining oases of revenue. Musicians today might still be able to get paid to make music for video games, for instance, because games are still played in closed consoles and haven’t been collectivized as yet.”^¹⁶

Aside from subsidization of an unsustainable industry like advertising (which calls into question why any advertising is subsidized), there’s a substantial case to be made against the inefficiency & unethical advantages of certain subsidization. Pulitzer Prize winning reporter, David Cay Johnston, wrote an entire book on the subject, entitled Free Lunch. Through thorough investigation, Johnston’s reader discovers the manners in which corporations collect both direct and indirect subsidies.

In Chapter 9, entitled “Goin’ Fishin’,” the story of an experienced hunting/sporting goods store owner in Hamburg, Pennsylvania--who struggles to stay in business as a subsidized Cabela’s store attempts to drive him out--is told. Despite two decades of ownership, politicians in Hamburg are seduced by the prospect of new prosperity through the opening of a Cabela’s store in town.

“First, Cabela’s wanted an exemption from paying property taxes for the value of its building for years to come. The so-called museum part of the building would be tax-exempt forever as a not-for-profit entity...Then there was the other big part of the subsidy...Cabela’s wanted to pocket the sales taxes, using them to help pay for its building.”^¹⁷

Cabela’s got exactly what they asked for from Hamburg, Pennsylvania: over $30 million in tax breaks. Jim Weaknecht, the experienced hunting/sporting good store owner, gave up fighting for the life of his business less than 2 years later.

Aside from the economic unfairness attributed to the subsidization of a bullying corporate entity like Cabela’s--which passively threatened to look to other towns if Hamburg, PA was unwilling to accommodate their financial demands--there exists a void in specialization and knowledge of trade that accompanies the handouts to massive corporate welfare recipients like Cabela’s. David Cay Johnston, referring to Weaknecht’s visit to the Cabela’s store on the day that it opened in Hamburg, PA, wrote that “the salespeople he talked to knew next to nothing about rifles or fly rods or the conditions imposed on hunting licenses.^¹⁸”

In Chapter 12, entitled “False Alarm,” Johnston writes about indirect subsidies handed out to the burglar alarm monitoring industry. “In many cities and suburbs, one of every eight calls for police service comes from a company that monitors burglar alarms. Taxpayers spent well north of $2 billion to respond to these calls, a subsidy to the alarm industry, which is spared that expense.” What Johnston is saying is that these corporations use the police to answer to the concerns of citizens rather than send their own security personnel to the homes of their customers.^¹⁹

Johnston’s alarm industry story is a verifiable fact, an example of inefficient, indirect subsidization that anyone, regardless of political persuasion, should be upset about. In particular, conservatives who endorse the dogmatic idea of a free market, should be enraged by the perpetuation of inefficient & inequitable corporate welfare much more than they emphatically are over individual welfare recipients (social welfare).

RESPONDING TO THE PUBLIC MANDATE THROUGH THE DISCLOSE ACT

On 21 January 2010, in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Citizens United v FEC case, President Obama had the following to say:

“With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington — while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.”^²⁰

The “forceful response” to the Supreme Court’s January decision came in the form of H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act. According to CBS News, “The [DISCLOSE Act] mandates that corporations and unions spending on campaigns and running political advertising publicly identify top donors and related information.”^²¹
In June 2010, the House of Representatives passed the bill by a count of 219-206.^²² But a different story unfurled on the Senate floor. In July 2010, the DISCLOSE Act failed by procedural vote in the Senate, precluding the bill from being voted on. In September, the bill failed once more. According to the Los Angeles Times, “In the Senate, the final vote was 59 to 39, short of the 60 votes required. All Democrats voted to support the bill; two Republicans did not vote.”^²³

Despite the DISCLOSE Act’s ostensibly benevolent appearance, a closer look reveals its many flaws. The bill is full of exemptions. As published in the Christian Science Monitor on 25 June 2010, “Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle balked at a special deal that House sponsors worked out with the National Rifle Association – the lead opponent of the bill – that exempted the NRA, as well as other nonprofit giants such as AARP and the Sierra Club, from new disclosure requirements.”^²⁴ Opponents of the bill, like Senator John McCain (R-AZ), argued that the bill favored traditional supporters of Democrats--the unions--and unfairly enforces disclosure of corporations--in some respects, the overwhelming support base of Republicans.

There should be no exemptions in a bill that purports to be for the public interest, yet ironically makes use of a principle that the Supreme Court utilized in its ruling on the Citizens United v FEC case, the case that the DISCLOSE Act is allegedly responding to: “The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers.” The Democrats identified “certain preferred speakers” when they exempted certain organizations from following the disclosure rules laid out in the DISCLOSE Act. By opposing the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United v FEC, the Democrats defended the disadvantaged voices of average Americans. But by installing exemptions in the DISCLOSE Act, they eroded the integrity of their position on the issue and unwittingly discredited their own argument.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brown, C. (2009, June 3). Barack obama may support insurance mandate. Politico, Retrieved from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23298.html

Chaddock, G.R. (2010, June 25). Who's exempted from 'fix' for supreme court campaign finance ruling?. The Christian Science Monitor, Retrieved from http ://www .csmonitor .com /USA /Politics /2010/0625/Who -s -exempted -from -fix -for -Supreme -Court -campaign -finance -ruling

Connolly, C. (2009, June 15). Obama defends government-sponsored health insurance program. Truth-Out.org, Retrieved from http://www.truth-out.org/061609O

Davis, J.S. (2006). Essays in the earlier history of american corporations [p. 3-4]. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=7VnN6ZywXNQC&lpg=PA3&ots=iHKLgnjtbV&dq=history%20of%20corporations&lr&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Dayden, D. (2010, June 24). Disclose act passes house [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/06/24/disclose-act-passes-house/

Derber, C. (1998). Corporation nation. New York, N.Y.: St. Martin's Griffin.

District Court, District of Columbia, (2008). Citizens united, plaintiff, v. federal election commission, defendant. (530 F.Supp.2d 274). Washington, DC: U.S.

District Court, District of Columbia. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2887803236861980893&q=citizens+united+vs+fec&hl=en&as_sdt=800000000002

Election 2010 to shatter spending records... (2010, October 27). Retrieved from http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/10/election-2010-to-shatter-spending-r.html

Hedges, C. (2010, February 15). The information super-sewer. Truthdig, Retrieved from http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_information_super-sewer_20100214/

Internal white house memo. (2010). [Web]. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html

Johnston, D.C. (2007). Free lunch. New York, N.Y.: Penguin Group.

Kennedy. Roberts. Scalia. Stevens. Thomas, Initials. Supreme Court of the U.S., (2010). Citizens united v. fec (syllabus) ((No. 08-205)). Washington, DC: Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html

Lessig, L. (2010, February 22). How to get our democracy back. The Nation, 13.

Liptak, A. (2010, January 21). Supreme court blocks ban on corporate political spending. The New York Times, Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html

Memoli, M. (2010, September 24). Disclose act fails to advance in senate. Los Angeles Times, Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/24/nation/la-na-disclose-act-20100924

Montopoli, B. (2010, June 21). White house "strongly" backs disclose act. CBS News, Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20008340-503544.html

Smith, B. (2010, January 21). Obama on citizens united. Politico, Retrieved from http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/Obama_on_Citizens_United_Stampede_of_special_interest_money.html#

The Presidential Inauguration, Brought to you by the Few, the Wealthy. (2010). Public citizen. Retrieved from http://www.citizen.org/congress/article_redirect.cfm?ID=18305

Washington, G. (1796). Farewell address (september 19, 1796). Unpublished manuscript, Department of Political Science, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Retrieved from http ://www -rohan .sdsu .edu /dept /polsciwb /brianl /docs /1796 WashingtonFarewellAddress .pdf

Youngman, S. (2009, December 21). Obama: public option 'not the most important' part of healthcare bill. The Hill, Retrieved from http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/73275-obama-public-option-not-the-most-important-part-of-healthcare-bill

1(Kennedy. Roberts. Scalia. Stevens. Thomas, 2010)

2(Kennedy. Roberts. Scalia. Stevens. Thomas, 2010)

3(District Court, District, 2008)

4(Liptak, 2010)

5(Washington, 1796)

6("The Presidential Inauguration,," 2010)

7("Election 2010 to," 2010)

8(Lessig, 2010)

9("Internal white house," 2010)

10(Connolly, 2009)

11(Youngman, 2009)

12(Brown, 2009)

13(Davis, 2006)

14(Derber, 1998) p 157.

15(Derber, 1998) p. 157

16(Hedges, 2010)

17(Johnston, 2007) p. 98

18(Johnston, 2007) p. 107

19(Johnston, 2007) p. 134

20(Smith, 2010)

21(Montopoli, 2010)

22(Dayden, 2010)

23(Memoli, 2010)

24(Chaddock, 2010)

Thanking Those Who Toil on Christmas Day

2010-12-22T09:00:00.000-08:00

In this wildly deluded country of ours, some of us have the tendency to associate only America's military overseas with the duty of working on holidays. This piece being no slight to the men and women of our armed forces, everyone from the invisible class of retail and restaurant workers to the nurses and caregivers who work in hospitals, senior centers, or travel to the homes of patients, should not be forgotten.

Our patriotic gratefulness toward those who put their life on the line should also be aimed toward those who are pinned against a wall of economic stagnation, making it practically impossible for those people to ever do anymore than be there when you forget to buy milk earlier in the week and so you buy it Christmas day, or be there to help an elder bathe and get dressed for Christmas dinner.

The men and women of America's military share in this dilemma with the invisible class and those who tend to the health and well being of Americans. Lack of available jobs in one's community has always provided the military with an influx of applicants. The way our Congress signs off on war appropriations for the Pentagon, it seems intentionally systemic.

We feed the Pentagon's adventurous wars with desperate dreamers; people with far more heart and courage than the lot of us, but far less aware of how unjustified the wars we fight are. Some of those who fight recognize our crimes and defect from the military.

We feed America's monopolistic capitalism by enriching the least deserving and impoverishing our hardest workers. What good does shuffling paper around, betting on mortgage defaults do for our country? Only a deluded degenerate could offer an answer other than "nothing," and do so with a straight face. But my wife, a caregiver, does a lot of good for the people she takes care of everyday, and will continue her efforts on Christmas morning.

She, and the many other caregivers who will be tending to the needs of the nation's elderly and incapable on Christmas, do so for very little pay. For some, lack of education has led them to settle for the position which often is associated with "a certain kind of person." For others, like my wife, a $100,000 education at a well respected private institution still needs paid off, but a personal, moral choice was made. A selfless ambition is honored on a day to day basis through the work they put forth. Now that's an American tenet I can defend. Merry Christmas to all who toil on holidays.

For President Obama, Red Ties for Christmas

2010-12-12T07:35:00.000-08:00

Well he's done it again. Unnerved me to no end. The candidate-turned-president that everyone was so crazy about 2 years ago has given in to the demands of the Republican party.

Reporters keep calling the proposal to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for everyone a compromise, but it's nothing of the sort. President Obama has capitulated. Republicans were in the position to compromise, not President Obama.

Who is this man that swooned the American people with invigorating rhetoric dressed in progressive ideals, then openly betrayed America's expectations? Enough with the loyalist cop out that says he can't do it alone. He surely campaigned like a fighter. Where is that fighter now as some curious individual, who physically resembles the man so many voted for, cowers behind podiums hiding a hard-on for so-called bipartisanship.

Bipartisanship...has America seen bipartisanship by the two major parties in the last two years or am I just misinformed? Doesn't it involve concessions from both sides? Sure it does, and the Republicans haven't offered any. Yes, there's a 13-month extension for unemployment compensation in the proposal, but not for 99ers, just for people who have lost their job in the past 99 weeks. That's hardly a concession, relative to the size of the giveaways that President Obama has now agreed to support.

The only side falling back from campaign promises is the Democratic one. Of course, the Republicans exercise rhetoric that sounds patriotic and in the public interest as much as the Democrats, but they don't distort anything (successfully anyway) when it comes to their proposals. With the Republicans, you know what you're going to get: a deregulated private sector, tax cuts for the rich, strangulation of funding for anything public oriented, and privatization of social security.

On the other hand, Republicans clearly distort the narrative of why the economy is in such shambles and what American citizens want, need, and demand. Deaf to the polls, Republicans act as if, knowing that the more they spread lies, the truer those lies become. The more they defend Americans in words (not actions), the easier it is for hard working, stressed out Americans to believe them without even a stitch of proof to test their honesty.

The Democrats, orators of the opposition to the Republican agenda, are just that, and only that, orators. My praise and support goes out to the House Democrats that have actually opposed Obama's capitulation, the tax-cuts-extension decision he made under false duress. Loyalists of the Obama administration are simply giving the Republicans too much credit. They may appear to have a hand over Congress and the President right now because of their sweep of the House in November, but they really won't have control for another month.

If President Obama was genuinely interested in extending tax cuts for only couples making up to $250,000 a year, he could have made it happen. The Democrats could have held a vote on Christmas Eve, and played the moral card to force Republicans to go along with it, otherwise they'd look like the heartless acolytes of the Chamber of Commerce that they really are.

A distinction between this president and the Republican Party? One is become harder and harder to see. On that note, let's all send President Obama red ties for Christmas. The act will end the confusion.

A Real Campaign for Reform: Paul/Nader 2012

2010-11-30T10:51:00.000-08:00

The news is bleak today, unsurprisingly. The economy isn't getting any better, the Pentagon's budget has increased by 68% since 2001, and a proposed two-year wage freeze on civilian federal employee salaries proves once more that President Obama is continuously moving further to the right. He does so even though Limbaugh and the rest of the gang on the right will never give him credit for being such a selectively fiscally concerned, conservative appeasing, gutless president.

Despite the fact that we (Americans) evidently only "elect" right-leaning to extreme right presidents, the country is bitterly divided, and I'm pretty annoyed by the division. Today, I'd like to take this time to send out an idea that isn't entirely original, but for which elaboration has yet to justify its suggestion.

In 2012, the American people should have the opportunity to vote for Ron Paul for President, with Ralph Nader as his running mate. Both have implicitly opposed this idea in the past, most notably during the 2008 campaign season, but I think it's time that we see a true bipartisan effort for reform in America, and not just the kind that purports to get the opposition's vote in either chamber. We need the kind that is explicitly available to voters, through the casting of one's vote for one position on the ballot.

Of course, Ron Paul is a libertarian conservative, and Ralph Nader a stalwart progressive, making the two ostensibly political polar opposites. So what! Despite clear differences over the role of government, both experienced public leaders agree on some of the most important issues of today: that American foreign policy towards the Middle East is hostile and counter productive, that the Pentagon's budget is bloated, that the two-party system has rigged electoral politics and is anti-democratic, that American sovereignty is under attack, that the Patriot Act should be repealed, that the national debt is extremely out of control, and that the Federal Reserve should be audited.

Can we not agree that if these major issues were addressed, if our debt was mitigated, if the electoral system was fixed at least to the point of fairness, and if our foreign policy was reversed, our divided country would finally know how to communicate with each other and regain America's sovereignty for the betterment of America's future?

Over 40,000 people voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 Presidential Election, despite not being the Republican Party's nominee, despite earning more than 4/5ths of those votes in as few as 3 states, despite being a disadvantaged write-in candidate in California, and despite the fact that he encouraged his many supporters to cast their votes for third party candidates.

Ralph Nader earned over 738,000 votes in 2008, putting him in third place for the popular vote. The Nader/Gonzalez ticket was listed on the ballot in 45 states, plus Washington, D.C.

Both patriots were shut out by the major media control machine during the 2008 campaign season. You might recall, Ron Paul did exceptionally well in the Republican presidential debates 2007, earning first place in the First-in-the-South Debate, with 32% of a Fox News viewer-based text-vote poll. He even beat the belligerent Rudy Guiliani (received 5%) who, like so many others that followed, criticized Paul's remarks regarding American foreign policy's role in 9/11. To top that off, the MSNBC Republican presidential debate also resulted in high marks for Ron Paul, earning first place in "post-debate polls conducted by MSNBC, ABCNews.com, and C-SPAN," says Jacob Hornberger of the Times Gazette. Following the debates, every major media outlet, from Fox News to MSNBC, either excluded or distorted the movement behind Paul and the approval of his positions and candidacy.

Ralph Nader is all too familiar with political censorship. He tends to term it "political bigotry." Since 2000, when he first aggressively pursued the presidency of the United States, he's been shut out from the debates, despite polls showing popular support for his inclusion. Polls aside, shouldn't we be including all candidates who are mathematically viable to win the election due to their name being on enough state ballots? If our system wasn't so rigged and actually made sense, Nader would have been included in every presidential debate since 2000.

Let's not forget, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are of the same generation. They were in their early twenties when the civil rights movement in the United States got under way. Now in their mid to late seventies, they represent the most rational and tolerant side of their generation, not at all to be confused with racist, bigoted, kooks from the far right.

It is time we set aside our small differences and learn to communicate with those who--we are told by either end of the major media apparatus--are holders of ideals so far from our own. This, I now know, is a lie. All American patriots value American sovereignty. We may disagree on how our sovereignty can be restored or whether or not it's actually been squandered, but the understanding of its importance is universal. This understanding is one of the most important principals that leaders of America can embrace and evoke. Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are among the few leaders who do so.

The Republican Promise

2010-11-11T04:56:00.000-08:00

I saw a funny cartoon today by Mike Luckovich entitled "Promises, Promises," depicting Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell declaring, "When it comes to how we'll cut the deficit, we've promised nothing..." Beside the Senate Minority Leader is our soon-to-be Speaker of the House, House Minority (not anymore) Leader John Boehner, quickly following with, "And now it's time to deliver..." while holding a can of spray tan. "Wow," I thought, "how simple yet insightful."

Sometimes I think we should turn our eyes and ears away from the political pundits who swallow up so much time on the networks and allow political cartoonists like Mike Luckovich and Mr. Fish to do the talking. At the very least, in a culture engulfed by horse race analysis and Washingtonian political examination, it's nice to take a breather from the overwhelming routine and let an ingenius cartoon lay out the truth in simplistic fashion.

Taking from Luckovich's cartoon approach on political discourse, what has our newly majority-elect in the House/new Republican members in the Senate promised? Sure, the Republicans, whether described as moderate conservatives, establishment Republicans, or "Tea Party" Republicans (the Republican name is usually missing from the tail end, ostensibly to deceive the public into believing that they've really spurred a revolution and/or helped found a legitimate third party), had collectively campaigned to cut enormous government spending, but elaborate, even brief descriptions of how spending would be cut, was missing from the picture.

Can we expect John Boehner--once he is confirmed as the Speaker of the House--to pull a "Pelosi" and say, "We have to pass this gutting bill to see what it does and find out what is in it?" One wonders what to expect, considering this is the same guy who, like a loyal acolyte of big business, was caught handing out checks from the tobacco industry to members of the House (specifically, the house floor) who were being bribed by the industry to vote "no" on a subsidy anullment in 1995. As Ralph Nader so brilliantly put it in a recent column entitled "Democrats Squander the Swing Vote," "Mr. Boehner is the consummate corporate logo-man masquerading as a Congressman. If someone drew the logos of all the big companies that have marinated his career and put them on his suit coat, they would run into each other."

McConnell (in the Luckovich cartoon) is holding a cue card that represents exactly what progressives, like myself, find so hypocritical and distorted about the purpoted Republican agenda. "No ending Bush tax cuts, no defense cuts, no soc. security cuts." While I've never met a progressive who thinks we need to cut social security (chances are they're upset about how some of it is spent), the progressive base is at least 99% in agreement that America's defense budget is bloated and the Bush tax cuts should end, at least for the super rich.

Just a few short days after the Republicans took back the House, President Obama signaled a flip in his stance on the Bush era tax cuts. Although he asserted that the cuts should not remain permanent for the wealthiest of Americans because of their $700 billion impact on the deficit, he's apparently okay with allowing the extension to proceed until we're $699,999,999,999.99 further in debt. If he was a tougher president, he'd have a math wiz calculate the amount of time we can afford to extend the tax cuts for the rich before they surpass half of that gigantic number, but the roughly two years that he has been in office has offered more than enough examples of a steadfastly moderate political philosophy.

If Republicans are promising anything, it's not that they're going to battle it out with the Democrats and continue to say "no" to every proposal (they won't have to), it's that they're going to have an easier time forcing the Democratic Party into submission (read: Democrats will say "yes" to the Republican agenda). The Democratic Party lost solid progressives as a result of last week's midterm elections; some with years of experience (Russ Feingold in NY) and some with far less (Alan Grayson in FL). President Obama's naive arousal over bipartisanship may finally get some attention, but not in the way that he, or progressives, had originally hoped for. We'll see some bipartisan conciliation and "success," but it'll be marked by far right policies that keep progressive ideas and policies in the back seat, regardless of what Obama said in Rhode Island while campaigning for the midterm election in late October.

Why Voting is a Privilege that is not Guaranteed

2010-11-07T07:26:00.000-08:00

Revealing to a number of people that I did not vote this past Tuesday has resulted in many scornful facial expressions. My message or response, to put it simply is: be bitter all you want; I really could care less.

I take voting seriously, but there honestly was no one to vote for in my state or congressional district. I explained my disappointment in a recent column entitled "5 Billion is far too Much...," so I'm not going to bore you by repeating myself, but there's a deeper problem in American politics that needs to be addressed.

I read an editorial in the Observer-Reporter (Washington, PA) today that reaffirmed my biggest complaints about the American voter's psyche. I first took issue with the following: "If you voted on Tuesday, congratulations on performing your duty as a citizen." There's a lot to be pulled from that statement. Here's where I stand: Sure, our duty as American citizens is to vote on election days, but an even greater responsibility falls on our political leaders and political activists to ensure that worthy candidates make the ballot. Of course, our own culpability should not be overlooked. But irregardless of whose to blame for the slew of terrible candidates, one thing's for sure: I'll never vote in an election devoid of solid candidates.

Here's what should become the routine of all implicitly devoted citizens. Our first job is to keep aware of what's going on and hold our leaders' feet to the fire, and as long as enough citizens do so and ignore the endless attack ads, we'll have solid candidates on our ballots every election. Once we get the process down pat, voting will not only be much easier, but also second nature. Disturbingly, stupid Americans base their vote on the persuasiveness of political attack ads and there's no way around that insult. Conversely, the smarter among us are turned off by attack ads and therefore are less likely to vote. While neither behavior is a good sign, fortunately, the latter seems to be more common.

One response to my voting philosophy, which I hear an awful lot is the, "I vote to keep certain candidates out of office" bit. This voting-out philosophy exemplifies the degradation of our political culture in America. Instead of working toward worthy candidates, Americans who hold to this philosophy are spending the little amount of time they commit to concentration on current events and politics by voting for, well, anyone with a blue or red tie, depending on their political label (liberal or conservative). They might not even know his/her position on key issues. All they know is that he/she is not a symbol of the take on government they hate the most. Once again, provided the candidate they voted for wins, they're stuck with an immovable "leader," a nominal public servant whose been given no mandate from the average citizen and thus will undoubtedly end up answering to his/her largest contributors.

I still regret not voting on Tuesday. I should have walked in and typed "NOTA" next to every position to stand for "None of the above." I wouldn't be surprised if writing-in was no longer an option on Tuesday, especially in a state like Pennsylvania, whose corrupt political theater has been well documented in books like "Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny," by Theresa Amato.

Washingtonians like to think that Americans just don't care enough about politics and to a large degree they're right, but there's more going on than just an epidemic of apathy that's resulting in low voter turnout, especially on midterm election day.

There's the bleeding fact that the Obama administration, along with most of the Democrats, have not held true to their collective campaign promise of change in Washington, which would mean a change in America. That for months the major media, reading the lips of the Federal Reserve and the White House, has had us hanging on to an unemployment range of 9.5-9.7% despite a more devastating number of 17.5% describing the whole of American plight is proof that Washington is far from operating any differently. Obama's empty words were probably the cause for the following incredible number of absent 2008 supporters: 29 million.

One truth is clear. Voting is a privilege akin to everything else in our lives that we tend to take for granted. If not for the back breaking work of our ancestors, the 12-hour work days (16 for enslaved African Americans), the rise of factory level organization that spawned labor unions in the 19th century, the feminists and politicians who pushed for women's suffrage and equality, the civil rights movement, on and on and on again, ask yourself where we'd be today. All progress in America can be credited to the activism of several generations of average citizens who compelled the power structure to meet the most basic demands for social integrity and justice. Through that light it is a privilege to vote, but it is not a requirement (nor should it be) and it is not guaranteed.

Voters, Where's your Mandate?

2010-11-05T07:03:00.000-07:00

The saddest fact about America's political system is this: by voting into the corrupted duopoly, embodied by the Republican and Democratic parties, you're sacrificing the power of a political mandate.

In 2008, the Democratic party knew exactly what it had to do to win the presidential election. For more than 5 years, Americans had been vehemently upset and disgusted with the Bush administration policies enacted after 9/11, and so the winning ticket in 2008 would need to epitomize the opposite.

But campaigns are far more bold in rhetoric and initiative than the attitude and behavior of actual administrations. Since President Obama began his term in January of 2009, he's skirted around his campaign platform by either completely evading his guarantees or watering down the materialization of his original intent. He's stuck with the sharp words, but adopted a blunt knife to do his chopping.

The most glaring fiasco of the Obama administration's first near-two years is the health care bill, but maybe "fiasco" is not a cynical enough word. The bill is viewed by many as a massive handout to the HMO's who should have been schooled by historic reforms instead of awarded with billions of dollars in subsidies. On top of the handout, there's no feasible cost cutting measure within the law, contrary to the assertion of the administration & the Democratic party.

California Healthline from late September, "On Friday, California's Department of Insurance approved Aetna's proposal to raise health insurance premiums by an average of 19% for about 65,000 individual policyholders, the Los Angeles Times reports." The organization also reported on "expected rate hikes" from other HMO's like Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Shield, and Health Net.

While researching further into this topic, I discovered an article from Bloomberg.com, published all the way back in April of this year. Journalists Meg Tirrell and Alex Nussbaum reported that "Aetna Inc., the third-biggest U.S. health insurer, raised its 2010 earnings forecast after profit climbed 29 percent on cost cutting and premium increases."

The revelation from more than 6 months ago is proof of how distorted and deceitful our largest corporations are as they squeeze profits out of customers by gouging them with increasing premiums and cost-cutting. It also proves the theory of the Obama administration--that cost cutting and cost effectiveness will save billions for the consumer--is a faulty one, because even when these giant HMO's like Aetna & Blue Shield find ways of cutting costs they exploit the measure to increase profits by increasing premium rates.

The truth is that neither major party is described by a majority ready and willing to cut unethical corporate ties and free the American taxpayer from the debt they'll be paying alongside their children's children. Members from either camp who speak of cutting the military budget are treated like pariahs and scoffed at like illegitimate representatives of American interests. Without a majority of Congress members who've got the courage and integrity to return the power of American government to "the People," we'll never see significant reductions in our national debt, rather, we'll see small measures being prefaced with exaggerated, big leaps like "historic" and "milestone."

The only way out of this mess is by tossing the duopoly out and truly taming our leaders. How deluded some of us are in thinking that by voting in either major party roughly 50% of the time, we are sending a message that rings loud and clear. Like the Republicans reaffirmed to themselves earlier this week, they know they can count on a largely uninformed (or disinformed) public to vote in the same minions they tossed out just 2 years earlier, as if the Republicans suddenly developed a record to prove that not only can they fix the economy, they'll even stick to their word. It's pretty clear that the public is so confused and dismayed by the sluggish economy that on Tuesday they just threw up their hands and said, "Alright, you fix it!" It doesn't matter how, just get it done; that's the mind state, and that's why we're in the mess we're in.

5 Billion is Far Too Much, it's Time for Publicly Financed Elections

2010-11-02T12:37:00.000-07:00

In the October 25, 2010 issue of The Nation magazine, John Nichols reported in the "Noted" section that, at the time of his writing, the amount of money spent on 2010 general election campaigns was predicted to exceed $5 billion, "almost twice what was spent" 4 years ago.

The sharp increase in spending is undoubtedly owed to the Supreme Court's disastrous decision to overturn the limitation on corporate contributions to political campaigns through its January ruling on the Citizens United vs. FEC case.

As the NY Times suggested back in January in response to the Court's decision, "The decision will be felt most immediately in the coming midterm elections, given that it comes just two days after Democrats lost a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and as popular discontent over government bailouts and corporate bonuses continues to boil."

At the time of this writing, it's Monday morning, the day before Americans will go to the polls and vote, but I won't be there. Not because I don't want to vote, but because there's no one worthy to vote for. I live in the 18th district of southwestern Pennsylvania and unfortunately there isn't an independent, third party, or politically courageous candidate running for the 18th district's seat in the house, the senate, or governor.

I almost considered voting for the Democrats' Dan Connolly for Congress, but I refuse to vote for anyone who holds the position like he does in regards to Afghanistan. Taken directly from his campaign website, "The security of the Afghan people is tantamount to the security of the United States. While none of us could ever forget the horrible tragedies of September 11, 2001, we also must not forget to remain vigilant against the perpetrators of that terrible tragedy. If the United States allows the Taliban to succeed in Afghanistan and Western Pakistan, not only will al Qaeda have a safe haven from which to launch future attacks against the United States, but that terrorist network – one that perpetrated an attack that killed over 3,000 Americans – will be very close to one of the world’s nuclear arsenals. That is a risk we simply cannot afford."

My question to Mr. Connolly--and anyone else who is related to Washington politics who shares in the view that America's war in Afghanistan is vital to American safety--is this: hasn't al Qaeda already proven that it is capable of "launching" terrorism from countries other than Afghanistan? Furthermore, can he really expect strong support when 60% of Americans are now against the continued occupation of one of the poorest countries in the world?

And so I am left disappointed with my congressional options. No libertarian, independent, or any third party candidate will be on the ballot. Just incumbent members of the duopoly facing challenges by purportedly non-establishment hopefuls and controversial candidates with weathered experience.

PublicCampaign.org, "In the U.S. Congress, Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.) and Walter Jones (R-N.C) have introduced the Fair Elections Now Act which provide full public financing for candidates for Congress. The bill in the House has more than 140 co-sponsors. Clean Elections is law in seven states and two cities: Arizona; Connecticut; Maine; New Jersey; New Mexico; North Carolina; Vermont; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Portland, Oregon. Activists across the country are working to advance full public financing of elections."

As Ralph Nader asserted on his campaign website for the 2008 presidential election, "It is now a well-accepted fact that our system for financing presidential and congressional campaigns is fundamentally corrupt and pernicious. The only way to ensure effective and honest representation by lawmakers is through decisive campaign finance reform, with public funding of campaigns."

Anyone who denies this truth is simply not paying attention or merely being dishonest. Our economic conditions are a direct result of the abuse and undermining of a principled republic through big money corrupting the wisdom we convince ourselves our leaders will avail. We cannot afford to hope for change, because if it's all we have the powers that be are already gainfully aware, and we'll continue to be shackled by culture-based political norms ordering us to "vote for someone who has a chance of winning," and pathetically compelling us to give into the idea that "everything will be a little better as long as the Republicans are not in office."

Texting While Driving: an American Epidemic

2010-10-24T06:53:00.000-07:00

That Rush Limbaugh says outlandish, ridiculous things is nothing I haven't been aware of for quite a while now. On Monday, a caller on his radio broadcast started in on how some politicians want to ban use of cell phones in cars, even in the case where wireless accessories allow one to keep two hands on the wheel and both eyes on the road. Limbaugh, of course, stopped the guy from finishing his point to make his own: it's not about keeping Americans safe, it's about minimizing their communication in the way "authoritarian" governments do, and besides, cell phone usage in cars isn't related to accidents. During the 10-15 minutes that I continued to listen to him rant on and on as I drove home from work/school, he repeatedly exclaimed, "the issue is never the issue."

A good friend of mine summed up Limbaugh's ridiculous, conspiratorial assertion with the following sentence: "Wow, he's not even trying anymore." Literally, that's exactly right. I queried "cell phones related to car accidents" on Google and the first link on the list was from EdgarSnyder.com.

According to data that Edgar Snyder & Associates compiled through various sources, "In 2008, at any given moment, over 800,000 Americans were texting, making calls, or using a handheld cell phone while driving during the daytime. With distracted driving killing nearly 6,000 Americans in the same year, it's no mystery that cell phone use is risky for drivers."

Even if we put aside, or better yet, agree with Limbaugh's conclusion regarding why some politicians are pushing for a ban on using cell phones while driving, any sensible person should be able to acknowledge how naive and misinformed Rush Limbaugh is for claiming that cell phones aren't related to car accidents. "It's usually SUVs," Limbaugh said, suggesting immediately after that SUVs usually spin out of control and crush compact cars.

Here's what I think, since simply offering opinions without knowing the facts is apparently "in": Limbaugh is either being dishonest to his listeners, or he is a very good driver who keeps his eyes strictly on the road, never glancing toward the driver side of cars in the next lane, which is marked more and more by men and women of my generation who are texting and driving simultaneously. Now, I do not text as much as a lot of my friends, and certainly not as much as teenagers, but even I am guilty of the dangerous texting-while-driving juggling act (consider the embarrassing exposition my "last cigarette").

"56% of teenagers admit to talking on their cell phones behind the wheel, while 13% admit to texting while driving. (Note: Because this information was given voluntarily by teens, actual cell phone use numbers may be much higher.)"

"Actual cell phone use numbers may be much higher." You got that right. You cannot tell me that driving-age teens to college graduates, who arguably have zero inhibition skills (aside from withholding honest answers to questions about their cell phone habits) as evidenced by the 2-4 thousand texts a month that the average 13-17 years old teen sends, the roughly 1,500 texts your average 18-24 young adult sends, and also implicated by the schmuck I saw texting while urinating in a male restroom in California University of Pennsylvania, are not texting while driving. I think it is safe to say that 13% is a pretty conservative number, and a more accurate figure would be between 40-50%, but, hey, that's just me offering a guesstimate.

Here's where I stand. I'm not convinced that most Americans are incapable of driving while talking on their cell phones. I use my speaker phone, some use a headset, and some simply talk with their phone to their ear like they would in any other situation, and I really don't think that any of those scenarios pose a significant risk. But texting while driving, now that is a dangerous epidemic, kind of like listening to Rush Limbaugh and taking his thoughts and considerations seriously.

Enough With the Abortion Debate, Let's get Serious

2010-10-18T13:38:00.000-07:00

Let's get serious. Abortion is a sedentary issue. Of course it's brought up every election cycle, but real debate on the much contested issue never takes place once an election is over and victorious candidates enter their respective chambers.

Contrary to one might assume, even progressive pundits are part of the problem. I'm tired of reading about how ridiculous Ken Buck's (Tea Party/GOP candidate for Senator in Colorado) position is on abortion, as if it's never been taken before. Buck thinks women who've been the victim of rape or incest and become pregnant as a result should fight through the shame and disgust and have the baby. He frowns on contraceptives, too, as if the preceding perspective would allow you to be surprised. So he's the hillbilly version of the Pope; move on!

Ask yourself how America's federally enforced policy on abortion, regardless of whether it leans more left or more right from this year to the next, affects your economic status? It hasn't changed a thing for me. Sure, some might chime in with the complaint that their tax dollars support the murder of babies and for that they're rightfully upset--in fact, the issue was part of the Republican demands in the health care bill HR 3692--but I think we should be a little more upset over top executives raking in 400 times the amount paid to the lowest paid workers across the nation and the ever expanding debt from wars we still haven't declared.

So, sure, you could say I'm wrong in asserting that abortion is a moot issue, but it certainly plays the role of a distraction from real imperative discussions more than anything else.

According to LifeNews.com, "Under the health care bill Obama signed, there is no ban on abortion funding. While some states can opt out of funding abortions under the plan, taxpayers in other states will be forced to pay for them."

How is the preceding circumstance any different from an individual taxpayer who is against the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan (now flooding into Pakistan), the over 800 military bases around the world for who knows what, and the yearly defense budget that is by some expert accounts in the amount of 1 trillion dollars, being obligated to pay taxes that finance these wasteful military endeavors? If we're speaking from a strictly economic/equitable tax dollar allocation perspective, the ladder is far more unfair, and considering the amount of lives lost in Iraq (on both sides), far more unjust.

Towards the end of the summer, the Obama administration asked the Pentagon to cut a measly $100 billion over the next five years from the defense budget. Not only is that number a drop in a bucket, but the savings are intended to be spent in a more "fiscally responsible" fashion; to modernize the military! This a great example of how distorted our policy discourse has become. Even when our leaders dress budgetary reallocation from one section of a department to another section of the same department in heroic, courageous calls for change and reform, some Americans are still fast asleep, dreaming far away from any thought of concerning themselves with the real issues; the more obvious reasons for America's ever growing debt.

If you've been struck by boredom through your local news channels' coverage of the 2010 Election debates, you're not alone, and there may be good reason for the tepid, trite, and amazingly dull format of the debates. From my own observation, a nation whose general population fails to demand real leadership by exercising their right to vote, irregardless of party stripes, will only get rhetorical slogans out of the mouths of political robots: "We need real leadership, and I'm the man for the job." I'm sure Ken Buck would agree, after all, he's probably not wearing "high heels."

Hands Off Our Poor Health Care

2010-10-07T11:16:00.000-07:00

"Keep your government hands off my health care!" Remember that? I had to bring it back. If I recall correctly, one senior citizen says those words at a town meeting and immediately everybody and their mother is scoffing at the irony of the statement because the man must be really naive & unaware to not know that his medicare is provided by tax dollars. Yet, in the midst of all the discourse copycats, at least one journalist (either Bill Boyarsky or Joe Conason; the exact quote I can't seem to find) suggested that maybe the old man was just trying to say that he didn't want the government to cut his medicare or raise his premium. After all, it's the cost of American health care that prompted the debate and mandated reform.

Not so fast says MSNBC's Maggie Fox, who cited findings from a team of researchers at Coumbia University in New York, which suggested, "Americans die sooner than citizens of a dozen other developed nations and the usual suspects -- obesity, traffic accidents and a high murder rate -- are not to blame." No, the real culprit happens to be the quality of care that covered Americans are receiving.

Provided that the findings are considered accurate, they really say a lot about the recently "reformed" health care system in America. The presidential election of Barack Obama brought the discussion of the private health care system to a front burner, with a focus on pushing HMO's to cover more people, ban discrimination against preexisting conditions, and lower the costs of health care. Turns out there's more than just getting coverage & paying premiums that Americans should be worried about, seeing as how the physical costs of our incompetent system are now in question.

""The U.S. doesn't stand out as doing any worse in these areas [smoking, obesity, traffic accidents, and homicides] than any of the other countries we studied, leading us to believe that failings in the U.S. health care system, such as costly specialized and fragmented care, are likely playing a large role in this relatively poor performance on improvements in life expectancy."

How many times have I heard Sean Hannity vehemently applaud & defend the private health care system with the assertion, "I think we have the greatest health care system in the world?" Trying to recount his rhetoric makes me want to see a doctor right now.

To the credit of President Obama, he did discuss the issue of fragmented care, certainly one of the weak links in the chain. But he also campaigned on a public option--a viable form of competition for the deafest of HMO's--only to claim he hadn't after failing to stand behind it aggressively when the provision really needed his authoritative support (better yet, executive juice), and its possibility was watered down so much that if implemented, only 5-10 million could be covered.

If you're skeptical of the aforementioned findings and are convinced that America's overall poor health and decreasing life expectancy has something more to do with something obvious like obesity, please, think again and read the following:

"For obesity to explain the decline in U.S. life expectancy or the increase in health spending relative to the 12 comparison countries, Americans would have to be becoming obese at a faster rate than people in the comparison nations over time," they wrote. But this has not been happening."

Aside from extended coverage for young adults now able to stick with their parents' coverage until the age of 26, and the establishment of non-profit health insurance co-ops, it sounds to me like the American government has much more to reform in regards to America's health care system, mind you, Congress seems to have taken care of itself already. As for reform that truly improves the health and well being of your average American citizen? Well, that just "has not been happening."

Right Guy, Wrong Town Reactivated

2010-10-07T10:42:00.000-07:00

I've decided to go the free route for expressing my sociopolitical views. After all, I'm just blogging. There's really no need for me to pretend otherwise. You can now consider my blog, "Right Guy, Wrong Town" officially reopened and reactivated. Thanks for reading. Oh, and if you'd like to see what I've been up to for the last year, check out http://www.associatedcontent.com/derekp

The Good Row

2010-01-14T18:20:00.000-08:00

Attention: The Right Guy, Wrong Town blog has essentially been expanded and relocated. All of my latest work--including some pieces that were originally on this blog--can now be read at TheGoodRow.org. Thank you for your continued support.

Get Off the Backs of the Poor

2010-01-13T08:11:00.000-08:00

I just heard a promo-ad on the radio for the Rush Limbaugh show. In this particular promo, Limbaugh explains how most conservatives don't like the lottery, but he does because it is a way for "low-income people to pay taxes." What planet is he living on?

Oh, the filthy poor! They're knees-deep in their poorness and it must be stopped! What an advantage they have! The poor can buy a bag of Doritos, but they can't fix their used car that's 12 years old. And what is he even talking about? The poor do pay taxes. Low-income citizens do pay taxes. I'm currently unemployed, making less than 1,500 a month, but I still pay taxes, and I have no problem with doing so. But to the men and women out there that are making even less than me, say 1,100 a month, maybe less, who struggle to pay their bills, I'd say they're paying their fair share by way of hardships and struggles, actually more than their fair share, and Rush Limbaugh should shut his mouth; plain and simple.

ProgressiveNation.us

Mr. Limbaugh and the leaders of his persuasion have it all wrong. We all should have to make sacrifices via tax to keep this country and it's government running. But the loud mouths on talk radio want the poor paying taxes, the banks left alone, and the rich to continue receiving the hefty tax cuts. Talk about a hole in an argument. To the so-called conservatives, corporate executives keep the world spinning, not the men and women that pick up your trash in the food court of your local mall. Although, there is some truth to that. They keep the world of the paper economy, undemocratic trade agreements made behind closed doors, and corporate welfare spinning. The rest of us, the poor and low-income, just have to live in the world we've created with them by being silent and offering our consent via the voting booth, and clean up the mess that's on us in the end.

Yesterday Limbaugh made the obnoxious suggestion that he's with us when thinking we don't hate the banks, and we think Obama is crazy for trying to reduce the deficit by implementing a levy tax on the banks.

Limbaugh: We do hate the banks, in fact, we've been vociferous enough in regards to our anger towards the banking institution--that caused our economic collapse--to find ourselves well received by a most-of-the-time deaf President, who seems to be responding to a relatively low approval rating when compared to his popularity upon entering office. Face it, millions of Americans don't have jobs because of the ramifications of irresponsible behavior exercised by too-big-to-fail institutions. But Rush Limbaugh has the nerve to say that we're not mad at the cause of our troubles. The man is way out of touch.

McCain is Presently a Better Politician

2010-01-07T08:32:00.001-08:00

I don't particularly like John McCain. At times he can be charming, and oh how I know that helped him win the hearts of millions during the 2008 campaign, but he's belligerent. Any man that is willing to commit our youth to a war for 100 years is despicable, especially when the commitment comes from someone who knows better than most about the brutality of war (remember when Ron Paul called him out about it in one of the 2008 Republican Primary Debates and John McCain just smiled like there was nothing wrong with his commitment?).

Still, I don't like President Barack Obama either. Outside of the rescinding of the Bush repeal of the Lily-Ledbetter Act, I can't name any other measure on the positive side that Obama has been a strong proponent of. He was as complicit in handing over trillions to Wall Street (yes trillions: the 700 billion TARP dollars was actually only about 4% of the huge handout - See The Nation's "Meet the Hazzards" from Sept/2009) as John McCain.

To his credit, John McCain fought for the Dorgan amendment to the Senate's health care bill: "Dorgan’s legislation, called the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act, would allow American consumers to safely import lower-priced, Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs from other countries. Dorgan said the legislation will bring consumers in North Dakota and across the country immediate relief from the world’s highest prescription medication costs, and will ultimately force the pharmaceutical industry to lower drug prices in the United States." (http://dorgan.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=320552) They both were seen on C-Span fighting to win votes on the amendment, but ultimately the Senate failed America.

In the middle of December, 2009, McCain (R-AZ) cosponsored with Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) legislation to repeal the notorious, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which many critics blame for the economic crisis that imploded in 2008. "The legislation puts McCain in an awkward position, given that the firewall that had existed until the late 90s was torn down by his good friend, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX). It was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that allowed financial institutions to abolish all of the significant rules put in place at the time of the Great Depression designed to prevent a repeat." (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/16/mccain-gramm-repeal/)

The HuffingtonPost reported, "So far, the idea hasn't gotten any attention from the Obama administration, which does not attribute the current crisis to the law's repeal, and dismisses the idea that reinstating it would have any impact on the financial sector." The law, Glass-Steagal Act, was put in place in 1933, after the Great Depression, intended to prevent another one. Yet, Obama is opposed to reinstating protections that worked for over 50 years, claiming the out-of-date playing card like the politicians that pushed for it's repeal in 1999 under the Clinton administration. Fortunately, some of those same politicians are now repenting. "The measure [McCain-Cantwell] was first co-sponsored by five House Democrats last week, all of whom also voted to repeal the bill in 1999." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/15/mccain-cantwell-team-up-t_n_393159.html). John McCain is presently a better public servant.

Rush Limbaugh Inspired by Union Hospitals, Socialized Medicine (Huffington Post)

2010-01-05T08:16:00.000-08:00

From the Huffington Post, 1/4/10 -

"Based on what happened to me here, I don't think there is one thing wrong with the American health care system. It is working just fine, just dandy, and I got nothing special," Limbaugh continued.

What Limbaugh didn't realize, SEIU's blog points out, is that the Hawaiian health care system is one of America's most progressive. So progressive, in fact, that Hawaii has been exempted from some of the terms of the Senate health care bill because the current system's requirements go above and beyond the ones federal legislation would mandate.

See full article here

An Open-Letter to Congress: Pass Health Care Reform, Don't Tax Benefits

2009-12-24T10:54:00.000-08:00

I don't have health care, nor do I want to be forced into buying it from a giant corporation that is being subsidized, and not being held accountable while putting profits ahead of real health care. Please do what is right for America, instead of conceding to the empty words of President Obama and the proponents of the Senate bill that endlessly claim that this will not only fix our health care system, but bring justice to an avaricious industry. Handing over 30 million Americans, all of which are handed over involuntarily, is not justice. It is corporate socialism, a system that a lot of conservatives claim to abhor.

By placing the public option back in the bill, you'll be doing the right thing, and not just passing a cosmetic bill that will look good for the Democrats when the average American that is asleep politically sees a paid-for advertisement lauding the achievement.

Sincerely,
Derek Postlewaite

If Being Silent is Being a Democrat, I'm Glad I'm Not One

2009-12-18T20:02:00.000-08:00

According to Chris Matthews, people like myself are not "regular, grown-up democrats." Well, Chris, you're right about one thing: I'm not a democrat. Personally, I'd say I'm an adult, but I'm sure someone as condescending as yourself would belittle my age of 25 (26 in a few weeks) and say I'm a kid. I also do vote, contrary to what you assume about citizens that actually complain about some of the bills that the Democratic Party is pushing through congress. But I guess people that actually pay attention should just shut up and ignore the issues surrounding the bullshit bills that are more like bailouts for every respective sector they feign to regulate.

The loyalty espoused by partisan news anchors and radio hosts to the Democratic Party is not only pathetic and void of independent judgment, it also lacks genuine political assessment, and speaks to a culture of concession that is the absolute antithesis of American democracy. Their political assessment involves nothing more than the politics of politics.

Why is it--after the terrible but easily expected news of an escalation in Afghanistan--so hard for the majority of the left side of America's incessant political debate to just say, "Obama, this health care bill sucks?" Howard Dean, former Democratic Governor of Vermont and presidential candidate, did:

"If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill. Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these." (The Washington Post, 12/17/09)

The general public seems to be as willing as their President and the Democratic Party to get anything they can, instead of what we deserve. The urgency of meeting the needs of one senator, Joe Lieberman, isn't even necessary, nor is it productive. The urgency of meeting the needs of all Americans is unquestionably off the table.

A White House Giveaway

2009-12-17T21:35:00.000-08:00

From the HuffingtonPost.com:

"A memo obtained by the Huffington Post confirms that the White House and the pharmaceutical lobby secretly agreed to precisely the sort of wide-ranging deal that both parties have been denying over the past week.
The memo, which according to a knowledgeable health care lobbyist was prepared by a person directly involved in the negotiations, lists exactly what the White House gave up, and what it got in return.
It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government's leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada -- and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.
In exchange, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) agreed to cut $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers and senior citizens over ten years. Or, as the memo says: "Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion."

Please, please, please tell me you're finally a skeptic of the current administration and the corporate socialism it perpetuates. Read the entire article here.

So-Called Moderates Baffle Me

2009-12-15T06:03:00.000-08:00

What the hell is a moderate? Honestly, not rhetorically, I'm genuinely asking that question. I don't understand the brand.

Now, I know I recently revealed that I've come to terms with the "left-right" ideology distraction, realizing that it pushes real issues aside. But that doesn't change the fact that most people cling to a label or a narrow category that generalizes their political persuasion. So, if I were to choose one to harp on, and I'm going to, it would definitely be the "moderate" ideology and the "moderate" individual."

Radicalparenting.com

Being a moderate offers nothing more than an arrogant cop-out to the world of politics. What is so extreme and excessive about feeling well grounded in regards to one's opinions and positions? Is there no right and wrong in the mind of a moderate? Are the conditions of America's health care system, the moral hazards of a guiltless and unpunished financial system, and our permanent war economy, issues that are just, kinda bad?

A counterargument I can imagine popping up in response to my remarks would be: But being a moderate is having an opinion and is being well grounded. It is being well grounded in sustaining an open-mindedness to the many answers in the face of an issue.

Countering the counterargument, I would say that there is and always will be, a right and a wrong. The moderate persuasion aims to conciliate the two, ignoring the problem. The moderates, like Barack Obama, want to keep the banking "fat cats" happy, regardless of what scathing remarks our President makes about their conduct and what illuminations he offers in regards to why he chose to run for president. They believe that the paper economy is the real economy in America, and without the bailouts, our economy would have collapsed. They don't see the difference between "our" economy, and the economy of credit-default swaps, predatory lending, detrimental market speculation, and all the other games the scoundrels on wall street are still playing and still getting away with.

This past Friday, December 11, 2009, the House of Representatives passed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009. As one who has not read the bill, I don't entirely know what to expect, nor should I fully doubt the intentions or the achievements of the Democratic Party in passing the bill. But, as one who has read what I trust to be a pretty good summary of the bill by the Associated Press, there's plenty of reason to do so.

The Republicans argued that the bill would "institutionalize bailouts," in other words, perpetuate the moral hazard that they helped create, by approving the bailouts in the second go around, and offering no solutions in the realm of regulation; remember, they hate regulation all together. Furthermore, in the AP report by Jim Kuhnhenn, it is revealed that "the bill would create a Financial Services Oversight Council made up of the Treasury secretary, Federal Reserve chairman and heads of regulatory agencies to monitor the financial markets for potential threats to nation's system." Try to swallow that one. It's tantamount to asking the giant HMO's to monitor their claims to make sure every paying American is receiving quality health care.

Reflecting on the fact that the current chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, was asleep at the wheel, so to speak, when the financial behemoths were destroying "our" economy, and our current Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, was head of New York's Federal Reserve bank, suffering from the same symptoms as Bernanke, why involve them? To back up my harsh criticism, I'll offer some citations from someone irrefutably credible: Robert Scheer, Editor & Chief of Truthdig.com. Mr. Scheer has been covering this mess since it first started making heads turn, and more recently, in his piece "Still Doing God's Work on Wall Street," Scheer explains:

"Geithner, now treasury secretary, was previously the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY), where he negotiated the deal to pay Goldman Sachs and the other top banks in full to cover their bad bets on securitized mortgages. Barofsky's report concluded that Geithner's scheme represented a "backdoor bailout" for the financial hustlers at the center of the market fiasco. Noting that Geithner denies that was his intention, the report states, "Irrespective of their stated intent, however, there is no question that the effect of FRBNY's decisions -- indeed, the very design of the federal assistance to AIG -- was that tens of billions of dollars of Government money was funneled inexorably and directly to AIG's counterparties."

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has been naturally outspoken about the possible reappointment of Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Fed:

"Before Ben Bernanke became the Fed chairman in 2006, he headed the council of economic advisers for President Bush – one of the most right-wing presidents in American history. He also sat on the Fed board of governors from 2002 to 2005. Perhaps more than anyone else, Bernanke was in a position to diagnose the impending economic disaster and take steps to stop it. Tragically, not only did he fail to prevent the economic collapse that we have experienced, he did not even warn the American people that it was coming until it was too late. Equally distressing, his actions since the crisis began may leave taxpayers holding the bag for an even bigger bailout in the future." Sanders goes on to lay out the duties of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve:

"As chairman of the Federal Reserve, Bernanke has four main responsibilities: (1) to conduct monetary policy in a way that leads to maximum employment and stable prices; (2) to maintain the safety and soundness of financial institutions; (3) to contain systemic risk in financial markets; and (4) to protect consumers against deceptive and unfair financial products." Bernie Sanders says that Bernanke has been an "abysmal failure" in all four of those areas.

If one is to believe that another Chairman of the Fed would be trustworthy and responsible, why not halt the inclusion of that seat in the Oversight Counsil until a majority of Americans can once again sleep at night. As far as the Treasury Secretary inclusion is concerned, we've got a lot more to reform, say, the Executive branch, before we can stop that from happening. For now, all we can do is hope that Geithner is asked to resign before he does anymore damage to our wallets.

What did moderates of the 19th century, during the time of a robust anti-slavery movement, think of the issue? If they were anything like they are today, I would say that a majority of moderates believed slavery was immoral and should be abolished, but they didn't have the brass to do anything about it, nor were they sure of its ramifications in respect to the economy. As far as women's suffrage was concerned in the 20th century, moderate husbands probably felt that their own wives should have the right to voice their opinion via voting, but they doubted that the right would be granted in their own lifetime, so they definitely weren't going to do anything about it. They continuously voted for the Democrats who, for years, failed to answer the call of the women's rights movement. They ignored Eugene Debs five times. And now they belittle the political common sense of Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney, not because of their politics, but rather the politics of politics. Moderates and a majority of Americans, regardless of what stripe, have given into a two-party system that has cultivated pseudo-events (to use a phrase coined by Chris Hedges) out of political gatherings, gerrymandered a majority of the districts in every state like a territorial pack of wolves, and the system only answers to Mr. Big Bucks, while shouting a big "fuck you" to the American people.

Aghh...moderates: Who needs 'em?

An Op-Ed Worth Reading, 12/12/09

2009-12-12T11:36:00.000-08:00

"What people are suddenly realizing is that with Obama there is a absolute disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality. Is it cynicism? My own feeling is that Obama has spent so much of his life putting on the various acts necessary to get ahead in the world of powerful, rich white people that deception and self-deception have become innate and instinctive, several steps beyond crude manipulation. "

The preceding abstraction is taken from Alexander Cockburn's latest piece, "Not Even a Peanut." The "peanut" Mr. Cockburn refers to is a metaphor for any small gesture or measure that Barack Obama pushes forth as a positive in the realm of keeping to his campaign promises; a style of gesture not only Cockburn, but many other pundits argue, happens far to little.

The piece can be found at http://www.CounterPunch.org. If you go to it soon you'll find it at the top of the page. If you go to it a few days from now, peruse the links on the left side-table.

Jim Hightower is Correct: There is No Left & Right

2009-12-09T07:53:00.000-08:00

Jim Hightower is apparently often quoted for saying "Politics isn't about left versus right; it's about top versus bottom." Of course, I hadn't heard or read the quote until recently when he was chosen as the winner of the 2009 Puffin/Nation Prize for Creative Citizenship.

I first read about Jim Hightower around a year ago, in one or more books I was reading at the time. I know, I've been asleep, obviously. Then, while perusing through a Big Lots store, I saw one of his books stacked unappealingly amongst other books (Big Lots offers some good books, and for only $3 dollars, but some of the stores could care less about selling them from the looks of the display). The book is called "Let's Stop Beating Around the Bush," the focus on whom you should easily grasp. It's a fun book, coupled with hard facts presented in a laid back, humorous manner, so to me, it's the kind of book you keep in your bathroom.

Imagine, in my bathroom I discovered the quote in The Nation magazine a few days ago in the December 7, 2009 issue. Well, I guess I didn't really discover it, I rather, read what others thought was an outstanding statement. The quote has really got me thinking. Combine it with Dennis Kucinich's (D-OH) recent lashing out against former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum on FOX News' "On the Record," concerning the constant initiative of politicians and pundits to turn every issue into a "left and right issue," and I'm sold. Not only is the incessant blame of everything on each party coming from the opposite side useless, it's a facade, and a facade that needs wiped off the screen, and cleared out of our ears. Let's look at two major issues of the day: wall street bailouts and health care reform.

Before George W. Bush left office, he left us with an enormous debt, a debt that included $700 billion in TARP funds to irresponsible and wreckless banks and financial institutions, and it was a bailout he told congress they must hand over. Before he won office, Barack Obama voted "YES" to the urgent "request," as did his opponent, John McCain. Considering that John McCain's party overwhelmingly voted "NO" to the first bailout bill, HR 3997 (Repulican House members registered 133 nays), is there any point in questioning that his "YES" vote was a symbol of his devotion to the status quo, and his devotion to big money interests, onsidering the fact he was running for president with less than two months to go.

Speaking conspiratorily, one could suggest that the financial bailouts were timed perfectly in regards to when congress voted on the bill, ultimately determining which side got the votes of the paper economy. In light of the bill's original failure, one could go further in suggesting that the Republicans lost the 2008 election in part to it's original denial of the financial bailout, despite their presidential candidate siding with the finanicial institutions and an unsustainable economy. Shortly after the bill failed, on Oct 3, 2008, NPR reported: "The U.S. House has reversed itself and given final approval to a giant economic bailout bill. The measure — revised, re-framed and expanded — passed comfortably by a vote of 263 to 171. It attracted 26 more Republicans and 32 more Democrats than last Monday night." Well, you can make your own conclusions, but I'm one who stands by the assertion that it wasn't a persuasion derived from "left and right" politics. It is more likely that 26 republicans and 32 democrats were attracted to the bill via "top and bottom" politics.

The issue of health care reform and the debate over its manner embodies more of the same politics. Proponents of the bill, HR 3962, which passed just over a month ago, have received large contributions from the health care industry. Some people included on this list of recipients are Max Baucus and Barack Obama. A report by the SunLightFoundation.com, with data from OpenSecrets.org, revealed that "Lobbying disclosure filings for the first quarter of 2009 reveal that five of Baucus’ former staffers currently work for a total of twenty-seven different organizations that are either in the health care or insurance sector or have a noted interest in the outcome. The organizations represented include some of the top lobbying organizations in the health sector: Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Researchers of America (PhRMA), America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), Amgen, and GE Health Care. The former staffers turned lobbyists include two former chiefs of staff, David Castagnetti and Jeff Forbes, and one former legislative assistant, Scott Olsen. Other former staffers working with health care portfolios include Angela Hoffman and Roger Blauwet." The report went further when telling that "In 2008, Baucus received $1,148,775 from the health sector and $285,850 from the insurance sector. For his career he has received $2,797,381 from the health sector and $1,170,313 from the insurance sector. Our current president, Barack Obama, is "number two in contributions from the pharmaceuticals and health products industry," according to SourceWatch.org.

Despite the bill's difficult passing with a weakened public option (a generous description considering that the idea was intended to cover 130 million and was drained to cover, at most, 10 million), the Los Angeles Times reported some unsurprising news today, at least in quality, not specifics, in an article entitled "Senate Democrats reach healthcare deal on 'public option'." In the second paragraph, Janet Hook and Noam N. Levey report that "Under the compromise developed by a group of conservative and liberal Democrats, the Senate legislation would no longer include a new government-run insurance program, or "public option," for Americans who do not get coverage through their employers." The alternative to the public option is now a government contract with a nonprofit insurer. Furthermore, "The tentative deal faces an uncertain fate in the full 60-member Democratic caucus, which will have to remain largely united if Democrats are to overcome a GOP-led filibuster and pass a bill before Christmas." Once again, we're not dealing with true ideology. It's pure top and bottom politics. It's the politics of the people vs. big business. It's clearly top and bottom politics when the so-called "left" of American politics is urging its so-called "defenders" and "progressives" to push through legislation that doesn't even resemble the kind that actually puts the needs of all Americans on the table.

The Thanksgiving Day Parade or A Long Line of Commercials?

2009-12-03T11:10:00.000-08:00

Thanksgiving is great, is it not? Let's see: turkey, mashed potatoes, asparagus, stuffing, sweet potato casserole, cranberry sauce (usually out of the can), buttered rolls, a few more sides, and a lot of pumpkin pie. That's usually what my family table looks like on the last Thursday of every November.

But it's become clear to me that there's something else that has been a huge part of America's Thanksgiving Day for several decades: The Macy's Thanksgiving Parade. Personally, I not only find it boring, but more importantly, I see it as just another outlet for the commercial or private sector to swallow up America's holiday candor, and swell our eyes with giant, corporatized balloons. They've taken Christmas, there's no doubt about that. They've had Thanksgiving for a while now, at least as far back as I can remember. And car lots and furniture stores have provided us with yet another reason to lose our wallets on less exciting, but just as worthy holidays, like Labor Day and Veterans Day.

Wikipedia informed me that a balloon of Uncle Sam introduced the parade of 1938. Now, 71 years later, Ronald McDonald took part in introducing the parade for the 3rd time. How many kids would rather have a happy meal than a slice or two of turkey with mashed potatoes and gravy? Unfortunately, I'd say the number is pretty high, considering McDonald's has trained our little one's to indulge in the worst combinations of sugar, salt, and fat. And obviously, Macy's could care less.

The Macy's Thanksgiving Parade routinely has a list of musical performers that shape the minds and attitudes of America's youth. Disney-backed musicians like Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers have performed at the parade in recent years. Even the Cheetah Girls, formerly the R&B group 3LW, feign like their young teenagers and pander to the trivial and frankly, frightening desires, of young girls to be popular and sexy.

The sponsors of the commercial parade are callous, as are the head honchos from Macy's who are responsible for its production. They think nothing of the impact they have on America's youth through the sponsors who molest the minds of a vulnerable population. They think only of targeting the vulnerable, pushing addictions to cheap, genetically-modified food, and teaching kids that there will always be someone more attractive, more appealing, and more desirable than they are. Watching the parade is like watching a long line of commercials on television. The only difference is: one sees the result of a destructive consumer culture through the lines of people standing in awe of a myriad of private companies that could care less about their future.

Are the Loyal Viewers of Fox News Really Watching?

2009-11-24T10:47:00.000-08:00

I don't have cable. As I see it, obnoxious gouging is being practiced by a few concentrated media-conglomerates that would rather force you to pay for all the channels they finance, than allow you to pick and choose channels as you please, and pay for what you want. I do, however, have the internet. It's a lot cheaper than cable, and provides unfettered access to media alternatives and other marginalized factions of culture and opinion that the cable companies have deliberately precluded.

Despite the wide variety and excessive amount of cable channels, choice is not part of the agenda of our corporate-controlled, mainstream outlet--cable television. It's either all or none. And as someone who once did have cable and watched, at most, 10 channels out of the 100 or so I was paying for, I know when someone is being ripped off.

Although I feel I've made the right decision (not only for my pockets, but also as a statement opposing trivial local news coverage and incessantly childish reality television), there may be millions more that are being gouged even worse. I'm talking about the tens of millions of citizens who are watching Fox News on a daily basis, when they're not tuning into their local news channels offering "commercials, averaging 10 minutes, then 8 minutes of sports and weather, then the police blotter with sirens," as Ralph Nader has pointed out time and time again, decrying the corporate take over of our so-called "community news." The 2-3 channels that these people are watching trumps my complaint of paying for 100 while watching 9 or 10. But are they really watching?

Fox News is without a doubt the propaganda-pusher of the Republican Party, not a news source of a conservative persuasion, as the channel likes to portray itself. Furthermore, in June of this year, The Huffington Post reported, "With the second quarter coming to a close, Fox News averaged about the same number of viewers as the top three other cable news networks combined. And while rivals including CNN (-22%) and MSNBC (-18%) took hits following last quarter's inauguration-fueled boost, Fox News (-3%) remained nearly steady." And despite Fox News being the most watched news network in regards to regular viewers, Fox continually regards all other news channels as the "mainstream media," ostensibly excluding itself from the category. This implication is echoed by Fox's viewers, spewing out all of the attacks against the "liberal media" that Fox News has encouraged them to express, albeit with less articulation.

The regular viewers of Fox News are the same people that went to the McCain rallies and proclaimed Barack Obama to be an "Arab," or a "Muslim." They also spread this blanketed racism at the anti "Obama-Care" rallies a few months ago. They are the guinea pigs of a culture of fear mongering, cultivated by the right and corporate power, that embrace the notion that socialism, fascism, communism, and marxism are all the same thing, and borrow qualities from one another. They demand--at the behest of their most trusted news commentators and right-wing pundits--that spending be cut, as long as it involves helping the poor, or social justice initiatives. They're evidently heading to the kitchen for a glass of water when talk of expanding the military budget is taking place. If they do, however, make it back in time to hear what should outrage their esteemed sense of conservatism, they fail in embracing morality and working their independent judgment, falling in line to feed a behemoth war machine, all because they fear an "Arab."

Pseudo-Conservatives must drink a lot of water. What else could explain the utter lack of acknowledgement of the recent production mess-ups (as they are being coined) that Fox News has had to apologize for, on more than one occasion? In the last 2-3 weeks, Fox News has looked like a college campus news room, with slip-ups or downright deceitful portrayals of protests and book tours. First, there was "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart that discovered Sean Hannity's program used footage of protesters from a September rally against "Obama-Care" to prop up the weaker support that showed up for another, earlier this month. Then, just one week after the Hannity slip-up, Fox News host Gregg Jarrett pushed the perception of a huge turn-out for the Sarah Palin book tour, while coloring the perception with footage from last year's campaign trail. Fox News has apologized for both incidents, but they claim them to be "inadvertent." Considering that Fox News has a massive archive to maintain on a daily basis, the assertion is highly unlikely. For example, let's say my job is to edit and arrange video clips for the purpose of back-dropping a news headline or segment, and I'm supposed to use contemporary clips that are germane to the event being covered. How in the world would I slip-up and use something from two-months ago, or worse, over a year ago, when I have thousands of clips in between the time I'm supposed to be covering and the clips I "inadvertently" use? The answer: it couldn't be a slip-up, it most certainly was a dress-up.

Despite the blurring of the lines between propaganda and legitimate news coverage, viewers of Fox News seem to either not care that they are being taken advantage of and deceived by a network of liars and fear mongerers, or they just don't comprehend what these kind of intentionally misrepesented events say about the legitimacy of Fox News: that it has none.

Timing is Everything: Health Reform via Democratic Blackmail

2009-11-12T20:53:00.000-08:00

It's been weeks now since President Obama first began mulling the idea of sending even more troops (he's already sent 21,000 troops to Afghanistan this year) to Afghanistan at the behest of General Stanley McChrystal. Earlier this week, DemocracyNow! reported the following: "The McClatchy Newspapers report President Obama is nearing a decision to send 34,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan next year. Under the proposed plan, the first additional combat brigade would arrive in Afghanistan next March, with the other three following at roughly three-month intervals." The news of this possibility comes shortly after the so-called landmark overhaul of our health care system passed in the House on Saturday, something which makes me think the Administration is betting that some will overlook the potential tragedy of sending more Americans to war while applauding the self-celebratory achievement of the Democratic Party.

Timing is everything. Take a look at the proposed date for implementing the Democratic Party's reform on the health care industry: 2013. This ostensibly requires President Obama to win a second term, a contingency I'm sure the Democrats and the current administration will use to blackmail left-leaning voters. The threat of a repeal by a Republican-ized Executive branch would scare the wits out of the left side of politics. The Democratic Party, after losing a few seats and offices last week (a story that so much of the media has exploited for dramatic-effect), is surely fit to display its championing of the American people with their cosmetic version of a health care reform bill, H.R. 3692. Of course, many are proclaiming the bill to be "dead on arrival," in regards to its forthcoming subjection to the judgement of the Senate. But, here's where I stand perplexed. John Nichols of The Nation magazine recently wrote a piece on the passing of the health reform bill in which he states "In truth, the House merely wrote a first draft of history. The Senate still must act on a very different reform proposal. The House and Senate bills then must be reconciled, after which they will have to be approved once more by each chamber. Only after those final votes will [Obama] have a chance to sign a health reform bill." Uh-huh! Count on the reconciled bill to be even less beneficial to the American people than the House bill alone. Personally, this process of leglisation is more work than it's worth, and aids in watering down true intentions. Is it not enough that Nancy Pelosi withdrew Dennis Kucinich's amendment to 3962 which would have allowed state's to adopt a single payer system, or that the Public Option went from potentially covering 129 million people to probably less than 10 million? Why must we compromise bills further? 100 percent of the time, a bill that is vetted in response to the passing of one in the opposite chamber stands as the second chance for lobbyists and big money influence to destroy what progress the first bill plans to permit. That doesn't really fall inside the definition of the phrase, "checks and balances." It's more a perversion of the democratic concept.

The Obama administration is counting on the politically uninformed, and the entirely un-courageous: the kind that will vote for Obama just to keep out a Republican. What this brand of voters will undoubtedly do is overlook how terrible the health care bill was, which passed during Obama's first term (and hopefully last), and reward him for being a corporate-politician. Oh, and they'll fail to punish him after expanding the war in Afghanistan, even though a majority of Americans are now either against the war or against sending more troops to the region (wasn't Barack Obama the majority-pick for president?). Don't believe me? They've got a record that proves it.

"No Matter How Much People Think They Understand War, War Will Never Understand People"

2009-11-10T14:27:00.000-08:00

When I was younger, my father would take myself and my two siblings to the movie rental store in town on the weekends. We'd routinely rent 3-4 movies and watch a few together at night with both of my parents. When I was eleven or twelve, we picked out a contemporary starring Kevin Costner & Elijah Wood called "The War." At the time, I thought it was a good movie, but I hardly think I grasped the profoundness of the story as I did just a short while ago, some 13 years later.

Many of my convictions in life have changed due to growing up, maturing, and experiencing things I never before considered, but war has always, and will forever remain, wrong. As a kid, the pacifist side tells one that war is the cause of innocent people dying, wars are fought between good and evil, and of course, God is on your country's side. But, only one of the preceding clauses to war is always to be counted on: war is the cause of innocent people dying. In the movie, Kevin Costner plays a Vietnam veteran that suffers from PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), and struggles to keep any job he lands because of the effect the disorder has on his work. He even loses a job as a janitor for a state school, something his wife finds ironic due to the fact that it is the state (or government and foreign policy) that led to his irreversible problem.

In 2004, the Associated Press reported that "the Army’s first study of the mental health of troops who fought in Iraq found that about one in eight reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder." The study went further when pointing out that "less than half" of the veterans with symptoms decided to address the issue by "seeking help, mostly out of fear of being stigmatized or hurting their careers."

Kevin Costner's character sought help, and was ostracized for it. The state system dumped him upon discovering his visit to a psychiatric hospital. The power structure entrenched in the operations of the U.S. military neglects its obligation to veterans suffering from PTSD, and all the other issues aroused as a result of its habit of haunting the men and women who've seen horrors too terrible to discuss over dinner. Alcoholism, drug abuse, and suicide are far too common tragedies that families of veterans suffering from the disorder have to watch implode on the lives of those they love.

Peter Rotherberg, a writer for The Nation magazine, wrote in March of 2008, "Last year, some 67,000 soldiers returned from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan were treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Eighty-nine of them committed suicide."

Some of us would like to ignore this part of war. Some of us labor under the delusion that America and the American military are invincible, and shouldn't have to step back for a moment to truly consider where our wars are leading us. Earlier today, the notorious Rush Limbaugh belittled the fact that our leaders have repeatedly pointed out that we are at "war with terrorism," not "with Islam," and that the majority of Muslims around the world are non-violent, and don't have aggression toward the western world and the U.S. Mr. Limbaugh went on to rhetorically ask, "If that is so obviously true, then why does it even need said?" Overwhelmingly ignorant as he is, Rush added, "Why aren't the recruiting centers overflowing with Muslims who are offended at how these extremists are perverting and defaming their sacred religion? Why aren't they reporting suspicious activity by extremists in their neighborhoods and mosques? Why aren't they fighting these extremists in their own countries?"

The reason it needs said is "obvious." It is a vivid reflection of one of the ignorant portions of our population, the kind that calls President Obama a "Muslim" when asked why they don't support him or his policies. It needs said because this country has a dark history of singling out minorities when fear overwhelms it. It needs said because millions of Muslims across the world feel that their moral character is being "defamed" more by American arrogance and/or hegemony, and less by such a small number of radicals, and yet we fight whole countries to diminish radicalism, but in the process kill those that are innocent. It needs said because of the world's knowledge of our practice of "Extraordinary Rendition," and the torture that it allows. It needs said because it sure as hell looks like we are at war with Islam. But, despite how Muslims may feel regarding their treatment by the U.S., if Muslim leaders across the world reflect the hearts and minds of the their followers, then Americans and the western world are not the only ones denouncing terrorism.

Islamic extremism is like America's right-wing extremism: both are immoral ideologies, and both are endorsed by a fraction of their respective populations. Being genuinely at war with either one is impossible. Like Ron Paul rhetorically asked, "How can you have war against a tactic. It doesn't make any sense." Killing those who are not culpable for 9/11, nor are they aiding terrorists is our greatest sin, one we are committing on a daily basis. If Obama denies the request of General McChrystal, and listens to the cries of history and of wars that could not be won, he might just be able to prove that "no matter how much people think they understand war, war will never understand people."

My New Album: "Broken Walkman Body Shop"

2009-11-02T06:38:00.000-08:00

Since late 2006 until the spring of 2009, I worked on my latest album--released just 2 days ago--"Broken Walkman Body Shop." The writing for the album started in the fall of 2006, in fact, the first track on the album was written at that time. The writing and recording of the entire album was completed by the fall of 2008, but mixing and rework on some of the production was delayed until the spring of 2009. Some tracks recorded during the time-frame that are not found on "BWBS" were released on a compilation album I put out in May of 2008 entitled "Rotten Apples." The third track on my latest release, "Blue Skies" was actually written in the summer of 2006, but the album I intended to complete never fully surfaced, therefore it found its home in "Broken Walkman Body Shop." The album is about 50 minutes long, with 14 tracks and no fluff. The following is the description I wrote myself as a promotion for the album's download availability through Amiestreet.com - http://www.amiestreet.com/music/proseed/broken-walkman-body-shop:

Hip-Hop music has been exploited by the power structure for a long enough time to make it extremely difficult to judge just which style it naturally and genuinely emits. That's where "Broken Walkman Body Shop" comes in, Proseed's sophomore LP. Featuring production by Maker of Glue & Galapagos4, the album is the closest representation to date of what the experienced MC/Producer feels is Hip-Hop music's greatest attributes and qualities: Intellectually motivated lyrics, skillfully schematic rhyme schemes, mood-driven production, and a vocal delivery that earns your ears. It embodies the kind of growth critics anticipated after hearing his first album, and offers more of the unexpected directions artists rarely dare to take on. The album serves as a testament to the creative and intellectual value that Hip-Hop music has to offer, if and when YOU care to give the right kind of Hip-Hop a chance. The passion that is sustained throughout the album's duration pushes to transcend its effect on the listener, beckoning a deeper appreciation of Hip-Hop, and a greater understanding of it's relevance to society, and legitimacy as a genre. With "Broken Walkman Body Shop," Proseed aims to raise the bar for Hip-Hop musicians, as well as the standards of its listeners, whether they be passive listeners, or edging toward obsessive. The last lines in the last verse of the last track of the album say it all: "Raise your hands and quickly tick to my dial/ So floors will eventually soar, I've got to fly now..."

So Right, but so Wrong: Health Care Reform of Cosmetic Value

2009-10-30T07:10:00.000-07:00

As much as he's right, House Minority Leader John Boehner is wrong. He's right in decrying that the Democrats health care bill (one ostensibly designed by Insurance companies with the complicit approval of conservative Democrats) aims to ratify excessive government bureaucracy in the health care sector, but he's wrong in proclaiming that his party, the Republicans, have a solution, hardly acknowledging the existence of 10's of millions of uninsured and under-insured Americans.

Taken from http://www.northstarnational.com

On their website, http://healthcare.gop.gov, the Republicans spread soft-talk reform. "All individuals should have access to coverage, regardless of preexisting conditions." Coming from a party that has blocked all attempts by some in the Democratic Party to reform our health care system, the preceding statement lacks convincing attributes. Even if the Republican argument against what I just said is based off of a determination to preclude excessive bureaucratic waste, the Republican Party has never answered with an agenda for reform via their own momentum. What thwarted reform results while the Bush Administration was in office for two terms? Most likely their relentless focus on "terrorism." It is obvious that the Republican Party has become the drain stopper for the corporate state, preventing billions of dollars--that should remain in the pockets of the American people--from leaving the coffers of numerous industries determined to gouge us to death.

The sad truth is, and has been for a while: The Democrats are a divided party, maybe not a perfect split, but divided enough to stop real reform from taking place. They're only capable of achieving reform and pushing through measures of cosmetic value. Doesn't the condition of our political system beckon for reform of the distribution of seats in Congress? What is the use of supporting a party-line that campains in what is roughly, solidarity, but has a voting record that screams disunion. It is not the existence of differences in opinion that is the true nature behind the constant lack of results, rather, it is the existence of a political culture that refuses to obey the will of the people, and fails to respect the history and reverence behind the willingness of Americans to remain hereditary-voters. It is the exploitation of a culture of Americans too overworked, underpaid, and over-entertained to express anything but disloyalty to those who pander to their over-emphasized moral and economic cue-cards. Any member of congress that preaches fiscal responsibility as being the heart and soul of their respective party, has his or her head in the clouds. In truth, the concept is long gone. A taboo in real terms, but a sentiment while on the campaign trail.

The 1,900 pages of the health care bill--which has become an abused gimmick by the Republican Party by seating the massive stack on podiums being occupied by opponents of its ratification--is unquestionably full of unnecessary bureaucracy, and overwhelmingly unrelated to making sure that all Americans have quality health care. The one bill that does ensure all Americans quality coverage is HR-676, sponsored by 88 members of congress (as of this writing), including John Conyers, Jr & Dennis Kucinich. Subtract 1,870 pages from the Max Baucus capitulation of a health care bill, white-out all the waste and hand-outs to the Insurance industry, and write-in all of the important and imperative reform measures included in HR-676, and we'll have social justice in America, at least in the sector of health care. If the Democrats won't do that (and it looks like they won't), address one of the other diseases in American society: the lack of justice ensured for political minorities, third-parties, and independent candidates. It is a disease which emulates doubt amongst Americans when the thought of voting outside of the two-party system crosses their minds, and arbitrarily qualifies two-candidates for President and two-candidates in either aisle of Congress. Stand behind those who stand behind us as consumers, citizens, taxpayers, and Americans who have the right to liberty and a real pursuit of happiness combined with health, and we'll see social justice in every direction we turn.

Pandering to Ignorance: How the Right Remains Relevant

2009-10-27T07:25:00.002-07:00

I was listening to a discussion between Al Franken and Ann Coulter on YouTube a moment ago when I noticed a ridiculous ad that I couldn't help but click on. In large font, the text read "STOP THE LIBERAL CAMPUS MONOPOLY...BE A CAMPUS REFORMER." The link took me to CampusReformer.org, a site and network that doesn't want "America to drift to Communism."

In the "Reformer's Blog" section, the first post I see is entitled, "Dedication to a Cause: Students Protest ACORN on Cold, Rainy Day." I think the fact that it was a cold, rainy day plays to the idea that these kids are tough, and won't let up in the pursuit to shut down the liberal propaganda campaigns that have run rampant in campuses across the country. Ahh, yes, I clicked the link to the post and the first sentence says "it was wet and cold, but students at Washington State University braved the elements today in an effort to educate people about the corrupt organization ACORN, and the banks that fund it." Although, I guess I was misled by the title by thinking it was cold and rainy, when it was really "wet and cold."
What's really interesting about the blog/article is the fact that the writer, Jason Thomas, doesn't even list one reason as to why he's deemed ACORN to be "corrupt." He mentions that Congress defunded the organization, (which anyone should know if they watch or read some form of news at least once a week), but shows real investigative finesse when pointing out that ACORN was also being funded by banks like U.S. Bank. How corrupt!

Mr. Thomas speaks with Phillip Tignino, the president of Youth for Western Civilization (I don't like where that is going. It reminds me of "Children of the Corn"), about the protest he organized to further shove dirt down the throat of the recently defamed ACORN. President Tignino explains how the protest was the second one he's organized, after the first one was "cut short" due to it not being held in a "free speech zone." He further explained how he "never realized that free speech was only allowed on certain places on campus." Well, he could have asked thousands of protesters who've dissented against something actually worth protesting before, but I'm not going to hold it against him for trying. Tignino was petitioning to stop U.S. Bank from handing our "tax dollars to ACORN." Considering Mr. Tignino, Mr. Thomas, and the network of people behind the Campus Reform website are so aware of issues involving their agenda, including the liberal bias that is threatening that agenda, they definitely haven't read anything written by John Nichols, who recently divulged in The Nation magazine that "ACORN collected around $53 million in federal largess over a 15 year period when congressional Republicans were more often than not in charge of the budgeting process." And so not to distort what he says to benefit my argument, Nichols goes on to say "In fairness to the Republicans, they spent the money rather responsibly. Despite some embarrassing video tapes of irresponsible ACORN employees who have since been fired, the evidence is overwhelming that most of the money that was allocated to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now to support affordable housing and community empowerment initiatives was well and wisely spent." Please, prove your outrage, protests, and claims of corruption are worth hearing, CampusReform.org proponents and constituents, before you express your first amendment rights.

I'm betting that not one of the CampusReform.org reformers overheard independent Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders conversely bring up the fact that "The sad truth of the matter is that virtually every major defense contractor in this country has, for a period of many years, been engaged in systemic, illegal, and fraudulent behavior, while receiving hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money." What is corrupt is the fact that the current Administration, like the one that preceded it, continues to allow the contractor Xe (formerly BlackWater) to operate in Iraq, even though the Iraqi government voted the contractor out of Iraq for repeated violence against civilians. Jeremy Scahill, arguably the most attentive investigative reporter in regards to the operations of the rogue contractor, recently wrote that "Blackwater has a $217 million security contract through the State Department in Iraq--a contract just extended indefinitely by the Obama administration. It also holds a $210 million State Department "security" contract in Afghanistan, running through 2011 and another multimillion-dollar contract with the Defense Department for "training" in Kabul." He goes on to ask the Democratic lawmakers that so proudly defended and answered the call of the Defund ACORN Act: "how do you justify making this a major league legislative priority while Blackwater continues to be armed and dangerous around the globe on the US government payroll? Where is the Defund Blackwater Act?"

California University of Pennsylvania (my Alma Mater)
Picture taken from http://www.insidehighered.com

A liberal education is something President Andrew Jackson believed in. For all his faults, that is one conviction he should be credited for. Attacks on liberal education and liberal-arts institutions routinely come from people who attack everything, calling the education "Un-American" and feel we shouldn't reevaluate or change the image we've depicted over the years of Christopher Columbus, the so-called "Founder of America." Deniers of the relevance of a liberal education proclaim that revisionist historians are worthless to society and spread lies. According to the proponents of this persuasion, the Indian Removal of the 19th century wasn't tragic, a form of genocide, or destructive to the livelihood. and abusive to the human rights of Native Americans.

A liberal education and the liberal arts schools that promote its progress are the counterweight to elitism. They are the tools by which we've achieved so much in this country, from Social Security, Unemployment Compensation and a 40-hr work week, to African-American & female suffrage and the emancipation of slaves.

On the front page of the site I've been criticizing, CampusReformer.org, a banner asks, "Are we rebuilding the wall?" alluding to the twenty year anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. I'd say "no" to the insinuation, but there's definitely a wall being built. A wall between a genuine education, and one designed and enlisted entirely to increase the profits of corporations that have no business in education. A wall between investigative reporting and the kind of reporting that is supported only by hyperbole, again through the craftsmanship of corporations that have no business in reporting the news. A wall between constructive, informative discussions, and the style of discussion that sends gullible Americans to their place of work screaming in disgust over the idea that minorities are shown favoritism and deludes incessantly misinformed Americans, causing them to yell, "The government better keep its stinkin' hands off of my health care!" Now that's a wall worth worrying about, and a wall worth bringing down, too.

A Country with More Justice Needs Less Charity

2009-10-20T22:30:00.000-07:00

On Monday, I traveled out to Pittsburgh from my rented townhouse in Canonsburg, PA to hear my civic hero, Ralph Nader, speak about the movement surrounding Single Payer health care and to tout his new book, "Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us." It was the first time I ever saw him in person. Nader was speaking at The Joseph-Beth Bookstore in the South Side of Pittsburgh at 3 PM, and he was scheduled to speak to a larger crowd at Point Park University at 6 that evening.

Upon my arrival at the bookstore, there were less than a dozen people awaiting Nader. I overheard one person say that he was currently upstairs talking to the local news. Then, at just around 10 minutes after 3, Ralph was seen coming down the escalator (Joseph-Beth Bookstore is fairly large). Shortly after being introduced by someone (possibly working with the Nader book tour), the crowd in attendance had reached new heights, somewhere between 40 and 50. Most of the seats were filled and a crowd had even assembled behind the rows of seats, standing at attention as Ralph spoke.

Ralph discussed his new book, calling it a "practical utopia," a phrase that's been noted by writers that have either reviewed or merely described the book already in recent publications (I.E. The Nation Magazine), but he went further by saying "if you want to get more esoteric, it's the art of speculation." The book, "Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us" is not quite a novel, but is said to read like one, telling the story of 17, very real, Super-Rich individuals (Warren Buffett, Ted Turner to name a few) who join forces (financially & politically) to bring about radical change in America. Nader explains that as readers, we need to be excited while reading his new book. He talks of the "emulative factor" in regards to the concept that "money raises money." To clarify, he cited a story involving Ted Turner that actually occurred over a decade ago when Turner pledged to donate 1 billion dollars to United Nations causes. Nader, who has interacted with Turner since then, asked Mr. Turner an important question: What kind of money was raised as a result of his enormous donation? The answer: over 500 million dollars.

The 17, Super-Rich individuals are not random selections. They are all contributors toward what Nader calls "soft philanthropy." Each person has donated large amounts of cash to different foundations in the past. Jokingly, he says "none of these people are angels, that's why they were so successful." Nader's book aims to successfully transcend the practice of soft philanthropy into something that radically reforms the process of democratic achievements. He firmly believes that if 10 billionaires put a total of 1 billion dollars on the table, we would have Single Payer health care "pushed through by congress in 18 months." Furthermore, we would have a president who would "sign the bill," although he "won't push for it (Single Payer)."

Ralph Nader emits justice and democracy as much as he emits wisdom and a sense of experience. He's had first hand experience with the corrupt political system in America. He's paid the price for standing up for what's right, taking on the two-party system, battled to get on state ballots against tyrannical state governments run by Democrats, all the while sustaining objectivity as his one and only motive, one described by justice. He regrets the fact that there are 2,000 health care lobbyists blocking strong reform of the industry in Washington, D.C., juxtaposed with the complete absence of any Single Payer health care lobbyist in town. With 70 percent of the American population in favor of Single Payer (yet the system remains "off the table" in our congressional forums), Ralph is right when implying that we need to imagine more in order to change our minds about the potential for real reform and progress in society. Citizen groups with a mere 1 million dollar budget cannot compete with multi-billion dollar industries. Documentation of corporate crime, regardless of whether the crime impacts the environment or drains our 401K's, doesn't do the work our imaginations are capable of doing.

It's time we once again work the imaginations that we gradually left behind to enter the "real world." We can start by bringing more justice to those that oppress us and repress progress, but coin their blatant actions as "reform." We can vote outside of a two-party system that refuses us a health care system that works and leaves no one behind. We can punish via voting power all those representatives that insist the war in Afghanistan go on. We can improve this country by answering justice's beckoning call. Like Ralph so eloquently said in the bookstore on East Carson Street, "A country with more justice needs less charity."

The Error in our Protection

2009-10-10T10:39:00.001-07:00

We spend trillions of dollars on wars we can't afford, take money via tax from those who struggle to pay their bills, all to protect who? We fight wars abroad, failing to protect our citizens domestically. We don't protect their health, and we neglect to protect their financial future. We strip organizations like ACORN of meager federal funding, but increase our subsidization of rogue military and defense contractors like Xe (BlackWater), KBR, and Lockheed Martin, all of which have extremely dubious reputations, emphasized by multiple fines or in the case of Xe, charges of murder amongst its own ranks.
These are trying times for most of us, not all of us. 15 million Americans are now unemployed, and millions more are partially employed, struggling to make ends meet while their employer profits off of his or her part-time hours. This relationship between employer and employee existed long before our recent crisis. It is the same relationship acquiesced by local governments that allowed corporations like Wal-Mart to open up their giant warehouses in their jurisdiction while voiding tax responsiblity, allowing Wal-Mart to pose super-low prices to a customer-base that didn't know any better, nor could they comprehend the detrimental effects culminated by the loss in tax revenue. So, I ask you: who are we protecting?
The Senate Finance Committee has only yesterday approved the Baucus Health Care reform plan, an $829 billion proposal. Absent of any public option, the proposal will require almost all Americans to have insurance or pay a fine. Translation: Insurance companies have been handed millions of new customers under the fig leaf of "reform." In Ralph Nader's latest column "CBO Report On Medical Malpractice Flawed," Ralph points out that "about 100,000 Americans die every year from medical and hospital negligence or worse in hospitals alone." This fact has been ignored by the proponents of our health care reform. The subject would only add to the public's outrage, and take more from the coffers of the industry in order to lobby against real reform. Speaking about medical malpractice reform, Ralph goes on to say "If reform meant reducing deaths, illness and sickness from bad doctors and bad medicine, powerful commercial interests would have to behave and upgrade their services ranging from prevention to treatment." Senator Baucus, Senator Grassley: who are you protecting?
The Nation's (magazine) Christopher Hayes and Nomi Prins recently co-authored a piece entitled "Meet the Hazzards." In the piece, the two writers divulge the secret dealings between the government, the federal reserve, and the big banks and the financial sector that have gone unnoticed, or better yet, have been deliberately neglected by the major media sources in America. The 700 billion in TARP funds that most Americans have been aware of for nearly a year now are actually a measly 4% of the entire care package to the crooks on Wall Street. The full amount adds up to 17.5 trillion dollars via Capital Injections, Direct Loans, Indirect Loans, Guarantees, General Backing and Subsidization, Government Sponsored Entities, and Credit Expansions. Now, I can't even begin to explore those concepts or fathom the intentionally evasive titles, but Hayes and Prins are aware of our daily lives getting in the way of grasping the rogue craftsmanship of the crooks in the banking sector, and that's why they break it all down for us in simpler terms (See http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091012/prins_hayes).
The truth is, a lot of the distractions in our lives are put in place by those who want us to throw our reason into the abyss, to neglect our moral autonomy, and to believe in freedom at any cost, and under any condition. Robert Scheer has just this week affirmed that the reason the health care debate has taken place during a difficult economic time is so we're all distracted from focusing on what should be done about CitiGroup, Bank of America, AIG, and all of the banks we now own, but just like stockholders before the crisis, have no control over. Afterall, CitiGroup and its counterparts are the cause of most of our economic troubles. But, our government, our representatives and senators (most of which, anyway) do not want to admit this, and furthermore, do anything to prevent a future bailout. The possibility is all too serious, overwhelming, and frightening. The mistake was made when the Clinton administration pushed through the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, in affect repealing the Glass-Steagal Act of 1933, which protected the economy by separating commercial banks from investment banks. To the 535 men and women that supposedly represent us: who are you protecting?

An Introverted Society is a Doomed Society

2009-09-22T19:47:00.000-07:00

I do not take relish in stating that the United States is clearly an introverted society. I see this truth as one of our largest problems. It is the core of our political leaders obedience, loyal service, and cowardness to a bloated military industrial complex, for-profit health care (which leaves thousands of citizens alone to die every year), and globalization which results in an economy based mostly off of loan-sharking and consumerism.
The amendments being considered for the recent health care bill presented by the crypto-Republican, Democratic Senator Max Baucus and the clear-as-day Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, are mounting up, somewhere above 500. It has been several months since the planning of our so-called "health reform" got underway, resulting in a lot of impatient, frustrated, and doubtful citizens, even congressmen and women. The public option has been underminded, and therefore removed from the Baucus plan. The removal was forecasted by many of the shrewdest critics in our midst, and its replacement comes in the form of non-profit cooperatives.
Our society is shallow. We're constantly at arms length to cellular gadgets, updating our Twitter page, looking forward to a weekend full of nights at a corporate club, listening to corporate, commercial, radio music (as shallow as its listeners), and loyally, yet passively following a corporate media that helps the Pentagon plunge us into war after war. This media, a component to the corporate machine, also tells us who to vote for. We are on our knees for this creation. We implore it to hasten the return of the NFL season opener. We swallow its incessant advertising cycle, allow it to manipulate honest culture, and turn our women into submissive trophy wives, and our men into forever-frat-boys. We are obsessed with ourselves.
Our introversion is what has made it easy for those who want constant war and for war to profit, to turn a society that should be incredulous, to one that fails to question or study cultures abroad. That is why we fail to deeply see the wrong in the war in Afghanistan. Yes, a majority has spoken and can no longer see us being the victor in that region, but I won't labor under the delusion that our society deeply understands how unjust our actions have been. Afterall, a lot of people are happy again, its September, and that means football season has begun once more.
Republican Senator Chuck Grassley (Iowa) remarked on the public option yesterday, stating that "The American people have rejected that idea. They know it would lead to government deciding what doctor they can see, and what treatment they can have, just like we've seen in other countries with government systems. They ultimately have turned to government imposed rationing to control costs."
There are obviously a lot of myths surrounding the conditions and domestic morale regarding so-called government-run health care systems. For example, Canada has been maligned for having terribly long waiting periods, paying a lot more in taxes for health care, and having decisions be made by government beauracrats rather than patients and doctors, none of which is true (See http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427 for more details and myths exposed).
If our citizens and political leaders really want to advance democracy, and really get health care reform to materialize, we need more than our own domestic facts about non-domestic realities. Despite all the congressional hearings, committee gatherings and town hall meetings that took place over the summer, not one host or chairman had the brazen idea to bring in citizens, witnesses, and those who have experience with another system of health care. We could have had dozens of middle-age, venerable citizens of Canada travel at our expense, to one of many gatherings including private citizens and public officials, and discuss their experiences (good or bad) with the health care system in Canada. This idea did not come to mind. It is a reflection of our introversion, and a reflection of how mechanized our leadership has become. They do the bidding on behalf of corporate contributors, and we accept the toys and entertainment. It is now more necessary than ever to push our toys and distractions aside, vote with our conscience, and neglect the spectacles before us.

Sharing the Stage

2009-09-15T12:27:00.000-07:00

As an Alternative Hip-Hop artist, I've opened up for a number of well-received, international Hip-Hop musicians. It is very rare, though, that I land an opportunity like that which I'm about to share with you.

About 8 or 9 years ago, I subscribed to an indie Hip-Hop magazine called Elemental Magazine. I first came across it in a Borders Bookstore while perusing the magazine shelves. The circulation was a solid 20,000, with a good balance of album reviews, artist showcases, and culturally-related advertising. Two of my favorite sections in the magazine included a section devoted to sharing with the reader ("Things That Got Us Through The Month"), all of the random things people sent to the magazine office (I.E. a picture of someone's Grandmother sporting an Elemental Magazine t-shirt, toy hamburgers, you know, essentials for getting through the month).

The other section that I was really fond of gave a list of the employees latest and greatest, hip-hop songs and albums in heavy rotation. It was refreshing to read of the pseudo-forgotten, old skool hip-hop that some of the journalists were listening to at the time.

Elemental Magazine was a great, though short lived, indie Hip-Hop magazine. It is hard to find a lot of information on it anymore, but I'm pretty certain it folded about 3 or 4 years ago. Still, some past issues can be purchased at sites like UndergroundHipHop.com. If your feeling nostalgic and like to reminisce on a stronger period in Hip-Hop, musically, regardless of the strength being amidst the most avaricious Hip-Hop-industry period in its roughly, 35-year history, I highly recommend buying as many issues of Elemental Magazine as you can, and while you still can.

There are a myriad of Indie, Alternative Hip-Hop artists that owe much of their initial success to Elemental. One group I have in mind would have to be Mars ILL. From Atlanta, Georgia, Mars ILL is an Alternative, most would even say 'Christian,' Hip-Hop duo (MC - Manchild and DJ/Producer - Dust) that hit the scene in 2000 with their first LP, "Raw Materials." I was exposed to their existence through the advertisement they had in an Elemental issue sometime after its ("Raw Materials") release (as much as a year after), promoting its re-release as the result of a robust buzz. The ad listed their webpage on MP3.com, which was the Soundclick of its day. I was instantly hooked to their sound.

Since "Raw Materials," Mars ILL has released an EP on Ill Boogie Records, as part of the EarPlug series which had a number of volumes and was fairly popular in the indie-scene through the first half of this decade, and two LP's on Gotee Records that garnered critical acclaim and furthered their fan base. And, as is common amongst artists who hit the road routinely, for die hard fans, they've released various live CD-R's, and rare compilations of songs, originally not intended for release.

I've followed these guys for almost a decade now, and they've genuinely helped me grow as an artist and as a person. They are amongst my most notable influences in music, and that is why I'm honored and very excited to be opening up for Manchild of Mars ILL on Saturday, the 26th of September. The show will be held at The Shadow Lounge in Pittsburgh, PA, at 6 PM, for a $5 cover charge. Bring a friend, and bring an enthusiasm for live Hip-Hop that few can truly relate to nowadays. Support is really a four letter word.

By All Means Democracy

2009-09-12T08:32:00.001-07:00

In August, a few days before my wedding, I was talking to my cousin-in-law about the government's manipulation of the consumer-price-index to deliberately create a disconnect between inflation and the cost-of-living all across the country. He quickly responded with, "So you're one of those conspiracy theorists." I said that the fact was documented and "No, I'm not." The friendly joke quickly materialized into a discussion about the tragedy of 9/11. He assumed that since I was a so-called "conspiracy theorist," I must be one of those paranoid folks who, to this day, believe that George W Bush was behind the fall of the Twin Towers and the thousands of lives lost as a result of the terrorist hi-jacking of commercial planes. I most certainly am not, but I did inform my cousin-in-law that I do subscribe to Chalmers Johnson's use of the concept and term 'blowback.'

Chalmers Johnson used to receive a paycheck from the Central Intelligence Agency, and in his book "Nemesis," he discusses the term coined by the CIA. Basically, 'blowback' is the end result of the violence and atrocities committed against other countries by the U.S.'s secret government or intelligence agencies. 9/11 is America's most recent episode of 'blowback.' To my surprise, my cousin conceded to the idea that our government's foreign policy was the cause of the tragedy, mourned by millions for now, 8 years, just yesterday. But, his agreement begs the question I have for most Americans: Why do you vote-in a two-party system that continues to tout the idea that we were attacked because of our indoctrination of freedom? I also ask this of the majority of Americans: How many lives must be lost to console our pain for the friends and family that were murdered on 9/11? Does the death toll of our military in Afghanistan and Iraq (over 5,000 lives lost, circa July, '09) since the two wars were forced on the respective countries by the Pentagon and the military-industrial compex, make up for the 3,000 lives lost on 9/11, or do the hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties let us sleep at night?

Columnist, Robert Scheer, in his latest piece entitled "A 9/11 Reality Check," spoke of our unscrupulous and hastened move into both wars, recalling how "We, a people whose nation has never suffered a long and widespread occupation, easily gave vent to our most barbaric impulses, assuming the absolute right to arrest and torture anyone anywhere in the world without revealing his identity, let alone respecting a single one of those God-given rights that we claim for ourselves alone."

If we truly believe in freedom for all, or at least see our own freedom as the most important doctrine in our lives, we have to vote accordingly. We have to stop ignoring the most obvious tyranny, and quit making excuses for politicians who simply can't cut the mustard to keep the components of power at bay. We have to start getting upset over the repression of the needs of minorities amongst our population, looking beyond the typical discrimination against races and cultures, and see repression as an assault on political minorities, too. Without proportional representation, the largest ideologies will forever repeal one another's ideological accomplishments, leading this country into a derelict wasteland, ruled by celebrities and celebrity-politicians, forgetting that there is real work to finish, and real issues to mull.

Maintaining Our For-Profit Health Care System: The Real Disruption Against Progress

2009-09-09T14:11:00.000-07:00

For months now, the "debate" on health care has stirred up fears amongst both sides of the largest ideologies. Those who want a public option or at the very least, real reform of our health care system, are worried over the possibility of change not taking place. Those who claim to like the current system the way it is, fear the word socialism and the chance that it may find its way into our health care. Some are even so blinded by fears of socialized medicine that they shriek, "Keep your hands off my medicare" toward representatives at town meetings, unaware that their medicare, which they rightfully appreciate, is a social program and has been for over 40 years.

The clearest answer as to why these fears are so pervasive is simple yet, nothing new, and the fears become the mechanism that keep reform from occurring. Propagandists have touted socialized-medicine-fear-mongering since Harry Truman first tried to establish a national insurance program for adequate health-care for all, but the American Medical Association, joined by conservative Republicans and Democratic sympathizers, called the progam "Socialistic." Opponents continued this offense through the failure of Hillary Clinton's push for reform in the mid-90's. The goal of 'The Task Force on National Health Care Reform' was to provide universal health-care for all Americans. Propagandists and Republican opponents of the reform maligned it as heavily bureaucratic, and dismissive of patient choice, but a republican's concept of patient choice is tantamount to a citizen deciding if, or if not to go to their doctor or hospital. Our system today is devoid of patient choice, even doctor choice. HMO's are the decision makers, not the doctors and patients. A single payer health care system would remove this immoral, profit-motivated routine from the picture. Everyone would be in, and nobody would be out.

Our current president, Barack Obama, was originally interested in transcending our for-profit system into a single payer. In 2003, while speaking to the Illinois AFL-CIO, Obama stated "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House." Well, the Democrats have taken back all three, but Barack's position has been modified.

Since the debate over health care reform has begun (once again), the issue of 'why not single payer?' has come up, and Obama's position has been to lay out his belief in a single payer health care system from the foundation of a nation. If we "were just starting from scratch," single payer would be the right idea. The end result is a president, who once believed and stood for a single payer system, now laboring under the delusion that the single payer system would be "too disruptive." He has elaborated on the concept by stating, "A lot of people who currently have employer based health care would find themselves dropped and they would have to go into an entirely new system that has not been set up yet. I would be concerned about the potential disruptiveness of that kind of transition." One would think, logically, that a real concern would be the amount of jobs that would be lost by putting companies like Aetna, UnitedHealth, and other insurance giants out of business. Personally, I'm all for it. I do not see the pragmatism in keeping useless, self-serving industries alive while thousands die every year, and millions suffer, day after day, without adequate health care.

Real reform demands radicalism, otherwhise, the proponents of repression are given more than enough time to shift gears and come out on top. Furthermore, "radicalism" does not necessarily translate to "irresponsibility." Responsibly, the removal of for-profit companies from our hair would be a packaged deal with robust unemployment compensation for all workers, job-training, and of course, single payer health care. How is this "disruptive," when we have an insurance industry that is the direct cause of some 20,000 deaths a year, 50% of all bankruptcies, and is costing us billions more than comprehensive health care needs to? People are scrambling to make ends meet as insurance premiums continue to increase. Bureacracy is rampant in our current system because of the decisions surrounding whose claim is covered and whose is rejected, and we're afraid to cover everyone through one provider (the federal government, in other words, us), because of fear mongering that leads us to believe that the only alternative is a socialized alternative that precludes patient choice. The debate, or pseudo-debate, is what's really disruptive. It is disruptive of progress.

Another Industry in Pain

2009-09-01T19:40:00.000-07:00

Like most industries that, until recently, were known for their robust financial positions, the venture-capital industry is now in dire need of an atmosphere that is congenial to that of more than a decade ago, or at the very least, a short moment to put the red ink-pens away. In an era that will be remembered as the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930's, the venture-capital industry has behaved like just another domino amidst a domino effect. Signs of its decline sprung up as early as the fall of 2007, and shortly after, the industry made headlines when, for the first time in 30 years, not one venture-backed IPO (Initial Public Offering) hit the books after the second-quarter in 2008. The event has resulted in a sluggish industry, ostensibly inventing new strategies for public confidence through smaller investments, and at a time when the economy is effectively devoid of public confidence, the industry giants (who now look more like desperate hobbits) certainly have their hands full.
Despite the relatively minor role played by VC firms in the enormous financial industry, VC firms are the bread and butter in the economy of Silicon Valley. Multi-billion dollar companies like Yahoo, Ebay, and Google owe much of their success to the start-up capital they received from firms in the region. But, like the banks that were bailed-out by us--the taxpayers--venture-capitalist firms are either buying up one another, or joining forces, while keeping their respective names. The question that arises now is, whether this is merely an innocent reduction in size, or an all-out, subversive concentration of industry-power.

Works Cited:

Silicon Valley "Venture Capital Industry Sees Glimmers of Hope...." http://www.siliconvalley.com/personaltech/ci_13061296

The NY Times "Falling Valuations: Poison for Venture Capital" http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/falling-valuations-poison-for-the-venture-capital-industry/

Voting In Vain

2009-08-26T08:51:00.000-07:00

America's voting record is a disgrace to the definition of liberty. The more we vote in entrenched power, the less freedoms we will have within our grasp. The majority of Americans are voting in vain. It is not the independent voter that votes in vain, it is the person who buys into the two-party system. It is also the person who doesn't buy into the system, who is upset with the democratic and/or republican party, but votes for either party, regardless. These are votes in vain of liberty, of freedom, and of justice. Our forefathers can attest to this fact. Our forebears, however, are as culpable as ourselves, blindly passing down passive traditions of voting with rationale, rather than conscience, believing instead of thinking, trusting instead of questioning. It is a sad path that has led to times when voter turn-out for trivial talent shows like, "American Idol" are competing with the turn-out for presidential elections. We fear to challenge the system. If you believe your impacting and affecting the political discourse by supporting those who merely question the status quo when it is convenient and conducive to the election cycle, you are wrong. We are not going to force the elite into submission by handing them the power, over and over again. The least, if not the most we can do, is vote the power out. Now, that's power in the hands of the people.

A Good Reason to Feel Duped

2009-05-11T14:10:00.001-07:00

I don't like Barack Obama. I infer that he is nothing more than your everyday-politician. How can I prove this? How can I assert such a feeling for the beloved demagogue of our country? Give me a few minutes and I'll "amplify" my answer (a word that many politicians love to use, rather than "clarify").

The following deliberations are contradictions based off of campaign claims, and post-victory realities:

Obama claimed he'd close Guantanamo Bay, the infamous center for terrorist detainees. Unfortunately, it remains obvious that the claim was nothing more than a political move, because despite the probability that he'll hold true to the statement, the claim had nothing to do with moral fiber, and everything to do with politics, and the democrats easy altenative to question the status quo, and challenge the republican party when people were paying attention. Yet, people aren't paying attention enough. What about Bagram in Afghanistan, and the other abusive centers for detainees denied habeas corpus. And how pathetic and illuminating of the fact that the political move, was of course, unscrupulous, as we see the administration desperate for the help of other countries (i.e. Austrailia) in holding the unproven criminals "accountable," and given a place to stay, while they wait on their day in court. As of last week, the administration is even re-considering their suspension of the Military Commissions Act, which, from what I've read, counteracts every military-related stance Obama won the election with. It's tantamount to having George W Bush still in office. And while Barack claims that Americans do not torture, he failed to ban the CIA's policy of "Extraordinary Rendition," upon taking office. The policy is the wonderfully liberal permission that gives the CIA and its operatives the ability and authority to take detainees into other countries to be wrongfully tortured, and ineffectively interrogated.
There is no question that one of the reasons that Obama won the election was because of his, ostensibly, "Anti-War" position. He did, in fact, run on the agenda of re-focusing our forces in Afghanistan, but incontrovertibly, he told America and the world that he'd end the occupation of Iraq. Again, unfortunately, military analysts are now saying that we'll need to keep 70,000 troops in Iraq for 15-20 years. Obama and George W might as well have a tea party to swap rhetoric tactics.
And speaking of being, "Anti-War," where the hell is the outrage over Obama's stance in regards to the Israel/Palestine conflict? The UN reported that around 1,400 Palestinians died in the recent conflict that broke out in late December and ended sometime in January. Less than two dozen Israelis died as a result of their own military reactionism. To quote the great, Noam Chomsky, Obama has taken, "approximately, Bush's position." How can our leaders take such a position that asks the victims of a conflict to "recognize Israel's right to exist, and denounce violence?" I am deeply concerned by the continued isolation of dissidence. Do the people around me really have zero guts? Where is the outrage and the questioning of the administration's motives by the people who voted it in? Are they embarrassed, or apathetic? Was the change, so many were promised, only supposed to extend to the main man in office, and not to the policies that needed to? One of the few kudos his administration does deserve is the review of some of the Justice Department's, domestic, "injustices." Eric Holder seems on the right path. Still, Obama seems to be recognizing the excellent work of some of the democratic party's finest, like Maxine Waters from CA, instead of acknowledging the problems on his own. Most notably, the mandatory, 5-year sentence for possession of 5 grams of crack, aligned with the 5-year sentence for 500 grams of cocaine, is currently being reviewed with a strong call for change. The current sentencing disparity results in a disproportionate percentage of blacks in jail for non-violent crimes, or crimes they should be granted amnesty for, and like Ralph Nader has said, rehabilitation, not incarceration.
And what about that old thing called, "health care," or even more exciting, "health care reform?" Is it possible to really see any when every summit on the issue has a 15 or more panel exhausted with for-profit, health care lobbyists, and obsequious acolytes for giant HMO's? About a week ago, protesters belonging to the group, Single Payer Action, quietly attended one of these summits and respectfully questioned the panel and hosts, saying something to the effect of, "There are 15 people on this panel and not one of them is for Single Payer health Care. Why is that?" It hasn't been that long since the bill HR676 (for Single Payer Health Care, advocated by John Conyers, Jr. - D-MI, and Dennis Kuccinich - D-OH) was introduced to congress, but it has taken even less time for the majority of congress, and damn near all of the major media outlets to ignore its existence, let alone its importance. Health Care reform? Not likely. The kind of reform we will most likely see will be dressed with small, ineffective changes, that occur over a long enough time so that the people who repress real change, can re-position themselves and avoid vulnerability. There is no doubt that the HMO's have the clout.
Well, it's been real, but I have to "change" out these clothes, and wash all the Barack-Obama-filth off of me before his incessant double-speak ruins my dinner. Maybe I'll go out and grab a newspaper in efforts to save the industry, and I won't be bombarded with a USA Today survey asking if I think Michelle Obama goes sleeveless too often. You never can tell these days...

Reality In The Economy

2009-04-02T21:29:00.000-07:00

I work for a people company. We buy cheaper office supplies when enduring a struggling economy. Whatever it takes to keep a colleague on the payroll, we do it. That's what I was told. What I was shown was a much different reality, although, not much different from that of other companies across the great states. Millions of jobs lost since the recession, and it's now hit "my base."
Unlike the venerable, single woman that lost her job last Thursday, where I work, I'm granted a degree of impunity. My position is tantamount to that of the guy in the movie "Rudy," that says, "Of course, I made the team. I'm like a legacy at Notre Dame," or something to that effect. You see, my father is a well respected, legend in his workplace. His efforts through the years have been the fertile soil for endless bureaucracies. I am very grateful for the life he provided for not only me, but also my family. For that, my father is like a lot of men. And like a lot of men and women, he's lost years of savings through the greed so easily approved of via the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act, circa 1933.
Of course, there are a number of other reasons as to why we are all in this situation now. And we all are, as long as we exclude the exceptionally included, disproportionately taken care of, and politely interrogated. Some of us have made poor financial decisions. Others were victims of loan sharks and insatiable, predatory lending. Some of us spent more money than we made, foolishly. Others are paying off debt, responsibly, while watching their credit limits dwindle. All of us are pissed. But, some are not pissed enough. My guess is, those who remain largely apathetic, figure there's nothing they can do about it. And as the high-end emissaries of the G20 summit ignore the protests in London, I almost can't blame one for their lack of civic spirit. But, that's not going to stop me. I'd rather die young from high blood pressure and stress, than allow the avarice of so many endure, ceaselessly, infecting future generations.
These leaders are stealing from generations they'll never face, keeping consistent with the financial worlds' concern for short-term gains, at the expense of long-term necessities. Isn't it time we invested in a better society, instead of trying to make a buck off the source of that improvement? Education & Health Care should be paid for via tax, whether directly through deductions on earned income, or tax on non-necessities. (See Bill HR-676 for a Single-Payer Health Care System)
But, as it stands, if you can afford it, you've got yourself health care. And as long as you pay more taxes than Tom Daschle, you've got yourself an education for a brief, ineffectual period of time. Honestly, you need at least a bachelor's degree to land a job that you're probably not even in interested in. And if your blessed at an early age with the gift of foresight, you'll need a master's degree to actually do what you desire. All of these factors to consider, yet the paradigm of free enterprise dictates our conditions, and decides our chances. This reality is a perversion; a complete and utter opposite of the terms fair, equal, and equitable.
As a result of this "survival of the fittest" approach, our elders are left behind to starve. Men and women old enough to be my parents are granted less impunity and protection than someone my age just because of a trite document that touts a college graduate's qualifications. It's not an issue that involves seriously specific studies and extremely dedicated individuals. I respect those who've worked their butts off to claim their keep in society. But the absurd pretension among the rest is forcing out hard working people who deserve better from our government, our neighbors, and the business world.
The business world needs to stop trapping individuals in their occupation by endorsing the idea, whether true or false, that his or her college degree helped them land the job. Albeit, it did. But, when graduating with a degree that fails to relate or identify at all with the line of work, the business world is encouraging false worth, and dissuading workers from searching out jobs they truly bought an education for.
The education system is culpable, too. Too many young adults attend colleges and universities, believing in the pretense that jobs are available. Evidently, the ratio encompassing offered degrees to available jobs is described by a great disparity. Ask a recent college graduate if you doubt the statement. Give them a few months, and they'll doubt the system. That is why for-profit colleges and universities should be transformed into non-profit colleges and universities, for the purpose of a much needed investment in our society's future. Real opportunities and vacancies should augment or decrease the allowed attendance to a particular study. Or, if ran freely, faculty, teachers, and everyone in between should be candid with students in regards to the opportunities in their chosen field. Fantasies result in disappointment. And so do honest beliefs, backed by hard work, when government fails to do it's job, and let's the free market down size the work force while companies obtain more power in their respective markets. Isn't it time we freed ourselves, instead of letting the market be our master?

Sending the Pink Slip

2009-02-08T15:08:00.000-08:00

I've recently begun working with the consumer advocacy organization, Public Citizen, and I've experienced a sense of involvement like never before. The group or organization was founded in 1971 by none other than my civic hero, Ralph Nader. For decades they've worked to improve the civic life of Americans through assiduous, aggressive, and uncompromising attention and awareness placed on the table of our representatives who thought we all were looking the other way. Sadly, a lot of us are. But, I've found a team; a network that allows me to get involved after I come home from my 10-hour grind. Of course, I'm not paid, I'm merely a concerned activist who is fortunate enough to be kept up to date throughout the week on the latest legislation, amendment, or public concern that I may be of service to.
Last week, Public Citizen informed us of the millions of dollars Bank of America had spent on sponsoring, all the while, advertising during the Super Bowl "festival." The millions were of course, (if you've been paying attention) part of the $45 billion the company recently received as a recipient of the, all too upsetting, financial bailout. Like their financial comrades, Bank of America has done nothing to establish once again the flow of credit for Americans in desperate need. Public Citizen wrote a long letter to the attention of the CEO of Bank of America; one of indignation, dissatisfaction, and distrust. I was allowed to personalize my signature, colored by my own, personal comments. The following is my letter to the CEO of Bank of America:

As a Bank of America card holder, I hope you and your
company take mine, and Public Citizens' concern seriously.
You are not alone in your squandering. I have no doubt
you are aware of the many other companies currently being
criticized for their obvious irresponsibility in regards
to taxpayer dollars. Advertising campaigns are the last
thing American citizens opted into paying for, but to say
they opted in would be a pretense of immense proportions.
As a debt free card holder, I can speak of responsibility.
I've owned up to my obligation. It's time for Bank of
America to do the same, and use the billions they received
for the purpose of ensuring long-term success through
deep-rooted, systemic changes that won't result in another
bail out by the American people that you and your financial
comrades have thoroughly disappointed.

- Derek Postlewaite 2/4/09

The Conflict As Of Now

2009-01-12T17:13:00.001-08:00

George W Bush is a few short days away from his last one in office, and if I had my way, I'd have him take his overly compliant media with him. Both Bush and the major media have walked over our evening free time catching up on the latest news dealing with the Gaza/Israel conflict wearing shoes covered in bull shit that smell like an immoral pretense. It is absurd to believe that Hamas is the agressor when the Gaza death toll is nearing a thousand, and the Israeli death toll includes "friendly fire," yet hasn't even reached twenty victims. Does Hamas have terrible aim? Why does Bush pretend that a ceasefire is contingent upon a Hamas concedence when Israel has bombed a school full of women and children? And the media continues to make statements, and I dare to paraphrase, in a manner like the following: "Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel, and the death toll in Gaza has reached 800." Much like the rhetorical, baby-talk we were subject to earlier in Bush's disgraceful 8 years in office, today's propaganda describing Hamas and Palestine as the aggressors, is overall (relative to major media forces) receiving zinch in terms of criticism.

Dead Man Voting

2008-10-05T14:44:00.000-07:00

The 2008 presidential election is less than a month away and the majority of the country's support is split between two candidates; candidates who represent political parties that have thrived off the idea that together, they are the only choice. They also rely on personal differences and beliefs which wield (not always in their favor) the concept that one must vote for the lesser of two evils. These notions, along with a strong hand over media coverage through financial influence, if not control, supplant in the brains of American citizens, the dog-like consent of a Two-Party system.
Beyond this way of thinking, reality sets in, and only at the cost of stepping outside the 'tube's,' 'zombie-zone,' and into the communities, lives and painful paths of your ordinary, but underpaid, American citizens. Once you travel sympathetically to this depth, and once you reflect on the past and rediscover the true meaning behind words laid down by our forefathers (words important to the world and any democracy in existence), you reevaluate your position, and you are no longer a political slave. You realize that you can make a choice just like political leaders do when they declare independence from a party and its political philosophy or declare constituency with a party outside the rule of the Two-Party system.
Recently, a friend and I were discussing our support for candidates; he for Barack Obama, I for Ralph Nader. The issue I have with his support for Obama does not lie in the positions that Barack Obama holds (although, I disagree with his political focuses), but rather in my friend's reasoning for support; to prevent John McCain from winning. Now, I'm sure my friend, along with the many other people who will vote this November with that sort of prevention in mind, have a number of beliefs, positions and emotional cue-cards that have led them to pick Barack Obama as their choice for president, but voting to keep out someone you like 'less' is about as effective as 'not voting.' My friend admits, he likes Ralph Nader, but disregards his campaign by calling it a 'joke.' To humorize this remark, which I find is extremely naive, I've decided to avail a tactic currently in full use amongst the political, 'Esquire'-like journalists. I'm publicizing the support for a presidential candidate owned by a celebrity. The only difference between my approach and that which is used by a myriad of lazy, ignorant, half-wit journalists is, I'm going to have a dead man endorse Ralph Nader. His name is (or was) George Carlin. I think he's perfect. Of course, his body is no longer with us, but his mind is still at work, affecting the thoughts and beliefs of everyone that comes across his comedy hours on 'Youtube' or 'HBO.' He was 'too dirty' for Comedy Central, and way too racy for ABC, CBS & NBC. After all, they are some of the biggest corporations owned by corporations that play the largest part in securing the concept of, yet again, a Two-Party system. They had no interest in having George Carlin on just like they have no interest in inviting Ralph Nader to the table today. I'm a financial supporter of PBS, but maybe if some of the 'old-timers' who sit in their $1,000 executive chairs all day and sleep on their fancy office couches at night would go home to 'plow the fields with Ol' Betsy for the first time in 30 years,' they'd return to PBS headquarters in the morning and demand that all PBS stations air Carlin's, "Dirty Words" piece at 9 PM that night. I know I sound frivolous, but what really is inappropriate? Are we to determine what is or is not allowed to cross our eyes and minds through the measuring stick of the FCC and furthermore, ABC, CBS, & NBC? Why would George Carlin have been inappropriate, but CSI Miami, not? Why are the thoughts of 3 million Americans who voted for Ralph Nader invalid, and the indecision of millions more who dare not conclude their candidate of choice until the very end, not at all analyzed?
Since the beginning of 2008, political analysts from all over the country have inadvertently shaped the thoughts and opinions that millions of Americans have of the major candidates. It's through their explicit accounts of what people from either side of the political 'turf' are focused on that they have been able to stabilize the waffling and until then, undecided voter.
Ralph Nader has proclaimed this analyzing, "a waste of time." Indeed, it is a grotesque waste of time that has illuminated the fact that politics is a game, and one where the victor must master the personal attributes that most satisfy the average voter, rather than practice honest politics, and rely on an average voter to remain engaged, aware, and routinely informed through more than just the entire race, but treats politics as a way of life. George Carlin was one of these people. He spoke about socio-politics tirelessly throughout his routines. There was never any fear in his voice, and his audiences applauded as if he was right more times than not. In many ways, his tenacity reminds me of that which is still found in Ralph Nader. Now, you wouldn't hear Ralph bashing seemingly gluttonous individuals like Carlin did, but in many ways, the two dare walk the same precarious path; one which risks the potential of being called 'down-right nuts,' all because the greater cause merits such a pace and color of determination. This is why I've chosen to assert that George Carlin would vote for Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez this November. If only he had lived to make his mark, so to speak. In actuality, he did make his mark, and that's why he's a dead man, voting.

Vote Nader/Gonzalez 2008

2008-10-03T06:25:00.000-07:00

Anyone voting for Ralph Nader this November? For those who think Ralph Nader is washed up and "steals votes from the Democrats," you need to do more research. Ralph Nader will be on the ballot in 45 states this election and some of the major polls are indicative of the fact that his candidacy pulls in more votes from citizens who would otherwise vote Republican. The old myths are a lie and are the real entity that is "tired," not Ralph Nader. Those who stand with Barack Obama stand with the same consent for corporate power as our current executive administration aligns itself with, and the same foreign policy the Clinton administration availed. That is not change. Voting for 'the lesser of two evils' is a distraction from the reality that there is more choice than the major media is forced to marginalize. Ralph Nader is the only full non-discriminatory candidate in the race. John McCain stands by his beliefs and for that he is a bigot. Barack Obama stands by what he thinks is right and fair, and for that he is a compromiser and also a bigot. Neither one of them supports gay marriage. John McCain is against it; Barack Obama is for civil unions. Both are despicable stances. In 2008, we are still fighting to turn this country into what it claims are its greatest attributes - a land of freedom, a land of liberty, and a land of equality.

We will not see this with the election of either candidates from the 'two-party system.
'

Shopping Cart Chaos

2008-09-12T10:09:00.000-07:00

Today, one look at your local Wal-Mart parking lot will tell you shopping carts don't get the respect they used to. Invented by Sylvan Goldman, the extremely efficient grocery-holders have played a part in all our lives. From our early childhood experiences in 'Gabriel Brothers,' when we slept in the body of the cart, shielding our eyes from the towering overhead lights with the jacket we wore in, to our first visit to the grocery store grasping the fact that the 'tab was on us,' they've helped us carry home breakfast, lunch and dinner several times over, one day at a time.
It wasn't always as easy as it is today to hoard food. Shopping bags are the precursor to the magnificent cart, and they were'nt even widely used until 1915, thanks to the inventive mind of Walter H. Deubner. Before this breakthrough, dinnertime was at the mercy of one's willingness to shovel canned foods and dry products into their chest like they were digging a hole in the shelf in aisle-3. But, when everyone looks foolish, no one looks strange.
And no one looks strange deliberately missing the shopping cart stables conveniently built every 8-12 parking spots in your medium-large parking lot, simply because no one does this if aware they are being watched. This laziness is brought out and indulged upon when there's nobody in sight and all your bags are in your car, and you've even taken the time to start your vehicle and make a run for it!
We've all probably been this person on one of our 'bad days,' but others have chosen to do this with unyielding perpetuation and decided at one point that it's really nothing to be ashamed of, and feel they are entitled to acting on this inconsiderate, behavioral impulse. Let's take a moment to examine the negative possibilities that present themselves when our grocery, retail, and convenience-conglomerate stores are filled with this unsightly chaos.
For one, nobody should have to play bumper cars with a shopping cart to find the right fit in a parking spot. Second, no one should have to lose financial value in their vehicle because a wicked storm sent a cart straight into the driver-side door. Thirdly, (and the last event I'm willing to depict) employees of the store you shop at work for the owner(s) of the store. They are there to service you and take care of all reasonable needs, but chasing after loose carts does not fall into any such category. For further elaboration, if you work in an office, do you throw things around your wastebasket and expect the janitor to clean up what you tossed on the floor? I highly doubt that is the case. To live in a respectful world, you have to live with respect for others and the duties those individuals must 'carry-out' (no pun intended) on a day to day basis. By keeping this in mind and taking these small steps, your doing, not only society, but yourself, a favor.