tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45891977425215482522024-02-06T22:24:25.144-08:00The Progressive Pacific MessageMichael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-193794939708376922018-07-25T16:37:00.001-07:002018-07-25T22:33:03.027-07:00No, it is not a war but rather a tax onthe more-perfect-Union's working class<a href="http://time.com/4386335/donald-trump-trade-speech-transcript/" style="color: #23607f; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif; font-size: 20px;">"Our original Constitution did not even have an income tax. Instead, it had tariffs." <i>- Donald Trump in a speech in Monessen, PA, June 28, 2016</i></a>
<br />
<hr align="left" noshade="noshade" style="color: #23607f; width: 100%;" />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkObLZG-ruT78GkhpNX_Gpa1rNVWBXh7HLrb_aRHH16JLxTsBwfiBtGNh5zLMXxgGukdUdMcIT5RDL-NwRpguLsBz24jccojQYBbUkYVIlLKDpAtI5K-zT7LzVf3g98H8GBq21Iz7gLJsq/s1600/Walmart-shoppert.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="519" data-original-width="692" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkObLZG-ruT78GkhpNX_Gpa1rNVWBXh7HLrb_aRHH16JLxTsBwfiBtGNh5zLMXxgGukdUdMcIT5RDL-NwRpguLsBz24jccojQYBbUkYVIlLKDpAtI5K-zT7LzVf3g98H8GBq21Iz7gLJsq/s1600/Walmart-shoppert.jpg" /></a></div>
When that above-described average Walmart-shopping 51-year-old female with an annual household income of $56,482 voted for Donald Trump in 2016, she voted to reduce the share of progressive federal income taxes collected from the rich.<br />
<br />
Having heard Trump's June 28, 2016 speech in Monessen, PA, she apparently planned to pay to help offset the federal government's revenue loss through regressive taxes on consumers like her family. The regressive taxes are <i>tariffs</i>.<br />
<br />
This post is about such taxes fully understanding that, as noted in the "welcome post" of this blog, we Progressives allowed <a href="https://progressivepacific.blogspot.com/2018/01/welcome-to-pacific-progressive-message.html#70" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">the 70-year systematic destruction of American Progressivism</a>.
<span style="font-size: 8px;"><br /> </span>
<br />
<center>
<h3>
Progressive Tax Structure
</h3>
</center>
<br />
As previously noted in <a href="https://progressivepacific.blogspot.com/search/label/progressive%20tax%20structure" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">these posts</a>, consistent with the goal to create equitable communities within an equitable world, “Progressives” focus on using using a "progressive tax structure" to fund government activities.<br />
<br />
On the internet, one can see two definitions of the term "progressive tax" that are subtly different. The <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/progressivetax.asp" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Investopedia definition</a> is the correct definition by which one can determine if the structure of a tax is progressive:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
A <b>progressive tax</b> is a tax that imposes a lower tax rate on low-income earners compared to those with a higher income, making it based on the taxpayer's ability to pay. That means it takes a larger percentage from high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals.
</span></blockquote>
The definition offered by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a> is as complex to understand as the federal income tax code. Its first sentence in italics is misleading which could lead to an incorrect determination that a tax structure is progressive:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<i>A <b>progressive tax</b> is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases.</i> The term "progressive" refers to the way the tax rate progresses from low to high, with the result that a taxpayer's average tax rate is less than the person's marginal tax rate. The term can be applied to individual taxes or to a tax system as a whole; a year, multi-year, or lifetime. Progressive taxes are imposed in an attempt to reduce the tax incidence of people with a lower ability to pay, as such taxes shift the incidence increasingly to those with a higher ability-to-pay. The opposite of a progressive tax is a regressive tax, where the relative tax rate or burden decreases as an individual's ability to pay increases.
</span></blockquote>
More specifically, the Progressive Pacific defines a progressive tax structure as one that, without exception, takes a larger percentage of a person's income from high-income persons than it does from low-income persons in a graduated manner when calculated at increasing income levels. In this context "person" means both "natural persons" and "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">corporate persons</a>."<br />
<br />
The problem with the Wikipedia definition above is the use of the term "taxable amount" as the manipulation of the "taxable amount" can turn what appears to be a progressive tax structure into a regressive tax structure. Consider this table:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkcNCeHZKMX7iTCEk3QNyWwt98n0bX-JEGXOB849NQSep1Di2f1v2VpWA-WCgLCpv8Y4ZJMJb-xkK8qcU-HuPXmUpawwcbde9eNZYpqWeU42HnFDfDoNY1hV9k6tqD-mofUvU0-zeSLzjU/s1600/taxable-amount-effect.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1000" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkcNCeHZKMX7iTCEk3QNyWwt98n0bX-JEGXOB849NQSep1Di2f1v2VpWA-WCgLCpv8Y4ZJMJb-xkK8qcU-HuPXmUpawwcbde9eNZYpqWeU42HnFDfDoNY1hV9k6tqD-mofUvU0-zeSLzjU/s640/taxable-amount-effect.jpg" width="396" /></a></div>
The tax rate appears to increase as the "taxable amount" increases. But is it really a "progressive tax?" No, because the "taxable amount" is the first $35,000 earned. Earnings above that are not taxed. So the actual tax rate on total income paid by the person begins to drop if they make more that $35,000. Thus the person making $200,000 is taxed less than 1% of their income while the person who made $35,000 is taxed 5.57% of income. It is a <i>regressive</i> tax structure.<br />
<br />
Social Security payroll taxes are similar except the rate doesn't increase. It is a flat rate collected on income up to a certain amount. It actually is a <i>regressive</i> tax structure. The federal income tax when combined with the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes as collected in 2017 from wage earners was progressive in total. When considered together with persons whose income derives from different types of sources such as dividends and capital gains, that progressiveness becomes fuzzy.<br />
<br />
Again, a progressive tax structure is one that without exception takes a larger percentage of a
person's income from high-income persons than it does from low-income
persons in a graduated manner when calculated at increasing income
levels. One cannot simply assume that because the tax rate increases as the <i>taxable amount</i> increases it must be a progressive tax structure because defining what income is taxable can be manipulated.
<span style="font-size: 8px;"><br /> </span>
<br />
<center>
<h3>
A Tariff is a Tax on Consumers
</h3>
</center>
<br />
A "tariff" is a <b><i>tax</i></b> on what you buy, not a <b><i>war</i></b> against China, Japan, Mexico, Canada, the European Union, and other countries. The use of the word "tariff" is a good way to hide a tax.<br />
<br />
When a 25% tariff is collected on a product entering the country, that increases the wholesale price by 25%. Importers pay U.S. import tariffs to the federal government and the cost is passed on through the wholesaler and retailer.<br />
<br />
To borrow some language from the Tax Foundation, tariffs are in a class of taxes "included in the final price of products and services, and are often hidden to consumers." But one doesn't have to take the word of untrustworthy experts on such things or some "fake" news source.<br />
<br />
It was two years ago this month that Trump started bantering around the phrase "trade war" in a <a href="http://time.com/4386335/donald-trump-trade-speech-transcript/" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">speech</a> in Monessen, Pennsylvania, in 2016. There he threatened Canada, China and Mexico. And it was there that he made it clear he intended to use taxes Americans would pay in order to benefit select American businesses stating: "Our original Constitution did not even have an income tax. Instead, it had tariffs emphasizing taxation of foreign, not domestic, production."<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJcTeH_FkgFYKs0bgK57YAJ2Fb0YRkaLfCBc_fG-E4wk2dnWurfx-ipVKnvWlygfGusJj3q0oGtGlT5R93gdSFmTk7Bdv0sr02hoJyM7ipn0oBEKjLUF8wvUBKq3oFSqSSatzKlX5namc/s1600/import_tax-apple.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="161" data-original-width="290" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJcTeH_FkgFYKs0bgK57YAJ2Fb0YRkaLfCBc_fG-E4wk2dnWurfx-ipVKnvWlygfGusJj3q0oGtGlT5R93gdSFmTk7Bdv0sr02hoJyM7ipn0oBEKjLUF8wvUBKq3oFSqSSatzKlX5namc/s1600/import_tax-apple.jpg" /></a>
The problem with that, of course, is taxes (tariffs) on imports aren't taxes "foreign production", they tax domestic consumption - you the consumer absorbs the tax in the item cost. When a 20% tariff on imported goods is collected at the American port (not in the foreign country), the wholesale price of those goods is increased 20%. Now, perhaps the cost of Apple products depicted at the right might not be increased the full amount of the tariff as Apple's retail markup is extremely high and the corporation could afford to absorb some of that tariff cost.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfxT68411c3X1H8MhWEWYemTrHD9qovZGY8AfOOW39EpDPfVzVfmYf1H7EhiE34-Wx2LgxedrDmXAWUEm963WUdlYuzwqdIuyP5ag-oY7tnHsAUiGYxm0tUMcwksXhTiMRDumfmEVugx8/s1600/receipt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="500" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfxT68411c3X1H8MhWEWYemTrHD9qovZGY8AfOOW39EpDPfVzVfmYf1H7EhiE34-Wx2LgxedrDmXAWUEm963WUdlYuzwqdIuyP5ag-oY7tnHsAUiGYxm0tUMcwksXhTiMRDumfmEVugx8/s320/receipt.jpg" width="266" /></a></div>
But consider the hypothetical Walmart receipt depicted at the left above. In all likelihood a person buying clothes for their kids which would have cost $64.91 including sales tax, would cost an additional $9.48 because of tariffs which represents about a 15% tax paid to the Trump federal government. And that's also true of stores like Macy's and Costco.<br />
<br />
Of course, Costco members are considered wealthy, or "affluent", with only 15% just "getting by" or "poor." The average Costco member is college educated, owns a home and earns about $100,000 a year. On the other hand, the average Walmart shopper is not nearly as wealthy as indicated below...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-shopper-demographics-2016-10" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 2em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="554" data-original-width="844" height="420" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglsCmlNI-zCa5ZUDfhQ9QvSPG3j3-wm9CFKGHjvNotnTyO4U3LuIA-5U8gzIK9QZUQLJ5JMOdmHILptZQk_lMTyc3YEVGvrAKGiL4DNdzz9D1I3ZqH1vPOzerckoN-yGrF4MyBv_9s0ylm/s640/average-shopper.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
What may be <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/03/10/walmart-millennials/" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">more surprising</a> to home-owning, out-of-touch, older generations is that two thirds of American millennials, or adults between the ages of 20 and 35, shopped at a Walmart store in the last month and are more likely to shop at Walmart than the general population. They need bargains as they spend on diapers, then kids’ clothes, pay off student debt, and/or save money to buy a home.<br />
<br />
So when this headline appeared in Bloomberg News <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-07/trump-s-china-levy-threat-puts-walmart-nike-suppliers-on-notice" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Walmart, Nike Suppliers Put on Notice by China Tariff Threat</a> as the Trump Administration began to do exactly what Trump promised in Monessen, PA, on June 28, 2016, there is a good chance that the Walmart-shopping 51-year-old female with an annual household income of $56,482 voted for Trump in 2016 and dismissed the 2018 story as fake news. Why? Because of this:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/states-where-people-spend-the-most-at-walmart-2015-8" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="997" data-original-width="1448" height="440" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmnIWKBYsb8riOEAefmOP8LcLe3Z6VhNU6QmgNHoG5fMQKLHB3P5tbNjYmCXQPtXDN1TjLPpH8UaI-C7tbxCAvMUPgSUbcyHJ7f1roLVsMTC5pMo1wXjkAQ7kf04digzpMxN4ukysdN48N/s640/walmart-sales-map.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
It is certain that the tariffs generated by Donald Trumps actions will do significant harm to the economies of the red states. But they will also cause damage to the economies of the Progressive Pacific States.<br />
<br />
And it will be worse for those who find themselves in the lowest 80% of earners and/or who's net worth is in the lowest 90%. That is because taxes on goods are regressive taxes - those who earn less pay a higher percentage of their income for those taxes.<br />
<br />
Consider the Walmart receipt above. It indicates that $9.48 is being paid towards the tariffs. If the customer's monthly income is $9,480 ($113,760 per year, $54.69 per hour), the tax represents 0.1% of the monthly income. If the customer's monthly income is $1,896 ($22,752 per year, $10.94 per hour ), the tax represents 0.5% of the monthly income.<br />
<br />
Before the tariffs this wasn't a cost for the customer. It is a new cost, a tax increase. And for the low income customer $9.48 may represent two meals for his/her kids. That is simply unacceptable to a Progressive.<br />
<br />
The impacts of the tariffs have been calculated statistically, which means dry statistics:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://taxfoundation.org/tracker-economic-impact-tariffs/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="1011" data-original-width="473" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNOqZYARQVl2056XUXe9lvIaHN_zUyhM0f61t0v3AKnAW1OaDadjSb_t8tAse-SDsyvZKPefR3hMDUKBmpn8xCxXc5RM_2GFVBHVN8gJkJWlX0l_3AmnSxUjnayQewdRU49mzJRq__aQAx/s1600/tableswheader.png" /></a></div>
<br />
If you click on the table above it will take you to the source article at the Tax Foundation. As indicated in Table 4 above, they determined that the tariff
proposals would <i>produce <b>$145 billion</b> a year in additional tax revenue</i>
but would cost 364,786 full-time equivalent jobs in the economy.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://files.taxfoundation.org/20171220113959/TaxFoundation-SR241-TCJA-3.pdf" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">In a separate study</a>, the Tax Foundation determined that The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted by the Republicans would <i>reduce federal personal income tax (mostly for the wealthy) and corporate income tax revenue by $1.47 trillion over the next decade, or an average of $<b>147 billion</b> a year,</i> and add an additional 339,000 full-time equivalent jobs in the economy.<br />
<br />
Thus, the net effect of the tax policy described by Trump in the election will be to significantly lower taxes for corporations and the wealthy while offsetting the revenue loss with tariffs mostly passed on to the consumer, particularly impacting the Walmart shopper as indicated in the receipt above.
<span style="font-size: 8px;"><br /> </span>
<br />
<center>
<h3>
Marketplace Competition
</h3>
</center>
<br />
The expected side effect of the implementation of Trump tariffs has been tariffs levied on American exports in response by the other nations that Trump has impacted.<br />
<br />
Any person who doesn't see the marketplace as a game board would recognize this as competition. But Trump sees marketplace competition as "war." As noted in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a>: "<b>War</b> is a state of armed conflict between states, societies and informal groups, such as insurgents and militias. It is generally characterized by extreme aggression, destruction, and mortality, using regular or irregular military forces."<br />
<br />
Tariffs are not bombs or bullets reigning down terror, killing people. But the United States is so comfortable with "warfare" that people, particularly those that have never been in war, use warfare metaphors without grimacing.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately for Donald Trump, the Chinese noted his foolishness. In response to his "trade war" metaphors, they "targeted" their response to tariffs levied on American exports to goods that more drastically impact red states, states that voted for Trump.<br />
<br />
And so in this week's news from the Associated Press we see <a href="https://www.denverpost.com/2018/07/25/trump-aids-farmers-hurt-by-tariffs/" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Trump administration announces $12 billion in aid for farmers hurt by tariffs</a> explaining:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
The Trump administration announced Tuesday it will provide $12 billion in emergency relief to ease the pain of American farmers slammed by President Donald Trump’s escalating trade disputes with China and other countries.
<br /> The Agriculture Department said it would tap an existing program to provide billions in direct payments to farmers and ranchers hurt by foreign retaliation to Trump’s tariffs.
<br /> With congressional elections coming soon, the government action underscored administration concern about damage to U.S. farmers from Trump’s trade tariffs and the potential for losing House and Senate seats in the Midwest and elsewhere.
<br /> However, some farm-state Republicans quickly dismissed the plan, declaring that farmers want markets for their crops, not payoffs for lost sales and lower prices.
</span></blockquote>
And we are offered a story <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/07/25/farmers-like-me-put-trump-in-office-now-his-trade-war-is-smothering-us/?utm_term=.7472eb6f547f" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Farmers like me put Trump in office. Now his trade war is smothering us.</a> written by Kalena Bruce,CPA, a fifth generation Missouri rancher, who tells us:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
I am a farmer and a Trump supporter. I agree that China needs to be punished for stealing patented U.S. technology. But opening a new front in this trade war, while trying to reduce the blowback on farmers with a Great Depression-era transfer program, is not the right approach. It is the economic equivalent of treating a hangnail by cutting off your finger.
<br /> As Trump’s aid package tacitly admits, tariffs hit farmers especially hard. With farmers already facing economic head winds, including oversupply and drought, I predict that even with this aid, expanded tariffs would be the breaking point that puts some farmers out of business entirely. As the history of the Great Depression demonstrates, such federal and bureaucratic farm-support programs rarely compensate for the full burden of a trade war, while usually ushering in unintended consequences that distort the farm economy.
<br /> Farmers use a lot of steel, which Trump subjected to a 25 percent tariff in March. Combines, grain bins, fencing and cattle gating, which we are constantly upgrading and replacing, have become significantly more expensive as steel prices have jumped markedly because of the tariffs. This has taken a painful bite out of our already-slim profit margins.
<br /> Yet the most significant consequence of tariffs for farmers has been the inevitable tariff retaliation from trading partners, which reduces our export opportunities. For instance, China has targeted soybeans and hogs with steep retaliatory tariffs. These farm products are popular in China and fixtures on Midwest farms.
<br /> More than one-third of U.S. soybeans, the second-biggest crop in the nation, goes to China — about $12.4 billion worth. Since May, soybean prices have dipped about $2 per bushel to about $8.50 as export markets have dried up. For every dollar lower a bushel, farmers lose about 10 percent of their revenue.
<br /> Meanwhile, pork exports to China are down nearly 20 percent this year. China is an especially valuable market for pork farmers because it purchases the lower-value portions of the hogs, such as the tongue and ears, that are difficult to sell elsewhere. As a result of the limited export markets, meat is piling up in U.S. cold-storage warehouses. Since May, prices of lean hog futures have fallen by 14 percent.
</span></blockquote>
You can read about Bruce in <a href="https://www.missouriruralist.com/farm-policy/meet-kalena-bruce-american-farm-bureau-yfr-chair" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Meet Kalena Bruce: American Farm Bureau YF&R chair</a>.
And you can also read about her attempts at optimism in a local paper article <a href="https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/15/president-trump-trade-war-drought-missouri-farmers-bracing-future/781026002/" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Missouri farmers brace for President Trump's trade war</a>. However, that local article raises some big red flags for those of us in the Progressive Pacific:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
The Bruces are part of the fifth generation in a family that holds more than 3,000 acres of farmland near Stockton, where they've owned land since before the Civil War, according to Kalena.
<br /> Kalena has been an active figure advocating for rural life and conservative policies. She and her husband continue to support Trump despite anticipating a short-term squeeze.
</span></blockquote>
She is a conservative obviously enchanted with the idea of her ties to land that date back to the time when slavery was widespread and the area had just been ceded by the Osage Indians. She has a focused professional education and voted for Donald Trump. One has to wonder if her view includes something more than their wealth derived from their family being hard working European-Americans.<br />
<br />
Whatever her thoughts, she is an alien to a Progressive in California. She supported Trump despite his obvious misogyny. She still professes support for Trump though she is concerned his tariff policies. And despite her accounting background, she doesn't seem to offer any thoughts about the future increases in the cost of shopping to that average Walmart-shopping 51-year-old female with an annual household income of $56,482. And Missouri is among the top 10 states for Walmart based on per-capita sales<br />
<br />
At this point the residents of the Progressive Pacific states must find ways to effective cushion the impact of Trump's foolish tariffs. As noted in the post here <a href="https://progressivepacific.blogspot.com/2018/01/economics-matter-stupid-combating-bi.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Economics Matter, Stupid! Combating the Bi-Partisan Assault on the Enduring Economics of the Pacific States</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
In 2015 the <i>LA Times</i> ran an Infographic piece <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ports-imports-exports-20150218-htmlstory.html" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">West Coast ports: What comes in, what goes out and what it's worth</a> providing look at the volume and variety of both imports and exports at the 28 ports along the West Coast totaling over $630 billion in 2014, including smaller ones like Kalama, Washington (total 2014 trade $3.0 billion, top export Soybeans, top import Rolled iron and steel).</span></blockquote>
We cannot continue to allow the population East of the Transcontinental Divide to interfere in Pacific Rim trade economics.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div>
Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-5401416990065080732018-06-28T22:27:00.000-07:002018-07-23T22:40:03.982-07:00Why factually these United States is a more perfect Union, not a country, nation, or state<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbVNi3ETuHz73rxoUiwGTfWwLqHQF1Rqb2L7LVBfJXgL2FFaqchohAhvtj6KJibDhbgwevtf8GB5-Frrs_Htr-0ltKlz04aRG88FMDIcZ957_MnJaWVPT_hyphenhyphenV4iGwhAla-gWsqUMhyf4c/s1600/union-TITLE-695.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="695" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbVNi3ETuHz73rxoUiwGTfWwLqHQF1Rqb2L7LVBfJXgL2FFaqchohAhvtj6KJibDhbgwevtf8GB5-Frrs_Htr-0ltKlz04aRG88FMDIcZ957_MnJaWVPT_hyphenhyphenV4iGwhAla-gWsqUMhyf4c/s1600/union-TITLE-695.png" /></a></div>
One cannot understand the range of emotions experienced - and related opinions held - by Americans, without having an awareness of the world of the men we call the Founding Fathers of the United States. Particularly, we need to understand the language they spoke, the meaning of the words they used. Late 18th Century Colonial English might seem to resemble the language of 21st Century America, but it is not the same language. <br />
<br />
Political disinformation in the United States for 230 years has created confusion about certain words important to an understanding about what was new and different in the world after the Revolutionary War.<br />
<br />
Key to the confusion is the American jumbling together of words that once had truly different definitions and implications - country, nation, state, and union. <br />
<br />
For purposes of clarity and simplicity, <i>as used here</i> from this point on the following words have specific meanings based upon pre-17th Century concepts:<br />
<ul>
<li>"Country" means "any considerable territory demarcated by topographical conditions."</li>
<li>"Nation" means "any distinctive population with a common language, culture, and considerable history."</li>
<li>"State" means "a central civil government or authority that exercises the legitimate use of force within defined geographical boundaries."</li>
<li>"Union" means "a number of states or nations joined together for defined purposes to be accomplished by a separately created autonomous authority."</li>
</ul>
Using those definitions, the Cherokee Nation is a nation. Italy is a country and a state. Japan is a country, a state, and a nation. The United States of America is none of these. It is a union of states.
<span style="font-size: 8px;"><br /> </span>
<br />
<center>
<h3>
It's not a country - here's why</h3>
</center>
<br />
Again, "country" as will be used here means "any considerable territory demarcated by topographical conditions."<br />
<br />
As explained in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country#Etymology_and_usage" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px">
In English the word has increasingly become associated with political divisions, so that one sense, associated with the indefinite article – "a country" – through misuse and subsequent conflation is now a synonym for state, or a former sovereign state, in the sense of sovereign territory or "district, native land"....
<br />
The equivalent terms in French and other Romance languages (<i>pays</i> and variants) have not carried the process of being identified with political sovereign states as far as the English "country".... In many European countries the words are used for sub-divisions of the national territory, as in the German <i>Bundesländer</i>, as well as a less formal term for a sovereign state. France has very many "<i>pays</i>" that are officially recognised at some level, and are either natural regions, like the Pays de Bray, or reflect old political or economic entities, like the Pays de la Loire.
<br />
A version of "country" can be found in the modern French language as contrée, based on the word cuntrée in Old French, that is used similarly to the word "<i>pays</i>" to define non-state regions, but can also be used to describe a political state in some particular cases. The modern Italian<i> contrada</i> is a word with its meaning varying locally, but usually meaning a ward or similar small division of a town, or a village or hamlet in the countryside.
</span>
</blockquote>
<br />
For purposes of sharing an understanding of the political world as understood by our Founding Fathers, here is a map of Europe at the time of the creation of the United States of America:<br />
<br />
<img border="0" data-original-height="1245" data-original-width="1600" height="498" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnO47rQCMFNTd5X68gYoe9ugWNv6uhuwrldwnHrLphRT-XVBMXT-BsxvfbHBqf2AYnnuo9E-TbHWtlX-dbWX2PMPUdPwE9vE-bvUO9QKw25qachZVrmn7X4qbJzRaGeufBLlzjdG3ZQbM/s640/central-europe-1789.jpg" width="640" /><br />
<br />
Fundamentally, Europe was divided into constantly warring empires with shifting boundaries. While topographical conditions may have slowed some conquests, our concept of "country" did not set boundaries for kingdoms and empires which are "states" by our definitions. And that was an attitude that Europeans brought to the Americas and which has resulted in a blurring of the terms "country" and "state."<br />
<br />
As can be seen on the map below, North America is a large geographic area with significant topographical conditions:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #ffefbf; font-family: serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">
Click on image to see a larger version!
</span>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5czYZiF0FuVLqA2DisDt6oQ1qDzM4biG3GKgVdC9WaipV4akuSvj5ZJb3xhS-mq3NSzD0_F5xN5kbRPM9XlnWNYS4Fwnqnx21_CxRvdUFjNeKAFTRrF-_f-tT3XA5ES8s6RhVH5T7n4s/s1600/north_america_physical_map.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="962" data-original-width="1600" height="384" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5czYZiF0FuVLqA2DisDt6oQ1qDzM4biG3GKgVdC9WaipV4akuSvj5ZJb3xhS-mq3NSzD0_F5xN5kbRPM9XlnWNYS4Fwnqnx21_CxRvdUFjNeKAFTRrF-_f-tT3XA5ES8s6RhVH5T7n4s/s640/north_america_physical_map.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
If a people whose only mode of transportation on land is walking "discover" such a geographic area and through walking logically divide it into more than one division without intent, it is reasonable to assume that the dominate shape for divisions would most likely be in a north-to-south direction, more or less. And indeed, the result of an actual natural migration produced this map:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1JiJiXqf7hdjWz1XJNeEBBPbFerU3gTNieWkP11cktijD0G7i2J8-PdMp7Z43aHA57PPRUMCehCt3dD433hv9bVX9f-NwL8hM-9NHYkTBBcMMpIpduH21T0lwvuPpQE2MUdR8ZN5lYp8/s1600/linguistic3.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1350" data-original-width="1040" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1JiJiXqf7hdjWz1XJNeEBBPbFerU3gTNieWkP11cktijD0G7i2J8-PdMp7Z43aHA57PPRUMCehCt3dD433hv9bVX9f-NwL8hM-9NHYkTBBcMMpIpduH21T0lwvuPpQE2MUdR8ZN5lYp8/s640/linguistic3.jpg" width="493" /></a></div>
<br />
Further some predominantly English-speaking Europeans came along and, initially struggling just to survive, began to occupy a land bounded by topography:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic99x3y6M4ABJ1egmET3mdv_wkAI_gr3Bk2Yh52T21mP_qN5AtiRfrsq5aW4uX7MewM3H3IhCZb2ICcRFDlR3hRxzI_eQywSlpYflG8A56msPSqI6pmwn25O5nX6AeyB03tihOK5xlWpk/s1600/13-cols%253Dappalacian.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1515" data-original-width="1008" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic99x3y6M4ABJ1egmET3mdv_wkAI_gr3Bk2Yh52T21mP_qN5AtiRfrsq5aW4uX7MewM3H3IhCZb2ICcRFDlR3hRxzI_eQywSlpYflG8A56msPSqI6pmwn25O5nX6AeyB03tihOK5xlWpk/s640/13-cols%253Dappalacian.jpg" width="425" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
But these folks were Europeans used to warring empires with shifting boundaries not constrained by topography. So over the next 150 years in defiance of the idea of a topographically-defined "country" they and their descendants drew some lines dividing that continental topography in illogical ways... <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4eYbofnD_LVcWQfCpUvYclwF5ichP8uqjDIr2Z1l6B3Y0lnn6WfklKVZnVnJqPxVCHYoHpAq789eXw7Cx3Y3KpJ-BD9AUoupGPe4YgKscRvb6QUh7o8LfRU94fMtk9JINpu6BC0dJwqg/s1600/us-topo.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="865" height="472" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4eYbofnD_LVcWQfCpUvYclwF5ichP8uqjDIr2Z1l6B3Y0lnn6WfklKVZnVnJqPxVCHYoHpAq789eXw7Cx3Y3KpJ-BD9AUoupGPe4YgKscRvb6QUh7o8LfRU94fMtk9JINpu6BC0dJwqg/s640/us-topo.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
... and, more irrationally, even further like this:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe1p47iphxkn9i1qvPl5TufMXS_pS-t-8RrL_-S2Fjs0wEDMgkmza8undJk8E8gMqrbbFBW0K2GH2Wwu0CVr9sA3vRWVMtMiB9b4_4tSBU43TEnTxRl4nKJk27OQIZtQ7Tw633IP9pa64/s1600/USA.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="841" data-original-width="1200" height="448" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe1p47iphxkn9i1qvPl5TufMXS_pS-t-8RrL_-S2Fjs0wEDMgkmza8undJk8E8gMqrbbFBW0K2GH2Wwu0CVr9sA3vRWVMtMiB9b4_4tSBU43TEnTxRl4nKJk27OQIZtQ7Tw633IP9pa64/s640/USA.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
To summarize, the United States is not a "country" defined by obvious topographical extremes. Even the oceans did not stop it from including Hawaii as one of the internal "state" governments even though it is 2,500 miles from the American Continent. In fact, the Rocky Mountains were known as the Continental Divide but even that didn't suggest creating separate "countries" based on topography. The United States is not a country as we define it.
<span style="font-size: 8px;"><br /> </span>
<br />
<center>
<h3>
It's not a nation - here's why</h3>
</center>
<br />
<i>As it will be used here</i> "nation" means "any distinctive population with a common language, culture, and considerable history." And it is this map that indicates a division of the North American Continent by "nations" of indigenous peoples...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1JiJiXqf7hdjWz1XJNeEBBPbFerU3gTNieWkP11cktijD0G7i2J8-PdMp7Z43aHA57PPRUMCehCt3dD433hv9bVX9f-NwL8hM-9NHYkTBBcMMpIpduH21T0lwvuPpQE2MUdR8ZN5lYp8/s1600/linguistic3.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1350" data-original-width="1040" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1JiJiXqf7hdjWz1XJNeEBBPbFerU3gTNieWkP11cktijD0G7i2J8-PdMp7Z43aHA57PPRUMCehCt3dD433hv9bVX9f-NwL8hM-9NHYkTBBcMMpIpduH21T0lwvuPpQE2MUdR8ZN5lYp8/s640/linguistic3.jpg" width="493" /></a></div>
<br />
As already discussed, the American "melting pot" did not include those indigenous North American nations, African slaves and their descendants, and the indigenous Spanish speaking residents of lands purchased or conquered by the United States. Not only that, the United States encouraged immigration from around the world, such as from China to build the Transcontinental Railroad, resulting in these maps today...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrWNPObiEgd7KXHN3eojehP4n8ypaJUL4RWtDnNXR5eEco_ZVpw_dS-X2UFqdf0iIP6OeO1bAkNYYhqeYwLDt7E0MqTWcQkXlOFjaKCBPHWDcLI-kR11BA2KP9K_riEtMHWQtmFv3fgTE/s1600/1.01_all_groups_2012b.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1237" data-original-width="1600" height="530" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrWNPObiEgd7KXHN3eojehP4n8ypaJUL4RWtDnNXR5eEco_ZVpw_dS-X2UFqdf0iIP6OeO1bAkNYYhqeYwLDt7E0MqTWcQkXlOFjaKCBPHWDcLI-kR11BA2KP9K_riEtMHWQtmFv3fgTE/s640/1.01_all_groups_2012b.jpg" width="686" /><img border="0" data-original-height="918" data-original-width="686" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhL3CgqHWyqhwGfwt2xS9fUdUsLD0dnxGsTE1cPi0kOYr3Ve8TqiOYGAgi_EtsvhuTxR86TBU1YcYqyM1yTLpzXsYEpPpGmBJceKwIXP5kaV3IT21IoYaEDaEart6BrGuY-vmVsio81MtI/s1600/language-allalt.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
...which makes it very clear that the United States is not a "nation" by our definition as "any distinctive population with a common language, culture, and considerable history."<br />
<br />
As a reminder, as explored in another post <a href="http://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2018/06/an-american-21st-century-kaleidoscope.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Saving the Union is a struggle against pots, bowls, and mosaics, between individuality, identity, and assimilation, amid unprecedented wealth disparity</a> the historical fact that the term "melting pot" was a concept to encourage immigrant "English, Scotch, Irish, French, Dutch, Germans, and Swedes" who back home in Europe constantly fought wars with each other to form an English-speaking culture. Had anyone before 1920 suggested adding other races, they would have been met with incredulous laughter.<br />
<br />
So it is a perfectly logical outcome of this history that emotionally for many within the United States "nationalism" means only white English-speaking <i>nation</i>alism. But that doesn't reflect the population born and living here.<br />
<br />
Again the United States is not a "nation."<span style="font-size: 8px;"><br /> </span>
<br />
<center>
<h3>
It is not a state but rather a union - here's why</h3>
</center>
<br />
<i>As it will be used here</i> "state" means "a central civil government or authority that exercises the legitimate use of force within defined geographical boundaries." Given the definitions accepted here, most would want to say the United States is a "state."<br />
<br />
Except, of course, within the defined geographical boundary that is the United States pursuant to Constitutional law there are 50+ "state" governments which independently exercise the legitimate use of force within defined internal geographical boundaries. There is nothing confusing about the wording of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px">
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
</span>
</blockquote>
So the United States is not even a "state" in the our use of the word (for this discussion entering into the arguments over the so-called "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">implied powers</a>" is not relevant). Rather, it is a "union" which means "a number of states or nations joined together for defined purposes to be accomplished by a separately created autonomous authority." The following is the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States (emphasis <b><i>added</i></b>):<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px">
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect <b><i>Union</i></b>, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
</span>
</blockquote>
And here is where the confusion exists. In that document, the Constitution of the United States, a "Union" was formed. That "Union" meant "a number of states or nations <i>joined together for defined purposes</i> to be accomplished by a separately created autonomous authority."<br />
<br />
The existing real states jointly assigned the Union the limited authority to use a very few of <i>their</i> powers and functions while retaining the vast balance of powers of a state to themselves.<br />
<br />
Americans seem to be confused about that. Perhaps that is because political history is not something we think is as important as, say, how to use technology to see cat videos to make us laugh. But sometimes we need to consider the concept of a "union" in the context of the American Revolution and Constitution which happened in the last quarter of the 17th Century. It literally was all the latest in government.<br />
<br />
"Founding Father" Benjamin Franklin was born in 1706 which meant that even our oldest Founding Father had a clear understanding of the then new, cool British concept of a "union." That is because over the first two years of Franklin's life the concept of a political "union" was formalized during the process of creating Great Britain which most Americans probably think was created by the Romans at the time Jesus was alive.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a> provides a brief insight into what we frequently shorten to Britain:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px">
The Kingdom of Scotland emerged as an independent sovereign state in the Early Middle Ages and continued to exist until 1707. By inheritance in 1603, James VI, King of Scots, became King of England and King of Ireland, thus forming a personal union of the three kingdoms. Scotland subsequently entered into a political union with the Kingdom of England on 1 May 1707 to create the new Kingdom of Great Britain. The union also created a new Parliament of Great Britain, which succeeded both the Parliament of Scotland and the Parliament of England. In 1801, Great Britain itself entered into a political union with the Kingdom of Ireland to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
<br />
Within Scotland, the monarchy of the United Kingdom has continued to use a variety of styles, titles and other royal symbols of statehood specific to the pre-union Kingdom of Scotland. The legal system within Scotland has also remained separate from those of England and Wales and Northern Ireland; Scotland constitutes a distinct jurisdiction in both public and private law. The continued existence of legal, educational, religious and other institutions distinct from those in the remainder of the UK have all contributed to the continuation of Scottish culture and national identity since the 1707 union with England.
<br />
In 1997, a Scottish Parliament was re-established, in the form of a devolved unicameral legislature comprising 129 members, having authority over many areas of domestic policy....</span>
</blockquote>
In a different <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Wikipedia entry</a> we can also learn:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px">
The Acts of Union were two Acts of Parliament: the Union with Scotland Act 1706 passed by the Parliament of England, and the Union with England Act passed in 1707 by the Parliament of Scotland. They put into effect the terms of the Treaty of Union that had been agreed on 22 July 1706, following negotiation between commissioners representing the parliaments of the two countries. By the two Acts, the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland—which at the time were separate states with separate legislatures, but with the same monarch—were, in the words of the Treaty, "United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain".
<br />
The Acts took effect on 1 May 1707. On this date, the Scottish Parliament and the English Parliament united to form the Parliament of Great Britain, based in the Palace of Westminster in London, the home of the English Parliament. Hence, the Acts are referred to as the Union of the Parliaments. On the Union, the historian Simon Schama said "What began as a hostile merger, would end in a full partnership in the most powerful going concern in the world ... it was one of the most astonishing transformations in European history."
</span>
</blockquote>
It might surprise many that within the Constitution of the United States the term "country" <i>never appears</i>. The term "nation" appears only in reference to "Commerce with foreign Nations" and to "punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations." The term "state" does appear, but always in reference to the proposed union of 13 states - you know, the real states per our definition which was the definition understood by Benjamin Franklin and the other Founding Fathers.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, besides in the preamble quoted above, the term "union" is used as follows:<br />
<ul>
<li>New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union...<br />The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government... </li>
<li>He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union... </li>
<li>Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...</li>
<li>To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union...</li>
</ul>
In the lifetime of the "Founding Fathers" prior to the Revolutionary War, Great Britain was clearly understood to be newly created as a "union" which was a revolutionary acknowledgement of a political idea. Because of the words used in the Constitution, it would be fair to say that the United States was created as a "union" of somewhat diverse states, where "state" clearly referenced 13 central civil governments that exercised the legitimate use of force within 13 defined geographical boundaries. This shouldn't come as a surprise, as for the Founding Fathers a "union" was a new and improved concept of political organization.<br />
<br />
And is it surprising that the winning army in the Civil War was the Union Army? Was not the Union Army a land force that fought to keep and preserve the Union of the collective states? Did you never wonder why they called it the "Union" army?<br />
<br />
In fact throughout the 19th Century, the Union was known as "these United States" which is a plural designation meaning more than one state. Titus Munson Coan who in his 1875 article "A New Country" in which he coined the term "Melting Pot" uses "these United States are" a decade after the end of the Civil War while trying to argue that it is a country, though what became the American Melting Pot "transforms the English, the German, the Irish emigrant into an American" creating a "great nation of Christendom."<br />
<br />
Coan's piece was written after the 1849 approval of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ending the Mexican-American War, which permits Spanish-speaking brown folks to remain in the United States entitling them "to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution; and in the mean time, shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without; restriction." Coan's piece was written after the Civil War when the slaves were freed and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted which begins: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But Coan had no confusion about who is in the American "nation" which is similar to most today's Americans of European descent living in the Red States indicated above.<br />
<br />
But still, Coan wrote "these United States."<br />
<br />
Linguist Mark Liberman in <a href="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1798" style="text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">When did the Supreme Court make us an 'is'?</a> noted that, contrary to one of his previous posts indicating the change to "the United States is" may have been made after the Civil War, he learned that Minor Myers of the Brooklyn Law School prepared a study <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1484731" style="text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">Supreme Court Usage and the Making of an 'Is'</a> which examined the use of the phrases “United States is” and “United States are” in opinions of the United States Supreme Court from 1790 to 1919 and determined that the plural usage was the predominant usage in the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s and did not disappear until the 1920's.<br />
<br />
As one comment speculated it is likely the plural persisted "at least through Reconstruction, and I'm afraid it hasn't entirely disappeared in some quarters."<br />
<br />
No it it hasn't disappeared, and sometimes the use of the plural in the 21st Century creates a political buzz. For example, on Thursday, April 25, 2013, speaking at the dedication of the George W. Bush Library, then President Barack Obama asked God to bless "these United States."<br />
<br />
Don't dismiss this as if it were Bush fumbling a speech. Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years. In his 2013 inaugural address he closed with "Thank you, God Bless you, and may He forever bless these United States of America." Obama understands that those who drafted the Constitution never intended that the Union be other than "these states." When he says "these" states Constitutional Law professor Obama knows full well that it is "these" states that make up a Union.<br />
<br />
Again, the singular usage "the United States is" did not become the "common" form until after World War I when it became obvious that the Union functioned as an "is" in a complex international scene where people could kill each other in the millions based on their "is-ness."<br />
<br />
We need to understand "these United States" is a <i>union</i> created solely for purposes of a common military defense and assuring economic success of the numerous and separate states, not regulate mundane issues such as who can have sex with whom. That's one reason why in 1792 Americans insisted on leaving establishing government churches to the real states.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<a href="http://california1st.blogspot.com/2018/06/why-factually-these-united-states-is.html" style="font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 85%; text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Originally Posted in the California First blog</a></center>Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-49633040612867574132018-01-31T23:02:00.000-08:002018-07-25T10:30:08.010-07:00A Progressive State of the Union: Teddy Roosevelt, Progressive corporate leaders, and 21st Century healthcareIn the 21st Century American Progressives find themselves lost in a sea of words which opponents use to confuse, hide, or sublimate their message. Progressives know that in the 20th Century their message about government and the economy was accurately expressed by Teddy Roosevelt:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/theodore-roosevelt/state-of-the-union-1902.php" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="246" data-original-width="675" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf4UgL1LWjpAhUZb5ndZWKmAbgDatAIf_Kc1AjVPXuSGZ6TtY2x-dILqu4fBxRqDoElxr3dQaubsHXrU_ZqO28QDf252wH434hsDSdRWN9tdFDmRSEkejHmuoro2cQQAfvozyU6pa5UHA-/s1600/tr-corp675.jpg" /></a></div>
“Liberals” generally today in the United States focus on using taxpayer money to help create better society.<br />
<br />
“Progressives” focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules while using a "progressive tax structure" to fund local, state, and federal government activities such as providing streets and highways, schools, medical services, and defense. The goal is to create equitable communities and an equitable world.<br />
<br />
Importantly, Progressives are aware of history and know that Teddy Roosevelt was cast out by the Republicans and rejected by the Democrats - he had to create his own political movement. As explained in this website, the 21st Century Neoliberal takeover of the state Republican Party organizations and the Third Way takeover of the National Democratic Party effectively shuts out the Progressive Pacific Message.<br />
<br />
It superficially seems ironic that it is not a Progressive government as envisioned by Teddy Roosevelt but 21st Century Progressive corporate leaders who propose to exercise the artificial powers of government-granted corporate franchises on behalf of the public good - in this case taking on the healthcare problem in the United States.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiloWsSd7N005qCeKIMfRLvyzLsvN-1gpnQZUPyLzhWFrJmttCQYp1_p8PrKpmBc6uZiyRKiqyAvdsYxq1dNpzOuDKFKZWntfY0Rz6z-1426P9Zg2OtLyNCJsbFWKbzZFTC66CimUSfeSke/s1600/trio675.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; color: black; float: left; font-family: serif; font-size: 85%; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; line-height: 14px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="309" data-original-width="675" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiloWsSd7N005qCeKIMfRLvyzLsvN-1gpnQZUPyLzhWFrJmttCQYp1_p8PrKpmBc6uZiyRKiqyAvdsYxq1dNpzOuDKFKZWntfY0Rz6z-1426P9Zg2OtLyNCJsbFWKbzZFTC66CimUSfeSke/s1600/trio675.jpg" /><br />From left, Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffet, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, and JP Morgan Chase Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon are teaming up to create a new health care company. (AP photos)<br /><br /><img border="0" data-original-height="746" data-original-width="675" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjU93obYMbMeoholIFAXBGufNU0IlIfOaDtGoSRchyn8QtSBwR_0ZUlYmv2KLZCta3Pp4zzFjEbfOniHfDb-1tA6moC0o2pKS_Mm7osdm5ugngoOFsGE_90P9aXXHUqVrgyCTpyFoNVtc4n/s1600/news_release_675.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Read the above news release carefully because the media has already misrepresented it, explained why it won't work, called it the end of health insurance or healthcare as we know it, predicted it will reduce the fed's anticipated inflation rate, and otherwise became creative about limited known facts.<br />
<br />
There are some related known facts beyond the text of the news release:<br />
<ul>
<li>All three companies are international is scope.</li>
<li>Taken together the three companies employ more than 950,000 people worldwide.</li>
<li>Amazon:
<ul>
<li>Has a history of creating an internal product which then develops into a product for an external market.</li>
<li>For current business activity holds wholesale licenses covering the distribution of medical-surgical equipment, devices, and other healthcare related equipment in at least 12 states (called wholesale pharmacy licenses which have been misrepresented in the press as for drugs).</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Berkshire Hathaway
<ul>
<li>Is #3 on Forbes list of The Worlds Biggest Public Companies ranked by profit.</li>
<li>Its wholly-owned subsidiary unit, General Re, in addition to other wide ranging services and products provides:
<ul>
<li>reinsurance to the health insurance industry;</li>
<li>offers health reinsurance protection in various lines of business, such as critical illness, disability, life, and Medicare supplement;</li>
<li>underwriting services for individual life, individual disability, and individual critical illness;</li>
<li>claim management services;</li>
<li>industry wide studies and research services for life and health reinsurance clients;</li>
<li> services in the areas of risk assessment for biometric insurance risk;</li>
<li>medical underwriting and claims assessment services;</li>
<li>underwriting services for medical professional liability, personal accident, personal injury liability, workers' compensation/employers' liability;</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>JPMorgan Chase
<ul>
<li>Is #3 on Forbes list of The Worlds Biggest Public Companies ranked by profit, the largest bank in the United States, the world's sixth largest bank by total assets, and the world's second most valuable bank by market capitalization.
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
So it isn't as if three CEO's of an auto company, a construction company, and a shipping company got together and decided to cut their insurance costs by creating a subsidiary company to buy group insurance through.<br />
<br />
And it isn't as if three CEO's met for the first time last week. As explained on <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/30/how-jamie-dimon-jeff-bezos-and-warren-buffett-got-together-to-change-american-health-care.html" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">CNBC</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
Two decades ago, Jamie Dimon almost joined Jeff Bezos at Amazon before deciding to run Bank One instead. Both considered joining each other's boards, but did not because of potential conflicts.
<br /> Warren Buffett has long admired Bezos and lamented not owning Amazon in its early days because he didn't understand it. The Oracle of Omaha's love of Dimon's annual letters are well-known.
<br /> And all three are customers of each other.
<br /> But the initiative that was announced Tuesday turned from a casual conversation into a real effort after Berkshire Hathaway's Todd Combs joined J.P. Morgan Chase's board in September 2016, sources familiar with the situation said. That meant there was an insider to pull the group together in a formal way.
<br /> Talks about forming this partnership, which will be "free from profit-making incentives," really began to pick up in pace over the last two to three months, according to sources. It was during this period when the decision was made to actually form a new company and share all health-care data with this entity.
</span></blockquote>
An all three CEO's have been staunch supporters of Democratic candidates. <br />
<br />
In presenting this story one thing the American media seems to ignore, or perhaps they just lack historical awareness, is the peculiarity of how the provision and funding of healthcare occurs in the United States came to be and how consistent this new initiative is with that history.<br />
<br />
Today, most Americans under 65 have some version of a private health insurance program covering the cost of routine, preventive, and emergency health care procedures, and also most prescription drugs, but this was not always the case.<br />
<br />
During the 1920s, individual hospitals began offering services to individuals on a pre-paid basis, eventually leading to the development of Blue Cross organizations in the 1930s. The first employer-sponsored hospitalization plan was created by teachers in Dallas, Texas in 1929. Because the plan only covered members' expenses at a single hospital, it is a forerunner of today's health maintenance organizations (HMOs) as was the Kaiser Permanente program.<br />
<br />
In 1933, Henry J. Kaiser and several other large construction contractors had formed an insurance consortium called Industrial Indemnity to meet their workers' compensation obligations. Dr. Sidney Garfield had just finished his residency at Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center at a time when jobs were scarce; fortunately, he was able to secure a contract with Industrial Indemnity to care for 5,000 construction workers building the Colorado River Aqueduct in the Mojave Desert.<br />
<br />
Soon enough, Garfield's new hospital was in a precarious financial state (with mounting debt and the staff of three going unpaid), due in part to Garfield's desire to treat all patients regardless of ability to pay, as well as his insistence on equipping the hospital adequately so that critically injured patients could be stabilized for the long journey to full-service hospitals in Los Angeles.<br />
<br />
However, Garfield won over two Industrial Indemnity executives, Harold Hatch and Alonzo B. Ordway. It was Hatch who proposed to Garfield the specific solution that would lead to the creation of Kaiser Permanente: Industrial Indemnity would prepay 17.5% of premiums, or $1.50 per worker per month, to cover work-related injuries, while the workers would each contribute five cents per day to cover non-work-related injuries.<br />
<br />
And that was the beginning of the model of employer-employee shared cost for employee plus family healthcare and the current Kaiser-Permanente HMO model.<br />
<br />
Employer-sponsored health insurance plans dramatically expanded as a direct result of wage controls imposed by the federal government during World War II. When the War Labor Board declared that fringe benefits, such as sick leave and health insurance, did not count as wages for the purpose of wage controls, employers responded with significantly increased offers of fringe benefits, especially health care coverage, to attract workers.<br />
<br />
In the 1930s, The Roosevelt Administration explored possibilities for creating a national health insurance program, while it was designing the Social Security system. But it abandoned the project because the American Medical Association (AMA) fiercely opposed it, along with all forms of health insurance at that time.<br />
<br />
President Harry S. Truman proposed a system of public health insurance in his November 19, 1945, address. He envisioned a national system that would be open to all Americans, but would remain optional. Participants would pay monthly fees into the plan, which would cover the cost of any and all medical expenses that arose in a time of need. The government would pay for the cost of services rendered by any doctor who chose to join the program. In addition, the insurance plan would give cash to the policy holder to replace wages lost because of illness or injury.<br />
<br />
The proposal was quite popular with the public, but it was fiercely opposed by the Chamber of Commerce, the American Hospital Association, and the AMA, which denounced it as "socialism".<br />
<br />
Foreseeing a long and costly political battle, many labor unions chose to campaign for employer-sponsored coverage, which they saw as a less desirable for their members but more achievable goal as well as more favorable to the union movement, and as coverage expanded the national insurance system lost political momentum and ultimately failed to pass.<br />
<br />
The rest of the story of the mostly hodgepodge of American health insurance and healthcare providers is history which has left the U.S. with the most cost and least cost-effective healthcare in the developed world - right up through Medicare and Obamacare. (You can explore this history further at the Wikipedia articles <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States#History" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">Health insurance in the United States</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Permanente#History" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">Kaiser Permanente</a>.<br />
<br />
Given the chaos the federal government is in and given the Neoliberal control of two-thirds of the state governments, real Progressives will be supporting the Amazon-Berkshire Hathaway-JPMorgan Chase initiative as a possible means to further evolve American healthcare into a more cost-efficient system and a more universal coverage model.<br />
<br />
They may fail to achieve one or both goals. But anyone who thinks "the government" can do it alone doesn't understand American political history. And they most certainly have a better chance at success than Trump and/or Congress.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div>
Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-34227515226701217172018-01-30T12:12:00.003-08:002018-07-19T14:39:13.474-07:00This past weekend the Koch network formally announced the Neoliberal plan to take over the local public school education systemIn the last post we reported that <a href="http://progressivepacific.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-neoliberals-met-last-weekend-to.html" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">The Neoliberals met last weekend to create a strategy to stop the Democrats in November</a>. But that wasn't the intended focus of that seminar.<br />
<br />
This week the Neoliberal Koch network opened up to the press regarding their plan to take over the American public education system. In <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2018/01/30/daily-202-koch-network-laying-groundwork-to-fundamentally-transform-america-s-education-system/5a6feb8530fb041c3c7d74db/?utm_term=.90a1868b479e&wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">Koch network laying groundwork to fundamentally transform America’s education system</a> we read:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
Changing the education system as we know it was a central focus of a three-day donor seminar that wrapped up late last night at a resort here in the desert outside Palm Springs.
<br /> “We’ve made more progress in the last five years than I had in the last 50,” Koch told donors during a cocktail reception. “The capabilities we have now can take us to a whole new level. … We want to increase the effectiveness of the network … by an order of magnitude. If we do that, we can change the trajectory of the country.”
<br /> Leaders of the network dreamed of disrupting the status quo, customizing learning and breaking the teacher unions. One initial priority is expanding educational saving accounts and developing technologies that would let parents pick and choose private classes or tutors for their kids the same way people shop on Amazon. They envision making it easy for families to join together to start their own “micro-schools” as a new alternative to the public system.
<br /> “The lowest hanging fruit for policy change in the United States today is K-12,” said Stacy Hock, a major Koch donor who has co-founded a group called Texans for Educational Opportunity. “I think this is the area that is most glaringly obvious.”
<br /> Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity, highlighted field operations that the network has built in 36 states to advance its agenda, including on education. “We have more grass-roots members in Wisconsin than the Wisconsin teachers’ union has members,” he said. “That’s how you change a state!”
<br /> “We all need to be fully committed to a society in which everyone has an opportunity to make a better life for themselves,” Charles Koch said. “To succeed, each of us has to be all-in. What I mean by that is that we have to make these kinds of efforts a central part of our lives. You don’t need to be as obsessed as I am … although that wouldn’t hurt … but you can’t just make it a sideline.”
</span></blockquote>
In 1980 David Koch became the Vice-Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party. Included in the Party platform were these two provisions:<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.</span></li>
</ul>
Today, 38 years later, the Koch Brothers are older and, having learned many lessons about our system of government and politics, they are much wiser. One of those lessons is that it is much cheaper and easier to forge new elements within each of the taxpayer supported state public school systems to support the Neoliberal objectives for the American economy as can be seen here:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://youthentrepreneurs.org/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="675" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9JjRBTWqNo-zsyY06Ij4hNER6R24JmfcI2JDSK6Elm7pOQQZVwQB7dqGQXooNLy3TkX42RNnRavCAFrcCwUbF4SszPrIw_q0H-grgKTYLEzleOsUmdQBsN5I-c2xEIHwHnUeMn_O5X4kR/s1600/ye.jpg" /></a></div>
For a deeper look at this, read <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/16/koch-brothers-education_n_5587577.html" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">Koch High: How The Koch Brothers Are Buying Their Way Into The Minds Of Public School Students</a>.<br />
<br />
And consistent with their willingness to use bigotry as residents of one school district learned in 2009, they will do what is necessary to take control of our local schools:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2mbJhjCbwo8/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="236" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2mbJhjCbwo8?feature=player_embedded" width="420"></iframe></div>
<br />
In 2011 they founded The LIBRE Initiative® specifically to make inroads into the Hispanic community offering dreams to the Dreamers:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://thelibreinitiative.com/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="1383" data-original-width="675" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga-PlCJoS7SThR7zaT81yiSc3bB-lGRgjCN7_JU2uy69n_gTqaYg63NXmsTAEuDUnyeaCy6uIXsq196uVo8FkfAHHqnpnvdF2oAJ1ErHefazPskvO_VSc6qSF9Fmh9H20UwbZ21g0Prm8G/s1600/libre_edu.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
For a deeper look at this, read <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/kochs-public-schools-shakeup-244259" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">How the Kochs are trying to shake up public schools, one state at a time</a>. <br />
<br />
If you watched the video above, what should hit you in the face is the absolute "deer in the headlights" images projected by folks who have a Progressive outlook but who, like 95% of Americans, obviously have ignored politics except in fun Presidential elections.<br />
<br />
As the two losing school board candidates project, Progressives have left the real politics to the politicians - elections of local and state government officials are boring hard work. As the kids in the video probably did not learn but should have, marching is fun but it is mostly a waste of time (as is millionaire stars dressing up to promote a change on a single social issue).<br />
<br />
What some of us old Americans remember is that even at the national level, it wasn't the civil rights marches that finally delivered the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, it was Lyndon Johnson, a Progressive politician with a moral compass who was not afraid of the drudgery of hard work over an extended period of time. Sure, the marches brought the civil rights issue to the forefront. But without the Progressive politicians holding office at the time, the Civil Rights Bill would not have happened.<br />
<br />
Today we need a 24/7/365 network of organizations in every state dedicated <i>not</i> to some hot-button issue or identity-politics-group-betterment issue, but to promoting as public policy in every city and county in every state the core of the Progressive Pacific Message.<br />
<br />
Without it, the goal of assuring equitable communities which permit every person the opportunity to
pursue personal productive goals within an atmosphere of equality in
personal dignity and human rights will remain on the back burner of America.Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-57876045288210952692018-01-29T22:51:00.000-08:002018-07-19T14:39:58.686-07:00The Neoliberals met last weekend to create a strategy to stop the Democrats in NovemberQuite literally some think a 21st Century civil war has erupted on the
American political scene as Democrats bask in the awards season while having won a few elections.<br />
<br />
How silly of them. They think their opponents are Republicans when, in fact, their opponents are America's most organized, well-funded political ideologues - the Neoliberals.<br />
<br />
While the Grammy weekend kept blue state entertainment millionaires busy, a wealthy, well-organized group of 550 Neoliberal militants led by
the Koch family again met Indian Wells, California as they do every year. Consider who the Progressives are up against as reported <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2018/01/29/daily-202-koch-network-donors-growing-nervous-about-losing-their-majorities-in-the-midterms/5a6e9af430fb041c3c7d7459/?utm_term=.44475b64703a" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">in the press</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
“This midterm is going to be hard,” said Gail Werner-Robertson. “We need everybody to help. We can’t lose the progress that you all have fought so hard for. So I would tell everybody to get ready to fight. Get ready to double down.”
<br /> Turning to billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, she quipped: “I’m happily helping my dad spend my inheritance and moving much of it your direction.”
<br /> Werner-Robertson is one of 550 members of the Koch network who have come to a resort outside Palm Springs for a three-day seminar, each of whom commits to contribute at least $100,000-per-year to Koch-linked groups. This is their biggest gathering since the Koch brothers began convening like-minded donors twice annually in 2003.
</span></blockquote>
On our website page <a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/neoliberals.html" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">Wealthy Neoliberals Matter: How an Economic Ideology Took Control of U.S. State and National Legislative Agendas</a> the history, organization, and success of the Neoliberal movement in the United States is reviewed. Last weekend, confronted with several Democratic candidates winning special elections in the past few months, more Neoliberal millionaires gathered than ever before.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj96sUE8CsPju-PzKzGULdHTP5JO_NVXHnRIhl8WbFveg2IpGkk5Fn-tI9dUxPkqTVlSKV7dpZOiTxt0ZfmAqBWL6JDgNHu6ejd0ba9FRxjSwVAo315aKqJLjaQvYfLpGPJCN8UCBncuBE/s1600/koch-indian-wells.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; font-family: serif; font-size: 85%; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; line-height: 14px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-lrft: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="629" data-original-width="1160" height="173" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj96sUE8CsPju-PzKzGULdHTP5JO_NVXHnRIhl8WbFveg2IpGkk5Fn-tI9dUxPkqTVlSKV7dpZOiTxt0ZfmAqBWL6JDgNHu6ejd0ba9FRxjSwVAo315aKqJLjaQvYfLpGPJCN8UCBncuBE/s320/koch-indian-wells.jpg" width="320" /><br />American Neoliberal Charles Koch gives opening<br />remarks at the Koch's semiannual retreat in Indian<br />Wells, Calif. on Jan. 27. | Seminar Network</a></div>
Unlike in the British press over the past two decades, the American press appears to have finally figured out there are Neoliberals, albeit they seem to think they need to identify them in newspaper articles with a celebrity name, the Koch Brothers:<br />
<ul>
<li>
<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-kochs/fearing-democratic-wave-koch-network-to-spend-big-on-u-s-midterm-elections-idUSKBN1FI07H" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">
Fearing Democratic wave, Koch network to spend big on US midterm elections</a></li>
<li>
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2018/01/29/daily-202-koch-network-donors-growing-nervous-about-losing-their-majorities-in-the-midterms/5a6e9af430fb041c3c7d7459/?utm_term=.eceef98622fb" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">
Koch network donors growing nervous about losing their majorities in the
midterms</a></li>
<li>
<a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/business/kochs-warm-to-trump-policies-not-behavior/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">
Kochs warm to Trump policies, not behavior</a></li>
<li>
<a href="https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/2018/01/26/conservative-koch-brothers-call-permanent-legal-status-dreamers-border-security/1071299001/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">
Conservative Koch brothers call for permanent legal status for Dreamers, border
security</a></li>
<li>
<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2018/01/27/koch-network-retreat-cornyn-agrees-need-tax-reform-sales-job/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">
At Koch network retreat, Cornyn acknowledges a need for a tax reform sales job</a></li>
<li>
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/01/28/koch-network-is-gearing-up-for-the-next-supreme-court-vacancy/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">
Koch network gears up for the next Supreme Court vacancy</a></li>
<li>
<a class="nuEeue hzdq5d ME7ew" href="https://www.seattletimes.com/business/kochs-warm-to-trump-policies-not-behavior/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">
Kochs warm to Trump policies, not behavior</a></li>
<li>
<a class="nuEeue hzdq5d ME7ew" href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/koch-veterans-group-could-spend-millions-against-democrats-in-midterm/article/2647338" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">
Koch veterans group could spend millions against Democrats in midterm</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/27/politics/koch-criminal-justice-reform-sessions/index.html" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">Koch network leader says Attorney General Jeff Sessions 'on board' with prison reform</a> </li>
<li>
<a href="http://fortune.com/2018/01/28/koch-seminar-paul-ryan-tax-reform/?xid=gn_editorspicks" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">
At Koch Seminar, Members Applaud Tax Reform Efforts as Paul Ryan Heaps Praise On Them</a></li>
</ul>
It's clear the Neoliberals intend to spend a much larger than
normal sum of money on the 2018 midterm elections. And the Neoliberals
intend to have Republican candidates undermine the Democrats on key
issues <a href="https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/2018/01/26/conservative-koch-brothers-call-permanent-legal-status-dreamers-border-security/1071299001/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">such as immigration</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
The network associated with conservative billionaires Charles and
David Koch is calling on Congress and the White House to compromise on
an immigration deal that provides a permanent legal status for 1.8
million undocumented young adults known as Dreamers, while also
enhancing border security.
<br /> "We welcome a debate about whether our current legal immigration
policy properly balances family and skills-based migration," Daniel
Garza, president of the LIBRE Initiative, said in a statement. "But that
broad debate should not distract from the immediate goal of providing
certainty to Dreamers and enhancing security."
<br /> "We look forward to working with Congress and the White House on
balanced legislation that enhances border security, protects the
Dreamers, and wins bipartisan support," he said.
</span></blockquote>
What you have to understand is that the
Neoliberal's aren't particularly conservative beyond economic issues.
Here's how the LIBRE Initiative describes itself:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
The LIBRE Initiative® is a non-partisan, non-profit grassroots
organization that advances the principles and values of economic freedom
to empower the U.S. Hispanic community so it can thrive and contribute
to a more prosperous America.
</span></blockquote>
Who could be against that?<br />
<br />
And the Neoliberals are backing <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/27/politics/koch-criminal-justice-reform-sessions/index.html" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">a real prison reform effort</a>
while "downplaying the challenge Attorney General Jeff Sessions might
pose to their objectives on criminal justice reform, which the network
said would be a key policy focus this year [instead of] a broader
criminal justice reform proposal that some lawmakers and the Koch
network have championed."<br />
<br />
As explained on our web page, the Neoliberals have no right-wing social policy agenda. Their sole government policy concern is the relationship between government and the economy.<br />
<br />
At any point in time, to win they can easily advocate for liberal causes except anything resembling socialism or restricting business activity. In fact, they don't like government doing more than the minimum necessary to protect property. Looser immigration policy? Why not as it expands the labor pool. The same thing could be said for reversing the Clinton Administration policies that created prison overpopulation.<br />
<br />
Since Third Way Democrats support Neoliberal economic policies, the Progressive Pacific Message has a hard time finding political support.<br />
<br />
As of this moment, there is no Progressive billionaire rounding up his 550 rich Progressive friends for a meeting twice a year and having them fund multiple Progressive policy advocacy organizations in every state to gain control of government. There certainly hasn't been such activity since 2003 or 1947.<br />
<br />
This year the Neoliberal goal will be to minimize the loss of Republican members in state legislatures and Congress. Then they will plan for expansion of their control in 2020 while putting their economic policy goals into place state-by-state.<br />
<br />
Democrats will still be laughing at a comedy bit done by Hillary Clinton presented on the fun Grammy awards show while the Neoliberals implement their economic polices which neither the Democrats nor Donald Trump understand.Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-32849695649683914792018-01-16T15:51:00.002-08:002018-07-19T14:36:52.289-07:00Neoliberal Ideology is Dangerous Failures are examples of why public sector responsibilities need public sector workersFor Progressives, one key truth is that certain tasks should never be "outsourced" to the private sector.<br />
<br />
Since the 1980's, the Neoliberal movement in the United States, Britain, and Canada has been working successfully to change that. Today, headlines in newspapers in voters in both countries offer opportunities for learning.<br />
<br />
In the U.S. we read <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/business/dealbook/general-electric-ge-capital.html" style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">G.E. to Take $6.2 Billion Charge Tied to Finance Unit's Insurance Reserves</a> and <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-16/ge-to-take-6-2-billion-charge-after-insurance-portfolio-review" style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">GE CEO Renews Pledge to Study Breakup After $6.2 Billion Stumble</a>. We'll explore this further below because its connection to the private v. public debate is less obvious. But first we'll look at the more obvious.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 20px; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline;">The Massive Carillion Debacle</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="border-color: #fbfcff; border-style: solid; border-width: 6px; clear: both; float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: left;">
<img border="0" data-original-height="422" data-original-width="750" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyWzyGf43wXBTkMPDaM3_nnBTU6qSL0_A5GCm2_wvbpOcuoIdj2ZXesRXB7ZBnm3K1KYRz34sWmCHxgyvrvx1A-0vFlrkZf2X6yq8PS-cAMVJcSOddQ9FZpmbJtJrQU1_qtkQZFChBrHAJ/s320/ct-trump-role-model-thatcher-reagan-20170127-001.jpg" width="320" /></div>
Britain began outsourcing public services nationwide in the late 1980s under Neoliberal ideologue Margaret Thatcher and the model expanded under successive governments. It is now the world’s second-largest outsourcing market behind the United States.<br />
<br />
British citizens, who last year voted for Brexit and are geniuses much like Donald Trump followers, this week are reading <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/15/carillion-fallout-deepens-as-workers-face-pay-being-stopped-in-48-hours" style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">Carillion crisis deepens amid scramble to save jobs after firm collapses</a> and <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/16/carillion-collapse-heres-a-list-of-the-construction-jobs-that-are-most-at-risk.html" style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">Carillion collapse: Here's a list of the construction jobs that are most at risk</a>. Canadian's are reading
<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/carillion-canada-jobs-1.4487480" style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">Liquidation of British firm Carillion threatens 6,000 jobs in Canada </a> and <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/the-national-today-carillion-north-korea-tunisia-protests-1.4487446" style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">Carillion's collapse leaves Canadian road, hospital, military contracts in question</a>.<br />
<br />
Carillion employs more than 43,000 around the world, including 19,500+ in the United Kingdom, 6,000+ in Canada, with most of the balance in the Middle East and North Africa. It was working on 450 British government projects, including the building and maintenance of hospitals, schools, defense sites and a high-speed rail line. Carillion was responsible for providing per month millions of pounds worth of public services.<br />
<br />
Swamped by debt and pension liabilities and burning through cash, Carillion went into liquidation on Monday, threatening suppliers, merchants and big banks. The British government relies on Carillion to provide services from school dinners to road building, and initially stepped in to guarantee that key government contracts would be unaffected. But firefighters in Oxfordshire were put on standby to serve school dinners and U.K. officials said other work would only be paid for 48 hours after the collapse.<br />
<br />
Britain’s Specialist Engineering Contractors’ Group estimated that Carillion had left a trail of 1.2 billion pounds in unpaid bills to thousands of small subcontractors.and thousands of small suppliers face unpaid bills totaling millions of pounds.<br />
<br />
This is, of course, the behavior the majority of Americans outside the Pacific States approved when they voted for Donald Trump who on a smaller scale has long history of bankruptcy and not paying subcontractors and suppliers.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 20px; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline;">Outsourcing Long-Term Care for the Elderly</span><br />
<br />
Which brings us to the GE (aka General Electric) situation. GE CEO John Flannery said in the release Tuesday that after a review of its GE Capital GE long term care insurance portfolio that it will take a $6.2 billion after-tax charge for the fourth quarter of 2017 and expects to contribute $15 billion over the next seven years to shore up the portfolio's reserves.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.bewaretheblog.com/2016/03/ronald-reagan-motion-picture-and.html" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="513" data-original-width="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVd35MLlg4p2xHDcDiQk7vIWWSwbfUPM1hPCATcJPpScw4X2zGT2uXjIoeICzy-z0HaYYA5iSJbK5-fren9lxFCEpPqlj76U6R3QIPdVpMx2amO47JeqbHkGYhf0Xv2AAAj6h9WYpjwh5k/s1600/Reaganfightcomm.png" /></a></div>
Long-term care insurance in its modern form began in the 1980s along with the election to the Presidency of former GE spokesman and avowed Neoliberal ideologue Ronald Reagan. The insurance was to cover health-related care costs not paid by Medicare or standard health insurance. <br />
<br />
As more-and-more people started to live longer, the Reagan-era choice was to expand Medicare by raising payroll taxes paid by individuals and corporate employers or encourage a surpisingly imprudent, short-sighted (and maybe too greedy?) private insurance sector to start selling "affordable" long-term care insurance. <br />
<br />
Some would generously say that insurance was undermined by faulty actuarial and underwriting assumptions such as how long people would live and how expensive their care would be, along with grossly overestimating future return on safe investments of premiums. But the truth is, all that was predictable in the 1980s. <br />
<br />
“Things really started to fall apart” for the long-term care market in the early 2000s, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-16/ge-to-take-6-2-billion-charge-after-insurance-portfolio-review" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">said Joseph Belth</a>, professor emeritus of insurance at Indiana University. “Companies found that they had to raise rates frequently and substantially, and everybody was unhappy.”<br />
<br />
Most long-term care insurers have reduced or ended their participation in the long-term care market since the beginning of the 21st Century, including MetLife Inc. and Prudential Financial Inc.<br />
<br />
Long-term care was the death knell for Penn Treaty, which was liquidated last year in a rare failure for the insurance industry.<br />
<br />
“The problem that these insurers face is very real,” <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-16/ge-to-take-6-2-billion-charge-after-insurance-portfolio-review" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">said Peter Goldstein</a>, CEO of LTCG, a business-process outsourcing company that manages policies on behalf of insurers in the long-term care market. “People are working hard to figure out what to do here.”<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 20px; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline;">The Odd GE Ties to Chinese Communists</span><br />
<br />
That brings us to Genworth, which was spun out of GE in 2004, incurred billions of
dollars in losses on the long-term care policies, and has agreed to be bought by China
Oceanwide Group Holdings Co.<br />
<br />
The CEO of China Oceanwide is billionaire Lu Zhiqiang whose other investments include Lenovo, China
Minsheng Banking, and other companies in the banking, securities, insurance,
construction, energy, hotel, pawn broking, commodity trading,
infrastructure, film and media sectors. Being a leader in what is known as the"Chinese
private sector", he now serves as a vice chairman for All-China Federation
of Industry and Commerce.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmzWTlbs055FJZtUlB4OVY-0AFPBRcG0If7uXdiuO-qKc2hp5Jhymt3616sus6TldkV8HnwdJlUrxz76yxIXQqxJN0cCMUtmdFGykfkxsp_4a8CChL7XMzCbF72WR3a8yIDwcHiqt4jobv/s1600/Lu-Zhiqiang_1440239949.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0.5em; margin-top: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="310" data-original-width="620" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmzWTlbs055FJZtUlB4OVY-0AFPBRcG0If7uXdiuO-qKc2hp5Jhymt3616sus6TldkV8HnwdJlUrxz76yxIXQqxJN0cCMUtmdFGykfkxsp_4a8CChL7XMzCbF72WR3a8yIDwcHiqt4jobv/s400/Lu-Zhiqiang_1440239949.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
In 1985, Lu Zhiqiang founded the
<a href="http://en.chinaoceanwide.com/about/dszjj.html" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">China Oceanwide Holdings Group</a> while a local Communist Party secretary. He is also a member of standing committee of 12th
Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, a political advisory body in the People's Republic of China. Other than this, he
is the deputy chairman for <a href="http://www.cspgp.org.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/cspgp/english/index.html" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">China Foundation of Guangcai Program</a>.<br />
<br />
Organized and promoted by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Front_Work_Department" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">United Front Work Department</a> of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the All-China Federation of Industry & Commerce, the China Foundation of Guangcai Program has as its mission " prioritizing social responsibility while seeking profits " with the goal to eliminate poverty in poverty-stricken areas mainly through investments by private enterprises. <br />
<br />
This sounds weirdly like Neoliberal ideology slipping its way into Chinese politics. How this ties into the GE, with its <a href="https://california1st.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-counter-ascendancy-of-california.html#reagan" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">long history of ties to Neoliberals</a> including Reagan, is complicated and a conspiracy nut's delight.<br />
<br />
Last year, John Rice, President & CEO, GE Global Growth Organization, joined President Donald Trump in his visit to China where on behalf of General Electric Rice signed deals with three Chinese companies worth a total of $3.5 billion including;<br />
<ul>
<li>an engine and repair agreement with Juneyao Airlines worth $1.4 billion, </li>
<li>a $1.1 billion deal with ICBC Leasing for engines to power Boeing planes, and </li>
<li>a $1.0 billion agreement with China Datang Group to supply gas turbines. </li>
</ul>
Also China’s Silk Road Fund and General Electric signed an agreement to cooperate China’s “Belt and Road Initiative.”<br />
<br />
"The two sides will make joint investment in infrastructure projects in the fields of power grid, new energy, and oil and gas, in countries and regions along the Belt and Road. The cooperation between the Silk Road Fund and GE will not only boost cooperation between high-end manufacturing companies from China and the US, but also promote economic development of the regions where their investment goes," a statement from the Chinese State Administration of Foreign Exchange said.<br />
<br />
And so GE expects to dump $23 billion into its spunoff long-term care insurance debacle which is to be purchased by a corporation operated by a billionaire member of standing committee of 12th
Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and a former Party Secretary.<br />
<br />
And GE's ties to China have been endorsed by U.S. President Trump.<br />
<br />
No one knows what the future will bring, but to a Pacific States Progressive two serious lessons are offered by these stories. Looking at the weird truth that Britain just found it necessary to put firefighters on standby to serve school meals, we should continue to be steadfastly opposed to outsourcing basic government services.<br />
<br />
And looking at an even weirder truth that Ronald Reagan's General Electric has teamed up with Chinese Communists to take care of our elderly, we should be sure that the private sector isn't attempting to effectively invade what should be in the public sector.<br />
<br />
Also, according to the American press apparently it is really important news that Donald Trump uses some swear words and it was news this week that he is racist. Neither of those things is news to Progressives. <img border="0" data-original-height="15" data-original-width="15" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQSoVhNa_hF_VL5fgB5NpHQ_7PwP7Q6p54BIQmGfA-Wt8-BurpFWOlZR6Bdx-CuTNM1_tVIOpoNHMXjHtZUO91FEoBTWK2hlJw0CuagpWfpgeoj-h76ZVBC-yFwQME6Ib_y24F1eDDTSAZ/s1600/ohbfrank.gif" style="vertical-align: middle;" />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div>
Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-19938999978564015572018-01-11T16:02:00.003-08:002018-07-25T10:30:53.050-07:00Pacific Progressives are Non-Ideologues Seeking to Assure Equitable CommunitiesIn 21st Century American Progressives find themselves lost in a sea of words which opponents use to confuse, hide, or sublimate their message. Progressives know that in the 20th Century their message was accurately expressed by Teddy Roosevelt:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDWp18aIbDQP2UbkRjq0DUKNhVdS5TPdS6hVmPDCH5sEHaYQoQhkuKHLagfadp0_52hslilHQStUIcjKfEJlQKXIm4HfigIeny3jsYqElhyphenhyphenfY6nx8AXZYhbRNor_H5J6Tt-V5sryLv37pd/s1600/teddy_roosevelt-Square_Deal.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1116" data-original-width="684" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDWp18aIbDQP2UbkRjq0DUKNhVdS5TPdS6hVmPDCH5sEHaYQoQhkuKHLagfadp0_52hslilHQStUIcjKfEJlQKXIm4HfigIeny3jsYqElhyphenhyphenfY6nx8AXZYhbRNor_H5J6Tt-V5sryLv37pd/s1600/teddy_roosevelt-Square_Deal.jpg" /></a></div>
“Liberals” generally today in the United States focus on using taxpayer money to help create better society.<br />
<br />
“Progressives” focus on using governmental power to make large institutions play by a set of rules “Progressives” use a "progressive tax structure" to fund local, state, and federal government activities such as providing streets and highways, schools, medical services, and defense. The goal is to create equitable communities and an equitable world.<br />
<br />
Importantly, Progressives are aware of history and know that Teddy Roosevelt was cast out by the Republicans and rejected by the Democrats - he had to create his own political movement. As explained in this website, the 21st Century Neoliberal takeover of the state Republican Party organizations and the Third Way takeover of the National Democratic Party effectively shuts out the Progressive Pacific Message which is presented here on this blog (use link near the top of the page) as well as on our website (use link below).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div>
Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-25222675961669893592017-01-01T11:30:00.000-08:002018-07-26T14:07:08.514-07:00Dissidents in American Politics: 2016, The Most Depressing and Ominous Presidential Election Year Since 1860The year 2016 had become the most depressing and ominous Presidential election year since 1860. Then out of the fog came Michelle Obama.... <br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="254" mozallowfullscreen="" scrolling="no" src="//www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/83f74dc4-52d8-11e6-b652-315ae5d4d4dd" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="420"></iframe>
</center>
This is a face and voice of a 20th Century American telling 20th Century Americans what we should known, that 2016 would become the year we decided what life will be like in 2050 for Americans age 16 and younger - telling us that the focus of our nation over the next decade should not have been about the needs of people who voted for Jack Kennedy <i>or</i> Ronald Reagan.<br />
<br />
As Hillary Clinton said:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
“Stronger Together” is not just a lesson from our history. It's a guiding principle for the country we've always been and the future we're going to build. So let's be stronger together. Looking to the future with courage and confidence. Building a better tomorrow for our beloved children and our beloved country.
</span></blockquote>
In contrast, in 2016 the 20th Century Republican Party has been <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-death-one-party-the-birth-another" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">declared dead and reborn</a>.
Longtime GOP strategist for President George W. Bush and for Senator John McCain, Nicolle Wallace, recently bemoaned that Republican Party candidate is "a man who believes in protectionism,
isolationism, and nativism."<br />
<br />
(As an aside, we need to note that the Democratic Party survived only because the outsider who attacked it was unsuccessful. Bernie Sanders was never a Democrat and has <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/26/bernie-sanders-to-return-to-senate-as-an-independent/" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">declared</a> he will continue to serve in the Senate as an independent. Political parties are, of course, private organization whose members and staffs work hard to elect majorities in the Senate, House, and state legislatures where public policy is made.)<br />
<br />
One can't help but ponder, to consider the historical context, about how too many 20th Century American dissident voters (and yes, all current voters were born in the 20th Century) brought America back to where we are today.<br />
<br />
<a name="know-nothing"></a>It is not like vocal dissidents are a new thing, but what we've seen this year is the worst that is embedded within the American soul. This, at least partially, is the result of an unforgivable ignorance of American and world history, particularly political and economic history.<br />
<br />
Voters' attitudes are painfully reminiscent of the "Know Nothing" movement of the 1850's which arose in response to an influx of Irish and German Catholics and other immigrants, thus reflecting nativist and anti-Catholic sentiment (though in California it was based on opposition to Chinese immigration). It resulted in former President Millard Fillmore running for President in 1856 on the American Party ticket, winning 23% of the popular vote and carrying one state.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Fillmore2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Fillmore2.JPG" width="288" /></a></div>
<br />
It may seem like this is just what happens in America. But history has details that the broad strokes don't tell you.<br />
<br />
Yes, if you add to Nicolle Wallace's words "protectionism",
"isolationism", and "nativism" the anti-Muslim anti-Hispanic bigotry of Donald Trump's rhetoric and you might think you have Millard Fillmore reborn, just with Islam substituted for Catholicism.<br />
<br />
Except that unlike Trump, Fillmore was a knowledgeable, experienced public official who, when it came to government administration and public policy, "had a clue" as they say.<br />
<br />
Prior to his run for President on the American Party ticket, Fillmore was an Inspector of the New York Militia's 47th Brigade with the rank of Major, an attorney, a New York State Assemblyman, a Congressman as a Whig Party candidate, a Vice-President as a Whig, and a President as a Whig after the death of President Zachary Taylor.<br />
<br />
In Trump we have as a President someone that spent his life as a con man who gained notoriety as a reality show host. A reality show host....<br />
<br />
This happened because we are in a time in which our political discussion has been reduced to the divisiveness of uninformed, dismissive, content-free, frequently hate-filled tweets.<br />
<br />
We have literally created in the form of "apps" the mechanism to amplify the worst in ourselves, the worst in America, creating the worst kind of dissidents.<br />
<br />
Because those "apps" - whether they are tweets, Facebook posts, or news web sites - generate corporate revenues, they proliferate becoming the source of "The Conventional Wisdom" instead of truthful facts.<br />
<br />
For those who do not understand the term "The Conventional Wisdom", economist John Kenneth Galbraith in his 1958 book <i>The Affluent Society</i> prepended "The" to the phrase "conventional wisdom" to emphasize its meaning narrowed to those commonplace beliefs that easily became acceptable and comfortable to society, thus enhancing their ability in the minds of people to resist facts that might diminish or belie them.<br />
<br />
In contrast to tweets, offered "for the record" are ruminations on early 21st Century American politics in an historical context, adapting an early-20th-Century-magazine-article-style <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/browse/long-form?s=t" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">long-form</a> format divided into 10 more long, though hopefully provocative and/or informative, blog posts. Below is a linking "table of contents":<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://progressivepacific.blogspot.com/2017/01/1-dissidents-in-american-politics-right.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Dissidents in American Politics: "Left", "Right", "Conservative" and "Liberal" are Meaningless Labels</a></li>
<li><a href="http://progressivepacific.blogspot.com/2017/01/2-dissidents-in-american-politics-21st.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Dissidents in American Politics: The 21st Century Political Divisions within a Divided, Disintegrating American Union</a></li>
<li><a href="https://progressivepacific.blogspot.com/2017/01/3-dissidents-in-american-politics.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Dissidents in American Politics: The History of the Authoritarian Presidency</a></li>
<li><a href="http://progressivepacific.blogspot.com/2017/01/4-dissidents-in-american-politics-are.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Dissidents in American Politics: Who are we angry at? The Ethnic Others? Politicians, Congress, State Legislatures? Or the Sort of Rich, Rich, & Stinking Rich?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://progressivepacific.blogspot.com/2018/07/5-dissidents-in-american-politics.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Dissidents in American Politics: The Shareholder Capitalist Class</a></li>
<li><a href="http://progressivepacific.blogspot.com/2018/07/6-dissidents-in-american-politics.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Dissidents in American Politics: The Academic Oligarchist Class</a></li>
<li><a href="http://progressivepacific.blogspot.com/2017/01/7-dissidents-in-american-politics.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Dissidents in American Politics: The Romantic & Mythical in Politics</a></li>
<li><a href="http://progressivepacific.blogspot.com/2017/01/8-dissidents-in-american-politics.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Dissidents in American Politics: Shareholder Capitalists versus Academic Oligarchists</a></li>
<li><a href="http://progressivepacific.blogspot.com/2017/01/8-dissidents-in-american-politics_1.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Dissidents in American Politics: The Prospect of a Revolution and Tyranny led by American Mythical Reactionaries</a></li>
<li><a href="http://progressivepacific.blogspot.com/2017/01/10-dissidents-in-american-politics.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Dissidents in American Politics: Beliefs, Facts, and Future Shock</a></li>
</ol>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<a href="https://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2016/07/dissidents-in-american-politics.html" style="color: #4c2802; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 85%; text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #ffde45;" target="_blank">Revised from the Original Post in the Redwood Guardian</a></center>
Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-9055269372230585232017-01-01T11:00:00.000-08:002018-07-21T12:09:12.648-07:00 1. Dissidents in American Politics: "Left", "Right", "Conservative" and "Liberal" are Meaningless Labels<hr noshade="noshade" />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%; font-weight: bold;">"Dissidents" are people who actively challenge established doctrine, policy, or institutions. This post is the first in a series of 10 posts regarding the confusing "revolutions" of the 2016 Presidential Election.</span></blockquote>
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General:<br />
<ul>
<li>Those who sat on the left generally supported the revolution including the creation of a republic and secularization; </li>
<li>Those who sat on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime including the monarchy and a strong belief structure derived from a revered book of beliefs we call "religious."</li>
</ul>
In other words, the terms were based on an 18th Century French seating chart.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVxaLUnn2SwxAYH8qv0gwplQwg_evPyWFvfj2wyDmI2dE7bj8m7u0ImnXBc0sQ33-7a1pSaJVlcBDDrymNG8-5OBhyphenhyphensk_ZvhVl3l_vUSkRFNOEe5j6IkdHsy2iFOHnnfYnsiM087mucGc/s1600/frenchleftright.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; margin-top: 1em;"><img border="0" height="245" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVxaLUnn2SwxAYH8qv0gwplQwg_evPyWFvfj2wyDmI2dE7bj8m7u0ImnXBc0sQ33-7a1pSaJVlcBDDrymNG8-5OBhyphenhyphensk_ZvhVl3l_vUSkRFNOEe5j6IkdHsy2iFOHnnfYnsiM087mucGc/s400/frenchleftright.jpg" width="425" /></a></div>
In many ways it was weird that those terms were incorporated into the political language of the United States; after all, the American Revolution created a secular republic.<br />
<br />
If that isn't bad enough, we English speakers then divided into "left" and "right" the two extreme 20th Century implementations of tyrannical, totalitarian dictatorships - Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union - both of which embraced a strong, religious-like belief structure derived from a revered book. <br />
<br />
It is even harder to understand logically how we got from there to a broad acceptance of the idea that...<br />
<ul>
<li>the American right is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market#Laissez-faire_economics" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">laissez-faire capitalism</a> based on the reactionary writings of Russian immigrant <a href="https://www.aynrand.org/ideas/overview" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Ayn Rand</a> - Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum. a member of a Jewish bourgeois family born in 1905 and raised in Russia - who, after the Russian Revolution opened universities to women, was in the first group of women to enroll at Petrograd State University and who in her later years was a lecturer at Yale, Princeton, Columbia, and Harvard; and</li>
<li>the American left is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">libertarian socialism</a> influenced among others by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen#Community_experiments_in_America_.281825.29" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Robert Owen's</a> experiment in New Harmony, Indiana, by the <a href="http://billmoyers.com/story/make-political-revolution/" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Nonpartisan League's</a> North Dakota tradition of government rejection of big business, and more recently by the reactionary writings of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Noam Chomsky</a> (born in the United States of Eastern European immigrant Ashkenazi Jewish parents) who was educated at the University of Pennsylvania</li>
</ul>
...both of which embrace an economic philosophy that abhors centralized state control of the economy. If Rand and Chomsky had held public office they would have been in America's Academic Oligarchy by virtue of university affiliations, as that term is explained later in these posts.<br />
<br />
What is odd is that politics and economics as academic studies somehow became separated in the minds of serious, but confused, people. Perhaps it is time we Americans remind ourselves of something:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2PBjXw2ciymy2Ph9Urymwngg5UuYm-IfazzCG2CQ9X3enHYb5UaYriUneryM7Rv9maNGqvM5Sj1hSEB_mRIHCA6zBvdc6Hj8dtTIMVZiD00s0T6ytR2ADaLrCKI8iv4a6ur7fi98wPns/s1600/dollarFRN.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2PBjXw2ciymy2Ph9Urymwngg5UuYm-IfazzCG2CQ9X3enHYb5UaYriUneryM7Rv9maNGqvM5Sj1hSEB_mRIHCA6zBvdc6Hj8dtTIMVZiD00s0T6ytR2ADaLrCKI8iv4a6ur7fi98wPns/s320/dollarFRN.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
In the 21st Century, as it was in the 20th Century and half of the 19th Century, paper (and now digital) money is <i>a central government created and controlled commodity</i>.<br />
<br />
For our first 65 years, from the founding of the United States to the passage of the National Banking Act, some 8,000 different entities - mostly state charted banks - engaged in the highly profitable business of issuing currency. In addition to encouraging rampant counterfeiting, this created an unreliable money supply as frequently these banks would fail. It also created a multitude of local economies, interfering with travel even between cities, much less between states.<br />
<br />
Without going into all the complexities, by establishing a single national currency during the Civil War, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bank_Act" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">National Banking Act</a> eliminated the overwhelming variety of paper money circulating throughout the country thereby facilitating a true national economy.<br />
<br />
To put it as simply as possible, the central government controls the supply of money through <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_policy" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">monetary policy</a> and assures its acceptance as "legal tender" so that payment for labor and goods can be accomplished reliably. Further, the value of an asset - property - is measured by what someone would pay for it in dollars -<i> </i>federal reserve notes - <i>not in pumpkins or "Bank of Nome Alaska" notes</i>.<br />
<br />
(As a side comment, Brexit is about money. It is no coincidence the United Kingdom never substituted the Euro for the Pound. The UK was only "sort of half in" when it came to the European Union. Thus in part the
Brexit vote ironically reflected the reluctance of those who opposed Brexit to be a full participant in the
first place.)<br />
<br />
By definition, an economy depends upon the money supply and in the
21st Century it is the government's responsibility to see that an economy
works. Government is controlled by politics. Therefore, politicians
facilitate the economy. Remember this fact - <b><i>politicians
facilitate the economy, economists ruminate on the idea of an economy, businesses take advantage of the economy, workers struggle to survive and sometimes they can strive to be comfortable in an economy</i></b>. <br />
<br />
On the other hand, a government has a hard time coping with the impact of what people do with the money they are allowed to keep - after taxes sends some of that money back to its creator. Not to be repetitive, money is a government created commodity in the first place.<br />
<br />
It is the <b><i>dispute</i></b> over how much wealth (measured in money) individuals and corporations can control <i>versus</i> how much the government controls that supposedly is reflected in the popular labels "left" and "right."<br />
<br />
What that has to do with gay marriage and being "liberal" or "conservative" demonstrates just how confusing these labels are and how little we understand the role of government in our society.<br />
<br />
With the advent (<i>the arrival of a notable person, thing, or event</i>) of Brexit into British politics and Donald Trump into American politics, it's time for English speakers to toss the political terms "left" and "right" into the scrap heap of history. And based upon the vote in Britain and the weakness of the parties in the United States, we should reconsider our use of the labels "liberal" and "conservative" in politics.<br />
<br />
In the next post of this series, I will discuss proper labels for people actively participating in politics and the economy either as members of "The Establishment" or as "dissidents."<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<a href="https://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2016/07/dissidents-in-american-politics-1-left.html" style="color: #4c2802; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 85%; text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #ffde45;" target="_blank">Originally Posted in the Redwood Guardian</a></center>
Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-84216305008588350562017-01-01T10:30:00.000-08:002018-07-21T13:36:20.971-07:002. Dissidents in American Politics: The 21st Century Political Divisions within a Divided, Disintegrating American Union<hr noshade="noshade" />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%; font-weight: bold;">"Dissidents" are people who actively challenge established doctrine, policy, or institutions. This post is the second in a series of 10 posts regarding the confusing "revolutions" of the 2016 Presidential Election.</span></blockquote>
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
In the 21st Century, our nation, if not the world, has clarified how to classify people in the context of the political and economic milieu. People engaged in the political/economics milieu fall into one of two divisions and one of four classifications:<br />
<ul>
<li>An Establishment including:
<ol>
<li><i>Shareholder Capitalists</i> who run the world's economy, and</li>
<li><i><i>Academic Oligarchi</i>sts</i> who run the national governments;</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li>Authoritarian Revolutionary dissidents opposing "The Establishment" including:
<ol>
<li><i> Romantic Populists</i> who believe that the "virtuous" citizens are being mistreated by a small circle of elites and favor the "proper" division of economic resources through a government imposed sharing society, and</li>
<li><i>Mythical Reactionaries</i> who believe that "once upon a time" there was a state of society which possessed characteristics such as discipline, respect for authority,
etc., that are absent from contemporary society and favor a government imposed return to that state of society.</li>
</ol>
</li>
</ul>
Politically disengaged persons, typically about 40% of the adult population in the United States, are not relevant to these classifications. Their disengagement becomes relevant only when a revolution is attempted.<br />
<br />
In the 21st Century world through experience (See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#Aftermath" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Arab Spring</a>) we have learned that the likelihood of a successful relatively <i>peaceful democratic non-authoritarian revolution</i> is slim mostly because of that disengagement. The likelihood of a successful <i>violent democratic non-authoritarian revolution</i> similar to the American Revolution is also slim as the French learned when their revolution culminated in a dictatorship under Napoleon.<br />
<br />
What we need to understand is that in the history of the world positive government change towards a non-authoritarian model is achieved mostly in an evolutionary process such as occurred in the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
As we shall explore later, the division of powers within the American Constitution creating a stronger Union government was necessary to replace a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Articles_of_Confederation" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">weak, failing government established under the Articles of Confederation</a> and one of those divisions created the position of President in which intuitive authoritarian powers were vested.<br />
<br />
In response to the rise of Donald Trump, early on in this Presidential Election cycle we began to be offered in news commentary and in-depth articles on the 1990's-2000's research of
political scientists who have defined "authoritarianism" as a psychological profile of a people. Under the right conditions, people will desire certain kinds of extreme policies and will seek or favorably respond to strongman leaders - demagogues - to implement them.<br />
<br />
This year the rabid supporters of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have made it clear that a large number of voters desire an authoritarian revolution, though they are somewhat divided in orientation between over-40 reactionary ultra-nationalists (Trump supporters) and the under-40 populist multi-culturalists (Sanders supporters).<br />
<br />
From the beginning it rapidly became clear that the rabid Trump supporters are supporters of authoritarian government. It wasn't until the majority of Democratic Party voters selected Hillary Clinton that the rabid Sanders supporters indicated they are also supporters of authoritarian government when they clearly rejected the democratic outcome in favor of imposing their own sense of order and correctness on the majority.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/28/15-of-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlhgxmI1Qgp77Wj6NQW4zgKDIJT_wekrp4An1T-hZx-iZ2AiO7U530XILBMlNW1V3ZW5fm-ajE4sZGSxSlHr86uCYz5A7hozFwsZ54K54JkTivoVUdq41m_xxbMcWwZFxSuYY90uvy5Js/s1600/not-online.jpg" /></a></div>
We also saw that generally the younger the voter age, the more likely a dissident will embrace populist multi-culturalism while seeking economic change through authoritarian actions by a President. Generally, the older the voter age, the more likely a dissident will embrace reactionary ultra-nationalism while seeking economic change through authoritarian actions by a President.<br />
<br />
This split is at least partially the result of two terms seemingly with a common root - <i>commun</i>ications and <i>commun</i>ity. (After all, "<i>commun</i>e" has two different definitions: (1) a noun, a group of people who live and work together and share responsibilities; (2) a verb, to converse or talk together, usually with profound intensity, intimacy, etc.)<br />
<br />
The younger the voter's age, the more likely the voter will have embraced the early 21st Century <i>commun</i>ications system - the internet and text messaging - which creates a sense of participation in a broad multi-cultural, even international, <i>commun</i>ity, but without actually contacting another human where "contact" is traditionally defined as "the act or state of touching; immediate proximity or association."<br />
<br />
In addition, their heavy personal device use reduces direct human interaction within the local geographic <i>commun</i>ity creating a sense of isolation from groups, clubs, organizations, such as the political party system which is structured from local party "central committees" which participate creating the national party.<br />
<br />
This has created a misuse of the word "<i>commun</i>ity" where people think a <i>commun</i>ity exists because of interactions on Facebook and the like - where participants have interactions with others for whom they have no responsibility for their well-being as breathing mammals beyond impersonal devices like <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">GoFundMe</a>.<br />
<br />
The older the voter's age, the more likely the voter does not use the internet or text messaging, or does not use it as extensively. In the 21st Century these people have continued sense of participation in a geographic <i>commun</i>ity of friends, family, and older co-workers - people they know in person from direct face-to-face interaction.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, these older voters are more isolated from. and usually fearful of, the rapidly changing face of the broader American <i>commun</i>ity and the very foreign international <i>commun</i>ity. It creates a sense of isolation from the late 20th Century national political party systems where national leaders in both the national Democratic and Republican parties had a strong sense of internationalism.<br />
<br />
Most of these older voters do understand that the grassroots "Tea Party" Mythical Reactionaries have impacted on the Republican Party. However. most Americans do not know that since the 1992 a well-financed sophisticated organization of extremely conservative Shareholder Capitalists - the <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/koch-brothers-think-tank-report-099791" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">State Policy Network</a> - has successfully implemented a specific goal of taking over the state governments and Congress using those "tea party" folks.<br />
<br />
While age and other factors may tend to divide dissidents into Romantic Populists and Mythical Reactionaries, we need to acknowledge something <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/brexit-was-just-the-clock-striking-midnight-on-latest-sp-move-2016-06-27?siteid=yhoof2" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">simply expressed</a> by one American stock market analyst:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
There are a lot of angry people almost anywhere you care to look, and that anger isn't simply going to blow over. That's what happened in the late ‘60s and all of the 1970’s, and that is what's happening again now.
</span></blockquote>
Age difference has not created an anger divide; they are all equally angry at "The Establishment" even if for different reasons. An increase in mass anger means an increase in the number of people who become avid Romantic Populists and Mythical Reactionaries as the number of politically disengaged become angry.<br />
<br />
This isn't limited to the United States, as observed by a New York Times Editorial Board <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/opinion/britain-leaves-on-a-cry-of-anger-and-frustration.html?_r=0" target="_blank">Opinion Piece</a> which described the Brexit vote results:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
It was a cry of anger and frustration from more than half the country against those who wield power, wealth and privilege, both in their own government and in Brussels, and against global forces in a world that they felt was squeezing them out.
</span></blockquote>
The important fact to understand is that most of these angry dissidents are not avid ideologues - most of the large numbers of Romantic Populists and Mythical Reactionaries in the U.S. aren't advocates for some esoteric communist or fascist philosophies which they've studied in detail.<br />
<br />
But they do feel the need to immediately and significantly disrupt the complex status quo created by the Shareholder Capitalists who run the world economy as facilitated by Academic Oligarchists who run the national governments. And they want it done by an authoritarian President.<br />
<br />
The disengaged really don't care about their country being ruled by an authoritarian President ... until they do.<br />
<br />
For ordinary people in Nazi Germany, life was comfortable, and in the period from 1950-1990 many disengaged Germans looked back and remembered accurately their years before 1939 as good years, much better than pre-1932 years. After 1939? Yes, each day they began to care a bit more when it was too late.<br />
<br />
Since many Americans do not understand the historical legitimacy of the authoritarian President, we will explore <a href="http://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2016/07/dissidents-in-american-politics-3.html">that subject next</a>.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<a href="https://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2016/07/dissidents-in-american-politics-2-21st.html" style="color: #4c2802; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 85%; text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #ffde45;" target="_blank">Originally Posted in the Redwood Guardian</a></center>
Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-21484712220366489532017-01-01T10:00:00.000-08:002018-07-21T15:49:26.545-07:003. Dissidents in American Politics: The History of the Authoritarian Presidency<hr noshade="noshade" />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%; font-weight: bold;">"Dissidents" are people who actively challenge established doctrine, policy, or institutions. This post is the third in a series of 10 posts regarding the confusing "revolutions" of the 2016 Presidential Election.</span></blockquote>
<hr noshade="noshade" />
The Whiskey Rebellion, also known as the Whiskey Insurrection, was a tax protest by dissidents in the United States beginning in 1791, during the presidency of George Washington. Throughout counties in Western Pennsylvania, protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax. <br />
<br />
It ended when President Washington rode at the head of an army of 12,950 militiamen provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania effectively suppressing the insurgency. Because relatively few men volunteered for militia service, a draft was used to fill out the ranks. Draft protests were widespread, and conscription efforts resulted in protests and riots, even in eastern areas. That was handled in a clearly authoritarian, violent manner.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixc2L3BkFq9kagC-fkBGfLbzjDzK-XLpGhzdgaSxEXlUcFq1HLpFtcZtr8Ds8MDpiq5sws0v2gsJE6552yZorVpKrzhgbHxTfFLNvt7YDLyhgKHHENsKPrcrAvfFDDqnhLFkwdyLhgsh8/s1600/whisky_rebellion.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; font-family: serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="217" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixc2L3BkFq9kagC-fkBGfLbzjDzK-XLpGhzdgaSxEXlUcFq1HLpFtcZtr8Ds8MDpiq5sws0v2gsJE6552yZorVpKrzhgbHxTfFLNvt7YDLyhgKHHENsKPrcrAvfFDDqnhLFkwdyLhgsh8/s400/whisky_rebellion.jpg" width="420" /><br />Click on image to see a larger version!</a></div>
For example, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, two civilians were killed by the federalized militia, an unarmed boy was shot by an officer whose pistol accidentally fired and a man was stabbed to death by a soldier while resisting arrest. Eventually, a federal grand jury indicted 24 men for high treason, ten men stood trial for treason in federal court, only two were convicted and sentenced to death by hanging, but were pardoned by President Washington. Pennsylvania state courts were more successful in prosecuting lawbreakers, securing numerous convictions for assault and rioting.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZPb4xN-1p8mxdKzZDDhHo6qM46YkXIZCWWCUVACif7biQD7Ghyw6Ck79r9o0bi7-0ICRioCLoByO0vSpSLLnoFlA20y2oOyL7XX4mXS8a9_4FQyMmM3NPDolO-h6oEn-Y7khPUSZuwTI/s1600/trailoftears.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; font-family: serif; font-size: 85%; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZPb4xN-1p8mxdKzZDDhHo6qM46YkXIZCWWCUVACif7biQD7Ghyw6Ck79r9o0bi7-0ICRioCLoByO0vSpSLLnoFlA20y2oOyL7XX4mXS8a9_4FQyMmM3NPDolO-h6oEn-Y7khPUSZuwTI/s400/trailoftears.jpg" width="420" /><br />Click on image to see a larger version!</a></div>
President Andrew Jackson began the Indian Removal Policy which as continued by President Martin Van Buren led to the "Trail of Tears." Subsequent Presidents, as Commander in Chief, continued the genocide of Native Americans over the next 70 years. But the Native Americans weren't the only ones who experienced this fun side of traditional American bigotry.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfGckyqmb2aspxt136qaGnb7bP-YLA1orRtMl5aJ06XDKJhnOtMFoROXCBGfz2_XQdHsMkihYLS3ssKd2Ixu5zu4j_lJK8_YY7RY4XT9-oXpC5uMW5INowV03aQFHteK1M5OodWPs8w9w/s1600/mormon_rebellion.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; font-family: serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 2em; margin-right: 1em; margin-top: 1em;"><img border="0" height="302" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfGckyqmb2aspxt136qaGnb7bP-YLA1orRtMl5aJ06XDKJhnOtMFoROXCBGfz2_XQdHsMkihYLS3ssKd2Ixu5zu4j_lJK8_YY7RY4XT9-oXpC5uMW5INowV03aQFHteK1M5OodWPs8w9w/s400/mormon_rebellion.jpg" width="420" /><br />Click on image to see a larger version!</a></div>
Religious discrimination has been supported by the authoritarian use of power by a President. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormons" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Mormons</a> are well aware of the tradition of authoritarian Presidents as their forebears experienced it as religious discrimination. The religion's Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum were killed by a mob in Carthage, Illinois, and the alleged murderers were found not guilty by a trial jury was composed exclusively of non-Mormons after the judge dismissed the initial jury, which included Mormons.<br />
<br />
To make a long story short, the Mormons moved to the Utah Territory and established a territorial government. Because of a great deal of rumor and innuendo, in 1857 U.S. President James Buchanan sent an army to Utah resulting in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_War" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Utah War</a>.<br />
<br />
(President's George W. Bush and Barack Obama both worked to avoid the rapid expansion of this kind of religious bigotry toward Muslims. This contrasts with Donald Trump's successful effort to capitalize on the bigotry within America using a promise that isn't far from Buchanan's attitude - a traditional American attitude of religious bigotry that, right behind racial bigotry and ethnic bigotry, has always been the third core element of the American truth, as opposed to the American myth) <br />
<br />
When does the use of violent force by the established government become authoritarian in conduct? Juan Linz's influential <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">1964 description</a> characterized authoritarian political systems by four qualities:<br />
<ol>
<li>limited political pluralism; that is, such regimes place constraints on political institutions and groups like legislatures, political parties and interest groups;</li>
<li>a basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency;</li>
<li>minimal social mobilization most often caused by constraints on the public such as suppression of political opponents and anti-regime activity;</li>
<li>informally defined executive power with often vague and shifting powers.</li>
</ol>
Abraham Lincoln's Republican Presidency clearly fit that description. So let's take a look at the Civil War, not as Northern lefty intellectuals nor Southern Klan members, but as open minded truth seekers.<br />
<br />
The U.S. Civil War produced at least 1,030,000 casualties (3 percent of the population), including about 620,000 soldier deaths. Based on 1860 census figures, 8 percent of all white males aged 13 to 43 died in the war, including 6 percent in the North and 18 percent in the South.<br />
<br />
It could have have been avoided, but Americans in the North had latched onto a rigid <i>goodness versus evil belief system</i> about the institution of slavery that ignored the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Three-Fifths Compromise</a> part of the U.S. Constitution permitting states to maintain the legality of slavery.<br />
<br />
(As an aside, if you think the rule of law is critical, than you would have supported slavery. If you believe in the recently invented moral absolute that human slavery is unacceptable even though we know it was a continuously accepted human condition dating back to at least 8000 BC, than you would have supported killing 1 million Americans to free 4 million slaves. Absolutes in morality are such fun things.)<br />
<br />
As is always the case, when a large minority of the U.S. population embraces <i>beliefs</i> contrary to the status quo beliefs of another large minority of the U.S. population, a high level of fear for personal wealth and well-being is created, in this case within <i>The Establishment</i> in the South.<br />
<br />
(As an aside, today we have anger because a large minority of the U.S. population embraces <i>beliefs</i>
contrary to the status quo beliefs of another large minority of the U.S.
population which has created a high level of fear for personal wealth and well-being is
created. The solution, of course is for these folks to defend their beliefs irrationally in some manner comparable to the 1860's, in this case perhaps justifiably killing 10 million Americans at random.)<br />
<br />
Prior to Lincoln assuming the office of President, negotiations over the issues were moving forward. On December 18, 1860, the Crittenden Compromise was proposed to re-establish the Missouri Compromise line by constitutionally banning slavery in territories to the north of the line while guaranteeing it to the south. Here is the map they were arguing over. Red states were slave states, blue states were free states, the green line is the Missouri Compromise line. The gray indicates territories that would become states.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxPKLOdxl2cPYFHFT6BmVJg5AhA1IyDCk6iXdtdsuocfmQ-BBUVM7xd320fi2eee8MNvyU7IbCVfRVYXOGIK7U9MAdE5sMFYhXVGRPu16ufPeoPSl28o_xwzw1sjOVCG-57i7PklkTLBk/s1600/crittenden.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="395" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxPKLOdxl2cPYFHFT6BmVJg5AhA1IyDCk6iXdtdsuocfmQ-BBUVM7xd320fi2eee8MNvyU7IbCVfRVYXOGIK7U9MAdE5sMFYhXVGRPu16ufPeoPSl28o_xwzw1sjOVCG-57i7PklkTLBk/s640/crittenden.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The adoption of this compromise likely would have prevented the secession of every southern state apart from South Carolina, but Lincoln and the Republicans rejected it.<br />
<br />
It was then proposed to hold a national referendum on the compromise. The Republicans again rejected the idea, perhaps because they knew a majority of both Northerners and Southerners would have voted in favor of it. (This self-righteous minority group also self-swaddled themselves in ignorance choosing to believe that even if there was a Civil War it would be over in months - something anyone informed about the other side would never have believed.)<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHxC2bkfVzTmIwvDcSJeB79SNObhCWWBBIH-9eBCmD_fqC19qR7-jxjrdig3y8TlZJGXZVBogy58llazK4hq5jxtjTHueDOhslqN5FDmBhrWwuQb86sBNnZU9_6fSaGBV1m2gkzRodFxI/s1600/crittendoncartoon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; font-family: serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 2em; margin-right: 1em; margin-top: 1em;"><img border="0" height="327" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHxC2bkfVzTmIwvDcSJeB79SNObhCWWBBIH-9eBCmD_fqC19qR7-jxjrdig3y8TlZJGXZVBogy58llazK4hq5jxtjTHueDOhslqN5FDmBhrWwuQb86sBNnZU9_6fSaGBV1m2gkzRodFxI/s320/crittendoncartoon.jpg" width="420" /><br />Click on image to see a larger version!</a></div>
By the definition discussed in a previous post, Lincoln's Republicans were <a href="https://progressivepacific.blogspot.com/2017/01/2-dissidents-in-american-politics-21st.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Romantic Populists</a> who believed "virtuous" people were being mistreated by a small circle of elites wrongly holding economic power.<br />
<br />
History has been so twisted that it is not bothersome to most Americans that with an 82.2% voter turnout, Lincoln won with only 39.9% of the popular vote but still led Americans into a Civil War assuming authoritarian powers and refusing compromise.<br />
<br />
Lincoln is an American hero who could be a model for authoritarian action for Donald Trump's deportation program. In case you didn't know this, here is a history lesson:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
In 1861, John Merryman, a state legislator from Maryland, was arrested for attempting to hinder Union troops from moving from Baltimore to Washington during the Civil War and is held at Fort McHenry by Union military officials. His attorney immediately sought a writ of <i>habeas corpus</i> so that a federal court could examine the charges. However, on May 25, 1961, President Lincoln suspended the right of <i>habeas corpus</i> in the United States, and the general in command of Fort McHenry refused to turn Merryman over to the authorities.
<br /> The chief justice of the Supreme Court Roger Taney issued a ruling that President Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend <i>habeas corpus</i>. Lincoln didn’t respond, appeal, or order the release of Merryman. But during a July 4 speech, Lincoln was defiant, insisting that he needed to suspend the rules in order to put down the rebellion in the South.
<br /> Five years later, a new Supreme Court essentially backed Chief Justice Taney’s ruling. In an unrelated case, the Court held that only Congress could suspend <i>habeas corpus</i> and that civilians were not subject to military courts, even in times of war.
<br /> This was not the first or last time that a U.S. President imprisoned Americans at will. Pursuant to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Executive Order 9066</a> issued by another revered President, Franklin Roosevelt, hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps and denied the right to a writ of <i>habeas corpus.</i></span></blockquote>
Indeed if a President Trump were to imprison Muslim Americans after persuading Congress to declare war on ISIS, he could become a revered hero like the extremely authoritarian Presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt.<br />
<br />
Looking at the Crittenden Compromise map, in hindsight many argue that slavery would have ended without the Civil War but not for a number of decades. If so do you think those decades were worth the 1+ million casualties? Without arguing about what the people thought at the time, what does it
say about you if you believe the Civil War was justified?<br />
<br />
It doesn't matter because a minority Party of an authoritarian President rejected compromise thereby initiating the killing 620,000 soldiers and tens of thousands of others, all Americans fighting because of the true believers and the truly fearful.<br />
<br />
By the time the Civil War was over, authoritarian actions of Presidents had been validated beginning with Washington and continuing until Lincoln who gave a permanent home in the Presidency for what is clearly defined as "authoritarianism."<br />
<br />
Of course, in the end the Civil War was a testing ground for modern total warfare. Total war is warfare that is not restricted to purely legitimate military targets, and can result in massive civilian or other non-combatant casualties. Americans can take pride that the Union legitimized killing massive numbers of civilians in the Civil War and perfected with the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">bombing of Dresden</a> and then the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki</a> the killing massive numbers of civilians in WWII.<br />
<br />
Feeling a bit guilty about <i>mass</i> casualties in the Vietnam War, we've recently applied technology to our warfare with President's authorizing the use of drones to kill evil radical Muslim terrorists foreigners and even evil radical Muslim American terrorists in foreign lands limiting the number of women and children killed to a few dozen at a time.<br />
<br />
Since that worked so well, following the model of the authoritarian U.S. Presidency, domestic police forces now use a variation on that technology (robots carrying small bombs) within the United States to kill <i>alleged</i> terrorists. It's far less of a video media embarrassment than all those police in body army carrying assault weapons riding around suburban Boston in armored military vehicles.<br />
<br />
Just think. Instead of shooting all those holes in that bystanders boat and not killing the suspect, resulting in a long expensive trial, they could have just blown up the suspect and the boat. Soon we won't need to worry about all those Constitutional rights. After all, the Presidents haven't since George Washington in the Whisky Rebellion.<br />
<br />
The authoritarian U.S. Presidency has become an accepted tradition. Since the Civil War, as examples we've had:<br />
<ul>
<li>the Pullman Strike of 1894 with military and U.S. Marshal intervention ordered by President Grover Cleveland:</li>
<li>the 1902 Coal Strike in which President Theodore Roosevelt fearing that the "attitude of the operators" would "double the burden" of those who stood against "Socialistic action" continued the practice of intervention in labor disputes though this time achieving success with on the threat of using force; </li>
<li>the 1932 Bonus Army incident of President Herbert Hoover;</li>
<li>the 1942 internment of Japanese Americans ordered by Franklin Roosevelt;</li>
<li>and more.</li>
</ul>
For an analysis of how this expansion of Presidential powers has continued in more recent times, read <i>The Washington Post</i> article <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-and-the-dangers-of-a-strong-presidency/2016/07/30/69cfc686-55be-11e6-b7de-dfe509430c39_story.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Donald Trump and the expanding power of the presidency</a>. <br />
<br />
Perhaps one thing needs to be made clear. An Authoritarian Revolution strikes at the heart of a democratic republic government which depends upon <i>compromise</i> in the recognition that the give-and-take in such a political system is a substitute for violence being used to secure a preferred outcome (such as killing a million people in the Civil War).<br />
<br />
In the United States there usually is a block of reasonable citizens, about 40% of the voters, who at some level understand and prefer that give and take decision-making system. A problem arises, however, when the system is hijacked and brought to a halt.<br />
<br />
In the past 20 years the Mythical Reactionaries, never representing more than a small minority of Americans, frequently have succeeded in bringing that give-and-take system to a halt. At that point, the patience of the reasonable citizen erodes, and some of those 40% of the voters become unenthusiastic Mythical Reactionaries or Romantic Populists.<br />
<br />
A further review of the four groups of people can help understand our political system. But first, we need to examine recent developments in our economy that have amplified the likelihood of an authoritarian Presidency.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<a href="https://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2016/07/dissidents-in-american-politics-3.html" style="color: #4c2802; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 85%; text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #ffde45;" target="_blank">Originally Posted in the Redwood Guardian</a></center>
Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-60671646203733409772017-01-01T09:30:00.000-08:002018-07-22T22:41:37.630-07:004. Dissidents in American Politics: Who are we angry at? The Ethnic Others? Politicians, Congress, State Legislatures? Or the Sort of Rich, Rich, & Stinking Rich?<hr noshade="noshade" />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%; font-weight: bold;">"Dissidents" are people who actively challenge established doctrine, policy, or institutions. This post is the fourth in a series of 10 posts regarding the confusing "revolutions" of the 2016 Presidential Election.</span></blockquote>
<hr noshade="noshade" />
As previously noted, people are angry at immigrants, people of other races and religions, ... well, some people are angry.<br />
<br />
Certainly, not the rich, whoever they are. They are who most of the angry are angry at or angry about.<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to know who the rich are.<br />
<br />
Recently, we've begun to talk about the 1% . But we tend to get lost in discussions about income and wealth which are two different things. Wealth, or net worth, is the sum of all assets minus the sum of all liabilities.<br />
<br />
Sometimes it's easy to think of the rich in terms of Forbes 400 wealthiest individuals. According to an Economic Policy Institute report <a href="http://epi.3cdn.net/2a7ccb3e9e618f0bbc_3nm6idnax.pdf" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">The State of Working America’s Wealth, 2011: Through volatility and turmoil, the gap widens</a>: "In 2009, the price of admission to the Forbes 400 was just short of $1 billion, and the collective net worth of these 400 individuals was $1.3 trillion."<br />
<br />
But this isn't reflective of the 1%, even though the 400 are in the 1%. In 2009, when The Great Recession impacted personal wealth the most ("recession" ...uh... more about that later), the report <a href="http://epi.3cdn.net/2a7ccb3e9e618f0bbc_3nm6idnax.pdf" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">tells us</a>: "Average wealth of the top 1% was close to $14 million in 2009..."<br />
<br />
That pretty much defined the top 1% in terms of wealth in 2009 - a household net worth that can be rounded to a number that exceeds $10 million. That's substantially less wealth than that $1 billion mark.<br />
<br />
It is important to keep in mind that if we use wealth (net worth) as the measurement, the impact of The Great Recession was somewhat uneven according to that report:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
On average, the top 20% lost 16.0% and the bottom 80% lost 25.1% of their total wealth in 2008 and 2009. Average wealth of the bottom 80% was just $62,900 in 2009...slightly less, in inflation-adjusted terms, than it was more than a quarter-century ago in 1983.... The lowest 20% had -$27,200 of wealth in 2009. Since 2001 there has been a continual erosion of wealth for this class regardless of cyclical timing.
</span></blockquote>
Of course, most of the loss in The Great Recession was housing value with many homes "under water", meaning that the value of the house was less than the mortgage.<br />
<br />
As you might guess, many of those angry folks are in the bottom 80% whose average net worth dropped from almost $105,000 at the peak to about $63,000 as the result of The Great Recession.<br />
<br />
Another way of defining the 1% is in terms of income. Since The Great Recession according to this chart we in the 99% have something to be angry about even though the economy is starting to provide some income growth to them:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEGvlebmk7VmKnpAp1Uoxf2sGnKWk-t1yOc8GlfVK5rVk9k1nh-wRnmYz5BhpvS7GQT4H_umzrUUG7q7gJJYbz5rIdt9roUX53szQLcNPRE7Lo3yZjjbX1hdo4auj-t3JMo9SnyqMbpzc/s1600/2015_income_chart.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; font-family: serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="326" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEGvlebmk7VmKnpAp1Uoxf2sGnKWk-t1yOc8GlfVK5rVk9k1nh-wRnmYz5BhpvS7GQT4H_umzrUUG7q7gJJYbz5rIdt9roUX53szQLcNPRE7Lo3yZjjbX1hdo4auj-t3JMo9SnyqMbpzc/s400/2015_income_chart.jpg" width="420" /><br />Click on image to see a larger version!</a></div>
In terms of income, the 1% are not the same folks as those with 1% of the wealth. In a 2010 piece titled <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_great_divergence/features/2010/the_united_states_of_inequality/the_stinking_rich_and_the_great_divergence.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">The United States of Inequality</a> we learned:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
The American aristocracy is less different from you and me than it was in Fitzgerald's day. ...The top of the heap are overwhelmingly job-holders deriving most of their income from their wages. Did it become posh to have a job? Not exactly. Having a job—the right job, anyway—became the way to get posh. That's encouraging in one sense: To roll in the dough you now have to work for a living. But it's discouraging in another sense: You can't blame enormous income disparities on non-working coupon-clippers who exist outside the wage structure (and reality as most of us understand it). The wage structure itself is grossly misshapen.
</span></blockquote>
The author divided the rich into three groups, "Sort of Rich, Rich, and Stinking Rich." And he explained that "it’s useful to think of the top 10 percent as the 'sort of rich,' the 1 percent as the straightforward 'rich,' and the 0.1 percent as the 'stinking rich.' "<br />
<br />
In a more recent article <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/08/defining_rich_in_america_what_are_the_income_cutoffs.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Who Gets to Be “Rich”? And why do most people seem to think they are “middle class”?</a> we are offered this piece of information: "...A household income of about $113,000 lands you at the top 10th, while $394,000 makes you a bona fide member of the 1 percent." What he then goes on to explain is:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
...More than 76 percent of Americans get to experience the joys of a six-figure household income for at least one year, just more than half will make $150,000 or more at some point, and about 20 percent hit the $250,000 mark at least once, which these days would put them within the top 2 percent of earners.<br /><br />... Just half of Americans hit six figures for five or more years, and only one-third manage it for a decade total. Meanwhile, less than 2 percent cross the quarter-million-dollar threshold for at least 10 years of their lives. Just 1 percent do it for 10 consecutive years.<br /><br />Why do our incomes rise and fall so much? People get sick and leave work. They get bonuses. They spend a year pulling enormous amounts of overtime. Parents leave their careers to care for children or cut down to part-time hours. Life isn’t a steady march, and nor are our incomes. This, I think, should complicate our idea of class. Quite a few of us get our 15 minutes of affluence, but sustaining it is hard.
</span></blockquote>
And yet we're told "the bottom 60 percent earned a maximum of $59,154 in 2010, the bottom 40 percent earned a max of $33,870, while the bottom 20 percent earned just $16,961 at maximum" in <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/who-are-the-1-percenters/2011/10/06/gIQAn4JDQL_blog.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Who are the 1 percent?</a><br />
<br />
To confuse matters more, we are offered this chart in <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/the-top-1-percentand-01-percentof-every-age-group-in-america/382094/" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">How Much Income Puts You in the 1 Percent if You're 30, 40, or 50?</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIawGRUaOkTZdqrZ0VpZYGN1Iq8emFsG4h8C0a4OuooKnM86_7P4V3H8Geo_xUdpdXAmszRlgu2fO3a11gf_ReuKDaitK3OloJxdFgYtiquAG_TV0Bc4UA0H8tSV0cICe4K823lUl_9sk/s1600/1%2525+by+age.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; font-family: serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="410" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIawGRUaOkTZdqrZ0VpZYGN1Iq8emFsG4h8C0a4OuooKnM86_7P4V3H8Geo_xUdpdXAmszRlgu2fO3a11gf_ReuKDaitK3OloJxdFgYtiquAG_TV0Bc4UA0H8tSV0cICe4K823lUl_9sk/s400/1%2525+by+age.jpg" width="423" /><br />Click on image to see a larger version!</a></div>
The point is that if you make $135,000 a year and your age 27-31, you are in the top 1% of your age group. If you are 50+ you need to make $340,000±.<br />
<br />
From all this, what we know is that if you are 40 making $285,000 a year, you're in the top 1%. Likely you'll be in that group for no more than five years of your life.<br />
<br />
Then you may slip into the group of angry people.<br />
<br />
You could easily find yourself making 30% of that and still be in the upper 40% income group - a middle class income.<br />
<br />
And you might retire in the bottom 40% income group earned a max of $33,870 but still middle class. And still angry.<br />
<br />
So who is this 1% we're angry at? The Forbes 400? People with a household net worth of more than $10 million. Or a 30-year-old techie making $135,000 a year. Heck, they are all in some version of the 1%.<br />
<br />
Are we angry at them or angry at "The Establishment" because these 1% folks exist without "me" being among them?<br />
<br />
Are we angry at Congress and the state legislatures because they don't tax these people enough?<br />
<br />
Are we angry, really? Yes we are.<br />
<br />
As I wrote in the post <a href="http://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-effect-of-white-white-collar.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">The effect of the <u>white</u> <i>white-collar</i> Democrats' class war against <u>white</u> <i>blue-collar</i> American women</a> there was The Great Recession and afterwards government and corporations "didn't do much to help restore to their prior status predominately white unionized blue collar age 40+ industrial workers who were used to making upper middle class incomes."<br />
<br />
Here is where things get confusing. Economists have created lots of interesting terms about the ups and downs of an economy. We have economic downturns, recessions, and depressions.<br />
<br />
An economic <i>downturn</i> is a general slowdown in economic activity over a sustained period of time in a specific region or on a global scale. It's a little hard to distinguish an economic downturn from a recession. The key features of an economic downturn include:<br />
<ul>
<li>Negative or very low economic growth</li>
<li>Rising unemployment</li>
<li>Falling asset prices – shares and house prices</li>
<li>Low consumer confidence and falling investment.</li>
<li>Rising spare capacity (negative output gap)</li>
<li>Increasing government borrowing due to higher government spending on benefits and lower tax revenue.</li>
</ul>
Usually economic downturns are temporary and part of the economic cycle.<br />
<br />
The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) defines an economic <i>recession</i> as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales." <br />
<br />
All member states of the European Union including the United Kingdom define an economic <i>recession </i>as two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth, as measured by the seasonal adjusted quarter-on-quarter figures for real GDP.<br />
<br />
A severe recession (GDP down by 10%) or prolonged recession (three or four years) is referred to as an economic <i>depression</i>.<br />
<br />
According to the US National Bureau of Economic Research (the official arbiter of US recessions) The Great Recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, thus extending over 19 months. By virtue of the way they measure "economic growth" which includes the flow government spending including the bank and GM bailouts, The Great Recession never became a depression.<br />
<br />
Sure, as explained in economist talk in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession#Overview" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
The distribution of household incomes in the United States has become more unequal during the post-2008 economic recovery, a first for the US but in line with the trend over the last ten economic recoveries since 1949. Income inequality in the United States has grown from 2005 to 2012 in more than 2 out of 3 metropolitan areas. Median household wealth fell 35% in the US, from $106,591 to $68,839 between 2005 and 2011</span></blockquote>
In other words, as measured the GDP quit declining, the banks finished foreclosing on family homes and sold them to corporate landlords and real estate flippers, and some people found jobs at much lower wages than before causing the unemployment rate to drop.<br />
<br />
As I explained in the post <a href="http://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-innane-bigotry-of-educated-is.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">The inane bigotry of the educated is the reason why Trump's “I love the poorly educated!” is a winner</a>, construction employment is still 1.6 million jobs short of its 2007 level, manufacturing has 1 million fewer jobs than it did before the recession, and, compared to pre-recession employment levels, office and administrative support occupations have experienced the second-highest decline in jobs - 1.4 million.<br />
<br />
Evidence is mounting as explained in <a href="http://capitalandmain.com/latest-news/issues/labor-and-economy/is-the-middle-class-being-disrupted-into-extinction-0707/" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Is the Middle Class Being “Disrupted” Into Extinction?</a> that educated professionals of all types - tech, legal, education, journalists, nurses, "are falling prey to an unstable new America." Recently a study indicated that the leading tech companies expect that
in the next three years automation and machine learning will replace 5%
of their workforce.<br />
<br />
The author has coined a new term derived from combining "proletariat" and "precarious" - the <i>Middle Precariat</i>. We all know what that "precarious" as defined by Dictionary.com (first definition) means "dependent on circumstances beyond one's control; uncertain; unstable; insecure.". The "proletariat" is a term in a capitalist society for the class of wage-earners whose only possession of significant material value is their labor-power, their ability to work.<br />
<br />
Which brings us back to the anger. GDP means Gross Domestic Product. It measures productivity in terms of the value of output of goods and services. It doesn't measure whether workers contribute to or share in the wealth created by that output.<br />
<br />
That's ok for economists to talk about. But it's not ok in real life for real people, particularly including politicians.<br />
<br />
You see economists may think The Great Recession didn't turn into a depression because GDP stopped falling in less than two years. But when median household wealth fell 35% in the US between 2005 and 2011, that's six years. And when in 2013, real median household income was 8.0 percent lower than in 2007 that's six years.<br />
<br />
The reality to be faced by the Shareholder Capitalists and the Academic Oligarchists - and by Congress and state officials - is that in 2008 for somewhere between 60% to 80% of American households a recession began that has not ended. For real people, not economists, in fact The Great Recession turned into a depression because real people don't care what happens to corporations, they care about what happens to people.<br />
<br />
To give the situation a term, what happened in 2008 was an <i><b>Economic Collapse</b></i> built upon an earlier economic decline for which according to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_collapse" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a> "there is no precise definition." Instead, Wikipedia offers a description of symptoms (<i><b>emphasis</b></i> added):<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
The term has been used to describe a broad range of bad economic conditions, ranging from a severe, prolonged depression with high bankruptcy rates and high unemployment (such as the Great Depression of the 1930s), to a breakdown in normal commerce caused by hyperinflation (such as in Weimar Germany in the 1920s), or even an economically caused <i><b>sharp rise in the death rate</b></i> and perhaps even a decline in population (such as in countries of the former USSR in the 1990s).
</span></blockquote>
The crux of the matter is that <b><i>an Economic Collapse means a period of a few months that results in the long term significant loss (greater than 10%) of personal wealth (net worth) for the 80% of the households having the lowest wage income.</i></b> That means most of the people.<br />
<br />
As indicated in Wikipedia "often economic collapse is accompanied by social chaos, civil unrest and sometimes a breakdown of law and order."<br />
<br />
As discussed in posts here, we not only have had prolonged unemployment and other symptoms of an Economic Collapse that really began with the burst of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">dot-com bubble</a> which took place during 1999–2001, but <a href="http://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2016/04/poverty-white-women-and-death-bernie.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">we now know</a> that we likely have an economically caused sharp rise in the death rate as "white women have been dying prematurely at higher rates since the turn of this century, passing away in their 30s, 40s and 50s in a slow-motion crisis driven by decaying health in small-town America."<br />
<br />
And that is what the election of 2016 is all about - ignorance among the best educated people among us about the 21st Century Economic Collapse. They have been literally Economic Collapse deniers because it really didn't impact them for any length of time. And frankly the revolt is, in part, because of the one type bigotry not recognized by and deeply ingrained in the college-centric politically correct police as explained in detail in <i>The Atlantic</i> article <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/the-war-on-stupid-people/485618/?utm_source=nl-atlantic-weekly-072916" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">The War on Stupid People</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
"When Michael Young, a British sociologist, coined the term meritocracy in 1958, it was in a dystopian satire. At the time, the world he imagined, in which intelligence fully determined who thrived and who languished, was understood to be predatory, pathological, far-fetched. Today, however, we’ve almost finished installing such a system...."</span></blockquote>
What the article explains is that a dystopian, predatory, pathological system of economic and social discrimination has been put in place since the 1960's that strongly favors 20%± of the population and seriously dispossess 60%± of the population, while leaving the remaining 20%± feeling a great deal of unease. In the article we are told: "From 1979 to 2012, the median-income gap between a family headed by two earners with college degrees and two earners with high-school degrees grew by $30,000, in constant dollars."<br />
<br />
Of course, 1979 was the beginning of the Information Age. Shareholder Capitalists and Academic Oligarchists were enthralled with the advent of the Digital Revolution/Information Age precisely because it created a preference on intelligence, as they defined it, as opposed to wisdom which can be possessed by anyone and has no direct correlation to intelligence scores.<br />
<br />
Shareholder Capitalists and Academic Oligarchists seemed to have lost touch with even modern history. For instance, there is a line, albeit not completely straight, that runs through intellectuals Hegel, Marx, Kerensky and Lenin leading to Joseph Stalin who began his method of taking control by ousting Molotov and Shlyapnikov as editors of the newspaper <i>Pravda</i> because he had an understanding of, and control of, then modern media coverage and because he understood how really unwise intellectuals are.<br />
<br />
So let's take a deeper look at the four groups, particular the Shareholder Capitalists and Academic Oligarchists who the rest of us are angry at. Let's begin with the Shareholder Capitalists.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<a href="https://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2016/07/dissidents-in-american-politics-4-who.html" style="color: #4c2802; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 85%; text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #ffde45;" target="_blank">Originally Posted in the Redwood Guardian</a></center>
Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-46809728090316618342017-01-01T09:00:00.000-08:002018-07-23T11:05:25.434-07:005. Dissidents in American Politics: The Shareholder Capitalist Class<hr noshade="noshade" />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%; font-weight: bold;">"Dissidents" are people who actively challenge established doctrine, policy, or institutions. This post is the fifth in a series of 10 posts regarding the confusing "revolutions" of the 2016 Presidential Election.</span></blockquote>
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2016/07/tech-ceo-exec-summary.pdf" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="49" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUnjz2DZMCaTO-bSeD_O6t2hsB3Ofxq0VJ_BuuqXhmjP0_wyIxcXYYpzrvcVrokUWLBKjRdfGZ7dZqt_pmm4YaiX9_PkjbdSlOFqEhmReNCCoPeuoN5_qQKZ3s7nvgVIoc_t9164n-LMI/s400/People_Assets.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
A "Shareholder Capitalist" is the year 2000 version of the year 1900 "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Robber Baron</a>." Robber Barons were business leaders in the United States, avaricious rascals who for personal gain habitually cheated and robbed workers, investors and consumers, corrupted government, fought ruthlessly among themselves, and in general carried on predatory activities comparable to those of the robber barons of medieval Europe but without violent armies. <br />
<br />
Shareholder Capitalists tend to be more removed personally from their business presence than the Robber Barons of 1900. Shareholder Capitalists depend upon and reinforce the beneficial effectiveness and sanctity of the faceless "corporation" which:<br />
<ul>
<li>exists independently of its owners for the primary purpose of accumulating unlimited corporate wealth (not wealth for its owners, hence the reluctance to pay significant dividends);</li>
<li>exists within a capitalist economic system and within an infinite time structure removed from the limits of a human life spans;</li>
<li>operates worldwide without regard to international boundaries seeking to maximize revenue while minimizing the cost of productive labor and taxes; and </li>
<li>combines with others of its kind when needed for purposes of efficiency and market domination.</li>
</ul>
It is at this point that we again need to understand that regarding corporations politics and economics have become separated in the minds of serious, but confused, people. Perhaps it is time we Americans remind ourselves of something:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTvg4MBVxegQZwyO50Ne1WTwNl5a1zvkTiETmGFjiupzU__86X9oevjxZOZFxQ6maA4F9elFql1buuqUhiirytC1O81yQ-r2ecCwcIijBWx0UzLCNfDldINt2as1aqro19UHsa7h2BP2I/s1600/delewareinc.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; margin-top: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTvg4MBVxegQZwyO50Ne1WTwNl5a1zvkTiETmGFjiupzU__86X9oevjxZOZFxQ6maA4F9elFql1buuqUhiirytC1O81yQ-r2ecCwcIijBWx0UzLCNfDldINt2as1aqro19UHsa7h2BP2I/s1600/delewareinc.jpg" /></a></div>
This is a typical incorporation document from the State of Delaware in which a lot of corporations are incorporated. It's similar to such documents in most states. Notice Article III which reads as follows:
<br />
<blockquote style="line-height: 14px;">
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
The nature of the business or purposes to be conducted or promoted is to engage in any lawful act or activity for which corporations may be organized under the Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL").
</span></blockquote>
Along with the confusion about money discussed in the first of this series of numbered posts, there seems to be a lot of confusion about corporations. Corporations can only exists if laws passed by legislative bodies permit them to exist. And they can only do what those laws permit them to do.<br />
<br />
In other words, as with money by definition corporations are created and controlled by government. Without corporation law there would only be individual people doing business with all the attendant major personal risks and significant financial limits. It's interesting that many Americans think government involvement in the economy is wrong. There would be no economy without government. This isn't even something that is debatable.<br />
<br />
In other words Shareholder Capitalists wouldn't exist and can't do anything without government. Now that we've cleared that up...<br />
<br />
Shareholder Capitalists include people or families who own or control (sometimes through an investment business) hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate stock and who likely serve on the board of directors of a number of corporations. Typically, the corporations involved employ more than 3,000 people.<br />
<br />
A true shareholder capitalist within the corporation looks to achieve corporate profit goals without regard to the well-being of persons. Minimized compensation is made for the use of individual abilities required to further corporate goals. Since corporations have no personal prejudices, a true shareholder capitalist also ignores any and all labels that may apply to other persons related to nationality, religion, politics, race, ethnic group, class, age, gender, sexual preference, etc. Assets are assets and as the graphic above says "people are assets" like machinery and furniture.<br />
<br />
Any "people" - person - can choose to be <i>affiliated with</i> Shareholder Capitalists by working as senior management within a corporate organization or by acquiring stock in corporations at share ownership quantities that have no meaningful impact on shareholder voting. If you are among either of those two groups and your personal situation has not led you to anger, you may choose to see your interests as coinciding with the interests of Shareholder Capitalists. Occasionally they are, but not always and not forever. And about outrage over CEO pay, you may want to read this election year article <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/beware-big-talk-about-the-tax-code/2016/02/11/6ccab0fe-cf35-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Beware big talk about the tax code</a>.<br />
<br />
Beyond becoming affiliated, the only way to share in the benefits of corporate success is to be an employee of a corporation or a vendor of supplies or services purchased by a corporation, but with the understanding that the corporation's goal will be to compensate you the least it can consistent with its goals and to that end may, and likely will, terminate your relationship at any time because of its goals - nothing personal, you understand, you're an asset and there's nothing "personal" about machinery or furniture or you. You may see yourself as affiliated with Shareholder Capitalists, but they rightly know you are delusional.<br />
<br />
For Shareholder Capitalists there is little meaning in an Economic Collapse as defined in the previous post. In recessions where the GDP drops, Shareholder Capitalists worry and so economists also wring their hands and opine. But where you have an Economic Collapse meaning the net worth of the lower paid 80% dropped significantly, if the GDP comes back who cares?<br />
<br />
Primarily driven by the profit motive, today Shareholder Capitalists manipulate the world's economy and ours.<br />
<br />
Successful 21st Century tech entrepreneurs are Shareholder Capitalists who have capacity and willingness to develop, organize, and manage a new business venture along with any of its risks in order to make a profit. Usually the most successful are seen as "innovative" meaning they bring some new product or service into the marketplace. Some attempt to mitigate the depersonalizing impact of Shareholder Capitalism through charitable activities.<br />
<br />
We may need them to do more charitable work, because in a<a href="https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2016/07/tech-ceo-exec-summary.pdf" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank"> recent report</a> about the tech industry KPMG stated (<i><b>emphasis</b></i> added):<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
...As part of this strategic priority to successfully integrate disruptive technologies to create unique customer value propositions and new ways to compete, tech CEOs say they are investing heavily in talent development, workforce automation and machine learning. The majority of technology companies plan to increase their human workforce at least 6 percent over the next three years while <i><b>adding cognitive systems to create a new class of digital labor that can enhance human skills and expertise</b></i>, allowing employees to innovate constantly.</span></blockquote>
Despite plans to grow their companies' worldwide human workforce 2% a year for the next three years, as expressed in this graphic the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of people with whom they share the revenue by automating as much of the tech industry as possible replacing workers with "digital" labor.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibX8_UBjPZkJ70SLVplcX-Q7vOc2gTepdbBDG4K3YMoaQWjABYN2GRjsJJJIoTPo5-0qwYbyXRO-Te4fhr6BF5wKEhQ_S6l0vLCMP_jj_GP7ylGV-0KDa83Fpm30D7f6-1Zv7d7Gyh8m8/s1600/KPMG_graphic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; font-family: serif; font-size: 90%; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; margin-top: 1em;"><img border="0" height="170" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibX8_UBjPZkJ70SLVplcX-Q7vOc2gTepdbBDG4K3YMoaQWjABYN2GRjsJJJIoTPo5-0qwYbyXRO-Te4fhr6BF5wKEhQ_S6l0vLCMP_jj_GP7ylGV-0KDa83Fpm30D7f6-1Zv7d7Gyh8m8/s400/KPMG_graphic.jpg" width="420" /><br />Click on image to see a larger version!</a></div>
They've already been very successful doing that for the manufacturing of their tech devices as they did for other manufacturing corporations and within their administration support workforce and they did for other corporations generally.<br />
<br />
Given the report's comment that "U.S. Tech CEOs indicate India and the U.S. have the greatest potential for new market growth over the next three years followed by Brazil and China" it is unclear where the 5% of the workforce will be replaced and the 6% growth will occur. But it is clear that the greatest savings would come from reducing their U.S. workforce.<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: #1b6085; clear: right; color: white; float: right; margin-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 5pt; padding-left: 5pt; padding-right: 5pt; padding-top: 5pt; width: 50%;">
<span style="font-size: 85%;">For a more extensive review of workforce impacts of Shareholder Capitalists in recent decades read the posts</span>
<br />
<ul><span style="font-size: 85%;">
<li><a href="http://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-innane-bigotry-of-educated-is.html" style="color: white; text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #f6fcfe;" target="_blank">"The innane bigotry of the educated is the reason why Trump's 'I love the poorly educated!' is a winner"</a> and</li>
<li><a href="http://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-effect-of-white-white-collar.html" style="color: white; text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #f6fcfe;" target="_blank">"The effect of the <b>white</b> <i>white-collar</i> Democrats' class war against <b>white</b> <i>blue-collar</i> American women"</a>.</li>
</span></ul>
</div>
There are some parts of the economy that are outside that world controlled by Shareholder Capitalists. Small businesses, typically those that cannot become an employer of more than 3,000 people, are outside that world. Shareholder Capitalists, for instance those who control the banking system, do interface with these small business owners. And to an extent they attempt to persuade the small business owner that they all function in the same environment - capitalism. But they don't.<br />
<br />
Agriculture is a peculiar sector of the economy. Only in recent times have Shareholder Capitalists managed to gain control in this sector. Despite the Industrial Revolution, the agrarian system - which values rural society as superior to urban society, the independent farmer as superior to the paid worker, and sees farming as a way of life that can shape the ideal social values - resisted the Shareholder Capitalist. In the 20th Century, that changed, partly as a result of government policies established by Academic Oligarchists who found it easier to deal with Shareholder Capitalists than individual farmers.<br />
<br />
Historically Shareholder Capitalists refrained from involvement in the political system except for lobbying. They would work with the Academic Oligarchists in the executive branches of national and state governments and use the court system as needed.<br />
<br />
That has changed. We will explore the change after reviewing the Academic Oligarchists class.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<a href="https://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2016/07/dissidents-in-american-politics-5.html" style="color: #4c2802; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 85%; text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #ffde45;" target="_blank">Originally Posted in the Redwood Guardian</a></center>
Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-78549740231681308062017-01-01T08:30:00.000-08:002018-07-23T11:35:37.754-07:006. Dissidents in American Politics: The Academic Oligarchist Class<hr noshade="noshade" />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%; font-weight: bold;">"Dissidents" are people who actively challenge established doctrine, policy, or institutions. This post is the sixth in a series of 10 posts regarding the confusing "revolutions" of the 2016 Presidential Election.</span></blockquote>
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
Academic Oligarchists advocate control of government executive and judicial power by people who can be trusted to act on behalf of the "common good." They can be trusted because they have shared ties and knowledge gained through higher education, meaning colleges and universities they have attended.<br />
<br />
Membership into the American Academic Oligarchy can automatically derive from holding a degree from an American Ivy League school (Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton, and Yale) plus a few others (College of William and Mary, University of Chicago, Duke, Georgetown, Stanford, Wellesley, and the three military academies).<br />
<br />
It is important to recognize that Academic Oligarchists are not employed by a university or college, except on a temporary basis or when
semi-retired. Nor are they employed regularly in the private sector. Rather they work as elected or appointed public officials. <br />
<br />
While the focus here is on the latter half of the 20th Century and the beginning of the 21st Century, the American Academic Oligarchy assumed control at the creation of the United States. Of course our first six Presidents attended one of those colleges:<br />
<ul>
<li>George Washington - College of William and Mary</li>
<li>Thomas Jefferson - College of William and Mary</li>
<li>John Adams - Harvard</li>
<li>James Madison - University of Pennsylvania</li>
<li>James Monroe - College of William and Mary</li>
<li>John Quincy Adams - Harvard</li>
</ul>
And among the Supreme Court Justices appointed by <i>those</i> Presidents were: <br />
<ul>
<li>John Jay - Columbia</li>
<li>Oliver Ellsworth - Yale, Princeton</li>
<li>William Paterson - Princeton</li>
<li>William Cushing - Harvard</li>
<li>John Blair, Jr. - College of William and Mary</li>
<li>Bushrod Washington - College of William and Mary</li>
<li>John Marshall - College of William and Mary</li>
<li>William Johnson - Princeton</li>
<li>Henry Brockholst Livingston - Princeton</li>
<li>Joseph Story - Harvard</li>
<li>Smith Thompson - Princeton</li>
</ul>
In reality it began with the Declaration of Independence as the signers included:<br />
<ul>
<li>John Hancock - Harvard</li>
<li>William Hooper - Harvard</li>
<li>Samuel Adams - Harvard</li>
<li>Robert Treat Paine - Harvard</li>
<li>Elbridge Gerry - Harvard</li>
<li>William Ellery - Harvard</li>
<li>William Williams - Harvard</li>
<li>Oliver Wolcott - Yale</li>
<li>Philip Livingston - Yale</li>
<li>Lyman Hall - Yale</li>
<li>Carter Braxton - College of William and Mary</li>
<li>Benjamin Harrison V - College of William and Mary</li>
<li>Benjamin Rush - Princeton</li>
<li>Joseph Hewes - Princeton</li>
<li>Thomas McKean - Princeton, Dartmouth, University of Pennsylvania</li>
<li>Francis Hopkinson - University of Pennsylvania</li>
<li>James Smith - University of Pennsylvania</li>
<li>James Wilson - University of Pennsylvania</li>
<li>William Paca - University of Pennsylvania</li>
</ul>
It's even more complicated than that.<br />
<br />
We all know that Benjamin Franklin, like so many of his time, was educated more informally. That might make you think he wasn't involved in the Academic Oligarchy. What you may not know is the Academy and College of Philadelphia located in Philadelphia was founded in 1749 by a group of local notables that included Benjamin Franklin. Franklin, the first president of the board of trustee, drew up the constitution for the academy, which was notable for its emphasis on modern languages and science in place of Latin and Greek. It was reorganized in 1791 as the University of Pennsylvania.<br />
<br />
Twenty-one members of the Continental Congress were graduates of Benjamin Franklin's school, and nine signers of the Declaration of Independence were either alumni or trustees.<br />
<br />
Given the times, as we might expect many signers not listed were educated in Great Britain. As an example, John Witherspoon attended the University of Edinburgh but emigrated from Scotland to New Jersey in 1768 to become the sixth President of the College of New Jersey, later known as Princeton University.<br />
<br />
While holding a degree from any university, any person can become <i>affiliated with</i> American Academic Oligarchists by working in a senior position for a President, or Cabinet Member, or even a State executive official who is an Academic Oligarchist.<br />
<br />
Most significantly, the American Academic Oligarchy controls the U.S.
Presidency and Supreme Court. Oh. And did I say that they
believe they work to achieve "the common good" which in the 20th Century was
defined by <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">The Universal Declaration of Human Rights</a>, a documents most Americans don't even know exists. On other hand, how to achieve "the common good" is the subject of political disputes.<br />
<br />
Here is a list of the American Presidents who first entered the office <i>after</i> the adoption of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and their <i>alma maters</i>:<br />
<ul>
<li>Barack Obama - Columbia and Harvard Law School</li>
<li>George W. Bush - Yale and Harvard Business School</li>
<li>Bill Clinton - Georgetown, Oxford, and Yale Law School</li>
<li>George H. W. Bush - Yale</li>
<li>Ronald Reagan - Eureka College</li>
<li>Jimmy Carter - U.S. Naval Academy</li>
<li>Gerald Ford - Yale Law School</li>
<li>Richard Nixon - Duke University School of Law</li>
<li>Lyndon B. Johnson - Texas State University</li>
<li>John F. Kennedy - attended Stanford and graduated from Harvard</li>
<li>Dwight D. Eisenhower - United States Military Academy (West Point)</li>
</ul>
Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson were not automatic members of the American Academic Oligarchy.<br />
<br />
As we know, Lyndon Johnson accidentally became President after the assassination of Jack Kennedy and immediately was surrounded by members of the American Academic Oligarchy who were part of the Kennedy administration. Ironically, because of timing the American Academic Oligarchy in 1964 had to use Johnson, whose leanings were toward being a Romantic Populist, to stop a Mythical Reactionary movement led by Barry Goldwater. Johnson only recently has been posthumously "embraced" by Academic Oligarchs.<br />
<br />
By the time Ronald Reagan entered the Office of the President he too was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan#Administration_and_Cabinet" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">surrounded with automatic members</a>. But he had served two terms as Governor of California 1967–75 with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Meese#Early_life_and_education" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Ed Meese</a> as his Chief of Staff. Meese was a Yale graduate. It is in examining the people like Meese around Reagan's political career that we can gain a clearer picture of what it means to be an Academic Oligarchist.<br />
<br />
For instance, a classic example of an Academic Oligarchist associated with Reagan was Caspar Weinberger, who held a BA and a law degree from Harvard.<br />
<ul>
<li>Governor Ronald Reagan named Weinberger chairman of the Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy in 1967 and appointed him State director of finance early in 1968. </li>
<li>Two years later Weinberger became chairman of the Federal Trade Commission where is credited for having revitalized the FTC by enforcing consumer protection. </li>
<li>Weinberger subsequently served under President Richard Nixon as Director of the Office of Management and Budget and Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. </li>
<li>Weinberger then became vice president and general counsel of the Bechtel Corporation in California directly working in the world of Shareholder Capitalists for what is today the largest construction and civil engineering company in the United States, ranking as the 5th-largest privately owned company in the United States; it was and is a major contractor working for the U.S. Government which, as of July 2015, leads a consortium that manages three national security-related facilities in the U.S.: the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the combined Y-12 National Security Complex/Pantex Plant.. </li>
<li>Weinberger then served as Secretary of Defense for the first six years of Reagan's Presidency. </li>
<li>Afterwards Weinberger joined Forbes, Inc., in 1989 as publisher of Forbes magazine, and in 1993 he was named chairman. </li>
<li>In he early 21st Century Weinberger was a member of the Founding Council of the Rothermere American Institute of Oxford University.</li>
</ul>
Regarding Ronald Reagan as California's most conservative Governor, the presence of Academic Oligarchy thinking in him or around him led to some rather non-conservative policies:<br />
<ul>
<li>In 1968, he signed the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, establishing collective bargaining for California's municipal and county employees which is consistent with his history as a union leader;</li>
<li>During his term as Governor, he oversaw adoption of sweeping tax packages at least four times larger than the previous record California tax increase obtained by Governor Brown in 1959;</li>
<li>In 1970 he signed the landmark California Environmental Quality Act; he worked with Nevada Republican Governor Paul Laxalt to establish the Lake Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to protect the Lake from irresponsible development; he signed the bill that created the California Air Resources Control Board; and he opposed a major federal highway construction project through the southern Sierras, literally putting on his cowboy hat and riding his horse through the John Muir Wilderness to publicize his opposition;</li>
<li>He signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act, making California the third and largest state to allow for abortion in cases such as rape, incest, or where pregnancy would impair the physical or mental health of the mother, though he did struggle with this bill personally <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/04/californias_abortion_law_a_road_not_taken_117773-full.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">as explained in this story</a>.</li>
</ul>
By the time his term as Governor ended, Academic Oligarchists accepted him one of their own. As a Presidential candidate, Reagan was an experienced union executive and governor who
throughout his life regularly sought the advice and counsel of
automatic Academic Oligarchists. <br />
<br />
Regarding the Supreme Court, here is a list of the current Supreme Court justices:<br />
<ul>
<li>John Roberts - Harvard and Harvard Law School</li>
<li>Anthony Kennedy - Stanford and Harvard Law School</li>
<li>Clarence Thomas -Yale Law School</li>
<li>Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Cornell University, Harvard Law School, and Columbia Law School</li>
<li>Stephen Breyer - Stanford University, Oxford University, and Harvard Law School</li>
<li>Samuel Alito - Princeton and Yale Law School</li>
<li>Sonia Sotomayor - Princeton and Yale Law School</li>
<li>Elena Kagan - Princeton, Oxford University, and Harvard Law School</li>
</ul>
In terms of the future of the Presidency we have a strong challenge to the Academic Oligarchist tradition:<br />
<ul>
<li>Hillary Clinton is the model Academic Oligarchist who graduated from Wellesley in 1969
and received a Juris Doctor degree from Yale in 1973, and has held the positions of U.S. Senator and Secretary of State. Her Vice-Presidential nominee Tim Kaine also is a model Academic Oligarchist who holds a Juris Doctor degree from Harvard, has specialized training as an Academic Oligarchist from the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coro_(non-profit_organization)" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Coro Foundation</a>, and has held the positions of City Council Member, Mayor, Lieutenant Governor, Governor, and U.S. Senator.</li>
<li>The challenge comes from Donald Trump who did graduate from the Wharton School of the University of
Pennsylvania in 1968, Penn's business school, but has never held any governmental office having always been a Shareholder Capitalist. His Vice-Presidential nominee Mike Pence is an anti-Academic Oligarchist as a long-time member of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Policy_Network" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">State Policy Network</a> (we will discuss that further in the next post) who has held the position of the president of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, a conservative talk radio show host, Congressman and Governor.</li>
</ul>
Regarding Donald Trump's alma mater, there is a certain irony that has to be noted given his bombastic anti-China demagoguery which can be seen if you click on the image below:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://pwcc.upenn.edu/en/about-us/about-the-center/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; margin-top: 1em;"><img border="0" height="118" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg4fKKcDzXBdYFouXom6nrrh3A9zww_3cP4ZgARDSG6cMqVO-8AhTm21q9zbufeY3xqF7wJxgBtx3ryyRoA5OwdGFhMci3ITmZcmISX-lSxPd22qvZqjBn93m9IHpGemNSHmaSnjKH7GY/s400/Wharton.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to look at the lists above and think: "Yes, the evidence indicates that the American Academic Oligarchy dominates the U.S. Presidency and Supreme Court."<br />
<br />
However, Academic Oligarchists do not dominate the law-making or budget-adoption roles in the United States. That function is left to Congress and the state legislatures, members of which are directly elected and are therefore responsible to the voters.<br />
<br />
If members of the public do not like our laws and budgets, they need only look in the mirror to find someone to blame. Academic Oligarchists only have review and veto power, and do control administration of the laws and budget.<br />
<br />
Like the Shareholder Capitalists, they
do try to influence the direction of policy-making pursuant to those laws.The views of Academic Oligarchists, particularly in the context of seeking a common good as defined by The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, frequently do conflict with those of Shareholder Capitalists. We need to examine that conflict and how resolution is achieved.<br />
<br />
But first we need to look at the other two classes - the dissidents. <br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<a href="https://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2016/07/dissidents-in-american-politics-6.html" style="color: #4c2802; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 85%; text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #ffde45;" target="_blank">Originally Posted in the Redwood Guardian</a></center>Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-44557253560405606312017-01-01T08:00:00.000-08:002018-07-23T11:46:55.128-07:007. Dissidents in American Politics: The Romantic & Mythical in Politics<hr noshade="noshade" />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%; font-weight: bold;">"Dissidents" are people who actively challenge established doctrine, policy, or institutions. This post is the seventh in a series of 10 posts regarding the confusing "revolutions" of the 2016 Presidential Election.</span></blockquote>
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
<u><i><b>Romantic Populists</b></i></u><br />
<br />
Populism is a political position which holds that the "virtuous" citizens are being mistreated by a small circle of elites, who can be overthrown if the people recognize the danger and work together.<br />
<br />
The elites (aka The Establishment) are depicted as trampling in illegitimate fashion upon the rights, values, and voice of the "legitimate" people. The "legitimate" people are, of course, the Romantic Populists who rarely constitute more than 20% of the population, plus everyone else they believe they have the right to speak and think for.<br />
<br />
One of the reasons as an American I call it "romantic" populism is that most of the American adherents, who appear out of the ether every four years, seem to believe that solely by winning the Presidency that will have solved all their problems by having overthrown Academic Oligarchists in a revolution.<br />
<br />
The followers of Bernie Sanders primarily fall into that category (as do many of those who voted for Brexit) because the bulk of financial benefits of 21st Century economic growth have gone to upper middle class (in terms of per person income over $80,000 a year) and wealthy (in terms of asset value per owner over $10 million). <br />
<br />
Romantic Populists are, of course, delusional dissidents when they see Academic Oligarchists as the The Establishment that has brought about the dysfunctional growth of economic inequality by its failure to restrain the Shareholder Capitalists.<br />
<br />
To understand how that inequality came about they would need to take a quick look in the mirror, then in recognition of the truth turn off their iPhones and contemplate them. They should see in their phones the $181 billion held offshore by Apple to avoid taxes on wealth accumulation <i>by the corporation</i>, wealth from profits not distributed to shareholders. They should see the manipulation of consumers by Steve Jobs.<br />
<br />
If they thought about it, even that lack of distribution of profits may seem illogical based on theoretical capitalism. But remember that a true Shareholder Capitalist within the corporation looks to advance
corporate wealth without regard to the well-being of persons. And, after all, the shareholders are the owners of the $181 billion which has been set aside to assure longer term corporate goals which will enrich the corporation they own, so its all good.<br />
<br />
Romantic Populists think the Academic Oligarchists controlling the power of the Presidency could correct this situation. But in fact that kind of governmental policy must come from laws passed by Congress which, as we know, is not controlled by Academic Oligarchists.<br />
<br />
Rather it is controlled by other people elected to their positions by voters, voters who were persuaded to elect them by publicity and advertising bought by Shareholder Capitalists involved in the <a href="https://spn.org/" style="text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">State Policy Network</a> (more on that group below).The key elections regarding that kind of governmental policy occur two years after each Presidential election when the Romantic Populists seem to disappear, even from the voting booth. <br />
<br />
Through their ignorance of American history, Romantic Populists seem to forget that at the beginning of the 20th Century, the Robber Barons were the target of a number "progressive" changes to be instituted by Academic Oligarchists (Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, Harvard) which, of course, the new
Shareholder Capitalists had rolled back or bypassed with the cooperation
of Congress and the state governments by the end of the 20th Century.<br />
<br />
For American Romantic Populists to achieve economic egalitarian change without a violent socialist revolution, they would have to never again buy an iPhone, symbolically rejecting the current world of Shareholder Capitalists and particularly the current world of entrepreneurial Shareholder Capitalists. They would have to spend much of their time every day working to elect new members of Congress and state legislatures, new members who also reject the current world of Shareholder Capitalists.<br />
<br />
Or they can pretend it is enough to get enthused about a Presidential candidate once every four years and spend the rest of their time streaming "Game of Thrones" on their Apple TV, which is certainly ironic.
<br />
<br />
<u><i><b>Mythical Reactionaries</b></i></u><br />
<br />
A reactionary is a dissident who holds political views that favor a return to a previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics (discipline, respect for authority, etc.) that are negatively absent from the contemporary society.<br />
<br />
Those who voted for Brexit to "take back" Britain - mostly white folks - did have a real time to remember. At least those over 500 years old had a real time to remember. It was before the British Empire. Britain was just a little island with no significant wealth, generally fighting wars with the French and each other. What they think they remember is a time that was before the industrial revolution and before immigration from the colonies.<br />
<br />
The followers of Donald Trump primarily fall into that category also. The reason I call them "mythical" reactionaries is the previous political state of American society with the characteristics they long for <i>never</i> existed.<br />
<br />
In some cases American Mythical Reactionaries believe that there was the "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leave_It_to_Beaver" style="text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">Leave It to Beaver</a>" 1950's - when "fairly" paid hard working men went home to a three bedroom, two bath home they owned where their homemaker wives and 2.6 children greeted them. Their economic situation was the result of their hard work and adherence to values. In this mythical time all that happened without unions and without having had The New Deal government intervention or the myth wouldn't be mythical enough.<br />
<br />
In other cases, American Mythical Reactionaries believe that there was a time like the 1880's in the West where brave hardworking pioneers made it on their own. This was achieved without having the government pushing in railroad capitalism and pushing out the Native Americans using genocide when necessary or the myth wouldn't be mythical enough.<br />
<br />
At that time governmental intervention was necessary, of course, to offer government benefits to the European immigrant ancestors of the Mythical Reactionaries. The benefits were the various Homestead Acts giving those immigrants land specifically to take pressure off an economic unstable Eastern United States, a time in which Catholic immigration was a significant disruptive force.<br />
<br />
Mythical Reactionaries among the general population too suffer the delusion that by overthrowing the Academic Oligarchists through winning the Presidency, some outsider will solve all their problems.<br />
<br />
However, over the past two decades, unlike the Romantic Populists who are too busy to be bothered with uninteresting people like members of Congress and their state legislatures, some Mythical Reactionaries have been effective in electing a Congress and state legislatures that push for social policies they think will return America to one of those mythical previous state of society.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately for the Mythical Reactionaries from the general populace, members of Congress and the legislatures they have elected are catering to the economic interests of Shareholder Capitalists. This is not an accident. Their success was facilitated by the <a href="https://spn.org/" style="text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">State Policy Network</a>, a consortium of conservative and libertarian groups which focus on state-level politics funding a successful ongoing coordinated strategy across 34 states (the other 16 states are pretty much blue despite their best efforts) which was a blueprint for the Mythical Reactionary conservative political success.<br />
<br />
In December 2013, <i><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/05/state-conservative-groups-assault-education-health-tax" style="text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">The Guardian</a></i>, in collaboration with <i><a href="https://www.texasobserver.org/money-behind-fight-undermine-medicaid/" style="text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">The Texas Observer</a></i> and the <a href="http://www.pressherald.com/2013/12/05/mainers-in-washington-county-have-mixed-reactions-to-freeme-plan-to-eliminate-taxes/" style="text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><i>Portland Press</i> <i>Herald</i>,</a> obtained, analyzed, and published 40 grant proposals from SPN regular member organizations. The grant proposals sought funding through SPN from the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searle_Freedom_Trust" style="text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">Searle Freedom Trust</a>. According to <i>The Guardian</i>, the proposals documented a coordinated strategy across 34 states, "a blueprint for the conservative agenda in 2014." The reports described the grant proposals in six states as suggesting campaigns designed to cut pay to state government employees; oppose public sector collective bargaining; reduce public sector services in education and healthcare; promote school vouchers; oppose efforts to combat greenhouse gas emissions; reduce or eliminate income and sales taxes; and study a proposed block grant reform to Medicare.<br />
<br />
A month earlier, the State Policy Network <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/koch-brothers-think-tank-report-099791" style="text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">was tied to</a> the billionaire Shareholder Capitalists Koch Brothers. This year the Koch Brothers have offered clarity as noted by The Washington Post:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px">
The Koch political network, which has steadfastly refused to engage in the 2016 presidential contest, plans to invoke Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in paid messages to voters as part of its campaigns supporting GOP Senate candidates, top officials said Saturday.<br /><br />“We are going to tie the Democrat candidates to Hillary Clinton and the failed policies that she supports, and highlight the differences with the Republican candidates that we favor and that we’re supporting,” said Mark Holden, chairman of the board of Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, the network’s funding arm.<br /><br />But Holden said the network has no plans to run an explicit campaign opposing Clinton’s efforts to reach the White House, saying: “We are going to differentiate on policies alone. It’s not going to be anti-Hillary.”<br /><br />The plans to invoke Clinton in Senate ads come as the network is under pressure from some of its wealthy donors to get off the sidelines and use its national field infrastructure and paid advertising capacity to back GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. But Koch Industries chief executive Charles Koch has refused to budge, repeatedly expressing his dismay with Trump's tone and policy positions.
</span></blockquote>
But the billionaire Shareholder Capitalists Koch Brothers not withstanding, the Mythical Reactionaries candidate to assure replacement of the Academic Oligarchists in the Executive and Judicial Branches is Donald Trump, a Shareholder Capitalist who ironically qualifies as an automatic Academic Oligarchist.<br />
<br />
He will be helped by his Vice-Presidential Candidate Mike Pence who in 1991 became president of the <a href="http://inpolicy.org/" style="text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">Indiana Policy Review Foundation</a>, an organization that is part of the State Policy Network.<br />
<br />
Pence was placed in the Vice-President candidate position under confusing circumstances and generally dismissed by the press as someone there to appeal to the religious right. Of course he will appeal to the religious right, but he likely will have a significant role in facilitating the State Policy Network agenda with support from Congress and the States. As <i>The Washington Post</i> article notes: "Still, the invocation of Clinton in Koch-backed ads is another way that the operation could end up indirectly boosting Trump."<br />
<br />
As a Shareholder Capitalist Trump has embraced some of the worst abuses and misuses of the corporation, turning the impersonal into personal, and showcasing it on television. It's hard to imagine how he and Pence will perform, what goals they will have, where up to now the standard is how best to achieve the goals of the <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf" style="text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">The Universal Declaration of Human Rights</a>. But even the Koch Brothers have serious problems with Trump.<br />
<br />
It would, of course, be against the wishes of a substantial majority of Americans. However, protests movements can easily be shut down by an authoritarian President. <br />
<br />
Let's now take a look at how the Shareholder Capitalists and Academic Oligarchists struggle with issues that place them on opposite sides.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<a href="https://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2016/07/dissidents-in-american-politics-7.html" style="color: #4c2802; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 85%; text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #ffde45;" target="_blank">Originally Posted in the Redwood Guardian</a></center>
Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-52287198781828279282017-01-01T07:30:00.000-08:002018-07-23T13:26:23.745-07:008. Dissidents in American Politics: Shareholder Capitalists vs Academic Oligarchists<hr noshade="noshade" />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%; font-weight: bold;">"Dissidents" are people who actively challenge established doctrine, policy, or institutions. This post is the eighth in a series of 10 posts regarding the confusing "revolutions" of the 2016 Presidential Election.</span></blockquote>
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
Shareholder Capitalists and Academic Oligarchists together make up a group all others can despise called "The Establishment." Shareholder Capitalists manipulate our economy and Academic Oligarchists control key facets of our national government including <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_policy" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">monetary policy</a>. <br />
<br />
Whenever Academic Oligarchists determine that shareholder capitalism is not sufficiently benefiting the common good, the two groups can get into conflict. Whenever Shareholder Capitalists determine Academic Oligarchists are standing in the way of "beneficial" economic change, the two groups can get into conflict<br />
<br />
In the middle of those conflicts are Congress and state legislatures led by people who are normally not automatic members of the Academic Oligarchy nor true Shareholder Capitalists.<br />
<br />
The conflicts traditionally have been fought within the framework of political parties, elections, and legislative bodies that rely upon <i><b>negotiations and compromise</b></i>.<br />
<br />
But, as previously discussed, during the past 30 years within the United States some wealthy Shareholder Capitalists, having become a subgroup of dissidents themselves, using the State Policy Network have successfully bypassed the norms of the process by investing large sums of money in Congressional and legislative candidates and in the news media.The Koch brothers are the best known example.<br />
<br />
This is not unusual in the U.S. Henry Ford was probably the most notorious because of his active support of the rise of Hitler. "I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration," said Adolph Hitler in 1931. It is the extreme extension of the corporate view that people are unimportant.<br />
<br />
This change has allowed Shareholder Capitalists to operate with far fewer restrictions from Academic Oligarchists. During the past 30 years, many Academic Oligarchists have become complacent permitting the undoing of changes made earlier in the 20th Century to avoid an Authoritarian Revolution.<br />
<br />
In the process, they've allowed the word <b><i>compromise</i></b> to become despised. The fact that an effective democratic republic can only work if the players can find a middle ground on complicated issues is lost, or that fact specifically has been suppressed. <br />
<br />
You only had to look at the candidates in this year's primary
(or in the Brexit vote) to find examples of Romantic Populist and
the Mythical Reactionary movements opposing the developments of the past 30 years.<br />
<br />
What Romantic Populist and Mythical Reactionary dissidents typically don't understand is that Shareholder Capitalists need and use strong central governments (which they don't want to try to manage on a day-to-day basis):<br />
<ul>
<li>to assure a stable currency, with minimal restrictions on how that government-created commodity is used;</li>
<li>to defend and facilitate the existence of corporations; </li>
<li>to protect property rights including everything from real estate ownership to patents; </li>
<li>to maintain borders safely open to trade; and</li>
<li>to provide and protect transportation infrastructure such as roads, ports, and airports.</li>
</ul>
To accomplish corporate goals successful Shareholder Capitalists don't hold political office as their power is found in corporate environment based upon a lifetime of focus on work. <br />
<br />
Academic Oligarchists assure this framework for them, arguing only over the details based upon perceived impacts of monetary policy on the rest of us. Without the reasonable support of Congress and the state
legislatures along with the concurrence of the majority of the Supreme
Court, Academic Oligarchists are at a major disadvantage. Unless of course they use military force in an Authoritarian Revolution.<br />
<br />
A true peaceful <i>total</i> revolution by populists or reactionaries is a mythical, romantic fantasy which is exactly what our
founding fathers intended. <br />
<br />
Some <i>peaceful</i> policy successes by Romantic Populists and Mythical Reactionaries have been accomplished. Within the American Congress and the state legislatures, both Romantic Populists and Mythical Reactionaries occasionally win some policy battles through legislation.<br />
<br />
Then the Shareholder Capitalists adapt to (or sometimes thwart) those policies by working with the Academic Oligarchists to fine tune how the new rules are administered and/or by allowing detail variations where Shareholder Capitalists control state governments <br />
<br />
As a group neither Academic Oligarchists nor Shareholder Capitalists embrace a particular "ideology". Neither is rigidly "left" or "right", "liberal" or "conservative" because those labels have no real world meaning beyond political spin. Most understand that if you get caught up in an ideological myth, you are inside a bubble that prevents your meaningful participation in the world. They let the rest of us argue over ideology.<br />
<br />
Let's take a look at some examples of issues of concern to 21st Century Americans because they have contributed to the Economic Collapse and which Academic Oligarchists and Shareholder Capitalists have struggled with.<br />
<br />
<u>Example #1 - Housing Costs</u><br />
<br />
That 2016 housing costs are the source of voter anger in the U.S. is a no brainer.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/06/most-americans-think-the-mortgage-crisis-never-ended/489038/?utm_source=nl__link3_062816" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Most Americans Think the Housing Crisis Never Ended</a> written in 2016 tells us:
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
The Great Recession rewrote the American dream. Millions of Americans who thought they’d captured the flag instead got swallowed up by a national mortgage-foreclosure crisis. Many of those former homeowners are now renters, competing in ever-more concentrated job markets for ever-scarcer affordable housing. <br /><br />So perhaps it comes as no surprise that most Americans say that the housing crisis never ended. In fact, one in five Americans say that the worst is yet to come....
</span>
</blockquote>
In a 2008 article in the <a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/news/andrew-cuomo-and-fannie-and-freddie-6395833" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Village Voice</a> we were told:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
Perhaps the only domestic issue George Bush and Bill Clinton were in complete agreement about was maximizing home ownership, each trying to lay claim to a record percentage of homeowners, and both describing their efforts as a boon to blacks and Hispanics. HUD, Fannie, and Freddie were their instruments, and, as is now apparent, the more unsavory the means, the greater the growth. But, as Paul Krugman noted in the Times recently, "homeownership isn't for everyone," adding that as many as 10 million of the new buyers are stuck now with negative home equity—meaning that with falling house prices, their mortgages exceed the value of their homes. So many others have gone through foreclosure that there's been a net loss in home ownership since 1998.
</span></blockquote>
We have, of course, been deluged with news stories, books and movies about the whole mortgage scam that created The Great Recession. Articles such as <a href="http://www.policymattersohio.org/foreclosures-may2013" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Home Insecurity 2013: Foreclosures and housing in Ohio</a> indicated the situation in a "swing" state:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
Ohio foreclosures are at crisis levels, with more than 70,000 new foreclosures filed in 2012. This was about the same as in 2011 when the state experienced 71,556 foreclosures. What began as mostly an urban problem in the mid-1990s later erupted into a statewide epidemic. Levels have been, for the past three years, below the peak level of 89,000 in 2009. Despite these recent declines, last year’s rates were still two times higher than they had been a decade before in every Ohio county. The high foreclosure numbers persist despite national, state, and local efforts to stem new filings.
<br /> Foreclosures represent a major and ongoing blow against families’ main source of savings and against stability. This report analyzes the new foreclosure filings statistics in Ohio along with some of the latest developments in foreclosure prevention efforts. To add context to the foreclosure numbers, the report provides updates on mortgage defaults and negative equity. It ends with recommendations to better assist individuals, families and communities in becoming more stable.
</span></blockquote>
While the number foreclosures have declined since then, a new problem has developed as explained in <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-financial-pain-of-middle-and-low-income-renters/" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">The financial pain of middle- and low-income renters</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
Even as home prices continue to recover from the last decade's housing collapse, there's another crisis developing: sky-high rent burdens.
<br /> About 11.4 million American households are paying more than half of their incomes to afford their rent, a record high, according to a new report from Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies. Rent burdens are especially widespread in moderate-income households in the 10 most expensive housing markets, where the report notes that three-quarters of renters earning less than $45,000 pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing.
<br /> Younger Americans are also struggling with a decline in real incomes, with 25 to 34 year olds coping with an 18 percent slump in real incomes, which has added to the difficulties of saving for a down payment.
<br /> With homeownership declining, the rental market is where the housing market is shining. More than 36 percent of U.S. households were renters last year, the highest share in five decades.
<br /> "Rental demand has risen across all age groups, income levels, and household types, with large increases among older renters and families with children," the report noted.
<br /> That's also prompted a rise in households who are cost-burdened, or paying more than 30 percent of their incomes to their landlords. About 21.3 million American households are now considered cost-burdened, an increase of 3.6 million from 2008.
</span></blockquote>
The anger of many Mythical Reactionaries supporting Trump begins with the disappointment brought about by George Bush and Bill Clinton advocating maximizing home ownership (part of the ownership society Bush talked about which dates back to Margaret Thatcher's administration in the United Kingdom).<br />
<br />
It also is of serious concern to the Romantic Populist Millennials whose concerns range from never being able to buy a home to high rents leading to articles like <a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/07/01/the_american_housing_crisis_threatening_to_put_us_all_on_the_streets_partner/" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">The American housing crisis threatening to put us all on the streets</a> which emphasizes action taken by the Administration of New York Mayor and Academic Oligarchist Bill de Blasio (<i>alma mater</i> Columbia):<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
On Monday, New York City took a dramatic step that highlights just how out of control rental housing costs have become in the Big Apple and in many cities nationwide. For the first time, New York froze rents for one-year leases on a million rent-stabilized apartments.
<br /> “Today’s decision means relief,” Mayor Bill de Blasio told reporters. “We know tenants have been forced to make painful choices that pitted ever-rising rent against necessities like groceries, child care and medical bills.”
<br /> Landlords balked and criticized City Hall, calling the move an “unconscionable, politically driven decision.” But Rent Board chair Rachel Godsil was having none of it. Her staff had found that landlord incomes had grown for nine years in a row, including by 3.4 percent last year, while costs only grew by 0.5 percent. In contrast, a majority of most stabilized renters faced continuing income stagnation.
</span></blockquote>
Some, but not all, landlords are Shareholder Capitalists and this is an example of conflict with Academic Oligarchists.<br />
<br />
But the fact is that in many regions, particularly in California, Academic Oligarchists have supported policies that create housing shortages. The reasons are complex and include popular environmental rationales.<br />
<br />
They rationales are, of course, part of a sales pitch hiding economic impacts by diverting attention, much like gay marriage as an issue diverts attention.<br />
<br />
This drives up the cost of housing as thoroughly explained by the California Legislative Analyst in a 2015 report <a href="http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housing-costs/housing-costs.aspx" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">California’s High Housing Costs: Causes and Consequences</a>. Yet, Mythical Reactionaries and Romantic Populists for different reasons are going to find it difficult to support the recommendation of the California Legislative Analyst:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
We advise the Legislature to change policies to facilitate significantly more private home and apartment building in California’s coastal urban areas. Though the exact number of new housing units California needs to build is uncertain, the general magnitude is enormous. On top of the 100,000 to 140,000 housing units California is expected to build each year, the state probably would have to build as many as 100,000 additional units annually—almost exclusively in its coastal communities—to seriously mitigate its problems with housing affordability. Facilitating additional housing of this magnitude will be extremely difficult. It could place strains on the state’s infrastructure and natural resources and alter the prized character of California’s coastal communities. It also would require the state to make changes to a broad range of policies that affect housing supply directly or indirectly—including policies that have been fundamental tenets of California government for many years.
</span></blockquote>
Those "fundamental tenets" - mostly environmentalism - curiously had the side effect of creating a housing shortage inflating the value of existing homes to the benefit of homeowners who then also apply additional pressure on California's Academic Oligarchists.<br />
<br />
To date no possible compromise has been achieved, though the recent termination of the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission, Academic Oligarchist Charles Lester (Columbia), was <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0131-lopez-coastal-commish-20160131-column.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">attributed</a> in part to pressure from "some of the state's most powerful lobbyists, representing some of the state's wealthiest people and corporations" or Shareholder Capitalists.<br />
<br />
<u>Example #2 - Student Loans</u><br />
<br />
If housing costs are a 21st Century issue, student loan programs began in the 1950's, as explained in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loans_in_the_United_States" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
U.S. Government-backed student loans were first offered in the 1950s under the National Defense Education Act (NDEA), and were only available to select categories of students, such as those studying toward engineering, science, or education degrees. The student loan program, along with other parts of the Act, which subsidized college professor training, was established in response to the Soviet Union's launch of the Sputnik satellite, and a widespread perception that the United States was falling behind in science and technology, in the middle of the Cold War. Student loans were extended more broadly in the 1960s under the Higher Education Act of 1965, with the goal of encouraging greater social mobility and equality of opportunity.
</span></blockquote>
In 1987, President Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Education William Bennett raised the issue underlying expanding student debt in a <i>New York Times</i> Opinion Piece titled <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/18/opinion/our-greedy-colleges.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Our Greedy Colleges</a>. A Harvard Law graduate and automatic Academic Oligarchist, Bennett is ignored by the public and considered a conservative by those who like to use meaningless labels.<br />
<br />
At the time Bennett wrote his opinion piece the Reagan Administration was trying to minimize the future impact of the student debt problem by creating Income Contingent Loans which would permit repayment schedules to be tailored to a student's income.<br />
<br />
As Bennett explained it <i>in the context of a time when graduates would likely get good jobs</i>: "A graduate's payments would never have to exceed 15 percent of his adjusted gross income, and he could have as long as necessary to repay."<br />
<br />
But Bennett was angry at what he was seeing and wrote:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
Many of our colleges are at it again. As they have done annually for the past six years, they have begun to unveil tuition increases that far outstrip the inflation rate. Next year, tuition is expected to rise 6 percent to 8 percent - even though inflation during 1986 was about 1.8 percent.
<br /> ...Since 1982, money available through Federal student aid programs has increased every single year. Overall, Federal outlays for student aid are up 57 percent since 1980. Since 1980, inflation has been just 26 percent....
<br /> If anything, increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase. In 1978, subsidies became available to a greatly expanded number of students. In 1980, college tuitions began rising year after year at a rate that exceeded inflation. Federal student aid policies do not cause college price inflation, but there is little doubt that they help make it possible.
<br /> At the same time that higher education has been cutting a bigger piece of the Federal pie, it has also received huge infusions of cash from state governments, from corporations, from foundations and from loyal alumni. The total increase in higher education spending from all these non-Federal sources is staggering. Spending for higher education now consumes about 40 percent of all money spent in America for education.
<br /> It is by no means clear that the performance of many of our colleges and universities justifies this level of expenditure. As I said on the occasion of Harvard's 350th anniversary, too many students fail to receive the education they deserve at our nation's universities. The real problem is not lack of money but failure of vision.
</span></blockquote>
While Bennett and other members of the Reagan Administration <i>in the context of the time </i>attempted to make the impact of the student loan program less onerous, Bennett was attempting to get future Academic Oligarchists and Congress to deal with the underlying problem - greedy colleges and universities which he felt were not offering a good product and were beginning to look a lot like institutions operated by Shareholder Capitalists.<br />
<br />
It is more than ironic that by the 21st Century Shareholder Capitalists, including Donald Trump, were actually running colleges for profit. And, of course, by the 21st Century students from all types of colleges and universities were saddled with high debt while the <i>number</i> of employment opportunities for new graduates that were typical from 1950-1990 declined.<br />
<br />
The Bernie Sanders Romantic Populist movement used student debt as one of its key issues but presented the solution as "free tuition" for everyone. This is, of course, consistent with the delusional nature of the movement. As explained by a federal pamphlet on student loans:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
You may use the money you receive only to pay for education expenses at the school that awarded your loan. Education expenses include school charges such as tuition; room and board; fees; books; supplies; equipment; dependent childcare expenses; transportation; and rental or purchase of a personal computer.
</span></blockquote>
This would, of course, pay for costs calculated like this from a <a href="https://www.humboldt.edu/cost" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">California university's website</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a 1="" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpaNcEdkSU1zDtjvkyiV4C-5MF7CPLXn9e1RbblZBrVj9uOz4vw_jbXwnoM7ZwEYywiDcMzCJhK_7HfoLjRtO-xY5bxhv6SDm7N0ewc1-ThwTsQXzjiOzeAiAUQr69cW_WzVIsMYPh41Y/s1600/HSU_costs.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpaNcEdkSU1zDtjvkyiV4C-5MF7CPLXn9e1RbblZBrVj9uOz4vw_jbXwnoM7ZwEYywiDcMzCJhK_7HfoLjRtO-xY5bxhv6SDm7N0ewc1-ThwTsQXzjiOzeAiAUQr69cW_WzVIsMYPh41Y/s640/HSU_costs.jpg" width="640" /><br />Click on image to see a larger version!</a></div>
When I say that the "free tuition" for everyone as being presented is a delusional solution, it is because as you can see from this website <i>without tuition</i> a four year program still would cost about $80,000.Having the government fund tuition at California's state colleges would cover an additional $20,000.<br />
<br />
(Vermont, on the other hand, has its state colleges charge students double that because Bernie and his fellow false-Progressive Vermonters won't subsidize college like California taxpayers do. Or maybe because there are a number of private colleges such as the one Bernie's wife ran.)<br />
<br />
Sure, it would help to have free tuition. But it wouldn't come close to keeping students out of debt. That the Sanders Romantic Populists aren't well enough informed to understand this reinforces William Bennett's comment: "It is by no means clear that the performance of many of our colleges and universities justifies this level of expenditure."<br />
<br />
Still, the Shareholder Capitalists and Academic Oligarchists together have failed to devise a compromise to minimize this debt problem.<br />
<br />
Further, the Shareholder Capitalists - particularly the tech sector innovators - are the ones demanding this additional education/training. Many have been hiring immigrants from Asia rather than funding adequate education.<br />
<br />
This has resulted in the political backlash from both Romantic Populists saddled with the debt and Mythical Reactionaries objecting to immigration.<br />
<br />
<u>Example #3 - Net Neutrality</u><br />
<br />
It is still possible for the Academic Oligarchists to devise solutions to problems even with resistance from Shareholder Capitalists, particularly when the latter group is divided on an issue.<br />
<br />
No one thought about the internet in ideological terms when it was being developed in the framework of the Department of Defense and cooperating universities - both stable institutional environments mostly controlled by Academic Oligarchists.<br />
<br />
Then the internet was broadly implemented by Shareholder Capitalists in the late 1980s and early 1990s.<br />
<br />
Following broad implementation, however, America was confronted with a populist uprising over net neutrality with Shareholder Capitalists disagreeing with each other because of contrary interest - internet service providers versus web site operators. In this case Academic Oligarchists devised the adaptation.<br />
<br />
Academic Oligarchists this past year set some operational rules within a framework of encouraging the profitable
consolidation of internet service providers by Shareholder Capitalists and the profitable operation of popular web sites by new Shareholder Capitalists. It also assures a mix of Shareholder Capitalist beneficiaries such as cloud service providers ranging from the venerable IBM to Jeff Bezos' Amazon.<br />
<br />
This is a good example of adaptation by Academic Oligarchists and Shareholder Capitalists. But it is also an example of how what is a public utility - in terms
of a historical understanding of that term - typically heavily
regulated to achieve egalitarian economic goals, can become something
else just by administrative actions of Academic Oligarchists. It was necessary
because of gridlock in Congress.<br />
<br />
The rules will avoid any continuing threat of revolution from tech Romantic Populists, who were focused not on
rates charged to American families, but on making sure the entertainment
website corporations didn't get reduced speeds or have to pay "fast lane" charges to the internet service
corporations.<br />
<br />
The issue of net neutrality appears to have been resolved by a policy decision from a government bureaucracy - the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In the process, two automatic Academic Oligarchists - Jessica Rosenworcel, Wellesley, for neutrality regulation (see <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/06/jessica-rosenworcel-fcc_n_7137082.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">How Jessica Rosenworcel Is Shaping Our Digital Future</a>) and Ajit Pai, Harvard and University of Chicago, against neutrality regulation (see - <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/pai-embraces-chief-critic-role-on-net-neutrality-115298" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Net neutrality's chief critic</a>) - played key roles in the debate.<br />
<br />
The net neutrality policy approved by a 3-2 Commission vote orders what tech nerd Romantic Populists believe is beneficial true net neutrality. (The policy might be reviewed by the Supreme Court though they may pass on taking up the appeal of the appeals court decision approving the new policy written by Appellate Court Judges Sri Srinivasan, Stanford, and David Tatel, University of Chicago.) Within this discussion, the FCC has assured all Shareholder Capitalists that it will not get involved in their routine setting of rates for internet activity.<br />
<br />
The sad fact is, of the three examples, the first two matter in people's lives but the Academic Oligarchists failed miserably. Even Net Neutrality will not assure internet affordability nor universal high speed internet for ordinary folks.<br />
<br />
In 2016 it appears we have reached a point that the Academic Oligarchists and Shareholder Capitalists may face a serious revolution.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<a href="http://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2016/07/dissidents-in-american-politics-8.html" style="color: #4c2802; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 85%; text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #ffde45;" target="_blank">Originally Posted in the Redwood Guardian</a></center>Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-79421815120716758802017-01-01T07:00:00.000-08:002018-07-23T14:26:51.240-07:009. Dissidents in American Politics: The Prospect of a Revolution and Tyranny led by American Mythical Reactionaries<hr noshade="noshade" />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%; font-weight: bold;">"Dissidents" are people who actively challenge established doctrine, policy, or institutions. This post is the ninth in a series of 10 posts regarding the confusing "revolutions" of the 2016 Presidential Election.</span></blockquote>
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
Historically when either a populist or a reactionary movement actually becomes a disruptive, forceful revolution, tyranny results.<br />
<br />
In the case of a tyranny by revolutionary Romantic Populists, effectively you have a true socialist revolution where private property is confiscated by the government - taken from Shareholder Capitalists and everyone else.<br />
<br />
This occurred in Russia and China in the 20th Century. The United States under The New Deal effectively avoided this by heavily taxing Shareholder Capitalists at a time when such a revolution was feared in the United States.<br />
<br />
Ultimately the Russian Revolution was abandoned (the Wall was torn down) though an authoritarian regime replaced the Communist government. The Chinese Revolution has continued though in terms of economics it has evolved.<br />
<br />
In the case of a tyranny by revolutionary Mythical Reactionaries, the government establishes laws making illegal any behavior or activity that deviates from an acceptable norm including making it illegal to use private wealth to further deviation from the acceptable activity norms.<br />
<br />
This occurred in Italy and Germany in the 20th Century, and has been in put into effect in many countries by religious movements controlling the government. These tyrannies frequently end in warfare, either in an international war or civil war.<br />
<br />
Somehow, the American Revolution in the 18th Century avoided the negative results of the French Revolution. That may have been because forerunners of modern Shareholder Capitalists and Academic Oligarchists managed to maintain control.<br />
<br />
A careful reading of the American Constitution, without any of its amendments, pretty much tells us that it was written to extensively protect private property ownership (including patents as United States patent law is authorized by the U.S. Constitution, Article One, section 8, clause 8) and trade (the Commerce Clause), while assuring the propertied, educated elite control of the Presidency, the Senate, and the Supreme Court, none of which were to be directly elected by the people.<br />
<br />
The Brexit vote offers a warning to both the Academic Oligarchists and Shareholder Capitalists everywhere. That vote was not necessary nor normal in the United Kingdom. The Academic Oligarchists found themselves in a dispute even among themselves because of European Union policies. Prime Minister David Cameron and others decided to hold that vote in order to protect their positions in government.<br />
<br />
As a first reaction to that vote, Cameron resigned and many Shareholder Capitalists are contemplating having some of their business operations leave the United Kingdom. Apparently the "Leave" campaign worked. <br />
<br />
Which brings us to Donald Trump, ostensibly a Shareholder Capitalist, but one who clearly has maintained his position using, as explained by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick" style="text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a>, the talents of an effective con man:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px">
Confidence tricks exploit characteristics of the human psyche such as dishonesty, honesty, vanity, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, naïveté and greed.
</span></blockquote>
This year some have already noted that there is a fine line, if one exists at all, between being an effective con man and being effective at seeking an elective office in our government in the 21st Century. It's a problem that could not have existed prior to the 1970's, after which the voters managed to get control of selecting the Presidential nominees.<br />
<br />
The problem for the electorate is if Trump becomes President, can he be trusted to act on behalf of the "common good" as we would expect an Academic Oligarchist to do? Do we even know beyond the words used in his "con" what he thinks is the "common good."<br />
<br />
We do know that as a Shareholder Capitalist using confidence tricks he has had no problem not delivering promised goods and benefits while taking people's money and services for purposes of corporate profit.<br />
<br />
What we do know is that many American Mythical Reactionaries and Romantic Populists intend to vote for Trump to express their frustration with the failure during the last 30 years of Academic Oligarchists to secure what is broadly believed in the United States is the "common good."<br />
<br />
The difficulty for Hillary Clinton as the representative of the Academic Oligarchists is those Mythical Reactionaries and Romantic Populists are correct. They are correct simply because the Oligarchists have succumbed to the arguments by the dominant Shareholder Capitalists that the internationalization of the economy has improved the world in terms of the "common good" as defined by <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf" style="text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">The Universal Declaration of Human Rights</a>.<br />
<br />
Objectively this is true as envisioned by Eleanor Roosevelt - the first chairwoman of the Commission on Human Rights that drafted the Declaration. She stated that it "may well become the international <i>Magna Carta</i> of all men everywhere." In a very real sense, this means that over a period of time the goal of mankind is to eliminate this...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtGX6rX1AuEM5o9XqmUDMKTyU09Y8zO7_84Oj0HCDgiR7mhr_0ascW7QzhRbOJIT2jtAM-kgt0eVnfs4AZtspuNwLheSFns1Sqi7e8OuiJCIRC1NOCVpK-dTEFE87n88Tntm9LQEwovHy2/s1600/Navaja.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="551" data-original-width="900" height="391" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtGX6rX1AuEM5o9XqmUDMKTyU09Y8zO7_84Oj0HCDgiR7mhr_0ascW7QzhRbOJIT2jtAM-kgt0eVnfs4AZtspuNwLheSFns1Sqi7e8OuiJCIRC1NOCVpK-dTEFE87n88Tntm9LQEwovHy2/s640/Navaja.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
...by replacing it with this...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeVd8Ovk9uo5AmMcP_DPikpsgsB8DxJiIiRG5v5Su4rvXT-gI_-t2A7AcU8wBdr2VieeA4BjTPWdAwkArgnmM-EI7KCgUcH4O2lfac1HKtvkGSCwbnB6nhrT7GJeB0QTvL8NBvgBQPLYkV/s1600/Mexico-New-Middle-Class.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="482" data-original-width="900" height="342" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeVd8Ovk9uo5AmMcP_DPikpsgsB8DxJiIiRG5v5Su4rvXT-gI_-t2A7AcU8wBdr2VieeA4BjTPWdAwkArgnmM-EI7KCgUcH4O2lfac1HKtvkGSCwbnB6nhrT7GJeB0QTvL8NBvgBQPLYkV/s640/Mexico-New-Middle-Class.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
...as explained in this blog post <a href="http://www.carbonboy.us/the-new-middle-class-of-mexico/" style="text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">The New Middle Class of Mexico</a>.<br />
<br />
In the case of the blogger who at the time was an American working in Mexico, the company he was working for was Bombardier Inc., a Canadian company that began as a maker of snow machines/snowmobiles.<br />
<br />
Over the years it has grown into a large manufacturer of regional airliners, business jets, mass transportation equipment, recreational equipment and a provider of financial services. Bombardier is a Fortune Global 500 conglomerate company. As they describe themselves on <a href="http://www.bombardier.com/en/about-us.html" style="text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">their own website</a>: <br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px">
As the world’s leading manufacturer of both planes and trains, we’ve built an extensive and diverse portfolio of winning mobility solutions. ...From category-defining business jets and commercial aircraft designed for the challenges of today, to sleek high speed trains and public transit that’s smarter than ever.
<br /> ...The most important success factor is our employees, all 70,900 of them.
<br /> ...Bombardier is headquartered in Montréal, Canada. ...In the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, we posted revenues of $18.2 billion.
</span></blockquote>
The company has operations not only in the Americas, but Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. But it is Canadian. Among its products it does manufacture and sell LearJets. So when a headline like this appeared in the Canadian press <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bombardier-to-cut-1-000-aerospace-jobs-in-mexico-kansas-1.2901564" style="text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">Bombardier to cut 1,000 aerospace jobs in Mexico, Kansas</a> because of the negativity of the political debate this year about he North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) it gives us a sense of the absolute ignorance of the American electorate when it comes to the economy over the past 30 years:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px">
Bombardier says it's going to cut about 1,000 employees from its Learjet business in 2015, affecting sites in Mexico and the United States.
<br /> The Montreal-based aerospace company says the cuts are due to weak demand for the Learjet 85 business jet.
<br /> Bombardier says its operations in Wichita, Kansas and Queretaro, Mexico remain important to the company for both the Learjet and other types of aircraft that it makes.
<br /> The Wichita operation does final assembly for Learjet 70 and Learjet 75 aircraft and has a flight test centre and service centre.
<br /> The Queretaro operation makes a major component for the Global 7000 and 8000 business jets.
<br /> Bombardier is also doing final tests on the CSeries jets, a new generation of Bombardier aircraft for commercial airlines.
</span></blockquote>
In 1990 Bombardier Aerospace purchased the Learjet Corporation. It's an international corporation important to Wichita, Kansas, aka Middle America. In June 2016 <i>The Wichita Eagle</i> offered this story of interest <a href="http://www.kansas.com/news/business/aviation/article83989922.html" style="text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">Despite Learjet woes, lots of activity at Bombardier Wichita</a> and in July 2016 T<i>he Wichita Business Journal</i> offered an article <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/blog/2016/07/bombardier-s-c-series-reaches-the-finish-line.html" style="text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">Bombardier’s C Series reaches the finish line</a> which told us "Swiss International Air Lines on Friday took the first batch of paying customers on the C Series as the jet entered service on flight between Zurich and Paris."<br />
<br />
Bombardier employs about 1,625 people in Wichita. But it's also big in the Mexican state of Querétero which has become a hub for aerospace innovation, a sector which contributed 47% of foreign direct investment into Mexico, and that is led by companies like Airbus, the European multinational aerospace and defense corporation, and Canada's Bombardier.<br />
<br />
Ok. Bombadier. Why Querétaro, located far from Mexico’s tourist-packed beaches?<br />
<br />
In 2005, while the U.S. Congress at the behest of the ignorant American electorate was cutting taxes and Kansas, in terms of fiscal policy, was on its way to becoming the most backward state in the nation at the behest of its ignorant electorate, in Querétaro Mexico’s first and only aerospace university, the Universidad Aeronáutica en Querétaro (UNAQ), was created as the biggest attraction the Mexican national and state government taxpayers used to lure Bombardier Aerospace to Mexico. They did it by providing funds to educate and train young workers.<br />
<br />
Mexico, despite its faults, was a nation working to improve the lot of its people. It was seeking the "common good" as defined by <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf" style="text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.</a><br />
<br />
The "take away" here is that the term "common" does not mean Americans only, but includes everyone in the world. That must involve a standardization of what it means for most people in the world, including Americans, to be "not poor" in the face of limited resources, a population rapidly expanding to 7 billion, and an environment that is becoming less favorable to modern humans.<br />
<br />
The American 2016 revolt says: "Whoa, American Academic Oligarchists, you're moving way to fast on this internationalization of the term 'common' as used in 'common good' and you need to establish governmental policies that mitigate the impacts on average Americans." Or maybe they are literally saying "build a big wall" and cancel NAFTA.<br />
<br />
What the dissidents don't want is to read about Bombadier and puzzle about the complexities of 21st Century trade. They want free tuition and to make American great again.<br />
<br />
In reality, the prospect of Donald Trump bringing a revolution as leader of the Mythical Reactionary dissidents seems real. And as we've seen, Presidents have no trouble becoming authoritarian.<br />
<br />
Did we see this coming? In the final post on this subject, let's take a look back at the warnings.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<a href="http://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2016/07/dissidents-in-american-politics-9.html" style="color: #4c2802; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 85%; text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #ffde45;" target="_blank">Originally Posted in the Redwood Guardian</a></center>Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-72078750630122426882017-01-01T06:00:00.000-08:002018-07-23T16:32:01.860-07:0010. Dissidents in American Politics: Beliefs, Facts, and Future Shock<hr noshade="noshade" />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%; font-weight: bold;">"Dissidents" are people who actively challenge established doctrine, policy, or institutions. This post is the tenth and final in a series of 10 posts regarding the confusing "revolutions" of the 2016 Presidential Election.</span></blockquote>
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
That there is a chance the United States could experience an authoritarian revolution shouldn't be a surprise, as was recently pointed out in in <i>The New York Times</i> article <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/technology/why-we-need-to-pick-up-alvin-tofflers-torch.html?_r=2" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Why We Need to Pick Up Alvin Toffler's Torch</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
More than 40 years ago, Alvin Toffler, a writer who had fashioned himself into one of the first futurists, warned that the accelerating pace of technological change would soon make us all sick. He called the sickness “future shock”....
<br /> ...Future shock wasn’t simply a metaphor for our difficulties in dealing with new things. It was a real psychological malady, the “dizzying disorientation brought on by the premature arrival of the future...“unless intelligent steps are taken to combat it...millions of human beings will find themselves increasingly disoriented, progressively incompetent to deal rationally with their environments.”
<br /> ...It seems clear that his diagnosis has largely panned out, with local and global crises arising daily from our collective inability to deal with ever-faster change.
<br /> But even though these and bigger changes are just getting started...futurism has fallen out of favor.
</span></blockquote>
The article was written by author Farhad Manjoo who in 2008 wrote the book <i>True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society</i> in which he explains that the advent of the popular internet "when we dissolved the mainstream media into prickly niches, and when each of us began to create and transmit our own pictures and sounds, we eased the path through which propaganda infects the culture."<br />
<br />
He points out instead of becoming better researchers because of access to more sources, we choose from the confusing milieu a few sources that reinforce our view of the world. We have ceased to seek objective knowledge in favor of virtual worlds supported by propaganda.<br />
<br />
Of course, Stephen Colbert in the pilot episode of his political satire program "The Colbert Report" on October 17, 2005, a full 10 years before Donald Trump filed to run for President, offered up the word "truthiness" into the public domain.<br />
<br />
<center>
<div style="float: center; padding: 4px;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="true" frameborder="0" height="288" src="//media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:arc:video:comedycentral.com:9aa05bd0-ed00-11e0-aca6-0026b9414f30" width="512"></iframe></div>
</center>
<br />
And so a satirist first noted the <i>belief</i> vulnerability in a sizeable portion of the adult population that created the early 21st Century Voter Revolution against the American Academic Oligarchists. It is dependent upon and stimulated by propaganda selectively gathered using technology created by American Shareholder Capitalists to create and reinforce <i>beliefs</i>.<br />
<br />
Manjoo in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/technology/why-the-world-is-drawing-battle-lines-against-american-tech-giants.html?_r=0" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">another article</a> explains why in much of the rest of the world the American Shareholder Capitalists have created a potential revolution against themselves:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
There is Facebook co-opting your news media. Amazon is dominating book sales, while YouTube and Netflix are taking over television and movies. And the smartphone, arguably the most important platform for entertainment in this era, is controlled almost entirely by Apple and Google.
<br /> This backdrop of social anxiety explains why Europe is on the march against American tech giants. European governments have been at the forefront of an effort to limit the reach of tech companies, most often through privacy regulations and antitrust investigations....
<br /> The European efforts are just a taste of a coming global freak-out over the power of the American tech industry. Over the next few years, we are bound to see increasing friction between the tiny group of tech companies that rule much of the industry and the governments that rule the lands those companies are trying to invade. What is happening in Europe is playing out in China, India and Brazil and across much of the rest of the globe, as well.
<br /> ...Over the last decade, we have witnessed the rise of what I like to call the Frightful Five. These companies — Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft and Alphabet, Google’s parent — have created a set of inescapable tech platforms that govern much of the business world. ...These companies thoroughly dominate the news and entertainment industries, they rule advertising and retail sales, and they are pushing into health care, energy and automobiles.
<br /> “What’s happening right now is the nation-state is losing its grip,” said Jane K. Winn, also a professor at the University of Washington School of Law, who studies international business transactions. “One of the hallmarks of modernity is that you have a nation-state that claims they are the exclusive source of a universal legal system that addresses all legal issues. But now people in one jurisdiction are subject to rules that come from outside the government — and often it’s companies that run these huge networks that are pushing their own rules.”</span></blockquote>
The rest of the world through their nation-states are beginning to respond to the threat. "The Ugly American" now has the face of an iPhone, the threat of a privacy-stealing Google, and the depth and brains of a Tweet. Unlike the average American, the rest of the world factually experiences the impact in its full context.<br />
<br />
Whether it's the Koch Brothers or Apple and Google using Congress, it is a fact that American Shareholder Capitalists have successfully bypassed the natural response of the American Academic Oligarchists to limit or tax excess corporate retained profits and regulate the operations of and limit the size of international corporations.<br />
<br />
The political result in 2016 America has been the demagoguery of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.<br />
<br />
What we needed were 21st Century anti-trust laws and tax laws that heavily penalize Shareholder Capitalist bad behavior not reward good behavior. Those laws can only come when the revolution is also against members of Congress and, <i>more importantly</i>, state legislators. That is not the revolution of the Romantic Populists.<br />
<br />
It was the revolution of the Mythical Reactionaries. But they were confused by the belief, the mythology, that every American through diligence, hard work, and an adherence to "Christian" values can live a secure rewarding life - they believed the fictional "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Alger" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Horatio Alger story</a>" despite all the factual evidence to the contrary that has existed since the Pilgrims landed.<br />
<br />
In the middle of it all, Trump’s politics of aggrieved white nationalism - labeling black people criminals, Latinos rapists, and Muslims terrorists - succeeded because the party’s voting base was made up of the people who themselves or their parents in 1964 opposed civil rights and who left the Democratic Party for the Republican Party of Barry Goldwater. <br />
<br />
Capitalizing on the frustration which that belief inherently creates, the conservative Shareholder Capitalists have hijacked the Mythical Reactionary revolution to achieve their own ends eliminating two centuries of balance between the Shareholder Capitalists and the Academic Oligarchists.<br />
<br />
An authoritarian revolution establishing a President who uses force to
bring things into alignment with that Horatio Alger mythology seems the easy way, another untruth seen as fact, 'truthiness" accepted by 21st
Century Americans, who have all learned through electronic media - movies,
TV, games, and the internet.<br />
<br />
It is simply fact that the only way Shareholder Capitalist/ Donald Trump, who knows next to nothing about government, could somehow restrain his fellow Shareholder Capitalists is through the authoritarian revolution he has promised his dissident Mythical Reactionary followers.<br />
<br />
The real question is: How do we undo the negative impacts of the Information Age?<br />
<br />
We have to understand that the Information Age has effectively traded the pre-20th Century anonymity for the constant gathering of information on our daily activities which is being used by<br />
<ul>
<li>Shareholder Capitalists to make greater profits creating greater economic disparity between the "Stinking Rich" and the rest of us and is now about to extend the effects of automation into the Information Age workforce, eliminating jobs for tech workers; and </li>
<li>the Academic Oligarchists to find potential threats to public safety creating greater risks of misuse to restrict basic freedoms. </li>
</ul>
Can these negative impacts be undone without eliminating the benefits of the Information Age? That is the question to be answered by Americans who will be living in the second quarter of the 21st Century. But there are questions to be answered today.<br />
<br />
Does the iPhone generation really want authoritarian Presidential intervention in American society? Did a majority of voters really want to risk having President-for-Life Donald Trump find the answers for them?<br />
<br />
A better questions is will it matter what the majority wants in the future?<br />
<br />
In the end the issue is understanding the difference between "belief" and "knowledge." Far too many Americans embrace the fallacy of "knowing the unknowable." And even more Americans feel comfortable accepting assertions as true in the absence of evidence. Of course, this is not new to humankind:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px">
"Another way that Men ordinarily use to drive others, and force them to submit their Judgments, and receive the Opinion in debate, is to require the Adversary to admit what they allege as a Proof, or assign a better. And this I call Argumentum ad Ignorantiam."
<br /> <i>—John Locke, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_Concerning_Human_Understanding" style="text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">An Essay Concerning Human Understanding</a>, 1689.</i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<a href="http://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2016/07/dissidents-in-american-politics-10.html" style="color: #4c2802; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 85%; text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #ffde45;" target="_blank">Revised from Original Post in the Redwood Guardian</a></center>
</span></blockquote>Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-73759224599272342142016-06-20T11:59:00.000-07:002018-07-21T10:49:00.717-07:00It's not the 1964 Democratic Party: Be Careful of the Grumpy Old White Man's Proposals<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibUE_DCVzLR3hbLMlZcDVkNeWft5ASKpheQ2_TP-FOf2ZZKOTk1zq5QRf2GLI5i9759dO8tEP4ONpOAUiTqrrRi8m75hbsWY1a_hdmIbyeFX5Cm5Uonzv_DrkZsvUCjS29EnN0mgmPN4w/s1600/Hillary_won_sexism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibUE_DCVzLR3hbLMlZcDVkNeWft5ASKpheQ2_TP-FOf2ZZKOTk1zq5QRf2GLI5i9759dO8tEP4ONpOAUiTqrrRi8m75hbsWY1a_hdmIbyeFX5Cm5Uonzv_DrkZsvUCjS29EnN0mgmPN4w/s640/Hillary_won_sexism.jpg" width="361" /></a></div>
<br />
But this is more than about the ideas of a grumpy old white man, far more. <br />
<br />
In 1964 the Democratic Party became the party of <b><i>those groups</i> of Americans who regularly find themselves economically and socially the target of systematic discrimination based on prejudice</b>.<br />
<br />
<b><u><span style="color: #cc0000;">Newsflash</span></u></b> - white old, middle-aged, or young middle-class or richer liberal activists and college students are not among<i><b> <u>those groups</u></b></i>. And most certainly when they choose not to be a part of the Democratic Party membership but do chose to be uncommitted <i><a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kibbitz" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">kibbitzers</a></i>, they are not relevant to that Democratic Party goal to create inclusiveness<br />
<br />
It must have come as a surprise to Bernie Sanders and his supporters when they received <a href="http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000155-6a23-dbd7-a5d5-fe6f76ef0000" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">a June 18, 2016 letter from the the Congressional Black Caucus</a> expressing its resolute opposition to two key reforms demanded by Sanders. The letter states:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px">
The Democratic Members of the Congressional Black Caucus recently voted unanimously to oppose any suggestion or idea to eliminate the category of Unpledged Delegate to the Democratic National Convention (aka Super Delegates) and the creation of uniform open primaries in all states.
</span></blockquote>
"The black caucus is immovable on this subject because our number one concern is going to be an always be the highest level of minority participation as possible at the convention," said Congressman Emanuel Cleaver who currently represents Missouri's 5th congressional district which has a population larger than that of Bernie Sander's State of Vermont. "You're going to see the same thing with the Hispanic Congressional Caucus. Mr. Sanders, if he had met with either or what's called the tri-caucus, he would have found out there is no flexibility." (Note: the Congressional Tri-Caucus iscomprised of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Asian_Pacific_American_Caucus" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC)</a>, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)</a>, and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Hispanic_Caucus" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC)</a>.)<br />
<br />
The thing is, a political party is a private organization created to achieve specific political, social, and economic goals desired by <i>its members</i>. It's not there for outsiders who wake up once every four years to start restructuring to make sure that when they come back four years later they can undercut the goals of its members. You want to change the goals, join, attend meetings, work in off-year and non-Presidential election years to elect party candidates to state offices and Congress. Or form your own party.<br />
<br />
And let's get one thing straight. Missouri's 5th congressional district not only has more people than Vermont, Congressman Emanuel Cleaver is a registered Democrat while Senator Bernie Sanders is not. Here's what you probably don't know....<br />
<br />
In his home state of Vermont, there is no party registration allowing Sanders to accurately claim to be unaffiliated with a political
party while still running for the Democratic nomination and sometimes
calling himself a Democrat. In 2008, <a href="http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1718795,00.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">TIME</a> told us about Vermont:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px">
There are swing states. There are bellwether states. And then there is Vermont.
<br /> That makes sense. Vermont has only 625,000 residents, and they aren't wrestling with most of the problems that are dominating the campaign. Vermont doesn't have many immigrants; it ranks last in the nation in foreclosures; it's consistently rated the healthiest state. But if the politics of Vermont doesn't tell us much about the politics of America, it is still quirky and intriguing.
<br /> There is no party registration in Vermont, but it was once the most staunchly Republican state in the Union, supporting the G.O.P. in 28 straight presidential elections and enjoying a 108-year gap between Democratic governors...
<br /> Now Vermont is blue heaven, home of Ben and Jerry and Phish, the first state with civil unions for gays, the last state with a Wal-Mart and the only state that President Bush has somehow neglected to visit....
<br /> Nowadays, Vermont once again has a Republican governor, Massachusetts-born Jim Douglas, who's favored to win his fourth term in November. And it is a rural state, so its politicians tend to support guns and farms. It's even got some black-helicopter types in its rugged Northeast Kingdom. But thinking of Vermont as a northeastern version of Idaho or Nebraska because it's got rifles and cows is sort of like thinking of the Village People as tough guys because they had a cop and a construction worker. It's a land of teddy bears, organic cheese, planning charrettes, Buddhist converts and the Vermont Progressive Party, whose members include six state legislators, Burlington's mayor, and the only announced challenger to Governor Douglas. Most telling is the fact that it's the only state where self-identified liberals outnumber self-identified Democrats.
<br /> Which brings us to March 4. Vermont has the nation's second-whitest and second-oldest electorate....
</span></blockquote>
"Sanders did a lot of things right in this campaign, he did a lot better than expected. At the same time he seemed to have a lack of understanding or lack of relationships with black leaders that you saw ultimately hurt him in South Carolina and other states with big black electorates," Doug Thornell, formerly the group’s communications director, said. "And this is something that the CBC is going to be very passionate and push back against. This is a way that African-American officials can represent their district and have a say in the process. They're not going to go along with this at all."<br />
<br />
If I seem less than enamored with the Sanders movement and their foolish ideas for the Democratic Party, it is because Bernie was reelected to the U.S. Senate by 207,848 voters in 2012 while in that same year California's Dianne Feinstein was reelected to the U.S. Senate by 7,864,624 voters. In fact, Feinstein received more votes in 11 California counties than Sanders did in the whole state of Vermont.<br />
<br />
There are no communities of people in Vermont that depend on the Democratic Party to fight for their residents like residents of Compton, Oakland, or East Los Angeles. Bernie and most of his supporters have no real sense what it's like to have extensive political involvement with a diverse population as does Dianne Feinstein. Let's look at an enlightening parallel in their experience holding public office.<br />
<br />
Bernie Sanders in 1981 was first elected mayor of the<i> largest city in Vermont</i>, Burlington, then with a population of 37,712 with 218 black persons and 285 persons who identified as Hispanic.<br />
<br />
Diane Feinstein was thrust into the position of Mayor of San Francisco, California, in 1978 following the assassinations of Mayor George Moscone and City Supervisor and Gay Activist Harvey Milk. After identifying both bodies at the scene, Feinstein was shaking so badly she required support from the police chief. It was she who announced to the press, "Today San Francisco has experienced a double tragedy of immense proportions. As President of the Board of Supervisors, it is my duty to inform you that both Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk have been shot and killed."<br />
<br />
At the time, San Francisco had a population of 678,974 with 149,269 identified as Asian, 86,190 as Black, and 84,194 as Hispanic and with an estimated LGBT population of 105,000±.<br />
<br />
In 1994, Feinstein introduced the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Federal Assault Weapons Ban</a> which became law but expired in 2004. Bernie Sanders defended his pro-NRA record <a href="https://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/bernie-sanders-gun-industry-vote/" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">stating with regard to his support for the <i>2005</i> federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act</a> in an October 2015 debate that “if somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and that murderer kills somebody with the gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer.” <br />
<br />
Diane Feinstein is well aware that Harvey Milk and George Moscone likely would not have been killed if the weapon had been a hammer.<br />
<br />
The difference between Sanders and Feinstein is personal and professional experience with things like shootings and dealing with the criminal justice system in a diverse, complex City; and providing financial aid to the poor in a diverse, complex City; and educating people in a diverse, complex City; and creating a positive environment for economic growth in a diverse, complex City.... <br />
<br />
The fact is, while Feinstein was serving on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, between 1972 and 1976 Sanders was the nominee of the anti-capitalist, anti-war Liberty Union Party of Vermont in two Senate and two gubernatorial elections in Vermont. He lost all four races and resigned from the party in 1977.<br />
<br />
Bernie supporters seem to want to have Feinstein, a long-time Democrat who was elected to her position by 7,864,624 diverse voters, to be subject to the same requirements to be a delegate as a 20-year-old college student from Washington state who decided to register to vote as a Democrat for the first time while entering the door of a March 2016 Precinct Caucus. Sorry, but no. That's not the way political parties work.<br />
<br />
Curiously Bernie supporters seem to have no performance standards. Bernie has lived in Vermont since 1968 - 48 years. Bernie spouts buzz words about the issues but what has he done about them in his tiny state where his influence should be great since he leads a state full of "independent" voters? Here are a few examples compared to California where Democrats lead: <br />
<ul>
<li>Free college - Vermont state colleges have higher tuition than California state colleges including fees in California;</li>
<li>Minimum wage - if you work in Burlington, Vermont, for minimum wage you earn $9.60 per hour, in San Francisco $12.25, 28% more;</li>
<li>Health insurance - through Vermont Health Connect for a 35 year old single person making $45,000 a year in Burlington, Vermont, the least premium cost after any rebates $8,576 a year, while through Covered California for the same person in San Francisco, California, the cost would be $2,952 a year. 66% less.</li>
</ul>
Bernie has no credibility on any of these issues. But it is the age of the internet, as Donald Trump has demonstrated. There are just millions of uninformed Americans who think anything can be explained in 140 character tweets, as opposed to learning from extensive reading and studying, and from years of direct involvement.<br />
<br />
Thanks for your recommendations on Democratic Party procedures and policy Bernie supporters, but as a lifelong Democrat who first attended a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Democratic_Council" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">California Democratic Council</a> Convention in 1964, I don't want independents
deciding policy for Californian's.<br />
<br />
If it means you want to elect Donald Trump President in November, well that's the way it is. And if you think not voting, or voting for some third party candidate, is not the same as voting for Donald, you don't understand the American political system which you probably don't.<br />
<br />
In a swing state, if Trump gets 34% of the vote, Clinton gets 33.9% of the vote, and the Green Party candidate you voted for gets 8% of the vote, you and all your ilk elected Trump President - live with it for four years and see what you can accomplish by being truly uninformed about your government and politics.<br />
<br />
As California's other U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer tweeted in February: "Bernie is a Democrat ‘some days'." The fact that he has not conceded the nomination to Clinton is indicative that "some days" aren't these days.<br />
<br />
Regarding the sexist nature of a grumpy old white man loser making demands on America's first woman major party presumption nominee, I agree with Barbra Streisand, the California resident <a href="http://link.washingtonpost.com/click/6975671.377790/aHR0cHM6Ly90d2l0dGVyLmNvbS9iYXJicmFzdHJlaXNhbmQvc3RhdHVzLzc0MzU4Mzc1NDc3MDMxNzMxMj93cG1tPTEmd3Bpc3JjPW5sX2RhaWx5MjAy/543ed7e23b35d0a50f92277bB08c7db80" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">who tweeted the facts</a> at the beginning of this post.<br />
<br />
Of course I too am a grumpy old white man but one whose state has two Democratic women United States Senators and includes in its overwhelmingly Democratic Congressional Delegation, House Minority Leader and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.WITH REDWOOD GUARDIAN REFERENCE:
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<a href="https://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2016/06/democratic-party-be-careful-of-grumpy.html" style="color: #4c2802; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 85%; text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #ffde45;" target="_blank">Originally Posted in the Redwood Guardian</a></center>Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-6828657041113958462015-06-27T09:22:00.000-07:002018-07-20T15:23:17.651-07:00The Obergefell Decision As A Teaching MomentSome think that this week's <i>Obergefell v. Hodges</i> (2015) Supreme
Court decision is a "teaching moment" arising from a great victory. Such
a decision by the Supreme Court when considered in a school environment
needs significant context and discussion.<br />
<br />
Fortunately, it is relatively easy to put it in context by comparing it to <i>Brown v. Board of Education</i> (1954).<br />
<br />
In 1954 reporters who observed the Supreme Court in the <i>Brown</i>
case were surprised by the 9-0 unanimous decision. Prior to the ruling,
there were reports that the court members were sharply divided and might
not be able to agree. The attendance of Justice Robert H. Jackson who
had suffered a mild heart attack and was not expected to return to the
bench until early June 1954 was also a surprise. Perhaps to emphasize
the unanimity of the court, Justice Jackson was in his assigned seat
when the court convened.<br />
<br />
In the 2015 <i>Obergefell</i> case this week the Supreme Court ruled 5-4.<br />
<br />
The signficant difference between the <i>Brown</i> and <i>Obergefell</i> decisions with regard to the Supreme Court is clear and can be taught: <br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>In <i>Brown</i> even those justices who had reservations about the
legal basis for the decision recognized that it was the morally right
thing to do.</li>
<li>In the <i>Obergefell</i> decision there was barely a majority of the
justices who thought it was the right thing to do and the expressions
of some of the dissenting justices reflect deeply felt moral outrage at
the majority's ruling.</li>
</ul>
Enforcement of the <i>Brown</i> decision in some places took federal military intervention - it was an extension of the Civil War and Reconstruction. <i>Brown</i>
was about American children having a right to the equal protection of
the law in order to access the benefits of a somewhat equal education in
a public school system regardless of race. Yet that goal has never
been achieved in the nation, not even in California.<br />
<br />
<i>Brown</i> required continued legal intervention in all parts of this
country to achieve compliance and was replaced with defacto school
segregation based upon the "localness" of school districts continuing to
this day. Racial discrimination, indeed even hatred, continues also.<br />
<br />
<i>Obergefell</i> is about two adults having a right to the equal
protection of the law in order to access the benefits arising from a
state-issued marriage license. The decision is the right thing to do.
But it is not going to make the homophobia go away. The issue couldn't
even draw the vote of a sixth justice as the Obamacare ruling did
earlier in the week.<br />
<br />
Plans are already being made in some parts of the nation to resist same
sex marriage because of homophobia, in many cases rising to the level of
hatred. Even Obamacare creates anger, as the "conservatives" are
already planning their continued efforts to undo the law.<br />
<br />
The real teaching opportunity here can be found in the opinions of the four justices dissenting from the <i>Obergefell</i>
ruling, both their written legal ones plus their prior and subsequent
verbal ones. In the end, could it all be about people wanting to look
down upon and
wanting to feel superior to others, even to the point of systemically
denying access to health care to other "lessor" human beings?<br />
<br />
Regarding the <i>Obergefell</i> ruling, don't we need to consider how
the institutionalized basis of homophobia evolved, which revered
writings advocate that prejudice? And how do you explain that in a
public elementary school environment?
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<a href="http://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-obergefell-decision-as-teaching.html" style="color: #4c2802; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 85%; text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #ffde45;" target="_blank">Originally Posted in the Redwood Guardian</a></center>
Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-79137432593342325142011-11-14T10:33:00.000-08:002018-07-20T15:10:24.586-07:00"We are the Many" A song for the OCCUPY movement and for 2011-12<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="225" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/31938326?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="400"></iframe></center>
<br />
The video is from <a href="https://vimeo.com/31938326" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Makana's web site at Vimeo</a>. Makana represents the next step, a song for the Occupy movement in the tradition of Joe Hill, to Woody Guthrie, to Pete Seeger, and to Bob Dylan.<br />
<br />
From <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/singer-crashes-obama-summit-occupy-song-212243354.html" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">a top news story today</a>: <br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: serif;">A popular Hawaiian recording artist turned a top-security dinner of Pacific Rim leaders hosted by President Barack Obama into a subtle protest with a song in support of the "Occupy" movement.<br />
<br />
Makana, who goes by one name, was enlisted to play a luau, or Hawaiian feast, Saturday night for leaders assembled in Obama's birthplace Honolulu for an annual summit that is formulating plans for a Pacific free-trade pact.<br />
<br />
But in the midst of the dinner on the resort strip Waikiki Beach, he pulled open his jacket to reveal a T-shirt that read "Occupy with Aloha," using the Hawaiian word whose various meanings include love and peace. He then sang a marathon version of his new song "We Are The Many."</span></blockquote>
Here are the lyrics:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: serif;">We Are The Many<br />
<br />
Ye come here, gather 'round the stage<br />
The time has come for us to voice our rage<br />
Against the ones who've trapped us in a cage<br />
To steal from us the value of our wage<br />
<br />
From underneath the vestiture of law<br />
The lobbyists at Washington do gnaw<br />
At liberty, the bureaucrats guffaw<br />
And until they are purged, we won't withdraw<br />
<br />
We'll occupy the streets<br />
We'll occupy the courts<br />
We'll occupy the offices of you<br />
Till you do<br />
The bidding of the many, not the few<br />
<br />
Our nation was built upon the right<br />
Of every person to improve their plight<br />
But laws of this Republic they rewrite<br />
And now a few own everything in sight<br />
<br />
They own it free of liability<br />
They own, but they are not like you and me<br />
Their influence dictates legality<br />
And until they are stopped we are not free<br />
<br />
We'll occupy the streets<br />
We'll occupy the courts<br />
We'll occupy the offices of you<br />
Till you do<br />
The bidding of the many, not the few<br />
<br />
You enforce your monopolies with guns<br />
While sacrificing our daughters and sons<br />
But certain things belong to everyone<br />
Your thievery has left the people none<br />
<br />
So take heed of our notice to redress<br />
We have little to lose, we must confess<br />
Your empty words do leave us unimpressed<br />
A growing number join us in protest<br />
<br />
We occupy the streets<br />
We occupy the courts<br />
We occupy the offices of you<br />
Till you do<br />
The bidding of the many, not the few<br />
<br />
You can't divide us into sides<br />
And from our gaze, you cannot hide<br />
Denial serves to amplify<br />
And our allegiance you can't buy<br />
<br />
Our government is not for sale<br />
The banks do not deserve a bail<br />
We will not reward those who fail<br />
We will not move till we prevail<br />
<br />
We'll occupy the streets<br />
We'll occupy the courts<br />
We'll occupy the offices of you<br />
Till you do<br />
The bidding of the many, not the few<br />
<br />
We'll occupy the streets<br />
We'll occupy the courts<br />
We'll occupy the offices of you<br />
Till you do<br />
The bidding of the many, not the few<br />
<br />
We are the many<br />
You are the few<br />
</span></blockquote>
<br />
You can <a href="http://makanamusic.com/?slide=we-are-the-many" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">download the mp3 version here</a>.<br />
<br />
AND through the web sites listed below, you can interact with the movement:<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://occupywallst.org/" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Occupy Wall Street</a></li>
<li><a href="http://occupylovestreet.net/" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Occupy Love Street</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.occupytogether.org/" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Occupy Together</a></li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg12S6Va8liNqUnL0s-Np4JgqpHfwungyDm3EsE0gJlQ6xCuLbxkY_hv-dHrPxB2stBuMiWoQMVZAQvVLwSfltF62PCtqsibmSlNnAE5DrFWsfzi77DIBr1YoeomWZCFQz0kxS5L-pWsQ3_/s1600/occupytogether400.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1061" data-original-width="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg12S6Va8liNqUnL0s-Np4JgqpHfwungyDm3EsE0gJlQ6xCuLbxkY_hv-dHrPxB2stBuMiWoQMVZAQvVLwSfltF62PCtqsibmSlNnAE5DrFWsfzi77DIBr1YoeomWZCFQz0kxS5L-pWsQ3_/s1600/occupytogether400.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<a href="http://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2011/11/we-are-many-song-for-occupy-movement.html" style="color: #4c2802; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 85%; text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #ffde45;" target="_blank">Originally Posted in the Redwood Guardian</a></center>
Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-63698047560575695182011-11-05T15:31:00.000-07:002018-07-19T16:22:43.891-07:00Why Third Way Democrats fail Solar Powered Soup KitchensThe title to this post pretty much says it all about Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown and President Barack "Avatar" Obama.<br />
<br />
Both have been sufficiently removed from reality by political ambition
that we would expect them to actually favor grant programs to provide
solar power to soup kitchens while pondering signing off on cuts in
funding for meat.<br />
<br />
Reality is the story headlined <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/05/4032408/most-of-the-unemployed-no-longer.html">Most of the unemployed no longer receive benefits</a> explaining:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: serif;">The jobs crisis has left
so many people out of work for so long that most of America's unemployed
are no longer receiving unemployment benefits.<br />
<br />
Early last year, 75 percent were receiving checks. The figure is now 48
percent — a shift that points to a growing crisis of long-term
unemployment. Nearly one-third of America's 14 million unemployed have
had no job for a year or more.<br />
<br />
...Their options include food stamps or other social programs. Nearly 46
million people received food stamps in August, a record total. That
figure could grow as more people lose unemployment benefits. </span></blockquote>
Even if there are people "gaming" the system, these numbers clearly tell us a serious problem is developing.<br />
<br />
By the time you add in those who have never drawn unemployment such as
unemployed recent high school and college graduates (and drop outs), we
are allowing a huge expansion of the number of our people who are poor
by late 20th Century American standards.<br />
<br />
Two things are certain.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQK8oFO0LAk_YzsIWzZVIs0xMk_zl3MFbQdImTubtZDvEVQKZwHJDdcChFGtiG-QEVyyoDDAPBsg-07cv-X2XIB1IaVcJIdA1HzAWCyBIjHKLt3PTU3T3hN2EMpez6MwRcrovsfZdd0jk5/s1600/2011_09_CA_empl.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; margin-top: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="414" data-original-width="416" height="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQK8oFO0LAk_YzsIWzZVIs0xMk_zl3MFbQdImTubtZDvEVQKZwHJDdcChFGtiG-QEVyyoDDAPBsg-07cv-X2XIB1IaVcJIdA1HzAWCyBIjHKLt3PTU3T3hN2EMpez6MwRcrovsfZdd0jk5/s320/2011_09_CA_empl.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
First, green industry is not going to fix the problem of employment in
California no matter how much people might want it to be the universal
solution for everything.<br />
<br />
Second, despite the machinations of Moonbeam's Administration, the
California State Budget will be seriously out of balance by June.<br />
<br />
The Great California Slump is not going to be fixed by creating solar powered soup kitchens. (Yes, there is such a thing - see <a href="http://www.kold.com/story/15632409/sun-powers-tucson-soup-kitchen" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Sun powers Tucson soup kitchen</a>.)<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<a href="http://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2011/11/solar-powered-soup-kitchens.html" style="color: #4c2802; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 85%; text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #ffde45;" target="_blank">Originally Posted in the Redwood Guardian</a></center>
Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-12376990630090281462011-10-20T14:05:00.000-07:002018-07-19T16:45:23.587-07:00One Day at a Time: The 21st Century American FamilyTo gain an understanding of the reality of our national economic condition, a good place to begin is the <a href="http://adage.com/article/special-report-american-consumer-project/vanishing-american-middle-class/230455/?utm_source=stat_email&amp;utm_medium=newsletter&amp;utm_campaign=adage" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">first in a series of articles by Advertising Age</a> that will be "a year-long study of the American consumer with an
examination of how those in the middle are getting squeezed -- and how
marketers are beginning to respond."<br />
<br />
<i>Advertising Age</i> is the main trade journal for the people who
create and place advertising. They generally know what's going on in our
consumer-based economy. From this first article: <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqxMT9fVW-CFk2-zG0ATdHAQN_XbJJ-BdrkMHND5HtGpD2VfRelhiWjHIXzRLRrCvW2jMyWGS7ooXalNK3r2IzFPbxmy2has-e-E5dS696w65A92YdM11gsIMsM0lL09_cZqW4PDhJyyD9/s1600/final-salary-map2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="415" data-original-width="642" height="257" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqxMT9fVW-CFk2-zG0ATdHAQN_XbJJ-BdrkMHND5HtGpD2VfRelhiWjHIXzRLRrCvW2jMyWGS7ooXalNK3r2IzFPbxmy2has-e-E5dS696w65A92YdM11gsIMsM0lL09_cZqW4PDhJyyD9/s400/final-salary-map2.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: serif;"></span></div>
<span style="font-family: serif;">...America's
backbone is bending toward the breaking point. In the last decade,
consumers overall cut spending 4.2% in 2010 dollars, and the brunt of
that was felt by the middle class, which slashed spending between 10%
and 13%. Meanwhile, the upper 20% of earners curbed spending only 6%.
The blame can't be pinned on the recession, either. In real dollars,
median family income is now what it was in 1997.<br />
<br />
...This America looks like neither the Cosbys nor the Jeffersons; it
does not resemble the Conners or the Bunkers. Perhaps it looks a little
like "Modern Family" without the spending power. Today, half of all
households have less than $10,000 in annual discretionary income,
according to Experian Simmons.<br />
<br />
While these changes haven't happened overnight, marketers are grappling
with how to keep up. Walmart has stopped adding upscale merchandise and
put back the bargain bins known as Action Alley. Layaway programs are in
full swing at Kmart, Sears, Best Buy and Toys R Us. Hallmark even has
greeting cards for the unemployed. <br />
</span></blockquote>
The article also discusses factual data from the
2010 Census that confirmed what many were noticing. Even in the early
1970's the median income family lived on one paycheck. But today the
median income family has two paychecks.<br />
<br />
The problem with that fact is the majority of the income growth over the
past 35 years has taken place in two-income families while in the last
two decades the number of married-couple families fell below half the
American households.<br />
<br />
Regardless of how you feel about the sociological changes, the fact is
marketers are adjusting in order to survive. For the advertising
business, these aren't political or social or religious issues, just
economic realities.<br />
<br />
The Advertising Age article mentions the ABC show "Modern Family," one
of the most popular shows currently on television. It notes that America
resembles the show but lacks "the spending power." Indeed, the one
absence in "Modern Family" is that there is no one-adult household with
or without children. A curious omission.<br />
<br />
I would argue that instead of looking back at the Huxtables (they
weren't the Cosbys), the Jeffersons, the Conners, or the Bunkers, we
should remember the CBS show "One Day at a Time" that ran from 1975 to
1984 and this family that in retrospect seems prescient:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjBsP_Q0ZgXgovW4mt-MTm8vkRsqwH2GLNHBrAHPztlfO5FvkRHIV91YZzGksB_ZU0f6bQE4y4pjoFX8NjjVbwFCqMUDnhJRfAQLaLzA-hyO6f_X8dX3PXPhMKBRdIayXOGx2t9O3eYPhW/s1600/1dayatatime.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="305" data-original-width="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjBsP_Q0ZgXgovW4mt-MTm8vkRsqwH2GLNHBrAHPztlfO5FvkRHIV91YZzGksB_ZU0f6bQE4y4pjoFX8NjjVbwFCqMUDnhJRfAQLaLzA-hyO6f_X8dX3PXPhMKBRdIayXOGx2t9O3eYPhW/s1600/1dayatatime.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<center>
<a href="https://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2011/10/one-day-at-time-21st-century-american.html" style="color: #4c2802; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 85%; text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #ffde45;" target="_blank">Originally Posted in the Redwood Guardian</a></center>
Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-71005665401474681812010-01-21T11:54:00.000-08:002018-07-19T14:25:25.060-07:00The Latest Round in the California Water IssueWhile generally not doing anything meaningful about the budget crisis, the Legislature and the Governor worked closely to put what may become a very unpopular water bond measure before the voters.<br />
<br />
While we're all waiting for the opportunity to vote on the matter, a "discussion" continues which illustrates why the water "debate" is becoming another matter on the list of things California voters are disgusted about.<br />
<br />
In what appears to be a reasonable approach in the debate over Delta water, the National Academy of Sciences appointed a panel to review rules adopted by federal wildlife agencies to protect endangered Delta fish species. This was requested by Senator Diane Feinstein.<br />
<br />
At the simplest (or simpleton) level, the problem has been portrayed as a battle between hard working American farmers (who are an endangered species themselves) and liberal environmentalists who care more about smelt than people.<br />
<br />
This review lays out clearly the kind of players involved on the agriculture side. Feinstein acted in response to a letter from Stewart Resnick, owner of Paramount Farms. To quote from the Paramount Farms web site: "Paramount Farms is the largest grower and processor of almonds and pistachios in the world." In fact, its processing facilities occupy more acres than what one might think of as "a farm." Again, from their web site:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbY-vCZdrMkwLed4KSYDexzuMACR7wSaE3flvjvimt9Gp69vrPmPEi07ZwuCM9kou3GNHxgAv9m6deJF4IKN4q3Ozozk7iHfaYRMykY9HfI-OgVRe1OX5OIxMmgHHW-VLNNhP49R7C7U6u/s1600/parafarm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="155" data-original-width="368" height="134" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbY-vCZdrMkwLed4KSYDexzuMACR7wSaE3flvjvimt9Gp69vrPmPEi07ZwuCM9kou3GNHxgAv9m6deJF4IKN4q3Ozozk7iHfaYRMykY9HfI-OgVRe1OX5OIxMmgHHW-VLNNhP49R7C7U6u/s320/parafarm.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Ah yes, as Ma and Pa Paramount, their eight kids, and their trusty farmhand Jethro struggle to keep the family farm....<br />
<br />
In fact, this is a political arena battle between large corporate farmers and large corporate real estate developers on one side against the interests of California's remaining fisherman who are in truth the only small businessmen and women who have a survival stake in the battle (yes, the Delta wildlife have a survival stake also, but can't vote) joined by those who value the Delta ecosystem - the environmental community and federal wildlife agencies.<br />
<br />
According to the <a href="http://www.revivethesanjoaquin.org/content/science-panels-review-california-water-woes-prompts-fight" style="text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #8bcdf3;" target="_blank">Sacramento Bee</a>, this review will cost American taxpayers $1.5 million and it will be the third such review, as the Bee notes: "Two separate independent science panels have affirmed the importance of fall flows for Delta smelt." Will the third review be enough?<br />
<br />
Senator Diane Feinstein, the Senior Senator from California and a Democrat, is the epitome of the American survivalist politician dependent on large corporations and whose conservative politics look and smell like dead fish.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<a href="http://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2010/01/latest-round-in-california-water-issue.html" style="color: #4c2802; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 85%; text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #ffde45;" target="_blank">Originally Posted in the Redwood Guardian</a></center>
Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4589197742521548252.post-33802314851877377162008-07-23T14:28:00.000-07:002018-07-19T14:27:19.542-07:00 FERC Ponders Allowing Public Input, Environmental Review of Proposal for Electrical Generators in Whale Route<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuMgBhhWFuwRXnHyQsYB1LuX1bXRfTnKhxrvQ_BldsNBDKCBaWnVDj3-ou7Aj_Jjvkf9QwTG-g52bNFl59hHxHOe2lEyn0XVNABdvCSYoSD0PYo56lwLGjoUrf9uTCWcvCqXPquC39hgoB/s1600/graywhale_route.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; margin-top: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="629" data-original-width="317" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuMgBhhWFuwRXnHyQsYB1LuX1bXRfTnKhxrvQ_BldsNBDKCBaWnVDj3-ou7Aj_Jjvkf9QwTG-g52bNFl59hHxHOe2lEyn0XVNABdvCSYoSD0PYo56lwLGjoUrf9uTCWcvCqXPquC39hgoB/s1600/graywhale_route.jpg" /></a></div>
It was one year ago that my article entitled "Limited Time Only - Act now to own your piece of the ocean off the Mendocino Coast" (posted below) was published. This week the alliance of Northern California coast commercial and recreational fishing associations known as Fishermen Interested in Safe Hydrokinetics (FISH) has announced that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is extending its time to consider the FISH committee request for public participation and environmental analysis in developing federal licensing regulations for nascent wave energy generation projects.<br />
<br />
In other words, FERC has to think about whether and how it would allow public participation and environmental analysis before issuing permits allowing PG&E and Chevron to place electrical generators and a grid in the Gray Whale Migration Route. More than 200 hydrokinetic projects have been proposed across the United States as a solution to environmental issues. Two wave energy projects are currently proposed for the coast off Mendocino County and one in Humboldt County, in one of the most flourishng marine areas on the West Coast. Seven are off the Oregon coast, including Lincoln County<br />
<br />
Offshore from Mendocino County PG&E's proposal covers 68 square miles. Chevron's proposal is for a premilinary study. If implemented the proposals would require significant exclusion zones and would be located along the Gray Whale migration route. (See map above)<br />
<br />
The City and County of San Francisco filed an initial statement in opposition to FERC even processing these applications because of lack of staff . In it's statement, the San Francisco argued:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
While specifically not referring to this application, San Francisco believes the risk of sparking a 'gold rush' by ill prepared applicants with ill-conceived projects is too high and the drain on Commission resources in reviewing such applications would be too great.
</span></blockquote>
But the process has moved on.<br />
<br />
As in all such complex regulatory processes, before the potentially effected public could wrap its collective head around the meaning of the proposals, FERC established rules regarding the process which essentially precluded public involvement in the process. As one writer noted:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
This pejorative May 21, 2008 FERC ruling rejects requests of FISH, Fort Bragg, Mendocino County and local stakeholders’ to rehear their right to participate in this wave energy development project. It is noted since onset of the Mendocino wave energy agenda, FERC and PG&E continue to swiftly move toward their goals while intentionally blocking all local, public participation. As wave energy development projects on the U.S. coasts progress, Americans are discovering that FERC’s convoluted wave energy licensing process is ill-defined, biased and discriminates against public participation.
</span></blockquote>
As I noted in my article a year ago: "If you...want to get in on the action, you'd better hurry as FERC is likely to fast track these applications to approval before...when a new President takes office."<br />
<br />
What the County of Mendocino, the City of Fort Bragg, the Recreational Fishing Alliance, and Lincoln County, Oregon discovered is that FERC really didn't plan to hear from them. So they've joined the FISH Committee’s request for a rehearing of FERC's policies. According to a report by Recreational Fishing Alliance West Coast Region Director:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
Potential negative impacts on marine life from wave buoys include electromagnetic pollution and interference with migratory finfish, whale entanglements and altering the bottom structure of the seabeds. Turbine devices submerged in rivers, bays and estuaries could entrain juvenile fish.
<br /> "We take this issue very seriously and, if necessary, intend to vigorously pursue our legal options," said John Innes, board member of the North Coast Fishing Association. "We are not opposed to renewable energy, we only want to make sure we know what the impacts will be to fish and other marine life before we sign off on these projects. Considering that wave energy is in its infancy, it is extremely important to have proper controls and regulations in place to prevent non-recoverable detrimental effects on our ocean environment."
</span></blockquote>
If you are concerned, its better late then never to get involved.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.progressivepacific.com/" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="690" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVbB8tq0D7T69yZkChBaK1s5MeNDs8kifzUgEL5cjMyrGgYP0TzyA9EqWloanRTNT6ncNRSmR5oSexfr0D3ZdoLbJGPtrqdv03CF8w4MjjYwowyhWyNELOiYg1NsHXEJvRrJ7Qz9DmrfwP/s200/Message-button692.png" width="104" /><br />OUR WEBSITE</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<a href="http://redwoodguardian.blogspot.com/2008/07/ferc-ponders-allowing-public-input.html" style="color: #4c2802; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 85%; text-decoration: underline; text-shadow: 0 0 3px #ffde45;" target="_blank">Originally Posted in the Redwood Guardian</a></center>
Michael O'Faolain -http://www.blogger.com/profile/08206888737951629317noreply@blogger.com