The Right's attempt to be more "Intellecutal"

According to the latest work by Tim Stanley in the UK newspaper, the Right in America does not have an anti-intellecutual tradition.  According to him, conservatives read books and have their own intellectual foundation because they are able to read books.  This is true most liberals would concede that the Right is able to read books and have their own following.  The problem is that the Right will only read a selective set of books for fear that their own ideals may be challenged.  As a result, it is not suprising to find the works of Freidman on this socalled list of works that all conservatives should read.  Friedmann's work is currently present in our economic disaster of the last few years.  At the saem time, the real criticism that needs to be addressed is not the conservatives are not capable of reading, it's that many tend to cling to ideals that have long since been disproven by historical, eonomic, and scientific facts. 

One of the best examples is the Theory of Evolution.  Long been able to stand up to the continued testing of the scientific community.  Instead, conservatives continue to use religion to keep people in their place forgetting that it was Marx who called religion the opiate of the masses.  Indeed, they are clever.  Let us not forget the continued claims by former President Ronald Reagan that we could cut taxes and increase defense spending and demand a balanced budget.  Reagan never submitted a balanced budget he so continuously demanded from Congress.  He left office slightly more dotty than when he entered, and the nation with a larger deficit that his predecessor. What is clear from the conservatives is that while they may have an intellectual tradition, it is a tradition that does not foster nor challenge their followers to better themesleves.  Instead, it rehashes settled matters on subjects decades settled and attempts to use historical facts to tweak their slogans.  While other traditions have done the same, this new conservative Tea Bag party has taken the cake.  The fact that they believe the Boston Tea Party was a protest against paying taxes remains absurd.  It was a protest about who would levy the taxes, the colonial legislatures or the Parliament.  This is a bit of a difference. 

In the end, it has never been doubted that the right could read materials.  It is their small selection of materials that remains in question. They have chosen the proper sychopants.  However, what remains clear is that most of them have not read The Wealth of Nations yet they beleive they have enough information.  An they lack the trust of the people to make the laws for themselves.  I say this because they still believe that government is the problem forgetting that we are the government.  Yet they do not shrink form using the tools of government to give tax breaks to the rich in the "belief" that the rich create jobs, nor do they have a problem with the government intervenening in the economy as long as business is not regulated,  They have done so well on this subject that they have created the greatest division between rich and poor in US history.  What much of the so called intellectual right chooses to research, it is clear that they need to do more research.  Perhaps if they did their homework there would be less criticism.

Sarah Palin has stated she will not continue to run for president - and the world heaves a sigh of relief. http://amplify.com/u/a1e979

http://glaucus480.livejournal.com/1994.html



here is a link to my blog, all opinions welcome http://amplify.com/u/a1adu2

The Triangle Shirtwaist Fire as an Example of Why We Cannot Count on the Private Sector

Only 100 years ago, a major event occurred in New York City that has since been an example of why government needs to continue to regulate the private sector.  Without the aid of government, we have  a situation were labor has no power.  Sure, the individual would be "free" to negotiate his/her labor, but due to a labor surplus and the increase in unskilled jobs, that ability is a non-starter.   However, to their credit the owners of the Triangle Shirtwaist company chose a good modern building for their enterprise.  The Asch Building had been certified as fireproof by 1911 standards.  However, the fire department had noted the distinct absence of fire exits, yet nothing was done to compel the owners of the building or the company to rectify this, nor had anyone listened to the women's pleas for fire drills.  All this is well documented.  The city ignored conditions inside the factory.  Doors were locked from the outside so that workers could not leave their posts until quitting time, a common practice.  At the same time, the company was worried that the workers might steal some of the materials. There were not real safety standards and forget about sanitation even by early twentieth century standards.  When the fire broke out at the factory on March 28,1911, it burned so quickly because of the scraps of fabric on the floors and the finished clothing that hung on wire wracks dangling over the heads of workers created a fireball.  the workers were locked inside, could not use the one fire escape, and were surrounded by flammable clothing.

The Triangle owners were later acquitted of charges of negligence because it could not be proven that they actually knew that the doors were locked.  A fact later proved false by historians.  The owners settled out of court for $75 per victim.  Not enough to even have a funeral by 1911 standards.  What the Triangle fire illustrates is the violation of the ideal of social responsibility on the part of the corporate elite. This is a concept that is today still disputed.  The concept of a shared social responsibility embedded deeply in American values of individualism, unimpeded economic growth, and property rights above all else.  Mac Blanc and his partner Isaac Harris exemplify the typical business.  They worried about competition but failed to provide any concept of responsibility for their workers.  Workers were cattle and they controlled their workforce.  Speed was the key.  They had the new electric sewing machines that make 3000 stitches a minute.  Volume was the key to their success.

Now this is a typical example of a company in the garment industry during that period.  Since then, the federal government had implemented new safety standards.  As a result of the fire at Triangle, after a 5 year investigation, the state of New York implemented new safety standards, that were promptly ignored by companies who could buy off inspectors who got their jobs because of their relationship to local politicians.  While we all balk at some of the weirdest standards, at least we have standards for safety and sanitation.  

This is a day an age where the private sector created the demand for goods and services and an unregulated economy had more weight than government.  For corporations their corporation was private property that they could run however they wanted.  Forget the fact that they would not have been successful if it had not been for the workers who made it possible.  Their wealth and power was a reward for their individual freedom.  Yet, there was not recognition of the individuals who made the goods.

Do we want to go back to this unregulated system where private property and that concept trumps social responsibility.  We have not moved very far from that point.  Industrialists to this day feel that their self made status has been achieved by them alone forget all the people that have made it possible.  If they close the company, so what, workers will have to find other jobs.  We need to renew that sense of social responsibility.  Corporations are NOT private property, they have a social responsibility to the nation, economy, and to the workers they employ.  Hence when a CEO makes $10 million a year and lay's off workers after 20 years, I know from personal experience, this can cause one to question their practices.  Especially since, over the last 20 years, CEO's have no responsibility to the company they run.  They negotiate their contracts for a set salary regardless of how well the company performs.  This does not give them a stake in the company.  

Consequently, when we talk about returning economic 'freedom" to the private sector, we are really talking about restoring more power to stockholders and CEO's who could care less about the city or state and the economic consequences of their decisions.  Their major concern is to make money.  While that is important, we need to have a factor in there for social responsibility.  Case in Point, New London V. Kelo  The underlying reason for the seizure of property to redevelop the Fort Trumbul areas was . . . to please Pfizer and their expansion of their New London site, see New London Day for more facts.  In the end, people lost their homes, but were compensated, which is really no compensation when one wants their home.  Then the company who was developing the area went bankrupt and Pfizer closed the site.  This illustrates no social responsibility for the people who lived in the area.  There was no thought of what the impact would be in the end.  As a result, there remains empty buildings and homes.  Social responsibility demands that workers have an equal partnership with the company as they provide the means of wealth for the company.  Would the company profit without them?  While a group of individuals may own stock, there is a social responsibility that comes with that and we need to stress that.

As are result, we cannot count on the private sector to provide the needed safeguards for all people.  The private sector only allows for individuals of wealth, with that comes power, to have a say.  If one does not have wealth they have no power or economic ability to enforce compliance with demands.  Companies that think workers are unreasonable get a tax break from the federal government and move to . . . China.  Do we really want a return to this system.  It may be an extreme example, but the every day worker will tell you that this is not a far cry from the truth.

They Myth of Government Intervention

Since the latest debacle of the manufactured debt crisis, once again there has been increased “talk” about the role of government in relation to the people.  Increasingly, there have been increased disdain on the part of the extreme right for the involvement of government in the lives of the average person.  Almost a nostalgic desire to return to those days of self sufficiency.  Well, let’s look at those days of self-sufficiency?  And when one looks at this it is important to look at the dates in which one describes.  The right had the incredibly nagging ability to keep changing their criteria.  Hence, I specifically would address that period from the late 1890s to about World War I America.  First let’s talk about governing structure.  Second, the lives of country and then industrial workers.

Government up until the late 1880s remained something aloof from the average person.  The State government was far away and the local city government was run by the local machine.  It does not matter what machine the democrats as well as the republicans had them.  The local machines actually provided some services to their supporters.  It was not all corruption, although a good deal was.  They kept their workers employed.  The Spoils System was in rampant use throughout the country since the Age of Jackson.  However, the system had gotten beyond the control of the people.  This is a time period when there was no such thing as the party primary.  The party bosses controlled the nomination systems and elections.  When one could vote, the ballot was printed by the party.  When one went to vote, they were asked what ballot they wanted, democratic or republican, etc.  In 1888, Massachusetts introduced the Australian Ballot, the secret ballot, from that point the state printed the ballot with all the names listed and the various party divisions.  Progressives also introduced the Presidential Primary, whereby party members could vote in a primary to choose their presidential candidate, later it was extended to local offices.  This Progressive reform diminished in some detail the power of the party bosses.  However, it was not entirely diminished. 

Now, the period between 1880-1913, there were a great many politicians who had a great deal of power within their parties, or influence as one might call it today.  The party’s importance may be found in its control of the state legislatures and local politics.  New York City Tammany Hall machine politicians had an inordinate amount of influence in Albany.  This also plays into the choice for federal Senators.  Remember, Senators were chosen by the state legislatures, who voted for a person recommended by their party.  During the period in question, there also remained an increased amount of economic activity that was not regulated by the federal government.  In fact, the federal government did little to get involved in the economic activity of the nation.  This is why one can see the vast growth in monopolies from Railroads to Steel, to Meat Packing.  These same monopolies could also count on support from the Senators they purchased in the states and at the federal level.  In fact, the business of government was to keep government out of business.  Even in the depths of the first Great Depression of 1893, the federal government did nothing to alter the private privilege of the economic dynamics of the day.  Finally, in 1913, the 17th amendment came into effect and now, the people choose their Senators.  The question remains do we want to go back to something like this????

Beginning with Theodore Roosevelt, a Progressive Republican, an oxymoron today, Roosevelt determined that the federal government needed to get involved within the economy so that the government was not held hostage to the demands of private business.  Consequently, up to the early part of the twentieth century, government did not see its primary responsibility to get involved in the economic activities of the nation.  Today this is a bit of a shock. 

How did this affect the average person?  We complain about government intervention for many reasons.  However, beginning in the late 1880s and into the early twentieth century, the average person began to demand that the power of government refocus from its penchant for the rich and powerful to the average person.  Farmers in the Midwest and South began early movements to organize for the demand of government attention and regulation.  The whole idea of the Silver Sub-Treasury System was to enable farmers to pay their debts and provide for better lives.  In the cities, organized labor for both women and men worked to get better wages and government reform for safer working and sanitary conditions, lest we forget the tragedies of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire.

The point here, and there is one, is that government involvement in the lives of the average person began as a demand on the part of the average person to eliminate the privileged practices of business.  Big business held all the cards.  They controlled how much one made for a job, what the conditions were, and when one would be fired.  Business also had the money and influence to allow government to look the other way.  Let the private sector take care of these problems.  The problem is that the private sector NEVER took care of the problem because it is not in its interest to do so.  Conditions and wages only got better when the people decided that the federal government should use its power to end the privileges of the wealthy elite and start to work for the average person.

So where it this going????  The point my friends is that while there may be a good deal of things that, perhaps, the government should not do, the fact remains it DOES protect the average person from the prurient interests of business.  From the amount of lead that is safe to put in your teeth fillings to the requirements that baby cribs should have certain safety standards, it is OUR government.  The question remains do we as a nation want to give this up?  Do we want to give up some of the social safety net standards that have been achieved.  Things like unemployment insurance.  You know that 6% deduction you pay, and your employer better pay, so that in the event you lose your job you do not suffer immediate economic ruin.  And Social Security, a separate post to cover most of this will be necessary, nevertheless, this small sacrifice to allow old people to have some living in their waning years is something that the private sector would never be willing to fund.  In fact, the private sector has no interest nor could it do what the government does regarding many of the social services that the average person obtains from the federal government.  And we have earned them.  The average person pays into all these programs so that their parents are not on the street because they were not fortunate enough to save the requisite money needed for their life threatening disease they caught.

So what should the role of government be????  Should we go back to the days when the privileged and rich controlled the strings?  Or should we become more active and demand that government provide the needs of the people which it serves?  This is the debate. 

Canada will have a federal election the 4th election in 7 years. The Conservatives lead nationally by 14% but the election is on May 2, We will see if Harper will remain the Prime Minister http://amplify.com/u/bxv84

Look everyone i ammobile

Look everyone i ammobile

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bvi7x

via Amplify.com

Look everyone i ammobile

Look everyone i ammobile

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bvi7x

Wellwe lost the other tooth what a gap

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bu1ww

via Amplify.com

Wellwe lost the other tooth what a gap

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bu1ww

http://content0.clipmark...

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bu1wn

via Amplify.com

<br /><img src="http://content0.clipmark...

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bu1wn

Nullification Controversy

I am still in amazement that the public officials that we put in power are still so ignorant of simple government class principles. Perhaps due to all the education that they have been cutting over the last few years, they neglected to take that class. I am astounded that they simply do not understand Constitutional principles and precedents. Article I, Section 8 specifically gives the power to Congress to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,. . . " and of course clause 3: "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department of Officer thereof:" Then of course there is Article VI (aka the Supremacy Clause)

Then there is the whole Nullification Controversy under President Andrew Jackson who established the idea (and Lincoln acknowledged) that the Union was perpetual. Hence, This whole notion of trying to nullify federal laws that the states don't like is utter nonsense. All laws enacted by Congress

Then there are two Amendments that we need to think about Amendment 9 and 10. We tend to forget 9. This Amendment states that the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. At the same time Amendment 10 "powers not delegated to the united States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the People" Hence, all these powers that the State of Arizona wants to nullify, they cannot because the state is denied that power by the Constitution. It has some concurrent powers with the federal government, but it does not have the power to nullify federal law.

Amplify’d from tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com

Arizona Senate Passes Bill To Let State Nullify Federal Laws Jillian Rayfield | March 4, 2011, 10:18AM 876Share 60tweetsretweet 12diggsdigg State Senator Russell Pearce (R-AZ) Read More Arizona, Nullification, Russell Pearce Share Send to a friend! To email:    Your Name:    Your email: After being shot down earlier this week, the Arizona State Senate revived and successfully passed a bill that would create a mechanism for the state to nullify federal laws. As TPM has reported, Senate Bill 1433 would create a 12-person "Joint Legislative Committee on Nullification of Federal Laws," which would "recommend, propose and call for a vote by simple majority to nullify in its entirety a specific federal law or regulation that is outside the scope of the powers delegated by the People to the federal government in the United States Constitution." The bill passed the Senate 16-11 after three Republicans switched their vote. Iowa passed a similar bill in its House last month, though that bill specified that the state would not be required to follow the individual mandate in the health care reform law. The Arizona bill gives the committee more broad powers to review "all existing federal statutes, mandates and Executive orders for the purpose of determining their constitutionality." But State Senate President Russell Pearce (R) -- who introduced the bill, and also sponsored the state's controversial immigration law -- implied that health care reform was at least part of the impetus for the law: "If we don't take back our sovereign ability for the states to control the federal government, I guess we have no right to complain," he said, the Arizona Republic reports. "I guess 'Obamacare' is OK for you." Read more at tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bsx7j

via Amplify.com

Nullification Controversy

I am still in amazement that the public officials that we put in power are still so ignorant of simple government class principles. Perhaps due to all the education that they have been cutting over the last few years, they neglected to take that class. I am astounded that they simply do not understand Constitutional principles and precedents. Article I, Section 8 specifically gives the power to Congress to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,. . . " and of course clause 3: "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department of Officer thereof:" Then of course there is Article VI (aka the Supremacy Clause)



Then there is the whole Nullification Controversy under President Andrew Jackson who established the idea (and Lincoln acknowledged) that the Union was perpetual. Hence, This whole notion of trying to nullify federal laws that the states don't like is utter nonsense. All laws enacted by Congress



Then there are two Amendments that we need to think about Amendment 9 and 10. We tend to forget 9. This Amendment states that the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. At the same time Amendment 10 "powers not delegated to the united States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the People" Hence, all these powers that the State of Arizona wants to nullify, they cannot because the state is denied that power by the Constitution. It has some concurrent powers with the federal government, but it does not have the power to nullify federal law.

Amplify’d from tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com

Arizona Senate Passes Bill To Let State Nullify Federal Laws Jillian Rayfield | March 4, 2011, 10:18AM 876Share 60tweetsretweet 12diggsdigg State Senator Russell Pearce (R-AZ) Read More Arizona, Nullification, Russell Pearce Share Send to a friend! To email:    Your Name:    Your email: After being shot down earlier this week, the Arizona State Senate revived and successfully passed a bill that would create a mechanism for the state to nullify federal laws. As TPM has reported, Senate Bill 1433 would create a 12-person "Joint Legislative Committee on Nullification of Federal Laws," which would "recommend, propose and call for a vote by simple majority to nullify in its entirety a specific federal law or regulation that is outside the scope of the powers delegated by the People to the federal government in the United States Constitution." The bill passed the Senate 16-11 after three Republicans switched their vote. Iowa passed a similar bill in its House last month, though that bill specified that the state would not be required to follow the individual mandate in the health care reform law. The Arizona bill gives the committee more broad powers to review "all existing federal statutes, mandates and Executive orders for the purpose of determining their constitutionality." But State Senate President Russell Pearce (R) -- who introduced the bill, and also sponsored the state's controversial immigration law -- implied that health care reform was at least part of the impetus for the law: "If we don't take back our sovereign ability for the states to control the federal government, I guess we have no right to complain," he said, the Arizona Republic reports. "I guess 'Obamacare' is OK for you." Read more at tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bsx7j

Olivia standing next to the front wall 3

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/ao8w3

via Amplify.com

Olivia standing next to the front wall 3

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/ao8w3

This is lillian next to snow bank

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/ansmh

via Amplify.com

Untitled

In the words of Lou Grant "I hate snow. I don't like its color. I don't like its shape. .. . " I am just tired of this winter already.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/anron

via Amplify.com

This is lillian next to snow bank

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/ansmh

In the words of Lou Grant "I hate snow. I don't like its color. I don't like its shape. .. . " I am just tired of this winter already. http://amplify.com/u/anron

Untitled

CCSU is a great Univer. But it has made a huge mistake in changing graduate course times

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bnfb3

via Amplify.com

CCSU is a great Univer. But it has made a huge mistake in changing graduate course times http://amplify.com/u/bnfb3

Texas State board of Education Gets a New "champion" for Balance in Education

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

Sometimes just getting up in the morning and checking your latest tweets can cause one to just stare at the computer and do a Daffy Duck eye socket pop out.  For those that have been following the Texas State Board of Education's venture into historical fiction, the champion standard bearer for "balance" in the historical and science curriculum, Don McLeroy had retired.  Cause for all to celebrate.  However, this is short lived, for a newly elected "Charlie" Garza R-El Paso has taken up the battle for "balance".  This is noted by the Texas Freedom Network's blog described here.

The latest quote from board member Garza states that "Last year my son came to me and started talking about global warming… and I showed him research that said that there is no clear consensus – either scholarly or otherwise – that suggested that even existed. But yet it was being taught as a basis of fact in the school. And when we have such a paradigm being introduced to children, then we have a problem on our hands."  Makes one think of the scene in Cool Hand Luke "What we have here is a failure to communicate.", or more to the point, failure to understand.

Garza was not put off by this comment he later stated that he was all for assessing balance in the curriculum stating "The real question this board should be dealing with is not so much what is clear or isn’t clear because you can’t define it, but rather, if there is opposing points of view, that both sides be presented in order to add a more balanced point of view about what’s happening in the classroom."  Apparently we should also have "balance" for the grammatically impaired.  Nevertheless, I think Garza has a point and we should all start making lists to start addressing balance in the field of history.  Here are some guidelines to start with.

1.  We need to focus more on the family values of important leaders.  Hence, I would suggest that in Modern European history we start focusing in on "Mussolini the Family Man".  Yes, never mind that the man cheated on his wife and slept around, or that many of his children would not speak to him, these are irrelevant.  Mussolini was the family man of Italy; just ask his mistress who was strung up next to him by her ankles.  And let's not forget his alliance with the Catholic Church.  Despite the fact the man did not attend church.  But we need to emphasize the family importance of this period.  And the values that he instilled in his Fasci troops.  One, be the first to blame your opponent of what you are doing.  That will confuse and confound the public.  Two, eliminate your opponents through legal and extra-legal methods to show that you have at least a 30% consensus.  Finally, spend loads of money on rebuilding "culture" so that the people don't have time to realize they are poor, illiterate, and exploited.

2.  Refocus our attention on the virtuous personal lives of other important leaders.  Hitler for example, we need to offer a balance between the evil that he has been shown to possess and the warm fuzzy personal side of megalomania.  Just because you kill over 11 million people for political reasons, one should show the moral and upright side of these "justified" policies.  After all, Hitler's intentions were fully spelled out in Mein Kampf and clearly illustrated his intentions of making the German people the superior people that they already were.  Let's talk about his home life, his compassion for his dogs and his strong work ethic.  He slept until noon did very little work and then stayed up till midnight partying at the expense of the nation, but all in the direct attempt to destroy . . . everyone else.  A worthy goal for "balance"

3.  What about colonial policies of the Portuguese and Spanish.  They not only intended to bring "civilization" to the new world, but also sought through conquest to instill "Christian" values.  A force conversion of the heathen races of Aztecs, Incas, and Mayas was all in an effort to bring Christ to a lost people.  Never mind the fact that these same groups were killed by foreign viruses that wiped out their populations, forced on to plantations to work until they died; and were forced to destroy at the hands of their captors their cultural and historical past.

4.  Let's not forget the forced importation of Africans to the Americas.  Should we, once again, justify slavery as Aristotle did to promote one race over another?? Heavens no!!!, But we must emphasize the natural order of life and the necessity of domestic harmony.  After all, the slaves were in a better position after they were forced to leave their land in Africa.  Who would want to live in such primitive conditions?  They were able to make better lives here on the Brazilian sugar plantations where they died of exhaustion. 

5.  Then, of course, the public policies of Joseph Stalin must be considered.  His fantastic planning to bring his country into the modern industrial age is illustrated through the importation of "surplus" German industrial machinery.  His population control objectives were stunning.  Throughout the 1930s and 1940s he single handedly manage to bring focus and direction to public policy defining new levels of state welfare.  From the happy work farms of the gulags to the industrial work towns behind the Ural Mountains, Stalin had vision. 

Colleagues, we all understand that as historians, the overwhelming existence of "facts" show that there are certain areas of history that one cannot be neutral about whether these facts are about the Holocaust, Hitler, or the Founding Fathers.  We know from overwhelming evidence of eyewitness testimony, pictures, and intimate friends, that Hitler's goal for the peoples of Eastern Europe was inhalation.  Just the same, we know from the evidence of their own diaries, letters, and documents, that Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison were influenced by the Enlightenment ideas of Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu.  Facts are funny things and no matter how often that one may argue to the contrary, they do not change.  Hence, we should not ignore the attempt of others to argue against established fact.

 

 

 

 

Untitled

Teat the amplify -- ================================================================== This mobile text message is brought to you by AT&T

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bma4q

via Amplify.com

a test post to the account

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bma3l

via Amplify.com

Untitled

je me souviens

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bma06

via Amplify.com

Retxt cnnbrk (twitte

Retxt cnnbrk (twitter): RT @cnni: 47 killed in Philippines floods http://htxt.it/IMpL

via hellotxt

je me souviens

je me souviens

via hellotxt

Tea Party Blackshirts have finally shown their Objectives

The recent shooting by a Tea Party enthusiast of a legitimately elected Congresswoman in Tuscon, AZ has brought to mind the rise of other similar groups in early 20th century Europe.  The so called "Tea Party" leaders, whoever they might be, will deny the similarities and characteristics but they must be reviewed in the sobering light of recent events.  In America, we don't shoot our opponents.  Instead, we are suppose to civilly air our differences in public for all to hear.  This act of assassination has brought to mind the work of the fascists and some of the characteristics are startling.

1.  The belief that one's group is a victim, a setiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external.

The Tea Party folk have extensively hyped their position that "they are the true" Americans:  White, Protestant-mostly evangelical, anti-immigrant, anti-government (except if it helps business), and anti-civil rights (one must give up their rights in the name of "security")

2.  Dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences.

it is no surprise that the US is a nation that will not longer have a majority white population.  That means many of the white folks feel that hey will lose their influence in public policy.  That means America is become a nation that will not have a majority groups.  This is worrisome to the extreme political right who feels that their "way of life" is in danger.  No surprise the Republican party itself has had to face the split in its own ranks as the tea party has spun off and recruited other extremists.  They are also worried about their future and underlying that is the anti immigrant racism of the groups.  The use of terms such as "baby mules" and "anchor babies".  Forgetting that America is a "NATION OF IMMIGRANTS".  It was the Europeans in the 16th and 17th centuries who invaded this continent throwing off the natives already living here.  Hence, there are no US citizens who are not of some immigrant background.

3.  The need for authority by natural leaders, culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the groups's destiny.

4.  The superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason

Since the beginning of this movement, Sarah Palin has become the poster child for this movement.  Why is still a mystery.  Nevertheless, the influence that she brought to Tea Party candidates this last campaign cycle is not to be pushed side.  She was able to help candidates obtain money to run and lend her voice to the cause.  The faithful loved to see Ms Palin spout her drivel.  Some candidates owe their success to her endorsement, many who would not have gotten as far as they had in politics without her stardom.  As far as the superiority of the leader's instincts, that is what one must call it, for there is no other way to explain the continued success of such leaders as Palin, Michele Bachman, and Jan Brewer.  Logic is not something that is part of their repertoire.  How else can one explain the insane reading of legislation and extreme reliance on "constitutional originalism" which defies logic itself.  Who can forget the "death panels" that Palin claimed were in the health care bill.  Fact, they were not.  Second, what about the insane reliance of Rep. Bachman and her strange reading of the Constitution.  She once asked the Secretary of the Treasury where he got his authority to act as Secretary.  As if he did not know.  Apparently she did not.

5.  The beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group's success.

Throughout the latest the founder of the Tea Party showed his true feelings in his memo quoted in Forbes

In his memo, Phillips urged his Tea Party supporters to blame liberals for the attack.

“The hard left is going to try and silence the Tea Party movement by blaming us for this. Clinton used the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing to “blame conservative talk radio, especially Rush Limbaugh” and “The tactic worked then, backing conservatives off and possibly helping to ensure a second Clinton term.” Phillips continued, “The left is coming and will hit us hard on this. We need to push back harder with the simple truth. The shooter was a liberal lunatic. Emphasis on both words.”

Josef Goebbels would have been proud.  Take the offensive and blame your opponents before they can bring to the public's attention the real problem.  Their tactics.  Newsflash, it is not the left that is showing the true colors of the Tea Party its the legitimate media.  Even Fox news cannot justify this action.

6.  the right of the "chosen" group to dominate other without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group's prowess within a Darwinian struggle.

Clearly this is the evangelical part of the Tea party.  This is the same group who wants to use their beliefs to turn public policy into another Inquisition.  The problem is that at least the Inquisition had standards.  Evangelicals keep changing the goal posts from hiding behind their "freedom of belief" so that they don't have to dispense doctors prescriptions, to attempting to include "intelligent design" within the public school system. While this group has not actively worked within the tea party, they have a ready welcome. 

I bring these aspects to the attention of the public because they need to be assessed.  The assassination of a Member of Congress is to be condemned and it must be by the very political foes who have fostered it.  They have not.  Some have but it is clear the right will try to turn this to their advantage and the public and legitimate leaders of this nation must call them to account when they try.  The source for the numbered list is from Robert O. Paxton and his work The Anatomy of Fascism.

Tea Party Blackshirts have finally shown their Objectives

The recent shooting by a Tea Party enthusiast of a legitimately elected Congresswoman in Tuscon, AZ has brought to mind the rise of other similar groups in early 20th century Europe.  The so called "Tea Party" leaders, whoever they might be, will deny the similarities and characteristics but they must be reviewed in the sobering light of recent events.  In America, we don't shoot our opponents.  Instead, we are suppose to civilly air our differences in public for all to hear.  This act of assassination has brought to mind the work of the fascists and some of the characteristics are startling.

1.  The belief that one's group is a victim, a setiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external.

The Tea Party folk have extensively hyped their position that "they are the true" Americans:  White, Protestant-mostly evangelical, anti-immigrant, anti-government (except if it helps business), and anti-civil rights (one must give up their rights in the name of "security")

2.  Dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences.

it is no surprise that the US is a nation that will not longer have a majority white population.  That means many of the white folks feel that hey will lose their influence in public policy.  That means America is become a nation that will not have a majority groups.  This is worrisome to the extreme political right who feels that their "way of life" is in danger.  No surprise the Republican party itself has had to face the split in its own ranks as the tea party has spun off and recruited other extremists.  They are also worried about their future and underlying that is the anti immigrant racism of the groups.  The use of terms such as "baby mules" and "anchor babies".  Forgetting that America is a "NATION OF IMMIGRANTS".  It was the Europeans in the 16th and 17th centuries who invaded this continent throwing off the natives already living here.  Hence, there are no US citizens who are not of some immigrant background.

3.  The need for authority by natural leaders, culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the groups's destiny.

4.  The superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason

Since the beginning of this movement, Sarah Palin has become the poster child for this movement.  Why is still a mystery.  Nevertheless, the influence that she brought to Tea Party candidates this last campaign cycle is not to be pushed side.  She was able to help candidates obtain money to run and lend her voice to the cause.  The faithful loved to see Ms Palin spout her drivel.  Some candidates owe their success to her endorsement, many who would not have gotten as far as they had in politics without her stardom.  As far as the superiority of the leader's instincts, that is what one must call it, for there is no other way to explain the continued success of such leaders as Palin, Michele Bachman, and Jan Brewer.  Logic is not something that is part of their repertoire.  How else can one explain the insane reading of legislation and extreme reliance on "constitutional originalism" which defies logic itself.  Who can forget the "death panels" that Palin claimed were in the health care bill.  Fact, they were not.  Second, what about the insane reliance of Rep. Bachman and her strange reading of the Constitution.  She once asked the Secretary of the Treasury where he got his authority to act as Secretary.  As if he did not know.  Apparently she did not.

5.  The beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group's success.

Throughout the latest the founder of the Tea Party showed his true feelings in his memo quoted in Forbes

In his memo, Phillips urged his Tea Party supporters to blame liberals for the attack.

“The hard left is going to try and silence the Tea Party movement by blaming us for this. Clinton used the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing to “blame conservative talk radio, especially Rush Limbaugh” and “The tactic worked then, backing conservatives off and possibly helping to ensure a second Clinton term.” Phillips continued, “The left is coming and will hit us hard on this. We need to push back harder with the simple truth. The shooter was a liberal lunatic. Emphasis on both words.”

Josef Goebbels would have been proud.  Take the offensive and blame your opponents before they can bring to the public's attention the real problem.  Their tactics.  Newsflash, it is not the left that is showing the true colors of the Tea Party its the legitimate media.  Even Fox news cannot justify this action.

6.  the right of the "chosen" group to dominate other without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group's prowess within a Darwinian struggle.

Clearly this is the evangelical part of the Tea party.  This is the same group who wants to use their beliefs to turn public policy into another Inquisition.  The problem is that at least the Inquisition had standards.  Evangelicals keep changing the goal posts from hiding behind their "freedom of belief" so that they don't have to dispense doctors prescriptions, to attempting to include "intelligent design" within the public school system. While this group has not actively worked within the tea party, they have a ready welcome. 

I bring these aspects to the attention of the public because they need to be assessed.  The assassination of a Member of Congress is to be condemned and it must be by the very political foes who have fostered it.  They have not.  Some have but it is clear the right will try to turn this to their advantage and the public and legitimate leaders of this nation must call them to account when they try.  The source for the numbered list is from Robert O. Paxton and his work The Anatomy of Fascism.

The House Republicans are Going to Read the Consitution: That's Amazing!!! But will they understand it

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

The lastest grandstanding trick by the new House Republicans will be to read the US Constiuttion.  This might serve as an epiphany for some new and old Republican members.  Michele Bachman may need a dictionary for some words like "electors" or "citizen".  The one thing that most of us forget is that the original Consittution does not include the last 27 Amendments.  Which makes me wonder if they were going to include those.  Some things that have changed over the years :

 

Article I:

1.  Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within the Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by addign the whole number of free persons, including those bound for Service for a Term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.  (fancy language that was eliminated by the 16th Amendment, meaning they can have an income tax, and the 14th Amendment eliminated the 3/5 all other persons.

2.  The Senate of the United States shall be composed of 2 Senators from each State, Chosen by the Legislature thereof,  (meaning they are not accountable to the people and eliminated by the 17th Amendment)  I think it might be interesting to point out that Lincoln had won a non-binding election against Stephen Douglas in 1858, but was denied the seat since it was the legislature that chose the Senators for the state. 

When it does come to Section 9, I am a bit worried because I do think that they are more than too willing to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus when it suits them and for whatever reason.

Article II

it will be surprising to many that the House Republicans would advocate a return to the old system of counting electoral Votes.  I mean Al Gore and John Kerry would have been VP along time ago.  I really would not want a return to this. Luckily we have the 12th Amendment

When it comes to Article V I would be interested in their opinion on the Amending process.  I mean the foolish founder wrote right in there how the Constitution could be changed.  I am sure that was an oversight. Of course the process is so cumbersome that it has happened only 27 times in the last 230 years.

These are just some of the observations that causes one to just look at the Republicans and question what planet they have come from, especially Ms Bachman who could not understand where in the Constitution the power to have a treasury and a treasury secretary lied.  It’s in the implied executive powers by the way and fully interpreted by John Marshall in the court case McCulloch V. Maryland. 

I am wondering if they will read the amendments and the Supreme Court cases that have interpreted the legal aspects of the various amendments.  It will be an interesting exercise in futility, but then again the Republicans are not for progress they want to go back to the old oppressive days.  Yes, those days went women were property and all minorities were 3/5 all other persons.  This would be funny if it were not so tragic.

 

The House Republicans are Going to Read the Consitution: That's Amazing!!! But will they understand it

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

The lastest grandstanding trick by the new House Republicans will be to read the US Constiuttion.  This might serve as an epiphany for some new and old Republican members.  Michele Bachman may need a dictionary for some words like "electors" or "citizen".  The one thing that most of us forget is that the original Consittution does not include the last 27 Amendments.  Which makes me wonder if they were going to include those.  Some things that have changed over the years :

 

Article I:

1.  Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within the Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by addign the whole number of free persons, including those bound for Service for a Term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.  (fancy language that was eliminated by the 16th Amendment, meaning they can have an income tax, and the 14th Amendment eliminated the 3/5 all other persons.

2.  The Senate of the United States shall be composed of 2 Senators from each State, Chosen by the Legislature thereof,  (meaning they are not accountable to the people and eliminated by the 17th Amendment)  I think it might be interesting to point out that Lincoln had won a non-binding election against Stephen Douglas in 1858, but was denied the seat since it was the legislature that chose the Senators for the state. 

When it does come to Section 9, I am a bit worried because I do think that they are more than too willing to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus when it suits them and for whatever reason.

Article II

it will be surprising to many that the House Republicans would advocate a return to the old system of counting electoral Votes.  I mean Al Gore and John Kerry would have been VP along time ago.  I really would not want a return to this. Luckily we have the 12th Amendment

When it comes to Article V I would be interested in their opinion on the Amending process.  I mean the foolish founder wrote right in there how the Constitution could be changed.  I am sure that was an oversight. Of course the process is so cumbersome that it has happened only 27 times in the last 230 years.

These are just some of the observations that causes one to just look at the Republicans and question what planet they have come from, especially Ms Bachman who could not understand where in the Constitution the power to have a treasury and a treasury secretary lied.  It’s in the implied executive powers by the way and fully interpreted by John Marshall in the court case McCulloch V. Maryland. 

I am wondering if they will read the amendments and the Supreme Court cases that have interpreted the legal aspects of the various amendments.  It will be an interesting exercise in futility, but then again the Republicans are not for progress they want to go back to the old oppressive days.  Yes, those days went women were property and all minorities were 3/5 all other persons.  This would be funny if it were not so tragic.