Stats

Comments Posted By caleb36

Displaying 0 To 0 Of 0 Comments

We Are Aiding and Abetting the Republicans

Yes, sorry, just had a HuffPo flashback.

» Posted By caleb36 On March 26, 2011 @ 1:43 pm

Are comments moderated here?!

» Posted By caleb36 On March 26, 2011 @ 10:46 am

With reference to my comment above, the protests in Madison suggest that one very effective way to strengthen the progressive forces in the Democratic party is to initiate vigorous popular protests against extreme Republican initiatives. The Madison protesters, and the 14 state senators who backed them by temporarily leaving Wisconsin to prevent the presence of a quorum in the Wisconsin Senate, have helped the progressive cause immeasurably. True, Governor Scott Walker was ultimately able to enact his union-busting legislation. But due to his inability to obtain a three-fifths quorum, he was forced to detach the union-busting provisions from his larger budget bill. This action showed the entire world that the Republican-sponsored union busting had nothing at all to do with balancing the state budget.

The benefits of the Wisconsin protests have been enormous. First, they have kindled a national pro-union movement which polls show has great popular support. Support for the protesters was in the 70 percent range, remarkably in a nation that has been propagandized against labor unions (and public sector unions in particular) for decades. The final rally in Madison, attended by about 100,000 people AFTER the union-busting bill was enacted, shows that this popular movement has legs.

Second, the progressive rank and file of the Wisconsin party has taken control of the party’s agenda. The 14 state senators have become popular heroes because they courageously followed the wishes of their constituents instead of kowtowing to corporate interests. The actions of the Senators have made it much more difficult for other Democrats to pursue their own anti-union agenda. (Democrats have been pursuing such an agenda in state capitals, albeit in a more limited and restrained fashion than the Republicans. In Illinois, for example, Democrats have sponsored bills to limit public employees’ bargaining rights and teachers’ right to strike, in addition to endorsing drastic cuts in pension benefits).

Finally, these protests will help to elect more Democrats. Recall petitions against 8 Republican state senators are likely to be successful. Governor Walker has been revealed as the malicious buffoon he is, and is likely also to be recalled. During the next general election, a Democratic majority is likely to be elected in the Wisconsin legislature, and the electoral benefits for Democrats may well extend beyond Wisconsin.

» Posted By caleb36 On March 26, 2011 @ 10:35 am

For tactical reasons, I agree wit Marion’s blog. “Primarying” President Obama would almost surely lead to a Republic president in 2012. Still, we are confronted with the president’s continued alliance with the very wealthiest and most powerful, as well as his continuation of Bush-era wars and suppressions of civil liberties. Granted, Obama is light years away from a Scott Walker, but he has essentially accepted the conservative narrative in a more moderate form. Even under Obama, public services continue to be cut unmercifully, education budgets slashed, the environment abused, etc., and the president has not, to my mind, fought nearly forcefully enough against these destructive trends. Yes, his presidency has achievements, but they are far, far less than what the current situation requires. How can progressives assert their agenda in a meaningful manner without weakening the president and the Democrats? This is a discussion that urgently needs to take place.

» Posted By caleb36 On March 26, 2011 @ 12:40 am

Arianna’s Marie Antoinette Moment

As many scoundrels as there are in today’s America, I am not aware of anyone comparable to Arianna. She used the efforts of thousands of well-meaning progressive bloggers and posters to build a marketable internet forum, then conned them by selling out to a right wing corporation. She sees progressive politics purely as a market opportunity for herself. She is a manipulator of people on a monumental scale.

» Posted By caleb36 On March 7, 2011 @ 10:59 pm

Yes Virginia, There is Class Warfare

Some replies to the comments I have received. First, I did not say that taxes are theft. I said that the massive transfer of taxpayer money to private uses for the largest private financial institutions was government-directed theft (massive) of public money. Second, it is incorrect that the total transfer was less than one trillion, and that a large share (or all, according to some reports) has been repaid. Total transfers from all sources amount to many trillions, probably considerably more than 10 trillion. I am not making this up, I have read it in many reliable sources. The U.S. Treasury s letting the large financial institutions borrow at essentially zero percent interest. The institutions can then take that money and purchase government bonds at 3 percent plus interest. The institutions are NOT using this money to invest back in the economy. They are hoarding it. However you look at it, this is an enormous transfer of government funds. It is crippling in itself to the continuation of needed government programs and, as Cher correctly says, has caused government cutbacks far beyond what is necessary.

» Posted By caleb36 On March 7, 2011 @ 4:42 am

There is an underlying weakness to the plutocratic forces today, namely, that they have abandoned the free market in favor of outright theft. Through history, the free market has proved to be the strongest, most durable form of economic organization. True, it has had its breakdowns (such as the Great Depression in the 1930s), and it must be supplemented by needed government programs to help the weak and defenseless, promote education, safeguard the environment and the consumer, and supplement the economic infrastructure through public investments in transportation, communication, and basic research. (A strong, socially-progressive, proactive government is a friend of the market, contrary to right wing propaganda).

Despite its inadequacies, and its consequent need for supplementation, the free market has proven over time to be superior to any other system, emerging victorious in its historical struggles with feudalism, communism, and state-controlled fascism.

What we have in America today is not a free market. We have a government that has stolen trillions of taxpayers dollars and transferred them to the largest banks and other financial institutions. We have a system completely rigged against small businesses and small investors, a system where most Americans are facing a constantly declining standard of living as a result of large businesses enacting anti-people policies hand-in-glove with governmental authorities. We have a government that is, in its essence, coercive against the vast majority of Americans.

Because the present government of the wealthy stands in basic opposition to a free market, it is vulnerable to effective popular protests. I believe the Wisconsin popular uprising, as underreported as it has been in the major media, has shocked those in power with their momentum and power. This protest has already greatly strengthened rank-and-file, progressive forces within the Democratic party (note how the Democratic Wisconsin State Senators are following the lead of the protesters). Wisconsin has the potential to be a real turning point in our history.

» Posted By caleb36 On March 6, 2011 @ 6:01 pm

From a union worker family standpoint…

How do you work the stars? I started filling them in and accidentally filled in one star instead of ten! Sorry, great article!

» Posted By caleb36 On February 14, 2011 @ 10:19 pm

Obama: Culture Warrior?

Thinking more about your question, there is, of course, a great gap between the two parties on non-economic issues, which has become much greater now that the Democrats have move leftward and the national Republicans have become complete troglodytes. This is, in itself, a compelling reason to vote Democrat if we as a nation do not wish to return to the dark ages.

Interestingly, Illinois Republicans have a moderate tradition (Lincoln, after all, is from here), which the national Republicans have tried to crack with only partial success. Thus, Republicans in the Illinois legislature were among those voting for civil unions and abolition of the death penalty. The last three Republican Governors were all moderates, with the latest, George Ryan, commuting the sentences of all prisoners then on death row. The 2010 candidate for governor, Bill Brady, however, broke the moderate Republican mold. He is not quite Tea Party, but getting there.

Just because Democrats are much better on social issues is no reason to become complacent with the party. Because the Democrats have been so weak, and now actively regressive, on economic issues, many voters legitimately see no reason to vote for their candidates. The result may fearfully be the success of a Republican-supported social counterrevolution.

» Posted By caleb36 On February 14, 2011 @ 4:47 am

This is a great dilemma that you pose. The Republicans have taken such extreme, kooky right wing positions that they have made it impossible for me NOT to vote for what I consider an unacceptable party, the Democrats. Again citing Illinois, the Republican candidate, Bill Brady, would have essentially eliminated state government had he been elected, by cutting tens of thousands of state jobs and many vital programs. (He was the favorite in the polls and only lost by 31,000 votes.) But if Americans continue to be denied fundamental, democratic (small “d”) choice by the two parties, we will eventually go the way of Egypt.

» Posted By caleb36 On February 13, 2011 @ 8:39 am

One of the mistakes i think many people make about President Obama is separating him as an individual person from his party. In his policy positions, Obama is a quite typical representative of today’s Democratic leaders, specifically the Illinois Democratic party from whence he comes.

I have worked for many years in jobs connected with the Illinois legislature. Illinois has a Democratic-controlled House and Senate and a Democratic Governor (Pat Quinn). It has nothing akin to the filibuster rule in the U.S. Senate, which means that what the Democratic leadership wants to enact, it generally can. Illinois also has a budgetary deficit which, in relation to its size, is either first or second worst in the nation.

What has occurred in recent years is a bifurcation of political point of view on social vs. economic issues among the Democrats. On non-economic issues, the party has moved remarkably in a progressive direction. Since November, the Illinois General Assembly has legalized civil unions and voted to abolish the death penalty (the Governor’s position on this latter legislation is not known, but it is expected that he will sign it). Legalization of medical marijuana failed on two close votes but appears headed for passage in the near future. Any of these actions would have been inconceivable in Illinois even five years ago.

On the economic front, the situation is the opposite. Democrats are not only condoning, but initiating, a series of anti-union, anti-public employee measures. It is Democrats, not Republican, who have moved forward with legislation to make major cuts in workers’ compensation benefits, disenfranchise thousands of public employees from collective bargaining rights, prevent teachers from striking, support charter schools at the expense (both financially and morally) of public education, and cut public employee health care and pension benefits. While it is true that the State urgently needs to economize, the Democrats are joining in the chorus of blaming public employees for the fiscal crisis, instead of the big financial institutions whose chicanery caused the crash and resulting downturn in state revenues.

In the area of taxation, the Illinois Democrats have proved more progressive than the president and U.S. Congress by enacting income tax increases on both individuals and corporations. Had they failed to do so, the state may have gone bankrupt. Tied to this tax increase, however, is legislation proposed by the leadership that would require an extraordinary majority to enact any legislation increasing state spending by more than the amount of the state’s revenue growth over the past several years. This proposal, which would largely eliminate the possibility of even small programs to enhance the public welfare, has the potential of becoming Illinois’ equivalent of California’s infamous Proposition 13.

In their economic, labor, and education policies, the Democrats can in no way be considered any longer the lesser of two evils. On the contrary, it is they who are taking the lead in initiating an aggressively pro-corporate, anti-union agenda. Doubtless the increased flow of corporate dollars to their coffers (encouraged by the Citizens United decision) is behind this change in political orientation. It is to be noted that the drastic rightward turn in the party’s direction is very recent, less than two years, and picking up steam noticeably within the past six months. It is also noteworthy that every high Democratic state official, including our formerly quite liberal governor, is on board.

My point in writing this is that the decision of whether to support President Obama in 2012 should not be taken separately from an evaluation whether to support the Democratic party as a whole. To my mind, today’s Democratic party fails to meet minimum standards of even a slightly progressive political organization. The increased social progressivism is wonderful, but it doesn’t make up for the basic failure to take the people’s side in a time of economic depression. Is a liberal challenge possible from within the party? I hope so, because it is virtually impossible for a third party to succeed in America. At present, however, there appears no sign that this is the case.

» Posted By caleb36 On February 13, 2011 @ 8:01 am

50 Ways To Leave Your Blogger

I can only speak for myself. I had wanted to break the knot with HP for a couple of months now, but kept coming back and posting (sometimes breaking through the moderation) despite myself. When I read the news that Arianna Huffington had sold out to AOL, and then read the many posters who said they were leaving permanently, I lost all desire to ever return to HP. I deleted my account and am sure I will never go back.

I believe my reaction is typical. With the sale to AOL, Arianna has really put her foot in the face of her readers and contributors. It is very unclear where she will pick up a substitute audience. As an MSM site or gossip site, HuffPo is far from unique.

» Posted By caleb36 On February 8, 2011 @ 6:46 pm

Shooting Democracy in the Head

Agree, at this point it is too early to conclude anything. I am reluctant to automatically buy into the growing consensus that the murders were the work of a loner nutjob (although this may very well be the case). This way of thinking, once it becomes generally accepted, will make it difficult to present evidence of a real conspiracy, should one exist. Personally, being of a perhaps somewhat paranoid frame of mind, I gravely suspect that real, rational motives could have been at play here–to intimidate liberal and moderate political expression in Arizona and the nation as a whole, to create a future wall of separation between elected officials and their constituents, and/or to cut short the career of a very promising young Democratic politician. Mention by police of a possible second suspect enhances my suspicions.

» Posted By caleb36 On January 9, 2011 @ 12:22 am

Has Democracy Outlived Its Usefulness?

Of the many worthwhile Constitutional changes you propose, the most urgent is limited terms (10 years would be reasonable) for Supreme Court Justices, including all currently serving Justices. The present group of ultra-conservative Justices will likely remain in office for decades with their lifetime appointments, strangling democracy as the third, co-equal branch of government. Limited term appointments would mean that hideous decisions such as Citizens United (declaring corporations to be persons under the Constitution) have a much better chance of being overturned within a reasonable time frame.

In terms of much more doable non-Constitutional reforms, the most useful would be elimination of the Senate filibuster. It is my understanding that the Senate can eliminate the filibuster rule by majority vote. The Democrats, still in a majority following the November elections, should do it! The filibuster has proved to be a one-way filter, blocking liberal legislation but not stopping conservative legislation.

» Posted By caleb36 On November 18, 2010 @ 10:38 pm

He’s a Millionaire Celebrity Pundit, Not Your Boyfriend.

There is no question that Olbermann’s suspension represents a selective enforcement of his contract by MSNBC. The station was free to ignore his violation of the contract terms, or levy a much smaller penalty. Their clear purpose, however, was to cut Olbermann down to size, and set an example for others.

Contrary to your assertion, Marion, I’m not tying Rachel Maddow in with “hazy conspiracy theories.” She said what she said, and explicitly sided with the action MSNBC management took against Olbermann. Worse, she tried to cover her tracks with a self-righteous declaration that “we’re not Fox News.” No, MSNBC isn’t Fox News, but that too, is a straw man in this affair.

The provision you cite in Olbermann’s contract that he will have no guest with contrary views is certainly distasteful from a free speech perspective. But the big issue here is not Olbermann’s personal tolerance of dissent. The issue is, rather, whether American news media is to become a bought-and-paid-for operation parroting only the views of the ruling corporate establishment. As imperfect as the programs anchored by Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, or Rachel Maddow may be, they provide the public with one of the only windows still available on television to the progressive universe. Olbermann’s suspension is an ominous indicator that this window is about to be closed, a development that surely runs counter to the spirit of the First Amendment.

One correction to my original post: Elia Kazan appeared before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1952, not Senator Joseph McCarthy’s investigating committee. Correction made on original post.

» Posted By caleb36 On November 7, 2010 @ 5:24 am

I disagree with this line of argument. The reason MSNBC gave for Olbermann’s suspension was a mere pretext. MSNBC could easily have overlooked Olbermann’s minor violation of company rules. Clearly, there is a move afoot by either the current owners of MSNBC, General Electric and Microsoft, or its soon-to-be owner, Comcast, to either completely change the station’s dominant liberal orientation or at least intimidate its liberal anchors such as Olbermann, Maddow and Schultz from freely exppressing their opinions.

Marion, you refer to “the fact that a dangerous Republican party with a virulently reactionary Rightwing has just taken control of the House of Representatives.” Do you really think this event is unrelated to Obermann’s suspension? Given the timing of the suspension immediately following the election, it is highly probable that the events are closely connected. Either the owners of MSNBC are currying favor with the newly empowered political right, or they are riding the conservative wave as a cover to initiate a purge of progressives on the station.

It is a straw man argument that because other fifty-somethings are losing their jobs each day, we should not give Olbermann’s situation special attention. The overriding question here is whether the corporate media will allow any progressive voices to remain on the airwaves. If we want an economy where the other fifty-somethings have a possibility of finding good new jobs at decent wages, alternatives to the current, dog-eat-dog corporate welfare system must be explored. And for this, we need progressive voices such as Olbermann’s.

Another most disturbing aspect of Olbermann’s pretext suspension is the chilling effect it has on First Amendment freedoms. Olbermann made his (relatively small) monetary contributions to candidates for political office on his own time, using his own money. He was expected under company rules to get permission from his boss before doing so. From a technical legal standpoint, there may not have been an actionable First Amendment violation, as MSNBC is a private enterprise and state action was not involved (although a contrary argument can be made that the First Amendment was violated through the laws that condoned MSNBC’s company policy). It is clear, however, that the spirit of the First Amendment, which calls for unfettered expression of political support in a free marketplace of ideas, has been grossly violated by MSNBC, and that the ripple effects of this action will spread far beyond Olbemann’s suspension.

I do not for a moment believe, as you suggest, that MSNBC contrived the suspension with the connivance of Olbermann. The harshness of the penalty meted out to Olbermann for a minor infraction of company policy, its suddenness, and its indefinite character were calculated to shame Olbermann before the viewing public. Psychologically, if for no other reason, it will be very difficult for him to resume his old format as if nothing had happened.

Finally, I join many others in expressing anger and disappointment at Rachel Maddow for standing with management in supporting Olbermann’s suspension. To my mind, her credentials as a fair-minded, progressive journalist have been irreparably tarnished. Either out of fear or ambition, she has betrayed her supposed friend, the man responsible for her current anchor position. The person she reminds me most of now is the liberal Hollywood director Elia Kazan, who named names before the U.S. House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1952 during the Communist witch hunts. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont had a far better take on Olbermann’s suspension than did Maddow. He called it outrageous.

» Posted By caleb36 On November 7, 2010 @ 1:01 am

Beware of Greeks Blogging Gifts

In response to this article which confirmed my increasing suspicions that HuffPo is a right-wing Trojan horse, I vowed never to post on that site again, and indicated as such on my final post there yesterday. I am thankful to a popular poster on HuffPo named Chernynkaya who provided a link to this PlanetPOV article.

What an immense sense of relief I feel to have severed my connection with HuffPo! Arianna Huffington is good at marketing. She has created an alluring environment that attracts much like a drug. Many of the posters are intelligent and thoughtful. They apparently believe, as I did, that their input on the comment threads there matter, not realizing that by stirring up interest in the site, they are merely serving Huffington’s marketing purposes. Anyway, it is good to be free!

» Posted By caleb36 On October 30, 2010 @ 11:43 pm

PlanetPOV – Mid-Term Election News Desk.

I may be unreasonably optimistic, but I believe Democratic losses will be held to a minimum on Tuesday. The Tea Party wackos just can’t be acceptable to most voters, and I believe the major pollsters are corrupt (as everything seems to be these days) and skewing their results in a Republican direction to discourage Democrats from voting. In Illinois, incumbent Democratic Governor Pat Quinn was significantly behind during this entire election season, but his internal polls now show him ahead.

» Posted By caleb36 On October 31, 2010 @ 5:01 pm

Howl

What I find so interesting about this poem, as a student of history rather than poetry, is the light it casts on the first counter-cultural generation, the generation whose youth and early adulthood crossed the chasms of World War II and the Holocaust.

Allen Ginsberg was born in 1926, making him about 15 years older than Bob Dylan (b. 1941) and John Lennon (b. 1940). He later became a great fan and touring companion of Dylan, and much of his style is detectable in Dylan’s “word salad” songs.

The Beat counterculture Ginsberg describes was far more subterranean and desperate than that of the 1960s generation which followed. It had jazz rather than rock as its underlying music. Living under the shadows of the stifling conventions of post-War society, it had not yet developed its own politics. It was, furthermore, a counterculture to whom only a small minority of Ginsberg’s own generation belonged, making him and his colleagues outliers among their peers.

From this subterranean source ultimately sprang much of what is most creative and worthy in the common culture of today’s America.

» Posted By caleb36 On October 31, 2010 @ 12:30 pm

Why Republicans Will Lose By Winning

The following thoughts are not particularly original, but perhaps they can help both me and others understand and discuss last night’s election results. First, although this was a very bad night for Democrats, it was not comparable to the watershed disaster of the 1994 election, where the Republicans swept the table on all levels and opened the door to President Clinton’s subsequent impeachment and ultimately the Presidency of George W. Bush. Republican gains last night were selective and regional, and left Democrats in a fairly good defensive position to counter the coming Republican onslaught.

Although the Republicans gained ground in most states, their landslide victories were heavily concentrated in the South and Midwest. The U.S. Senate, despite major Democratic losses, remained solidly in Democratic hands, and the surprisingly large victory of Harry Reid in Nevada was inspiring, as was Barbara Boxer’s victory in California. The loss of the great progressive Senator Russ Feingold in Wisconsin was terribly disappointing. It is election results like this, along was Tea Partier Rand Paul’s victory in the Senate race in Kentucky, that sometimes cast real doubt on the intelligence of the American voter.

The loss of at least 10 Democratic governorships (including a cluster of Midwestern governors in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa) was at least partially compensated by Jerry Brown’s return to office in California and, in my state of Illinois, the victory of incumbent Democratic Governor Pat Quinn, whom the polls had declared to be behind during the entire election season.

The real disaster was the loss of over 60 Democratic seats in the U.S. House. Here the Republican gains were greater than in 1994, even exceeding the legendary Republican House gains during Truman’s first Presidential term in 1946. The progressive House that Speaker Pelosi crafted has been obliterated. New Speaker John Boehner appears both unintelligent and ominous. His bursting into tears during his victory address last night for no evident reason was EXTREMELY odd behavior.

The import of the loss of Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker is incalculable. Of all the Democratic leaders in the past two years, she has been the most effective, securing the passage of hundreds of bills through the House, most of which, such as the climate control legislation, languished and died in the Senate. The smear campaign launched against Pelosi by Fox News and other conservative outlets was almost beyond belief. They were constantly ridiculing and deprecating her and questioning her sanity. Judging from the various talkback threads I have perused, Pelosi seemed to have had far fewer defenders than did President Obama, perhaps because she was less known and most of what goes on in the House corridors is “inside baseball.” Unfortunately, part of the reason Pelosi had fewer defenders may have been that she is a woman.

In summary, although the Republican gains were not as widespread as in 1994, where the Republicans did triumph, particularly in the U.S. House, their victories were devastating to the cause of progressive change. In response, we can only commit to do more in 2012.

» Posted By caleb36 On November 3, 2010 @ 9:54 pm

Arianna Huffington Responds

The issue of anti-Obama comments and their relation to Republican electoral efforts is more complex than some supporters of the President realize.

Within the progressive camp, there are two legitimate points of view about President Obama. One school of thought contends that he is a true progressive doing the best he can under very difficult circumstances. The other school believes that he is far too centrist (actually center-right) and that his positions must be challenged if the effort for genuine progressive change is to continue (I belong to this second school).

What both schools of thought should agree on, however, is that it is imperative to support Democrats 100% on election day so as to avert the disaster of a Republican and Tea Party victory. Regardless of our views on the President, we must get out the Democratic vote!

This is where Huffington shows her Republican stripes. Her front page stories seem calculated to discourage Democratic turnout. Now, less than a week before election day, is not the time to blast the President in front page hatchet jobs, or show unflattering and mocking photos of him, or highlight unreliable polls portending a Democratic defeat. Yet within the last few days, Huffington has repeatedly and ceaselessly done all of these things.

» Posted By caleb36 On October 31, 2010 @ 12:15 am