Azita, we didn't start a petition--- but that would be a good idea. We wrote individual letters; here is the letter I wrote. I never received a response)[Also, CSI, inc. is part of the Carlyle Group]:
Mr. Don Smith, CEO
Combined Systems Inc.
388 Kinsman Rd.
Jamestown, PA 16134
Dear Mr. Smith,
It is my understanding that your company produces "gas" used for crowd control by the Israeli killing machine.
I live in northern Minnesota where a company called Mattracks makes specialized "rubber tracks" which replace normal tires for vehicles; I understand these vehicles are involved in "crowd control" and dispense your gas.
I'm wondering if there might not be some other product you could produce that would assist people who are forced to live under the repression imposed on them by the Israeli killing machine.
Is it your "gas" police departments across the world are using against the protesters at the "G-8/G-20 Summits," at peace demonstrations and marching against the Republican National convention here in St. Paul, Minnesota? And in Tunisia and Egypt?
Would you send me your company's financial statement as well as all pertinent financial information so I could see if the repression of people struggling to be free is profitable or if you are operating your business as some kind of patriotic endeavor?
Is Combined Systems, Incorporated part of a holding of a larger corporation or multi-national corporation or are you just one more "small business" creating jobs?
I am wondering if the outcome of the American Revolution might have turned out differently had the British used your gas against Washington and his troops as they attempted to survive the winter encamped at Valley Forge.
Could you send me the "Spec Sheet" you are required to provide your own workers as far as any dangers to human health concerning the handling of the product you produce and the various chemical elements; I assume this is public information.
Do you have any kind of "advertising brochure" that you use in selling and marketing your product? If so, please send me a copy/s.
Thanking you in advance for your attention to this matter and awaiting your response to my questions;
Alan L. Maki
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763
Phone: 218-386-2432
Cell Phone: 651-587-5541
E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net
Check out my Blog:
http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Obama and the Republicans have joined hands to destroy Social Security
This is from some discussions I have had with people on FaceBook and in my travels---
Michael, I kind of agree with you and disagree with you. I'll give you my reason (just thinking out loud here; let me know what you think--- others, too).
Social Security was envisioned by Frances Perkins, FDR's Secretary of Labor and the people's movement she took her positions from, thinking that Social Security would be a constantly evolving program continuing to make life better for people--- and it has done this to a great extent but it really hasn't "blossomed" in comparison to an increase in wealth created.
Hence, I agree that removing the "cap" on Social Security is needed--- no matter what else is done--- because it is another way to "tax the rich" as part of wealth redistribution which would really provide greater funds to expand the programs offered by Social Security rather than "stabilize" (or increase) Social Security's actual "pension payouts," which I think needs to be accomplished through:
1. Full employment;
2. A substantial upwards push in wages (more pay; more Social Security tax); and
3. Tying the minimum wage to a real living wage based upon real cost of living factors.
In fact, Social Security payouts should have been tied to real cost of living factors long ago not these phony "increases" that only assure pensioners become poor. In fact, the elderly are now being used as a huge pool of cheap labor to depress wages on a nationwide basis.
If there was full employment, this full employment itself would be a lever pushing wages constantly up resulting in very substantial increases in Social Security payroll taxes... the more wealth created by workers returned to workers in turn not only stabilizes the Social Security fund but enables larger payouts and program expansion.
Obama, the Democrats and the Republicans are moving in the direct opposite direction on all fronts when it comes to Social Security because they want to push workers back into the workforce until the day they die as a huge pool of very cheap labor... after all, if you are already getting a Social Security check plus you have to work, this miserly Social Security check is actually subsidizing the wages for some casino management, Wal-mart, McDonalds or the local convenience store/gas station.
The attack on Social Security is intended to create a massive vicious cycle designed to put in motion what is always Wall Street's PRIMARY agenda--- pushing wages down.
Follow the cycle through with the elderly being forced back into the workforce and this delays entry into the workforce of young workers--- thereby creating another huge pool of impoverished workers "hungry"for employment no matter how low the wages no matter how many jobs they have to work or how many hours they have to work every week.
We already see how this is playing out.
I can assure you that if you walk into any Wal-mart and go up to any "associate" they will tell you Wal-mart restricts their hours to far less than forty hours and their pay is far less than a living wage so they are working a second or even third job with each of those jobs fewer hours with less pay.
I know people working at Wal-mart who work other jobs for a total up to 16 and even 19 hours a day and they still qualify for Food Stamps! If they qualify for Food Stamps what are these people and the employers paying into the Social Security fund?
At the same time as workers are being impoverished (not receiving the wealth they are producing), we have a small minority amassing this tremendous wealth stolen from labor.
To my way of thinking, if the picture I have provided is correct, then these three steps are crucial to saving Social Security:
1. Full employment;
2. A substantial upwards push in wages (more pay; more Social Security tax); and
3. Tying the minimum wage to a real living wage based upon real cost of living factors.
Removing the "cap" would only be "icing on the cake" providing for expanded programs but do very little to keeping the Social Security system solvent but improve and expand the benefits.
I seriously doubt that removing the "cap" on Social Security can significantly aid in stabilizing the Social Security system or significantly increase benefits--- even if the "cap" were removed at say $50,000.00 with a steeply progressive increase on the highest incomes because their simply aren't enough people to tax at these levels.
The other thing that many people suggest is that the wealthy should not be entitled to Social Security to begin with; but, then this is no longer a "universal" social program and we all know what would happen if the reactionaries started running with this approach.
There is every indication that U6 unemployment at around 15% is the "new normal" and acceptable level of unemployment in this country by Wall Street, organized labor and the government--- even the AFL-CIO leadership is apparently willing to accept this as the "new normal" since all of their recommended "job creation programs" are aimed at "stabilizing" unemployment at 15% and Richard Trumka has signed a letter of agreement with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in supporting Obama's "job creation program" that accepts 15% unemployment.
I seriously doubt--- although I have not seen any calculations--- that Social Security can survive another three decades with unemployment at 15% no matter if you remove its "cap."
Social Security was envisioned by Frances Perkins, FDR's Secretary of Labor and the people's movement she took her positions from, thinking that Social Security would be a constantly evolving program continuing to make life better for people--- and it has done this to a great extent but it really hasn't "blossomed" in comparison to an increase in wealth created.
Hence, I agree that removing the "cap" on Social Security is needed--- no matter what else is done--- because it is another way to "tax the rich" as part of wealth redistribution which would really provide greater funds to expand the programs offered by Social Security rather than "stabilize" (or increase) Social Security's actual "pension payouts," which I think needs to be accomplished through:
1. Full employment;
2. A substantial upwards push in wages (more pay; more Social Security tax); and
3. Tying the minimum wage to a real living wage based upon real cost of living factors.
In fact, Social Security payouts should have been tied to real cost of living factors long ago not these phony "increases" that only assure pensioners become poor. In fact, the elderly are now being used as a huge pool of cheap labor to depress wages on a nationwide basis.
If there was full employment, this full employment itself would be a lever pushing wages constantly up resulting in very substantial increases in Social Security payroll taxes... the more wealth created by workers returned to workers in turn not only stabilizes the Social Security fund but enables larger payouts and program expansion.
Obama, the Democrats and the Republicans are moving in the direct opposite direction on all fronts when it comes to Social Security because they want to push workers back into the workforce until the day they die as a huge pool of very cheap labor... after all, if you are already getting a Social Security check plus you have to work, this miserly Social Security check is actually subsidizing the wages for some casino management, Wal-mart, McDonalds or the local convenience store/gas station.
The attack on Social Security is intended to create a massive vicious cycle designed to put in motion what is always Wall Street's PRIMARY agenda--- pushing wages down.
Follow the cycle through with the elderly being forced back into the workforce and this delays entry into the workforce of young workers--- thereby creating another huge pool of impoverished workers "hungry"for employment no matter how low the wages no matter how many jobs they have to work or how many hours they have to work every week.
We already see how this is playing out.
I can assure you that if you walk into any Wal-mart and go up to any "associate" they will tell you Wal-mart restricts their hours to far less than forty hours and their pay is far less than a living wage so they are working a second or even third job with each of those jobs fewer hours with less pay.
I know people working at Wal-mart who work other jobs for a total up to 16 and even 19 hours a day and they still qualify for Food Stamps! If they qualify for Food Stamps what are these people and the employers paying into the Social Security fund?
At the same time as workers are being impoverished (not receiving the wealth they are producing), we have a small minority amassing this tremendous wealth stolen from labor.
To my way of thinking, if the picture I have provided is correct, then these three steps are crucial to saving Social Security:
1. Full employment;
2. A substantial upwards push in wages (more pay; more Social Security tax); and
3. Tying the minimum wage to a real living wage based upon real cost of living factors.
Removing the "cap" would only be "icing on the cake" providing for expanded programs but do very little to keeping the Social Security system solvent but improve and expand the benefits.
I seriously doubt that removing the "cap" on Social Security can significantly aid in stabilizing the Social Security system or significantly increase benefits--- even if the "cap" were removed at say $50,000.00 with a steeply progressive increase on the highest incomes because their simply aren't enough people to tax at these levels.
The other thing that many people suggest is that the wealthy should not be entitled to Social Security to begin with; but, then this is no longer a "universal" social program and we all know what would happen if the reactionaries started running with this approach.
There is every indication that U6 unemployment at around 15% is the "new normal" and acceptable level of unemployment in this country by Wall Street, organized labor and the government--- even the AFL-CIO leadership is apparently willing to accept this as the "new normal" since all of their recommended "job creation programs" are aimed at "stabilizing" unemployment at 15% and Richard Trumka has signed a letter of agreement with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in supporting Obama's "job creation program" that accepts 15% unemployment.
I seriously doubt--- although I have not seen any calculations--- that Social Security can survive another three decades with unemployment at 15% no matter if you remove its "cap."
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Step up the struggle for real health care reform...
Kucinich, too, is playing his petty little games at the expense of the American people. He knows full well he can't get any support for H.R. 676/single-payer.
We should forget about single-payer and begin the push for a full-scale National Public Health Care System which would provide the American people with "no-fee/no-premium, comprehensive, all-inclusive, universal health care--- publicly financed with funds cut from wars, publicly administered just like Social Security, and publicly delivered by doctors on the government payroll just like teachers, police and fire.
Forget about trying to bring any members of this big-business serving Congress on side; instead we should be building a new political movement and new political party with this real health care reform as the centerpiece of our agenda.
Then run candidates in all the closest races where Democrats will suffer the most.
This is the way to teach these betrayers of the American people who are beholden to Wall Street's interests a real lesson they will never forget.
Obama must be held accountable for his lies that he used to get elected.
This is called, "Punishing your enemies and rewarding your friends."
Plus, A National Public Health Care System providing the American people with free health care through 30,000 primary care community health care centers would create over ten-million new jobs... have you ever heard a politician out campaigning talking about, "jobs, jobs, jobs?"
Well, here is one way to create ten-million new jobs!
Peace = health care + jobs
Did you notice Obama never asked the American people a simple question:
How is this Wall Street war economy working for you?
As for the comments about politicians supporting the Israeli killing machine... even the most liberal members of congress support the Israeli killing machine--- including Bernie Sanders.
One more reason why we need a new political party headed up by real peace, social and economic justice activists--- let's give Obama and the Democrats a real people's peace ticket to attack--- Cynthia McKinney and Cindy Sheehan... I bet this would be a movement that Obama's bus can't run over without stalling.
We should forget about single-payer and begin the push for a full-scale National Public Health Care System which would provide the American people with "no-fee/no-premium, comprehensive, all-inclusive, universal health care--- publicly financed with funds cut from wars, publicly administered just like Social Security, and publicly delivered by doctors on the government payroll just like teachers, police and fire.
Forget about trying to bring any members of this big-business serving Congress on side; instead we should be building a new political movement and new political party with this real health care reform as the centerpiece of our agenda.
Then run candidates in all the closest races where Democrats will suffer the most.
This is the way to teach these betrayers of the American people who are beholden to Wall Street's interests a real lesson they will never forget.
Obama must be held accountable for his lies that he used to get elected.
This is called, "Punishing your enemies and rewarding your friends."
Plus, A National Public Health Care System providing the American people with free health care through 30,000 primary care community health care centers would create over ten-million new jobs... have you ever heard a politician out campaigning talking about, "jobs, jobs, jobs?"
Well, here is one way to create ten-million new jobs!
Peace = health care + jobs
Did you notice Obama never asked the American people a simple question:
How is this Wall Street war economy working for you?
As for the comments about politicians supporting the Israeli killing machine... even the most liberal members of congress support the Israeli killing machine--- including Bernie Sanders.
One more reason why we need a new political party headed up by real peace, social and economic justice activists--- let's give Obama and the Democrats a real people's peace ticket to attack--- Cynthia McKinney and Cindy Sheehan... I bet this would be a movement that Obama's bus can't run over without stalling.
Obama is a loser...
Anyone continuing to support Obama is turning the White House back to the Republicans.
- Two wars...
- U6 Unemployment over 17%...
- Banks going bust...
- Home foreclosures rising...
- A huge health care mess...
- Gas prices rising...
- Electric rates rising...
- Food prices rising to astronomical levels.
- Does this sound like something a politician can take to voters and expect to win on?
A program and platform for real change...
Here is my idea of an alternative agenda:
* Peace--- end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and shutdown the 800 military bases
* Peace--- end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and shutdown the 800 military bases
* A National Public Health Care System - ten million new jobs
* A National Public Child Care System - three to five million new jobs
* WPA - three million new jobs
* CCC - two million new jobs
* Tax the hell out of the rich and cut the military budget by ending the wars to pay for it all which will create full employment.
* Enforce Affirmative Action; end discrimination.
* Raise the minimum wage to a real living wage
* What tax-payers subsidize in the way of businesses, tax-payers should own and reap the profits from.
* Moratorium on home foreclosures and evictions.
* Wall Street is our enemy
Something to think about and consider around the dinner table this evening.
Alan L. Maki
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Mark Dayton collapses in the struggle against racism...
Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton appointed the racist bigot Mark Phillips of the Kraus-Anderson construction firm to head up the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development.
Kraus-Anderson has been a major opponent of Affirmative Action over many years and is presently in violation of state and federal Affirmative Action rules, regulations, statutes and legislation including Presidential Executive Order #11246.
Mark Dayton need not ever again come begging and groveling for my vote and support as he did at the public meeting and forum in Bemidji, Minnesota.
Kraus-Anderson has been a major opponent of Affirmative Action over many years and is presently in violation of state and federal Affirmative Action rules, regulations, statutes and legislation including Presidential Executive Order #11246.
Mark Dayton need not ever again come begging and groveling for my vote and support as he did at the public meeting and forum in Bemidji, Minnesota.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Will Obama protect Social Security?
Barack Obama on Social Security:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
Barack Obama on single-payer universal health care:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
Do you trust trust this Wall Street flim-flam man and con-artist when he says he will protect Social Security?
Barack "Liar" Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
Barack Obama on single-payer universal health care:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
Do you trust trust this Wall Street flim-flam man and con-artist when he says he will protect Social Security?
Barack "Liar" Obama
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Wealth creation and poverty... are Minnesota legislators asking the poor to climb a ladder out of poverty that has no rungs?
Gas used by Israel for "crowd control" is stamped "Made in the U.S.A."
Mr. Don Smith, CEO
Combined Systems Inc.
388 Kinsman Rd.
Jamestown, PA 16134
Dear Mr. Smith,
It is my understanding that your company produces "gas" used for crowd control by the Israeli killing machine.
I live in northern Minnesota where a company called Mattracks makes specialized "rubber tracks" which replace normal tires for vehicles involved in "crowd control."
I'm wondering if there might not be some other product you could produce that would assist people who are forced to live under the repression imposed on them by the Israeli killing machine.
Is it your "gas" police departments across the world are using against the protesters at the "G-8/G-20 Summits," at peace demonstrations and marching against the Republican National convention here in St. Paul, Minnesota?
Would you send me your company's financial statement as well as all pertinent financial information so I could see if the repression of people struggling to be free is profitable or if you are operating your business as some kind of patriotic endeavor?
Is Combined Systems, Incorporated part of a holding of a larger corporation or multi-national corporation or are you just one more "small business" creating jobs?
I am wondering if the outcome of the American Revolution might have turned out differently had the British used your gas against Washington and his troops as they attempted to survive the winter encamped at Valley Forge.
Could you send me the "Spec Sheet" you are required to provide your own workers as far as any dangers to human health concerning the handling of the product you produce and the various chemical elements; I assume this is public information.
Do you have any kind of "advertising brochure" that you use in selling and marketing your product? If so, please send me a copy/s.
Thanking you in advance for your attention to this matter and awaiting your response to my questions;
Alan L. Maki
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763
Phone: 218-386-2432
Cell Phone: 651-587-5541
E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net
Check out my Blog:
http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/
Combined Systems Inc.
388 Kinsman Rd.
Jamestown, PA 16134
Dear Mr. Smith,
It is my understanding that your company produces "gas" used for crowd control by the Israeli killing machine.
I live in northern Minnesota where a company called Mattracks makes specialized "rubber tracks" which replace normal tires for vehicles involved in "crowd control."
I'm wondering if there might not be some other product you could produce that would assist people who are forced to live under the repression imposed on them by the Israeli killing machine.
Is it your "gas" police departments across the world are using against the protesters at the "G-8/G-20 Summits," at peace demonstrations and marching against the Republican National convention here in St. Paul, Minnesota?
Would you send me your company's financial statement as well as all pertinent financial information so I could see if the repression of people struggling to be free is profitable or if you are operating your business as some kind of patriotic endeavor?
Is Combined Systems, Incorporated part of a holding of a larger corporation or multi-national corporation or are you just one more "small business" creating jobs?
I am wondering if the outcome of the American Revolution might have turned out differently had the British used your gas against Washington and his troops as they attempted to survive the winter encamped at Valley Forge.
Could you send me the "Spec Sheet" you are required to provide your own workers as far as any dangers to human health concerning the handling of the product you produce and the various chemical elements; I assume this is public information.
Do you have any kind of "advertising brochure" that you use in selling and marketing your product? If so, please send me a copy/s.
Thanking you in advance for your attention to this matter and awaiting your response to my questions;
Alan L. Maki
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763
Phone: 218-386-2432
Cell Phone: 651-587-5541
E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net
Check out my Blog:
http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/
Monday, January 10, 2011
The End of New Deal Liberalism
We need to remember that Wiliiam Greider who is now a "leftist" attacking "liberalism" was a "progressive for Obama."
Greider and a host of phony liberals, progressives and leftists are now hard at work attacking Obama for being a "liberal."
What is taking place here in the name of being "critical" of Obama and the Democrats is that Greider
and his friends are up to their same old dirty work as what they started out doing for Obama: splitting and driving a wedge--- fracturing the coalition--- (the only coalition capable of creating real change in this country, "the people's front," these same phony liberals, progressives and leftists have attacked in the name on the "new left."
Why else would they confuse "liberalism" with the pragmatism of Wall Street's "neo-liberalism" of which they and Obama are an integral part of?
Greider and his friends at The Nation and their Progressives for Obama, Campaign for America's Future, Progressive Democrats of America all know the difference between "liberalism" and
"neo-liberalism" yet they are intellectually so dishonest they choose to identify those liberals with good ideas who cast their lot with progressives and the left for real social and economic change that is good with falsely claiming that "liberals" are part of the same reactionary and right wing cloth as Obama's "neo-liberalism" which is Wall Street's agenda of war abroad and austerity at home.
I know lots of liberals and no liberals that I know support Obama's imperialist wars abroad nor do the liberals I know support Obama's austerity measures at home designed to force the burden of paying for these wars on the backs of the working class which taken together with the unending quest for maximum profits constitute Wall Streets complete agenda.
These aren't the "groaning spasms of New Deal liberalism" as Greider and his Obama supporting
friends working with The Century Foundation--- with "partners" like the Council on Foreign Affairs--- would have us believe; what we are witnessing and experiencing is neo-liberalism--- as completely distinct from liberalism--- advancing Wall Street's agenda.
"The power shift did not start with Obama," says Obama-backer Greider now pretending to be critical of Obama as he and his dishonest colleagues start trying to rope people back into the Obama fold in time for the 2012 Elections by using this confusing "criticism" of Obama as a pretext for once again preventing the unity of liberals, progressives and the left in an attempt to deepen the fractures they created in the first place by bullying, badgering and intimidating people into supporting and voting for
Obama based on the false image--- one they now pretend to oppose--- they created for Obama in the first place.
Here in this article, loaded with a lot of truths while continuing to perpetrate and further expand the really big lie that is coming once they deem the period for criticism is over just in time to urge
everyone to get behind Obama, again, because the prospect of Republicans taking over is so bad.
I find it really interesting that all these Obama supporters like Greider can write so much yet not mention the role of these dirty imperialist wars in the neo-liberals' imperialist Wall Street agenda...
one would think that Greider could have at least formulated one simple paragraph around the question we should all be asking over and over again:
How is Obama's war economy working for you?
Obama is one side and one aspect of the neo-liberal Wall Street agenda; the sleazy confusion being sowed by William Greider and his Obama supporting crowd who will claim as we get closer to Election Day that "if we are going to advance a progressive agenda we will need to make sure Obama wins a second term as they promise once again to "hold Obama's feet to the fire;" a fire Greider and his phony liberal, progressive and left friends have refused to strike the first match to ignite the flame top create the required heat during Obama's first term... does anyone really believe they will strike the match during Obama's second term?
Real liberals, progressives and leftists should be discussing the writings of those like William Greider who have served the Wall Street philanthropists so well for the pay-cheks they receive from the foundation whores whose empathy for working people ends after reciting statistics in the articles intended to sow confusion for which they are so well paid.
I find it interesting how Greider and his colleagues ALWAYS include the thoroughly reactionary warmonger Harry Truman who led the initial attack on the working class and democracy in their praise as if Truman is an equal of FDR and Lyndon Johnson.
Other than Obama, one would be hard pressed to find a more thoroughly reactionary president beholden to Wall Street's imperialist agenda supported by the ideology of pragmatism than Harry Truman--- and there have been some really rotten presidents in the interim between these two.
What Greider and his colleagues refuse to discuss, is that Hillary Clinton would have been more like Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson--- neither of whom were ever anything to write home about much less "prizes." In Johnson's case, at least he had the good sense to step aside realizing that his continuing an illegal, immoral, unconstitutional and costly imperialist war had brought the country to the verge of civil war which required he step aside; Barack Obama lacks any such good judgement and if he is not successfully primaried which Greider and his co-horts refuse to address, we are headed for another very violent civil war.
We have a chance to head off plunging our country into chaos and unending violence by correcting the mistake of Obama by primaring Obama in 2010; like Roosevelt and Johnson, Hillary Clinton is no prize but she does offer some hope that if we get organized we can get SOME real change... Obama will fight any change to improve the lives of working people by ending these wars right to his bitter end.
Greider closes by stating:
"Somewhere in all these activities, people can find fulfilling purpose again and gradually build a new politics. Don't wait for Barack Obama tosend instructions. And don't count on necessarily making much difference,at least not right away. The music in democracy starts with people who
take themselves seriously. They first discover they have
changed themselves, then decide they can change others."
Greider and a host of phony liberals, progressives and leftists are now hard at work attacking Obama for being a "liberal."
What is taking place here in the name of being "critical" of Obama and the Democrats is that Greider
and his friends are up to their same old dirty work as what they started out doing for Obama: splitting and driving a wedge--- fracturing the coalition--- (the only coalition capable of creating real change in this country, "the people's front," these same phony liberals, progressives and leftists have attacked in the name on the "new left."
Why else would they confuse "liberalism" with the pragmatism of Wall Street's "neo-liberalism" of which they and Obama are an integral part of?
Greider and his friends at The Nation and their Progressives for Obama, Campaign for America's Future, Progressive Democrats of America all know the difference between "liberalism" and
"neo-liberalism" yet they are intellectually so dishonest they choose to identify those liberals with good ideas who cast their lot with progressives and the left for real social and economic change that is good with falsely claiming that "liberals" are part of the same reactionary and right wing cloth as Obama's "neo-liberalism" which is Wall Street's agenda of war abroad and austerity at home.
I know lots of liberals and no liberals that I know support Obama's imperialist wars abroad nor do the liberals I know support Obama's austerity measures at home designed to force the burden of paying for these wars on the backs of the working class which taken together with the unending quest for maximum profits constitute Wall Streets complete agenda.
These aren't the "groaning spasms of New Deal liberalism" as Greider and his Obama supporting
friends working with The Century Foundation--- with "partners" like the Council on Foreign Affairs--- would have us believe; what we are witnessing and experiencing is neo-liberalism--- as completely distinct from liberalism--- advancing Wall Street's agenda.
"The power shift did not start with Obama," says Obama-backer Greider now pretending to be critical of Obama as he and his dishonest colleagues start trying to rope people back into the Obama fold in time for the 2012 Elections by using this confusing "criticism" of Obama as a pretext for once again preventing the unity of liberals, progressives and the left in an attempt to deepen the fractures they created in the first place by bullying, badgering and intimidating people into supporting and voting for
Obama based on the false image--- one they now pretend to oppose--- they created for Obama in the first place.
Here in this article, loaded with a lot of truths while continuing to perpetrate and further expand the really big lie that is coming once they deem the period for criticism is over just in time to urge
everyone to get behind Obama, again, because the prospect of Republicans taking over is so bad.
I find it really interesting that all these Obama supporters like Greider can write so much yet not mention the role of these dirty imperialist wars in the neo-liberals' imperialist Wall Street agenda...
one would think that Greider could have at least formulated one simple paragraph around the question we should all be asking over and over again:
How is Obama's war economy working for you?
Obama is one side and one aspect of the neo-liberal Wall Street agenda; the sleazy confusion being sowed by William Greider and his Obama supporting crowd who will claim as we get closer to Election Day that "if we are going to advance a progressive agenda we will need to make sure Obama wins a second term as they promise once again to "hold Obama's feet to the fire;" a fire Greider and his phony liberal, progressive and left friends have refused to strike the first match to ignite the flame top create the required heat during Obama's first term... does anyone really believe they will strike the match during Obama's second term?
Real liberals, progressives and leftists should be discussing the writings of those like William Greider who have served the Wall Street philanthropists so well for the pay-cheks they receive from the foundation whores whose empathy for working people ends after reciting statistics in the articles intended to sow confusion for which they are so well paid.
I find it interesting how Greider and his colleagues ALWAYS include the thoroughly reactionary warmonger Harry Truman who led the initial attack on the working class and democracy in their praise as if Truman is an equal of FDR and Lyndon Johnson.
Other than Obama, one would be hard pressed to find a more thoroughly reactionary president beholden to Wall Street's imperialist agenda supported by the ideology of pragmatism than Harry Truman--- and there have been some really rotten presidents in the interim between these two.
What Greider and his colleagues refuse to discuss, is that Hillary Clinton would have been more like Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson--- neither of whom were ever anything to write home about much less "prizes." In Johnson's case, at least he had the good sense to step aside realizing that his continuing an illegal, immoral, unconstitutional and costly imperialist war had brought the country to the verge of civil war which required he step aside; Barack Obama lacks any such good judgement and if he is not successfully primaried which Greider and his co-horts refuse to address, we are headed for another very violent civil war.
We have a chance to head off plunging our country into chaos and unending violence by correcting the mistake of Obama by primaring Obama in 2010; like Roosevelt and Johnson, Hillary Clinton is no prize but she does offer some hope that if we get organized we can get SOME real change... Obama will fight any change to improve the lives of working people by ending these wars right to his bitter end.
Greider closes by stating:
"Somewhere in all these activities, people can find fulfilling purpose again and gradually build a new politics. Don't wait for Barack Obama tosend instructions. And don't count on necessarily making much difference,at least not right away. The music in democracy starts with people who
take themselves seriously. They first discover they have
changed themselves, then decide they can change others."
How convenient that Greider, who was part of a cabal forcing Obama on us with lies and under false pretenses now offers up such poetic and sage advice as if he sincerely means any of this when we all know it is just one more part of a scheme to rope us in to supporting Obama, again.
Greider now identifies himself as a "left-liberal," a "progressive" and even pretends to speak as a "socialist" adding more confusing rhetoric; all kinds of rhetoric except the need to defeat Barack Obama if we are to create real change.
I do find it interesting that Greider now wants us to believe that he is all those things he once helped to create a false image of who Obama was supposed to be: socialist, progressive and liberal.
This is "the end of New Deal liberalism, perhaps; if we don't get rid of this creep Obama.
Something to think about around the kitchen table.
Yours in the struggle,
Alan L. Maki
The End of New Deal
Liberalism
William Greider
The Nation
January 5,
2011
http://www.thenation.com/article/157511/end-new-deal-liberalism
We
have reached a pivotal moment in government and politics, and it feels
like
the last, groaning spasms of New Deal liberalism. When the party of
activist
government, faced with an epic crisis, will not use government's
extensive
powers to reverse the economic disorders and heal deepening
social
deterioration, then it must be the end of the line for the
governing ideology
inherited from Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson.
Political events of the
past two years have delivered a more profound and
devastating message:
American democracy has been conclusively conquered by
American capitalism.
Government has been disabled or captured by the
formidable powers of private
enterprise and concentrated wealth.
Self-governing rights that representative
democracy conferred on citizens
are now usurped by the overbearing demands of
corporate and financial
interests. Collectively, the corporate sector has its
arms around both
political parties, the financing of political careers, the
production of
the policy agendas and propaganda of influential think tanks,
and control
of most major media.
What the capitalist system wants is
more-more wealth, more freedom to do
whatever it wishes. This has always been
its instinct, unless government
intervened to stop it. The objective now is
to destroy any remaining forms
of government interference, except of course
for business subsidies and
protections. Many elected representatives are
implicitly enlisted in the
cause.
A lot of Americans seem to know
this; at least they sense that the
structural reality of government and
politics is not on their side. When
the choice comes down to society or
capitalism, society regularly loses.
First attention is devoted to the
economic priorities of the largest, most
powerful institutions of business
and finance. The bias comes naturally to
Republicans, the party of money and
private enterprise, but on the big
structural questions business-first also
defines Democrats, formerly the
party of working people. Despite partisan
rhetoric, the two parties are
more alike than they acknowledge.
In
these terms, the administration of Barack Obama has been a
crushing
disappointment for those of us who hoped he would be different. It
turns
out Obama is a more conventional and limited politician than
advertised,
more right-of-center than his soaring rhetoric suggested.
Most
Congressional Democrats, likewise, proved weak and incoherent,
unreliable
defenders of their supposed values or most loyal constituencies.
They call
it pragmatism. I call it surrender.
Obama's maladroit tax
compromise with Republicans was more destructive
than creative. He acceded to
the trickle-down doctrine of regressive
taxation and skipped lightly over the
fact that he was contributing
further to stark injustices. Ordinary Americans
will again be made to pay,
one way or another, for the damage others did to
society. Obama agrees
that this is offensive but argues, This is politics,
get over it. His
brand of realism teaches people to disregard what he says.
Look instead at
what he does.
With overwhelming majorities in Congress
and economic crisis tearing up
the country in 2009, incumbent Democrats opted
for self-protection first,
party principles later. Their Senate leaders
allowed naysayers to
determine the lowest common denominator for reform-
halfway measures
designed not to overly disturb powerful corporate-financial
interests, and
therefore not able to repair the social destruction those
interests had
wrought. Senate Democrats say they didn't have the votes.
Imagine what
Mitch McConnell would have done if he were their leader: Take
no
prisoners. Force party dissenters to get in line and punish those
who
don't. Block even the most pedestrian opposition
proposals.
Democrats are not used to governing aggressively. They haven't
done so for
decades, and they may no longer believe in it. For many years,
incumbent
Democrats survived by managing a precarious straddle between the
forces of
organized money and the disorganized people they claim to
represent. The
split was usually lopsided in favor of the money guys, but one
could
believe that the reform spirit would come alive once they were back
in
power with a Democratic president. That wishful assumption is now
defunct.
Obama's timid economic strategy can be described as successful
only if the
standard of success is robust corporate profits, rising stock
prices and
the notorious year-end bonuses of Wall Street. Again and again,
Obama
hesitated to take the bolder steps that would have made differences
in
social conditions. Now it is clear that the bleeding
afflictions
experienced by the overwhelming majority of citizens will not
be
substantively addressed because Democrats, both president and
Congress,
have chosen to collaborate in the conservative cause of deficit
reduction:
cut spending, shrink government, block any healing initiatives
that cost
real money.
Republicans, armed with strong conviction, are
resurgent with what amounts
to ideological nihilism. Leave aside their
obvious hypocrisies on fiscal
rectitude and free markets. Their single-minded
objective is to destroy
what remains of government's capacity to intervene in
or restrain the
private sector on behalf of the common welfare. Many of
government's old
tools and programs are already gone, gutted by deregulation,
crippled by
corporate capture of the regulatory agencies originally intended
to curb
private-sector abuses and starved by inadequate funding. The right
wants
smaller government for the people, but not for corporate capitalism.
It
will fight to preserve the protections, privileges and subsidies that
flow
to the private sector.
* * *
Once again, Republicans are
mounting an assault on liberalism's crown
jewel, Social Security, only this
time they might succeed, because the
Democratic president is collaborating
with them. The deficit hysteria
aimed at Social Security is fraudulent (as
Obama's own experts
acknowledge), but the president has already gravely
weakened the program's
solvency with his payroll-tax holiday, which undercuts
financing for
future benefits. Obama promises the gimmick won't be repeated,
but if
employment is still weak a year from now, he may well cave. The GOP
will
accuse him of damaging the economy by approving a "tax increase" on
all
workers. Senate Democrats are preparing their own proposal to cut
Social
Security as a counter to the GOP's extreme version. In the end, they
can
split the difference and celebrate another great compromise.
This
is capitulation posing as moderation. Obama has set himself up to
make many
more "compromises" in the coming months; each time, he will
doubtless use the
left as a convenient foil. Disparaging "purist" liberals
is his way of
assuring so-called independents that he stood up to the
allegedly far-out
demands of his own electoral base. This is a ludicrous
ploy, given the
weakness of the left. It cynically assumes ordinary people
not engaged in
politics are too dim to grasp what he's doing. I suspect
Obama is mistaken. I
asked an old friend what she makes of the current
mess in Washington.
"Whatever the issue, the rich guys win," she
responded. Lots of people
understand this-it is the essence of the
country's historic
predicament.
To get a rough glimpse of what the corporate state looks
like, study the
Federal Reserve's list of banking, finance and business firms
that
received the $3.3 trillion the central bank dispensed in
low-interest
loans during the financial crisis (this valuable information is
revealed
only because reform legislators like Senator Bernie Sanders fought
for
disclosure). If you were not on the list of recipients, you know
your
place in this new order.
The power shift did not start with
Obama, but his tenure confirms and
completes it. The corporates began their
systematic drive to dismantle
liberal governance back in the 1970s, and the
Democratic Party was soon
trying to appease them, its retreat whipped along
by Ronald Reagan's
popular appeal and top-down tax cutting. So long as
Democrats were out of
power, they could continue to stand up for liberal
objectives and assail
the destructive behavior of business and finance
(though their rhetoric
was more consistent than their voting record). Once
back in control of
government, they lowered their voices and sued for peace.
Beholden to
corporate America for campaign contributions, the Democrats cut
deals with
banks and businesses and usually gave them what they demanded,
so
corporate interests would not veto progressive legislation.
Obama
has been distinctively candid about this. He admires the "savvy
businessmen"
atop the pinnacle of corporate power. He seeks "partnership"
with them. The
old economic conflicts, like labor versus capital, are
regarded as passé by
the "new Democrats" now governing. The business of
America is business.
Government should act as steward and servant, not
master.
This
deferential attitude is reflected in all of Obama's major reform
legislation,
not to mention in the people he brought into government. In
the financial
rescue, Obama, like George W. Bush before him, funneled
billions to the
troubled bankers without demanding any public obligations
in return. On
healthcare, he cut deals with insurance and drug companies
and played cute by
allowing the public option, which would have provided
real competition to
healthcare monopolists, to be killed. On financial
reform, Obama's Treasury
lieutenants and a majority of the Congressional
Dems killed off the most
important measures, which would have cut Wall
Street megabanks down to
tolerable size.
Society faces dreadful prospects and profound
transformation. When both
parties are aligned with corporate power, who will
stand up for the
people? Who will protect them from the insatiable appetites
of capitalist
enterprise and help them get through the hard passage ahead?
One thing we
know for sure from history: there is no natural limit to what
capitalism
will seek in terms of power and profit. If government does not
stand up
and apply the brakes, society is defenseless.
Strangely
enough, this new reality brings us back to the future, posing
fundamental
questions about the relationship between capitalism and
democracy that
citizens and reformers asked 100 years ago. Only this time,
the nation is no
longer an ascendant economic power. It faces hard
adjustments as general
prosperity recedes and the broad middle class that
labor and liberalism
helped create is breaking apart.
My bleak analysis is not the end of the
story. Change is hard to visualize
now, given the awesome power of the status
quo and the collapse of
once-trusted political institutions. But change will
come, for better or
worse. One key dynamic of the twentieth century was the
long- running
contest for dominance between democracy and capitalism. The
balance of
power shifted back and forth several times, driven by two basic
forces
that neither corporate lobbyists nor timid politicians could control:
the
calamitous events that disrupted the social order, such as war
and
depression, and the power of citizens mobilized in reaction to
those
events. In those terms, both political parties are still
highly
vulnerable-as twentieth-century history repeatedly demonstrated,
society
cannot survive the burdens of an unfettered corporate
order.
People are given different ideological labels, but Americans are
not as
opposed to "big government" as facile generalizations suggest. On
many
issues, there is overwhelming consensus that media and pundits
ignore
(check the polls, if you doubt this). Americans of all ages will fight
to
defend social protections-Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,
among
others. People are skeptical to hostile about the excessive power
of
corporations. People want government to be more aggressive in
many
areas-like sending some of the financial malefactors to
prison.
One vivid example was the angry citizen at a town hall meeting
who shouted
at his Congressman: "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"
I heard
a grassroots leader on the radio explain that basically the Tea
Party
people "want government that works for them." Don't we all? In the
next
few years, both parties will try to define this sentiment. If they
adhere
to the corporate agenda, they are bound to get in trouble, and the
ranks
of insurgent citizens will grow. Nobody can know where popular
rebellion
might lead, right or left, but my own stubborn optimism hangs by
that
thread.
Whatever people on the left may call themselves, they
have a special
burden in this situation because they are deeply committed to
the idea
that government should be the trustworthy agent of the many, not
the
powerful few. Many of us believe further (as the socialists taught)
that
the economy should serve the people, not the other way
around.
The current crisis requires people to go back to their roots
and
re-examine their convictions-now that they can no longer
count
automatically on the helping hand of government or the Democratic
Party.
Obama's unfortunate "hostage" metaphor led Saturday Night Live to
joke
that the president was himself experiencing the
"Stockholm
syndrome"-identifying with his conservative captors. Many
progressive
groups, including organized labor, suffer a similar dependency.
They will
not be able to think clearly about the future of the country until
they
get greater distance from the Democratic Party.
I suggest three
steps for progressives to recover an influential role in
politics. First,
develop a guerrilla sensibility that recognizes the
weakness of the left.
There's no need to resign from electoral politics,
but dedicated lefties
should stake out a role of principled resistance. In
the 1960s uncompromising
right-wingers became known as "ankle biters" in
Republican ranks, insisting
on what were considered impossible goals and
opposing moderate and liberal
party leaders, sometimes with hopeless
candidates. They spent twenty years in
the wilderness but built a cadre of
activists whose convictions eventually
gained power.
Where are the left-wing ankle biters who might change the
Democratic
Party? It takes a bit of arrogance to imagine that your activities
can
change the country, but, paradoxically, it also requires a sense
of
humility. Above all, it forces people to ask themselves what they
truly
believe the country needs-and then stand up for those convictions any
way
they can. Concretely, that may lead someone to run for city council or
US
senator. Or field principled opponents to challenge feckless Democrats
in
primaries (that's what the Tea Party did to Republicans, with
impressive
results). Or activist agitators may simply reach out to young
people and
recruit kindred spirits for righteous work that requires
long-term
commitment.
Second, people of liberal persuasion should "go
back to school" and learn
the new economic realities. In my experience, many
on the left do not
really understand the internal dynamics of capitalism-why
it is
productive, why it does so much damage (many assumed government
and
politicians would do the hard thinking for them). We need a
fundamental
re-examination of capitalism and the relationship between the
state and
the private sphere. This will not be done by business- financed
think
tanks. We have to do it for ourselves.
A century ago the
populist rebellion organized farmer cooperatives,
started dozens of
newspapers and sent out lecturers to spread the word.
Socialists and the
labor movement did much the same. Modern Americans
cannot depend on the
Democratic Party or philanthropy to sponsor small-d
democracy. We have to do
it. But we have resources and modern
tools-including the Internet-those
earlier insurgents lacked.
The New Deal order broke down for good
reasons-the economic system
changed, and government did not adjust to new
realities or challenge the
counterattack from the right in the 1970s. The
structure of economic life
has changed again-most dramatically by
globalization-yet the government
and political parties are largely clueless
about how to deal with the
destruction of manufacturing and the loss of
millions of jobs. Government
itself has been weakened in the process, but
politicians are too
intimidated to talk about restoring its powers. The
public expresses
another broad consensus on the need to confront "free trade"
and change it
in the national interest-another instance of public opinion not
seeming to
count, since it opposes the corporate agenda.
Reformers
today face conditions similar to what the Populists and
Progressives faced:
monopoly capitalism, a labor movement suppressed with
government's direct
assistance, Wall Street's "money trust" on top, the
corporate state feeding
off government while ignoring immoral social
conditions. The working class,
meanwhile, is regaining its identity, as
millions are being dispossessed of
middle-class status while millions of
others struggle at the bottom. Working
people are poised to become the new
center of a reinvigorated democracy,
though it is not clear at this stage
whether they will side with the left or
the right. Understanding all these
forces can lead to the new governing
agenda society desperately needs.
Finally, left-liberals need to start
listening and learning-talking up
close to ordinary Americans, including
people who are not obvious allies.
We should look for viable connections with
those who are alienated and
unorganized, maybe even ideologically hostile.
The Tea Party crowd got one
big thing right: the political divide is not
Republicans against Democrats
but governing elites against the people. A
similar division exists within
business and banking, where the real hostages
are the smaller,
community-scale firms imperiled by the big boys getting the
gravy from
Washington. We have more in common with small-business owners and
Tea
Party insurgents than the top-down commentary suggests.
Somewhere
in all these activities, people can find fulfilling purpose
again and
gradually build a new politics. Don't wait for Barack Obama to
send
instructions. And don't count on necessarily making much difference,
at least
not right away. The music in democracy starts with people who
take themselves
seriously. They first discover they have changed
themselves, then decide they
can change others.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Is the Dayton Administration another Obama Administration in the making? Liberal rhetoric; reactionary corporate agenda
Ok, I see who Dayton has selected to head up the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources--- a selection aided by Roger Moe.
Just about like all of his other appointments, so far; Dayton has appointed a guy who is a product of the "foundations."
http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/blogs/113004954.html
This guy is probably going to be more of a friend to the mining, forestry and power generating industry than to people concerned about the quality of our air, water, land, plants and animals; treaty rights and respect for our watersheds.
Think in terms of a John Persell but more intelligent and a whole lot shrewder.
Think in terms of the Roger Moe and Jim Oberstar.
This guy is associated with Ducks Unlimited who think that peat mining in the Big Bog is a good thing because we will end up with a massive 15 square mile "lake" for duck hunters, and he will most likely advocate hauling in the contaminated beach sand from Lake Superior to create a swimming beach for children along the "shores" of U.S. Steel's "Clearwater Reservoir."
Have you ever seen the big signs placed by the huge "clear cuts" proclaiming the area to be a site for deer and grouse habitat? Well, this is Tom Landwehr... ever heard the guy defend treaty rights? This guy is a big booster of the mining and forestry industries... let them ruin the land they steal from the public in the first place for a pittance and when they can no longer reap huge profits a private outfit like the Nature Conservancy buys it back at outrageously high prices financed by great "philanthropists" like the Pillsbury's "to protect our endangered natural resources."
Don't expect Landwehr to end racist hiring practices of the DNR staff and enforce affirmative action in hiring when it comes to DNR projects unless Dayton orders him to; and so far Dayton has refused to live up to his campaign promise of supporting Affirmative Action since he hasn't enforced it in hiring those appointments he has made to oversee State departments and agencies. Figure it out; when Dayton brings in someone like Roger Moe who has fought the implementation and enforcement of Affirmative Action during his long and useless political career to advise him to select a guy like Landwehr what else can we expect? Were any Native American Indians concerned about treaty rights even considered in the running to head up the DNR? What about environmentalists opposed to the racist placement of power lines and gas and oil pipelines?
Landwehr has made his base of support among the most racist section of the conservation crowd. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Dayton's foundation has funded a lot of Landwehr's involvement and activities. Someone should look into this.
I wouldn't expect this guy to be calling for an increase in the "taconite tax" or "stumpage fees" as he views all mining and logging activity as producing duck ponds, deer and grouse habitat; then raising taxes on Minnesotans to pay for reclamation of the detroyed lands that mining, forestry and the power generating industries have reaped huge profits from--- so much for "tax the rich."
To make a long comment short:
This appointment of Landwehr by Dayton to head up the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources should send shivers down the spines of anyone concerned about protecting our living environment and treaty rights, and cause everyone to become actively involved in pushing Dayton towards what he promised or we are going to end up with a version of Obama here in Minnesota real quick--- liberal words; corporate agenda.
Mark Dayton in begging for my support in return for enforcing Affirmative Acction pursuant to what President Lyndon B. Johnson determined Affirmative Action to be in signing Presidential Executive Order #11246 which is the real teeth of the Civil Rights Act has so far reneged on his campaign promise... I hope this blog posting answers all the questions I have been getting concerning how I think our new liberal Governor Mark Dayton is doing so far.
Mark Dayton was the ONLY candidate I voted for in the last election; it looks like I won't bother making a trip to the polls next time around if this is the best we can expect from Democrats... unless of course there are some alternatives to what Democrats and Republicans have to offer.
Liberals, progressives and the left should keep pressing for a "people before corporate profits" alternative agenda both inside and outside the Democratic Party; but, I don't foresee any real progress in the form of legislation or government action being made towards this until we learn that we need our own political party centered around a progressive agenda that challenges these corporate and foundaton financed politicians chosen by Wall Street--- prepared to back up in the ballot box what is fought for in the streets... so far we are far to weak to bring people into the streets and out to vote in a way that will produce the kind of change we need.
Let's reflect on where we are at and what is required as we gather around our kitchen tables.
Hope to discuss all of this further with people at the "Governor's Inaugural Ball" tonight at the Minneapolis Convention Center.
Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council
and
a founder,
Minnesotans for Peace and Social Justice
and
an activist,
Save Our Bog
Just about like all of his other appointments, so far; Dayton has appointed a guy who is a product of the "foundations."
http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/blogs/113004954.html
This guy is probably going to be more of a friend to the mining, forestry and power generating industry than to people concerned about the quality of our air, water, land, plants and animals; treaty rights and respect for our watersheds.
Think in terms of a John Persell but more intelligent and a whole lot shrewder.
Think in terms of the Roger Moe and Jim Oberstar.
This guy is associated with Ducks Unlimited who think that peat mining in the Big Bog is a good thing because we will end up with a massive 15 square mile "lake" for duck hunters, and he will most likely advocate hauling in the contaminated beach sand from Lake Superior to create a swimming beach for children along the "shores" of U.S. Steel's "Clearwater Reservoir."
Have you ever seen the big signs placed by the huge "clear cuts" proclaiming the area to be a site for deer and grouse habitat? Well, this is Tom Landwehr... ever heard the guy defend treaty rights? This guy is a big booster of the mining and forestry industries... let them ruin the land they steal from the public in the first place for a pittance and when they can no longer reap huge profits a private outfit like the Nature Conservancy buys it back at outrageously high prices financed by great "philanthropists" like the Pillsbury's "to protect our endangered natural resources."
Don't expect Landwehr to end racist hiring practices of the DNR staff and enforce affirmative action in hiring when it comes to DNR projects unless Dayton orders him to; and so far Dayton has refused to live up to his campaign promise of supporting Affirmative Action since he hasn't enforced it in hiring those appointments he has made to oversee State departments and agencies. Figure it out; when Dayton brings in someone like Roger Moe who has fought the implementation and enforcement of Affirmative Action during his long and useless political career to advise him to select a guy like Landwehr what else can we expect? Were any Native American Indians concerned about treaty rights even considered in the running to head up the DNR? What about environmentalists opposed to the racist placement of power lines and gas and oil pipelines?
Landwehr has made his base of support among the most racist section of the conservation crowd. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Dayton's foundation has funded a lot of Landwehr's involvement and activities. Someone should look into this.
I wouldn't expect this guy to be calling for an increase in the "taconite tax" or "stumpage fees" as he views all mining and logging activity as producing duck ponds, deer and grouse habitat; then raising taxes on Minnesotans to pay for reclamation of the detroyed lands that mining, forestry and the power generating industries have reaped huge profits from--- so much for "tax the rich."
To make a long comment short:
This appointment of Landwehr by Dayton to head up the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources should send shivers down the spines of anyone concerned about protecting our living environment and treaty rights, and cause everyone to become actively involved in pushing Dayton towards what he promised or we are going to end up with a version of Obama here in Minnesota real quick--- liberal words; corporate agenda.
Mark Dayton in begging for my support in return for enforcing Affirmative Acction pursuant to what President Lyndon B. Johnson determined Affirmative Action to be in signing Presidential Executive Order #11246 which is the real teeth of the Civil Rights Act has so far reneged on his campaign promise... I hope this blog posting answers all the questions I have been getting concerning how I think our new liberal Governor Mark Dayton is doing so far.
Mark Dayton was the ONLY candidate I voted for in the last election; it looks like I won't bother making a trip to the polls next time around if this is the best we can expect from Democrats... unless of course there are some alternatives to what Democrats and Republicans have to offer.
Liberals, progressives and the left should keep pressing for a "people before corporate profits" alternative agenda both inside and outside the Democratic Party; but, I don't foresee any real progress in the form of legislation or government action being made towards this until we learn that we need our own political party centered around a progressive agenda that challenges these corporate and foundaton financed politicians chosen by Wall Street--- prepared to back up in the ballot box what is fought for in the streets... so far we are far to weak to bring people into the streets and out to vote in a way that will produce the kind of change we need.
Let's reflect on where we are at and what is required as we gather around our kitchen tables.
Hope to discuss all of this further with people at the "Governor's Inaugural Ball" tonight at the Minneapolis Convention Center.
Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council
and
a founder,
Minnesotans for Peace and Social Justice
and
an activist,
Save Our Bog
Monday, January 3, 2011
Primary Obama and unite around a people's agenda for real change
I don't think we should get hung up too much on "who" the candidates are to get rid of Obama. As working people who are liberals, progressives and leftists we need to be advancing an alternative to Wall Street's agenda of war abroad and austerity at home; an agenda that places human need before war and corporate greed; we need to create jobs by putting people to work solving the problems of people and society--- pay for it all with the "peace dividend" coming from ending these dirty wars, taxing the rich and taxing Wall Street profits.
There are two really pressing needs the American people have right now:
1. Acceess to health care
2. Child care
With National Public Health Care and National Public Child Care systems we put ten-million and three-million people to work. Combine this with restarting WPA to maintain and upgrade our infrastructure and the CCC to see to it that our forests are adequate for future needs and we have a full-employment economy.
Taking such an alternative agenda into our neighborhoods, schools and places of employment we develop the kind of liberal-progressive-left movement from which leaders will come forward who will become our candidates for public office.
This is a bunch of crap having to rely on well-heeled "professional" politicians to support who don't even have the common human decency to step forward to run when they know it is the right thing to do.
Let's concern ourselves with re-building the historic liberal-progressive-left coalition around an alternative agenda and then we have a solid block of voters with votes that we can at least "bargain" with.
The agenda I have proposed is not something I just thought up out of thin air; it is the result of talking face-to-face with thousands of people and it is actually part of the unfinished agenda from the New Deal that Frances Perkins advocated--- peace, health care, child care, jobs for all.
Any candidate who can't support this kind of agenda does not deserve the votes of liberals, progressives or the left and as a group/coalition we shouldn't give in to supporting candidates based upon "promises" to support reforms like EFCA which we have all now clearly seen was used as a gimmick by these Wall Street politicians to divide the working class which is mainly very liberal, quite progressive with a growing left wing.
I don't see why we shouldn't be pushing the only candidate who has a chance to defeat Obama on this short notice in the 2012 Primary--- Hillary Clinton with the understanding that we are supporting her in the Primary with one clear purpose: defeat Obama; as we tell her we are walking in the General Election unless she agrees to our alternative agenda.
Let's get real here; no Democrat--- not anyone of them--- can win a Primary or General Election without the votes of liberals, progressives and the left... all bring very important things into the political process; number one of which is a desire for peace and re-ordering the priorities of this country away from war and military spending and towards meeting the needs of the people.
There are two really pressing needs the American people have right now:
1. Acceess to health care
2. Child care
With National Public Health Care and National Public Child Care systems we put ten-million and three-million people to work. Combine this with restarting WPA to maintain and upgrade our infrastructure and the CCC to see to it that our forests are adequate for future needs and we have a full-employment economy.
Taking such an alternative agenda into our neighborhoods, schools and places of employment we develop the kind of liberal-progressive-left movement from which leaders will come forward who will become our candidates for public office.
This is a bunch of crap having to rely on well-heeled "professional" politicians to support who don't even have the common human decency to step forward to run when they know it is the right thing to do.
Let's concern ourselves with re-building the historic liberal-progressive-left coalition around an alternative agenda and then we have a solid block of voters with votes that we can at least "bargain" with.
The agenda I have proposed is not something I just thought up out of thin air; it is the result of talking face-to-face with thousands of people and it is actually part of the unfinished agenda from the New Deal that Frances Perkins advocated--- peace, health care, child care, jobs for all.
Any candidate who can't support this kind of agenda does not deserve the votes of liberals, progressives or the left and as a group/coalition we shouldn't give in to supporting candidates based upon "promises" to support reforms like EFCA which we have all now clearly seen was used as a gimmick by these Wall Street politicians to divide the working class which is mainly very liberal, quite progressive with a growing left wing.
I don't see why we shouldn't be pushing the only candidate who has a chance to defeat Obama on this short notice in the 2012 Primary--- Hillary Clinton with the understanding that we are supporting her in the Primary with one clear purpose: defeat Obama; as we tell her we are walking in the General Election unless she agrees to our alternative agenda.
Let's get real here; no Democrat--- not anyone of them--- can win a Primary or General Election without the votes of liberals, progressives and the left... all bring very important things into the political process; number one of which is a desire for peace and re-ordering the priorities of this country away from war and military spending and towards meeting the needs of the people.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
What to do about Israel... just cut off the money
Here is a letter to the editor for publication:
We need a president who has a constructive approach towards solving the problems in the Middle East. Barack Obama is not the President we need.
There have been a lot of reasons suggested to "Primary Obama;" I probably agree with most of the reasons but the situation in the Middle East if not resolved prevents us from solving many problems.
We should be funding job creation here in this country not supporting and subsidizing the Israeli killing machine.
We need to consider Obama as just one huge mistake not unlike George Bush.
Jimmy Carter and Hillary Clinton have suggested a concrete first step in solving the problems in the Middle East.
Hillary Clinton has stated regarding Israeli settlements in occupied lands:
Former President Jimmy Carter has made similar suggestions.
On a "people level" we can enforce this by boycotting Israeli products; divesting all public investments by state, local governments their agencies and our universities. And by insisting that the U.S. government simply cuts off all further aid to Israel until all settlement activity is halted and the "occupied lands" returned to the Palestinian people--- we don't want to see a repeat in the Middle East like what happened here in the United States where armed force was used to steal the land from Native Americans and then "settlers" were brought in to occupy these stolen lands as Native Americans were shoved onto reservations.
Let's face it; the only reason Israel needs U.S. aid in the first place is to steal Palestinian land and push the Palestinian people onto reservations where they are forced to live in squalor and poverty.
As we are finding in Iraq and Afghanistan, occupation is an expensive process, not to mention contrary to everything most people consider decent.
Just cut off the money and let the Israelis figure out how to live in peace, friendship and cooperation with their Palestinian neighbors.
We need a president who has a constructive approach towards solving the problems in the Middle East. Barack Obama is not the President we need.
There have been a lot of reasons suggested to "Primary Obama;" I probably agree with most of the reasons but the situation in the Middle East if not resolved prevents us from solving many problems.
We should be funding job creation here in this country not supporting and subsidizing the Israeli killing machine.
We need to consider Obama as just one huge mistake not unlike George Bush.
Jimmy Carter and Hillary Clinton have suggested a concrete first step in solving the problems in the Middle East.
Hillary Clinton has stated regarding Israeli settlements in occupied lands:
"We want to see a stop to settlement construction, additions, natural growth -- any kind of settlement activity."
Former President Jimmy Carter has made similar suggestions.
On a "people level" we can enforce this by boycotting Israeli products; divesting all public investments by state, local governments their agencies and our universities. And by insisting that the U.S. government simply cuts off all further aid to Israel until all settlement activity is halted and the "occupied lands" returned to the Palestinian people--- we don't want to see a repeat in the Middle East like what happened here in the United States where armed force was used to steal the land from Native Americans and then "settlers" were brought in to occupy these stolen lands as Native Americans were shoved onto reservations.
Let's face it; the only reason Israel needs U.S. aid in the first place is to steal Palestinian land and push the Palestinian people onto reservations where they are forced to live in squalor and poverty.
As we are finding in Iraq and Afghanistan, occupation is an expensive process, not to mention contrary to everything most people consider decent.
Just cut off the money and let the Israelis figure out how to live in peace, friendship and cooperation with their Palestinian neighbors.