A resolution/petition for peace...

Dear Peace-Wanting People,

Residents of Edgartown and Tisbury are introducing a peace-resolution at their spring town meetings. This is an invitation for you to do the same in West Tisbury, Oak Bluffs, Chilmark, and Aquinnah.

Just substitute your town's name for "Tisbury", print the resolution, and ask your selectmen to sponsor it. (Their signatures are likely all that are needed.)

Any questions? Call your selectmen, town moderator, 


(Start of petition)

Town of Tisbury, Massachusetts

Proposed Resolution:

This is a resolution by citizens of the Town of Tisbury to end the expenditure of our tax dollars presently being spent for excessive and unaffordable warfare.

Whereas,

1.the financial resources available for use by governments at the local, county, state, and federal levels in the United States are and must be limited, and

2.each man, women, and child in Massachusetts is currently paying, or becoming indebted for approximately $3,200 per year towards the U.S. defense budget (totaling $9,600/yr for a family of three), and

3.a substantial portion of this money funds warfare that creates great and unnecessary harm to the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and to U.S. Military personnel and their families, and

4.education services, infrastructure repairs, other essential public services, and family and private-sector financing in Tisbury have been substantially reduced as a result of excessive military spending.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Town of Tisbury Massachusetts directs their Congressional Representative and Senators to oppose all future legislation brought before them that provides additional funding of U.S. warfare and occupation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and directs these Congressmen to take productive actions to terminate existing occupation and military operations, and to approve only those funds necessary for the safe and rapid withdrawal of all U.S. troops.

(End)

(This resolution is based upon information from:

www.bringourwardollarshome.org/language.html
 
It's estimated that MA has 6.6 million people, and they are paying $21 billion in taxes towards the annual defense budget.)
12/13/10

Do we get the government we vote for?

How often do you hear:

We are getting the government we vote for?

People didn't vote for this kind of "representation" by choice. 

Big money has purchased these politicians their seats. 

Plus, when people do try to free themselves from the big money influence within the Democratic Party they are subjected to all kinds of the most vile verbal abuse and ridicule, and often worse; and when they then go outside of the Democratic Party searching and organizing for solutions it becomes even worse. 

I am not a Ralph Nader fan... however, what Ralph Nader was and is subjected to for having the courage to begin searching for a way out of this two-party trap is a prime example. 

Another example of the disgusting and shameful behavior of these Democratic Party bigots and bullies is the way they set out to malign, slander and defame Cindy Sheehan--- as long as her attack was against George Bush her activities were approved by Democrats; when she took on those powerful Democrats that repeatedly join with the Republicans in their war-making she was targeted in the most vile and vicious manner. 

Then you have Cynthia McKinney who was a very loyal Democrat for decades; but, because she was just as loyal to trying to make peace and solving the problems of racism, unemployment and poverty she was drummed out of the Democratic Party in a most disgusting display of racism using the most sickening kind of racist patronization. 

The most disgusting bulling and badgering I have ever seen and personally experienced in my life has come from the Progressive Democrats of America and the "Progressives for Obama;" just nasty and vicious. 

Not to mention the unrelenting red-baiting campaign I was subjected to by the Chair and leadership of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party who took the most unusual and undemocratic steps to remove me from my elected position on the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party's State Central Committee because I spoke out so vigorously in opposition to the Israeli killing machine and for a national public health care system funded by ending these dirty wars and taxing the hell out of the rich. These people announced at our precinct caucus meetings the place, time and the date of our Roseau County DFL Convention. Come the day of the convention where members of the State Central Committee are elected--- over 90 people are waiting in the cold for two hours for someone to open the door of the hall and for the 9 a.m. Convention to begin. At 11 a.m. the County Chair, Lee Soltis, pulls up and rolls down his window and says, "Oh, I am so sorry; I forgot to place a notice on the door that we changed the location. Oh well, nothing we can do about this now; about 15 of us held the County Convention. By; see you in two years." He rolled up his window and sped away.

Now, these are just a few examples of what people have to put up with.

But, here is an even better one---

At the Minnesota DFL State Convention where the nomination for Democratic candidate for governor took place, the State Chair, Brian Melendez, after weeks of calling Mark Dayton "crazy" for advocating "tax the rich to pay for public schools;" Melendez ordered the Sargent of Arms to throw Mark Dayton out of the Convention Hall! And if that wasn't bad enough, when Native American Indian and rank-and-file trade union activist, Greg Paquin, rose on the floor of the State Convention to place Mark Dayton's name in nomination before the convention delegates with over two-hundred delegates enthusiastically rising to second Dayton's nomination, Melendez ruled Dayton's nomination "out of order."

Well, Dayton went on to win the Primary Election over ten other candidates and he is now the new Governor of Minnesota. How many people would have subjected themselves to such an ordeal to get elected to public office? Not many.

We have a very corrupt and undemocratic political system in this country; in spite of all the boasts from some of the most corrupt and undemocratic politicians that we are the most democratic country in the world where anyone can grow up to become president... Oh, did I mention anything about how Barack Obama got elected by turning himself into the complete opposite of what he really is to get elected?

I would strongly disagree with the premise that we voted for what we are getting. If we got what we voted for we would have peace not these dirty wars in three countries with 15 million people unemployed; 90 million people living in poverty and millions without access to health care.

Something to think about this evening around the dinner table,

Alan L. Maki

No Labels

"No Labels" a new threat to democracy

A dangerous new fascist development: "No Labels" holding a founding conference today:

"No Labels" is having a live "launch" conference right now:

http://nolabels.org/get-involved/no-labels-launch-live-webcast/

This is an emerging fascist movement for sure.

Danger ahead !!!!!!!!!

George Lakoff and "Don't Think of an Elephant!"

It is always difficult to say what someone else's motivation is. I don't think George Lakoff has ever been motivated by a desire for progressive change. He makes a lot of money working to keep people trapped in the Democratic Party. Now, this doesn't mean he doesn't have some really good ideas that people can't use as they struggle for real progressive change based on real progressive values... but, it does mean we have to use his advice to INCLUDE specific progressive solutions to our problems. It also means that we have to understand that for real change to take place we have to develop organizations capable of bringing about progressive change--- to Lakoff's credit he only claims to be a linguist interested in framing discussion, dialog and debate. Can we use his ideas to turn the tables on Obama and the Democrats who are evading real solutions to our problems? I think so. I use Lakoff's book all the time when teaching people to write letters to the editor, leaflets and newsletters. I do find it extremely interesting that George Soros claims to have learned a lot from Lakoff and I got this article off of Tom Hayden's website; Hayden is the primary leader of the "Progressives for Obama" the group that has brought the art of evading specific solutions and movement building to new levels--- and, for what purpose? To hoodwink us all into supporting Obama.

Several years ago I was in a rather large discussion group that included some state legislators and labor leaders who gathered for the sole purpose of discussing "Don't Think of an Elephant!" I provided my thinking on this and almost everyone in the room challenged me. So, I opened the book to page 92 and read. After I was done there must have been 15 people trying to talk and "explain" what Lakoff meant by this statement.

I responded by simply saying, "George Lakoff is a most highly regarded linguist. He is an expert in his field. I assume this is why we have all come together for six sessions to discuss this important book and its ideas. Now, understanding that Lakoff is a brilliant communicator do you really expect me to believe that Lakoff has written something here that he didn't mean?" At which point the Democratic Party hack who had brought us all together went ballistic (some present accused me of making him go "postal"). Obviously the intent was to bring people together to "teach" them not to talk about solutions to problems because according to Lakoff this is when you lose elections.

This is the main conclusion for this book and the PRIMARY lesson Lakoff wants us to "learn."

It is right there... the opening paragraph under "Policy Directions" on page 92 in the final chapter (Chapter 8-What Unites Progressives).

And Lakoff cautions against getting "militant."

Well; when do people get militant? When they get fed up because very specific problems they are having are not being solved. And here we have the great "progressive linguist" advising not to bring forward specific solutions to problems. Why? Because you probably won't get elected. Translated: You won't get the big bucks from Wall Street.

As a worker I find Lakoff to be the epitome of middle class arrogance. His book was intended just for use in the kind of discussion groups I was a part of. It offends me to no end that someone who is well-heeled as a result of advising the Democratic Party and creeps like Obama how to win would expect me and working people to forgo solving our problems so that some worthless opportunist can get elected to do what Obama has done and we are supposed to accept this as "progressive." The very word "progressive" implies that people-friendly solutions will be found to problems. I hardly call anything we have been subjected to by Obama and the Democrats over the past two years as having been "people friendly."

So. how could Lakoff ever have meant for these tactics to be used "in the service of progress?"

I gave Lakoff the benefit of the doubt so I wrote him with the very concerns I am expressing here. He actually called me. He called me to tell me that he couldn't answer my question because I wasn't one of his clients--- in other words, I wasn't paying him to answer me.

I would like to have George Lakoff answer my concerns right here on FaceBook for everyone to see. Let him explain why he helps Democrats get elected by evading explaining what they are going to do to solve our problems. In fact, Lakoff doesn't doesn't want our problems solved because he makes money taking advantage of our problems.

With this said, I encourage everyone to pay close attention to what George Lakoff writes for two reasons:

1. To learn how to frame the debate/s.

2. To learn how you are going to get screwed by the very politicians--- like Obama--- who are going to have you thinking they are on your side when nothing could be further from the truth because the problems of working people are just like our national debt: The Nation's debt is the Wall Street Bankers' profits. Just like Wall Street coupon clippers reap their biggest windfalls in profits off the backs of working people whose problems are Wall Street's profits... if you don't believe me at least think about it. Who profits from paying workers poverty wages instead of real living wages? Who profits from a huge pool of unemployed? Who profits from wars that kill jobs just like they kill people?

Isn't it nice to know that the Democrats have been so well trained to make us think they are going to solve our problems when George Lakoff has trained them not to even think about solving our problems?

Anti-communist bigot Rick Mons asked me questions... when I responded he had me banned from e-democracy because he didn't approve of my answers!

Rick Mons is a racist, anti-communist bigot and member of the Shoreview, Minnesota "Planning Commission;" he works for e-democracy an outfit that is a front for the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party's "Business Caucus" and the "Summit Hill Club." E-democracy is funded by foundation grants, state and federal tax-payers... Rick Mons, after a non-stop campaign of red-baiting, libel and slander directed at me personally over many months, asked me questions on e-democracy and didn't like my answers so he had me banned from e-democracy. 
I will let everyone judge for themselves if there is anything in my response to Rick Mons for which anyone should be denied the right to publish their views on e-democracy.
Rick Mons claims he never read anything in the United States Constitution or Bill of Rights that would support my right to state my opinions.
Mr. Mons claims to be one of the biggest advocates in Minnesota for Obama's "net neutrality."
Mr. Mons was happy as long as Communist Party activity was at a standstill in Minnesota; now with a Shoreview Club of the Communist Party looking over the nefarious deals of the Shoreview Planning Commission and looking into payoffs to members of the Shoreview Planning Commission by realators and business people, Mr. Mons is upset the Communist movement has taken root in his own back-yard.
Alan L. Maki




From: Rick Mons 
On Saturday Alan Maki < amaki000@centurytel.net > wrote:

> let me assure everyone on this list serve that Communists in
> Minnesota are alive and doing very well as this capitalist system
> crumbles--- our membership is growing and our clubs are popping up
> everywhere like dandelions after a warm spring rain.
>

Any hard data to back up this contention?   Less than two years ago, you (or
someone claiming to be "Alan Maki") wrote:

> "For far too long Party organizing has been ground to a halt in the
> Minnesota/Dakotas region ...

Rick Mons, as Forum Participant
>
>
>
>
>

The ideas banned by e-democracy---
>
>

My response to Rick Mons:

>
>
>

First of all, let me assure everyone on this list serve that Communists in
Minnesota are alive and doing very well as this capitalist system
crumbles--- our membership is growing and our clubs are popping up
everywhere like dandelions after a warm spring rain.

I can understand why many people on this list serve might view communists as
a powerful influence in Minnesota politics and the working class movement
from the 1930's without any relevance to the struggles today which are
intensifying as Barack Obama carries out Wall Street's directives and agenda
by trying to put the burden of this economic crisis on the backs of the
working class even though not one single-worker in Minnesota or anyplace
else in this country was part of the decision-making process which got us
into this economic mess. Mr. Mons, you probably haven't met any Communists because you
don't go to peace demonstrations or vigils and you aren't involved in the
struggle to save the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant or you haven't
been involved in the struggles to halt home foreclosures and evictions and
you probably aren't involved in rank and file union organizations or the
fight to protect our natural resources and ecosystems. You might not have
even taken the time to meet your next door neighbor who just might be a
Communist... or some kind of socialist. Or, you probably aren't involved in
trying to push working class issues forward in the Minnesota Democratic
Farmer-Labor Party--- that's where a lot of people have met a Communist like
me.

In fact, any of you who don't want to listen to right-wing radio station
KTLK can go to the Main Minneapolis Library and read a book by Minnesota
writer and revolutionary Marxist-Leninist working class activist Gus Hall
while sitting in a chair marked in the honor of this former head of the
Communist Party USA and a member of the Steel Workers Organizing Committee
who was in Minneapolis organizing teamsters before Jimmy Hoffa ever knew
there were such workers.

Or, you can watch the movie: "A Common Man's Courage" about the life of
Minnesota U.S. Congressman and Communist Party U.S.A. member and Iron
Ranger, John Bernard... or take a stroll through your state capitol building
and view the portraits of former socialist governors Floyd Olson and Elmer
Benson... next to Elmer Benson's portrait is a bronze plaque detailing his
close association with Communists--- in fact, I talked with Elmer Benson
often at Mesaba Co-op Park near Hibbing and our talking under a birch tree
was duly noted by the FBI... of course, these politicians were from the days
of good and honest government and government that cared about creating a
better life for working people as compared to the present crop of Minnesota
public officials who stuff their campaign coffers with bribes from
corporations which they so originally refer to as campaign contributions.

It really does seem like it still takes communists to organize unions in
Minnesota since less than ten percent of the workers in Minnesota are
organized and if it hadn't been for my grandpa and grandma and the red Finns
on the Iron Range I doubt the number of organized workers in this state
would be 5%; although considering all the members of the American Federation
of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the number of organized
workers in Minnesota today probably is around 10%... judging by the
direction our state government is heading it looks like AFSCME is about to
be losing quite a few members.

Anyways; here you go; let me give all you anti-communists who have expressed
your views so eloquently on this "e-democracy" list serve in the Minnesota
Politics Forum... let me provide you with a Minnesota Communist's viewpoint
to respond to---

Let's talk about poverty... the remarkable creation of this great free
enterprise capitalist system... perhaps another day we can talk about peace
and war; capitalism seems to do a pretty good job of breeding wars in
addition to poverty :)

Several weeks ago I received a call from a lady in Redby on the Red Lake
Indian Reservation.

She told me she had asked MNDFL State Representative Brita Sailer when the
state legislature was going to do something about poverty on Indian
Reservations. This lady and some of her friends were quite upset with
Representative Sailer's answer.

It seems that Representative Sailer's response was that "poverty is a very
complex and complicated issue that would take too much time to talk about."

I can understand people would be upset by this kind of response.

As we talked, this lady asked me if I would be willing to come down to Redby
and talk to her and a few friends about "poverty." I agreed.

When I arrived at her home it was quite apparent that she and her children
were living in poverty as were most of her neighbors... at least they didn't
have homes like the two-million dollar spread of John McCarthy who heads up
the work of the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association and people in Redby
weren't living the life of Riley like Rick Rothausen, Red Lake Gaming
Enterprises' retired Chief Financial Officer.

This is what I said about "poverty" which contrary to DFL'er Representative
Brita Sailer is quite simple to talk about when you are on the Red Lake
Indian Reservation because you are constantly surrounded by poverty.

What causes this poverty?

Poverty is caused by two things:

1. Unemployment causes poverty--- if you don't have a job you are going to
be poor.

2. Low wages cause poverty--- any school child can figure this out.



There are two solutions to ending poverty:

1. Put people to work.

2. Pay people real living wages.



Talking about poverty is really very simple... politicians like Brita Sailer
want to turn a discussion of poverty into a big complicated issue.

The reason Representative Brita Sailer and most of her colleagues in the
Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party have been told to tell poor people
that poverty is too complex for them to understand is because the two
solutions to ending poverty do not sit well with those like John McCarthy of
the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association from whom these Democrats are
reaping huge campaign contributions.

The casino operations are amongst the largest employers in northern
Minnesota and today these casino operations employ more people than the iron
ore mining and taconite industry.

Why is it so difficult for Representative Brita Sailer to talk about poverty
to the very people whose votes she is asking for? The reason is, because
Brita Sailer and her DFL colleagues would have to explain how it is that
they reap huge campaign contributions distributed by a man like John
McCarthy, the Executive Director of MIGA, who has a lavish two-million
dollar spread with a mansion on a hill like some old Finnish feudal lord who
lives a life of luxury because he has helped create a cheap labor pool for
the casino industry. Poverty wages create poverty... why is this so
difficult to understand. Casino managements pay all casino workers in
Minnesota poverty wages... are we supposed to expect anything other than
people living in poverty will be the result of paying people poverty wages?

For many people living on the Red Lake Indian Reservation the only jobs they
can get are working in the casinos getting paid poverty wages; but, for even
more people, unemployment is what they get as Tribal leaders allow
non-tribal members to do most of the work on the reservation. In fact, Floyd
"Buck" Jourdain has fired people from his own staff for insisting that more
Native Americans be employed to do work on--- and off--- the Reservation.

One has to wonder why there are so many non-tribal members teaching in the
schools in Red Lake and working at good-paying jobs in the Red Lake
Department of Natural Resources or working on the new casino or installing
cable equipment or working on the roads or installing sewers when Red Lake
has an unemployment rate exceeding 50%. Why weren't tribal members given
first chance at all casino jobs and paid real living wages?

I find it sadly ironic that Minnesota legislators will sit and listen to Red
Lake Nation Chair belly-ache and complain about unemployment and poverty
without one single one of these public officials asking him how it is so few
Native Americans are employed among the 1,300 people working in Red Lake
Gaming Enterprises smoke-filled casinos at poverty wages without any rights
under state, federal or tribal labor laws or international labor standards.

Why are multi-million dollar government contracts going without the
enforcement of affirmative action guidelines strictly enforced?

Poverty is very easy to talk about; the real reason why DFL'ers like Brita
Sailer refuse to talk about poverty when asked questions is because they are
not doing a darn thing about ending poverty because those like the Minnesota
Indian Gaming Association are paying these Democrats to ignore the issue of
poverty.

It becomes an embarrassment that one single Native American family, on or
off any Indian Reservation is living in poverty when you walk into any
casino and see the money these outfits are taking in.

You end poverty by putting people to work paying them real living wages
supplemented with adequate governmental programs like socialized health
care, government subsidized housing, quality educations and you enforce
affirmative action in hiring.

Any employer saying that can not pay people a real living wage for a job
that needs to be done should just do the job themselves or put their own
children to work in a smoke-filled casino.

First it was big agri-business that made excuses why it was impossible to
pay people real living wages; then it was the forestry industry that always
had an excuse why they treated their horses better than the workers; then it
was the iron ore mining industry with Carnegie and Rockefeller pleading
poverty whenever living wages and health and safety working were the topic
of discussion... now it is the casino industry who claims that they are just
good people providing people with a little cash to tide them over until
people "can get real jobs." Listening to these casino managements one would
think the casino patrons were gambling with play money from their Monopoly
games and they were walking away with pockets stuffed full with real cash.

Big money has been made by these profiteers in the casino industry living
high on the hog as a result of paying their employees poverty wages... what
do workers get in return for creating their wealth?

From big agri-business we got food with no nutritional value, high-priced
foods and contaminated ground water; from the forestry industry we got
clear-cuts and tree plantations; from the mining industry we got huge pits
and pollution; now, from the casino industry we get diddly-squat as the
one-armed bandits rake in the loot faster than any other industry ever has
and these mobsters still cry poverty when it comes to paying workers real
living wages.

We live in a society where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Those like Representative Brita Sailer would rather not explain any of this
when asked about poverty because they are getting a part of the spoils in
the form of campaign contributions for allowing--- and enabling--- all of
this to go on.



Alan L. Maki, a very proud "red" Finn

Director of Organizing,

Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council



58891 County Road 13

Warroad, Minnesota 56763

Phone: 218-386-2432

Cell phone: 651-587-5541

E-mail: 



Check out my blog:



Thoughts From Podunk



http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/
    

▶  

About Paul Krugman

First; Krugman has always been fronting for Hillary Clinton, he is an ardent Hillary supporter, so I'm not surprised his analysis never goes much towards liberalism than what Hillary would... to me it looks pretty obvious Krugman is fronting for Hillary knowing that Obama is likely a one-term President. Krugman is not going to prepare the political soil for someone the stature of a George McGovern--- an honest progressive nor for a true liberal. It's not only Krugman, but he is kind of the leader of this grouping that wants to assure the election of Roosevelt without a Frances Perkins, Henry Wallace and Harry Hopkins... most importantly without a huge, angry people's movement that is militant and organized for real change... the Krugman crowd is carefull not to help create another governor someplace like a Floyd B. Olson who might rise to challenge Hillary after a first term.

On the Social Security tax and Medicare taxes being regressive. I kind of consider any tax that isn't an income tax as regressive; but, it really is too much to expect that working people would have thee universal programs in this kind of system without "self-financing" them, isn't it?

We could have a National Public Health Care System without any fees or charges for less than what the Social Security tax is; paid for just like Social Security... wouldn't this be a lot better for most people who cannot afford high premiums and out of pocket payments for health care? an't we look upon these insurance premiums as a more regressive tax?

Here is the way I look at it, maybe I am wrong, but we live in the wealthiest country in the world (or at least a country where a very few people at the top have complete control over the life of our country by virtue of owning the means of production where working people produce this wealth); the richest country any way you look at it so we should bring forward demands for universal social programs like with health care, child care, good public transportation--- all pretty much for free and advocate that these things be paid for by ending the wars and slashing military spending and taxing the rich--- the real filthy rich--- and corporate profits, after all the most progressive tax is placed closest to wealth creation... but, we should always leave the option of people self-financing these things so in the course of struggles for these things people themselves can decide how they want to go forward once it is clear the concepts and ideas for such programs gain widespread public support.

We most likely wouldn't have Social Security today if Frances Perkins would have continued to insist on a progressive system of financing it as she originally had. And people seemed willing to settle for this "regressive" payroll tax. People also "settle" for the most regressive tax of all for funding public schools--- the property tax which hits working people the hardest and continues hitting them even harder as this recession/depression deepens.

Let's have a broad discussion about all of this; a discussion Paul Krugman and his middle class intellectuals will never initiate since it looks like we will more than likely see some kind of challenge to Obama in the upcoming Primary.

If someone would buy me a Greyhound ticket I would ride the dog from city to city the next two years challenging Obama's ideas myself; maybe I should consider walking :)

Alan

About Wiki-leaks and Assange

The release of this kind of information is important.
But it is coming from Assange, a fascist creep.
The American people should be demanding the release of these files and a whole lot more. We need to see the complete joint FBI-CIA report they call "The Family Jewels" so we know how the American people have been played for fools and suckers.
We shouldn't have to rely on a sleazy fascist bastard like Assange for information.
The time has come to open up all the FBI and CIA files none of which involves the security of this country... what it is in these files is a national embarrassment with politicians and corporations working hand-in-hand to undermine democracy established by the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Assange now claims to have such scandalous documents in his possession that governments will fall if the information is released. He says the documents and files will be released if he is killed or arrested. What he really means is that he will sell this information to the highest bidder. Any progressive would release the information not indulge in these kinds of blackmail schemes for which fascists are known.

A challenge to debate...

Joel Albers,

I would be willing to debate you on point #2 and concerning your support for the Marty legislation.
You are wrong on both points.

We could hold debates across Minnesota so people would have a better idea of what is involved in health care reform.

We could have a debate on these two issues once a month in a different city in Minnesota until the 2012 elections.

I extend this challenge to you or anyone selse upporting Obama's "Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industry Bailout and Profit Maximization Act of 2010;" nothing in this legislation is a "good first step."

As you are fully aware, but refuse to acknowledge, we had a very good Co-op health care program for workers in this country; it was operated by the International Workers Order which was designated by Attorney General Robert Kennedy as a "Communist Party front organization;" all of its assets were seized and distributed to for-profit insurance companies which the Kennedy family had major financial holdings in, and many of its officers and members were jailed and blacklisted.

Since David Shove has brought forward similar FBI/United States Department of (In)Injustice witch-hunts in point 1 of his Progressive Calendar, this aspect of the issue becomes even more important to discuss.

I have repeatedly challenged you anarchists along with Minnesota State Senator John Marty and the Green Party shills for the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party and the Minnesota Universal Health Care Coalition of which you are a part--- an organization whose leaders have stooped to the most disgusting red-baiting in the past--- to state exactly how much this scheme (and scam) brought forward by Senator John Marty as a gimmick for his unsussessful gubenatorial campaign is going to cost us in premiums--- come on, Mr. Albers, have the courage to debate me across Minnesota and tell audiences exactly what they can expect to pay for premiums EVERY MONTH under this Minnesota Health Plan of John Marty's that you support.

At a time of massive unemployment that entails widespread poverty with people being foreclosed on and evicted from their homes not even being able to afford to pay the heating bills from last year yet let alone the mortgage payments ,and wondering from day-to-day how they are going to feed their familiers as your great  Obama  cuts the food stamp program as he expands two very costly, immoral, unjust, illegal and unconstitutional wars to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan while maintaining over 800 U.S. military bases across the globe protecting Wall Street's interests but can't find the funds to finance a National Public Health Care System providing the American people with world-class health care through 30,000 community health care centers with 800 more advanced health care bases providing support all for free at a substantially reduced cost than what everyone is now paying to private insurance companies in monthly premiums. In fact, if need be, a special tax could be imposed upon the rich and corporate profits; or, we could just forego arguing with the rich and finance the entire system the way we finance Social Security and the share workers would pay would be much less than what they presently pay into Social Security--- not the exobitant price tag the premiums of your phony schemes (and scams) would impose on working class families. The last thing working class families need--- or can afford--- is one more bill for health care premiums. Come on Mr. Albers, tell us what this scheme is going to cost each Minnesotan.

We all know you won't publicly tell us what this is going to cost each of us because the public would immediately reject Senator Marty''s proposed legislation.

I find it quite interesting that you anarchists will go out and toss bricks through bank windows and consider this a "fight" but you don't have the courage to stand up for the kind of health care reforms that are really needed in this country nor do you have the moral or political courage to defend your views in a public debate sitting side-by-side someone who is willing to respond to your lies.

Your co-op scheme for health care is nothing but the dream fairy-tales come from and your support for this Minnesota Health Care scam brought forward by Minnesota State Senator John Marty as a mere campaign gimmick without even providing the true costs to Minnesotans is nothing short of political fraud.

John Marty canceled his events unveiling his Minnesota Health Act after I announced I would be present to ask "How much will the monthly premiums be."

You, too, run scared from this csame hallenge. Just like your anarchist friends toss urine-filled condoms at cops for no reason using people marching for peace and real health care reform as your "sheilds." 

Also, let us not forget that H.R. 676 is now dead... dead just like the jobs killed by Obama's wars and its human victims in Iraq and Afghanistan after John Conyers sold us out on H.R. 676 and the impeachment and prosecutions of Bush and Cheney to save his own hide after Karl Rove threatened to send him to prison for the rest of his life for his involvement in taking corporate bribes... charges to which his wife plead guilty in a plea bargain that allowed Conyers not to face prosecution.

Alan L. Maki

2.our critique of the 2010 federal legislation, messaging, and why
> the Co-op Health Care section of Obamacare and its generous funding
> is a good first step for MN.
>
> 3.state health care reform discussion.

Quoting David Shove <shove001@tc.umn.edu>:
>              P R O G R E S S I V E   C A L E N D A R   12.06.10
> 4. uhcan-mn          12.06 7:30pm
> --------4 of 4--------
>
> From: Joel Albers <joel@uhcan-mn.org>
> Subject: uhcan-mn 12.06 7:30pm
>
> Next UHCAN-MN mtg is monday Dec 6, 7:30pm, Walker Church, 3104
> 16th ave S., mpls (near Bloomingtom ave and lake Street), lower level.
>
> 1.Reportbacks: Artists Health Fair Tabling Nov 6; Trinity Health
> Fair Nov 14
>     cholesterol tests/presentation.
>
> 2.our critique of the 2010 federal legislation, messaging, and why
> the Co-op Health Care section of Obamacare and its generous funding
> is a good first step for MN.
>
> 3.state health care reform discussion.
>
> additional items for the agenda ?
> come for the coffee/tea, snacks, stay for the conversation,
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    - David Shove             shove001@tc.umn.edu
>    rhymes with clove         Progressive Calendar
>                      over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02
>               please send all messages in plain text no attachments
>
>                           vote third party
>                            for president
>                            for congress
>                            for governor
>                           now and forever
>
>
>                            Socialism YES
>                            Capitalism NO

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/

Letter to Editor published in the Bemidji Pioneer Press

http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/event/article/id/100023770/

 

Published November 21 2010

DFL needs to get back to principles to succeed

The next political battle about to shape up in Minnesota is over redistricting. Racist Democrats joined with racist Republicans to scheme to divide the native American Indian vote over the years in order to keep native Americans out of the Minnesota House and Senate and out of the U.S. Congress.

The next political battle about to shape up in Minnesota is over redistricting. Racist Democrats joined with racist Republicans to scheme to divide the native American Indian vote over the years in order to keep native Americans out of the Minnesota House and Senate and out of the U.S. Congress.

If Democrats are going to recover from their trouncing in northern Minnesota — Jim Oberstar, Mary Olson and Brita Sailer soundly defeated, with Persell and Skoe most likely to be next to go; Democrats will have to fight for a redistricting plan that includes a U.S. House district that includes everything from Duluth west... taking in the Indian reservations of Net Lake, Leech Lake, Red Lake and White Earth. This will assure native American Indians have a voice in the Minnesota state Legislature as well as a voice in Washington representing native American Indians from Minnesota. All working people will then have a voice in government.

Obviously Minnesota House and Senate Districts 4A and 4 need to have their boundaries redrawn to enable native American Indians to have voices at the real seat of power. There is nothing new about using redistricting to assure full representation of people of color in the political process; the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on this are very clear. Redistricting to end racism and enhance democracy for everyone is the way to enforce affirmative action in the electoral process the same way affirmative action (Executive Order 11246) is intended to end poverty by ending discrimination in employment.

The Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party has a most dismal and disgraceful record in each area and “the chickens have come home to roost.” Now is the time for real change.

Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council
Warroad

U.S. Military – The World's Largest Polluter

Editor
Brita Belli
bbelli@emagazine.com

Dear Brita Belli, Editor;

(Please note; I am responding to the article below.)


The Editors of E/Environmental Magazine, in responding to a writer from New York about what the military is doing to "reduce its carbon footprint" fails to mention that this carbon footprint is a heck of a lot bigger than what military operations alone entail.

We have the entire military-financial-industrial complex which includes everything from mining to manufacturing in order to keep the U.S. military machine in operation.

As an example for starters---

It is estimated that between 30% to 60% of all the iron ore mined on Minnesota's Iron Range has gone into military production for everything from tanks to bridges and trucks. Not only does the mining leave a massive carbon footprint but the processing of this iron ore into steel leaves a huge carbon footprint. The manufacturing operations turning this steel into tanks, guns, trucks, bombs leaves another huge carbon footprint and we haven't even begun to consider the enormous quantity of power required to run all of this... one more huge carbon footprint.

The real carbon footprint of the U.S. military entails a lot more than simply how the military uses finished products and engages in untold waste and its contribution to pollution.

Learning to live in peace with our neighbors we share this planet with while "turning swords into plowshares" makes a lot of environmental sense. I wonder how it was that Al Gore and so many environmentalists missed this?

Alan L. Maki
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763

Phone: 218-386-2432
Cell Phone: 651-587-5541

E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net

EarthTalk®
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What is the U.S. military doing to reduce its carbon footprint and generally green its operations?        -- Anthony Gomez, New York, NY

As the world’s largest polluter, the U.S. military has its work cut out for it when it comes to greening its operations. According to the nonprofit watchdog group, Project Censored, American forces generate some 750,000 tons of toxic waste annually—more than the five largest U.S. chemical companies combined. Although this pollution occurs globally on U.S. bases in dozens of countries, there are tens of thousands of toxic “hot spots” on some 8,500 military properties right here on America soil.

“Not only is the military emitting toxic material directly into the air and water,” reports Project Censored, “it’s poisoning the land of nearby communities, resulting in increased rates of cancer, kidney disease, increasing birth defects, low birth weight and miscarriage.” The non-profit Military Toxics Project is working with the U.S. government to identify problem sites and educate neighbors about the risks.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military manages 25 million acres of land that provides habitat for some 300 threatened or endangered species. The military has harmed endangered animal populations by bomb tests (and been sued for it), reports Project Censored, and military testing of low-frequency underwater sonar technology has been implicated in the stranding deaths of whales worldwide. Despite being linked to such problems, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has repeatedly sought exemptions from Congress for compliance with federal laws including the Migratory Bird Treaties Act, the Wildlife Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

It’s unclear whether the U.S. military is taking heed of criticisms in regard to pollution and endangered species management, but it is undoubtedly concerned about climate change, as its effects on the environment could lead to unprecedented natural resource wars and mass migrations of people. And reducing our reliance on potentially hostile foreign oil sources is a short term national security imperative as well. A recent Obama administration directive calls for the DoD to draw 20 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2020. Nikihl Sonnad of the GreenFuelSpot website reports that the Army and Air Force are planning to include solar arrays on several bases in sunny western states. The Air Force is also building the nation’s largest biomass energy plants in Florida and Georgia, and the Navy is building three large geothermal energy plants and funding research into extracting energy from ocean waves.

Some of the military’s R&D into renewables is for battlefield applications. Outfitting troops with the capability to produce their own on-site power from solar and wind sources not only makes sourcing oil less of a necessity but also should serve to reduce casualties from fuel transport operations. Over 1,000 American troops have lost their lives delivering fuel in the past few years alone (in part because enemy combatants often use fuel trucks as attack targets), says Sonnad.

Elisabeth Rosenthal reports in The New York Times that “there is great hope that some of the renewable energy technology being developed for battle will double back and play a role in civilian life.” She adds that the armed forces have enough purchasing power to create genuine markets in the non-military world.


CONTACTS: Project Censored, www.projectcensored.org; U.S. DoD, www.defense.gov; Military Toxics Project, www.stopmilitarytoxics.org/about.html; GreenFuelSpot, www.greenfuelspot.com.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

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/

Sarah Palin coins ‘word of the year’

"Refudiate"

"Brazilian and U.S. Elections: Opposite Outcomes"

A dialog with Professor Immanuel Wallerstein...(see Professor Wallerstein's "Commentary No. 293, Nov 15, 2010, below)

Professor Wallerstein,

I don't know much about the Brazilian elections and their politics or economics; but, I do know a little something about what is going on here in the United States which you don't seem to want to talk about:
Obama was hand-picked by Wall Street to do its dirty work; that he hoodwinked (actually he probably didn't have to work very hard in dpoing this) a large section of liberal, progressive, left intellectuals (including you) and "leaders" of the U.S. labor movement and all these foundation supported organizations into supporting him doesn't mean that he ever had good intentions of making good on his "hope" and "change" which you suggest his "failure" (or is it really his success?) is more the result of the economy than his bad intentions.

I guess this means you and the "Progressives for Obama" will be supporting Barack Obama in 2012?
If Lula is as beholden to ruling class and Wall Street interests as Obama is, then perhaps it is wrong for Brazilians to support him, too?

Its alright for Obama to support a neo-liberal agenda of capitalist globalization but it is not ok for Republicans to support the very same agenda--- same agenda but Obama has nicer, more people-friendly sounding rhetoric.

I supported both Al Gore and I was a delegate for John Kerry--- both of whom would have been more friendly to resolving the problems of working people than Barack Obama under the best of economic circumstances.

You say Barack Obama had a liberal voting record... there is no proof of this... a select few of his votes when his vote didn't even matter was on the liberal side intended for looks... you want us to believe the same thing about Barack Obama's voting record as a state senator and a U.S. Senator that you want us to believe of his support for healthcare reform--- the problem is, the majority of his voting record in the Illinois Senate like in the U.S. Senate was pro-corporate; not pro-people.

You bring all these issues forward that obscure the real issues: "centrism," "charismatic," "popular," "true political convictions."

But, isn't it at times when "the overall structural situation overwhelms" that we really know what politicians convictions and abilities really are based upon how they respond to the problems being encountered by working people? And you seem willing to let Obama off the hook for everything he has done that is all wrong--- in Wall Street's best interest; and, for everything Obama has not done for working people--- which just happens to be in Wall Street's best interest, too.

As someone who is looked towards for leadership in the anti-globalization movement as you are; it seems to me you have a responsibility to provide a more analytical accounting when it comes to Obama.

I would point out that Brazil's Luis Inacio "Lula" da Silva is not waging dirty, immoral, unjust, illegal and unconstitutional imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which your commentary does not even mention which had a little something to do with the failure of working people--- liberal, progressive and left--- to turn out at the polls. Has it occurred to you that the American people are just plain fed up with war mongers and these wars which the Democrats refused to address in this election campaign just might have had more to do with the balloting than: "its the economy stupid."

Actually, did it occur to you that people were answering the question: How is Barack Obama's war economy working; when they stayed home on Election Day?

It is not simply about the economy; it is about this war economy.

I think I detect a bit of resentment in your commentary that the American people--- especially working people, who in their overwhelming majority are liberal, progressive and left--- who have not fallen for the line you and the "Progressives for Obama" put forward regarding how benign liberal and left Barack Obama is when most working people understand he is nothing but a right-wing, warmongering, reactionary, anti-labor flim-flam man and con artist posing as the President of the United States when he has multiple jobs working for Wall Street--- including being a corporate health insurance salesman when he isn't saddling the American tax-payer with huge debts from which Wall Street bankers will reap tremendous profits as our standard of living declines as a direct result from the austerity measures that have to be imposed so the bankers can collect--- and profit.

It's all about the PROFITS Wall Street derives from a war economy; profits that are a direct result from the growing poverty.

The "Brazilian and U.S. Elections: Opposite Outcomes"... because the U.S. has a Wall Street driven war economy to contend with and Barack Obama is not liberal or left... Brazil's "Lula" is perhaps a little liberal and a little left and having provided the Brazilian people with some much needed help--- something Obama has refused to do... but, then again, some of those small left organizations and parties in Brazil have some real clout, too, because their political homes are among the working class.

Also, Professor Wallerstein; you didn't mention the continuing home foreclosures and evictions nor Obama's failure to enforce affirmative action (Executive Order #11246).

Obama needs to be dumped by facing a primary challenge in the Democratic Party from real liberals and leftists--- not "centrists"--- who are being dogged and challenged by liberals and leftists friendly to them working in a progressive electoral coalition outside of the Democratic Party with both capable of making an intelligent and unifying decision based upon what is good for working people and the country on what to do going into the 2012 General Election... it is this liberal, progressive and left coalition that has always been the source of real change capable of delivering real reforms.

Needless to say, Barack Obama never made any suggestions to put the unemployed to work solving the problems of the people paid for with funds cut from ending these wars and taxing the rich... we could have had National Public Health Care and National Public Child Care creating some 15,000,000 new jobs for less than what these wars are costing us... a real alternative to Obama's Wall Street agenda.

Te longer all of you liberals, progressives and leftists continue supporting Obama and these Wall Street Democrats the longer the suffering of the American people will continue as problems go unresolved--- not only does Obama suffer a huge problem with his credibility but those of you who are liberal, progressive and left will continue to suffer from a lack of credibility the longer you support Obama.

Yours in solidarity and struggle with a much different view of Barack Obama,

Alan L. Maki


Quoting Becky Dunlop :

Please do not reply to the listserv. To correspond with the author, write immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu. To correspond with us about your email address on the listserv, write dunlop@binghamton.edu. Thank you.

Commentary No. 293, Nov. 15, 2010

"Brazilian and U.S. Elections: Opposite Outcomes"

     On October 31, President Luis Inacio "Lula" da Silva won a sweeping victory in the Brazilian elections. On November 2, President Barack Obama was soundly defeated in the U.S. elections. The curious thing is that neither one of them was standing in the elections. In Brazil, Lula had had two terms, the maximum allowed, and was supporting Dilma Rousseff as his successor. In the United States, the 2010 elections were midterm legislative elections, not a presidential election.

     There are some striking similarities in the two men and the two political situations. Lula was elected president of Brazil in 2002 as the candidate of hope and change. Obama was elected president of the United States in 2008 as the candidate of hope and change.

     Both men were outsiders in terms of the traditional political processes of their countries. Lula was the first president of working-class background and of little formal education. Obama was the first African-American president of his country.

     In their campaigns, both rallied large-scale popular support. In Lula's case, this was not his first, but his third attempt to become president. He had been a trade-union leader and the leader of a workers' party, the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT). Obama has been a community organizer and a senator with a very left ("liberal") voting record in the legislature. Both received support from militants in social movements and appealed particularly to young voters. Both emphasized the misdeeds of the previous president in their country - Fernando Henrique Cardoso in the case of Brazil and George W. Bush in the case of the United States - and in both cases their election was seen as a repudiation of the policies of the previous president.

     In neither case did the newly-elected president have a clear path in the legislature. In the Brazilian case, the electoral system led to a legislature with multiple parties and the PT had no more than a quarter of the seats. In the U.S. case, the rules of the U.S. Senate allowed the opposition party to block or force major concessions in any legislation the U.S. president wanted to see enacted. Both men felt they had to make political compromises.

     In both cases, a major fear of the newly-elected president was that the already difficult economic situation of their countries would turn to disaster. Lula feared runaway inflation and runaway investors. Obama feared collapse of the banks and runaway unemployment. The way each responded to these fears was to turn to a relatively conservative ("neoliberal") economic approach and the appointment of relatively conservative people in the key economic positions of their administration.

     This almost immediate "neoliberal" approach dismayed a large part of their electoral base. In each case, the two men sought to reassure their more left supporters that this "neoliberal" approach was essential but transitional, and that they would see that eventually their hopes for more fundamental change would be realized.

     These assurances were taken with increasing skepticism and public dissent by these supporters, and particularly by leading left intellectuals and leaders of social movements. In the Brazilian case, some of them publicly resigned from the PT and threw their support to smaller left-wing parties. The response of both Lula and Obama was to point to various kinds of programs they had put into effect which were intended to improve the lot of the poorer parts of the population, such as the campaign against hunger in the case of Brazil and the new health legislation in the case of the United States. The skeptics pointed in each case to the important benefits that had accrued to the wealthier segments of their countries.

     When, however, the actual elections took place, many of the left skeptics returned to the fold. In Brazil, a group of very prominent left intellectuals issued a public appeal to vote for Dilma Rousseff 0n the grounds that her opponent would wreak disaster for Brazil. A similar position was taken by the most important social movement, the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem Terra (MST), which had been badly let down by Lula but nonetheless thought that things would be still worse if Rousseff were not elected.

     In the U.S. case, intellectuals who had supported the third-party candidacy of Ralph Nader in 2000 because they felt that there was no significant difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush publicly repented of this approach and argued for supporting Democrats in the legislative elections. So did leaders of social movements - among African-Americans, Latinos, and gays - despite their public disappointment with the limited fulfillment of Obama's promises.

     All this seems remarkably similar, yet the outcome could not have been more different. Rousseff won handily in Brazil and Obama, in his own words, received a "shellacking." Why? It could not be clearer. There was one enormous difference in the two situations. Brazil's economic situation had markedly improved in the past few years, and the U.S. economic situation had become markedly worse. There could not have been a clearer demonstration of the Carville thesis: "It's the economy, stupid."

     It was not Obama's "centrism" that explains why voters turned against him. Lula has been every bit as "centrist" in his politics. It was not Obama's lack of charisma. He had seemed very "charismatic" in 2008. Lula was popular because things seemed to be going well. And Obama was unpopular because they seemed to be going badly. It is not that one sold out and the other did not. It was not a question of their true political convictions. Sometimes, the overall structural situation overwhelms the abilities of talented politicians to do much about them.

by Immanuel Wallerstein

[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein, distributed by Agence Global. For rights and permissions, including translations and posting to non-commercial sites, and contact: rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically, or e-mail to others, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To contact author, write: immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu.

These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]



--
Becky Dunlop
Secretary, Fernand Braudel Center
Binghamton University
PO Box 6000
Binghamton NY 13902
http://fbc.binghamton.edu

Contact:

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/