Sunday, April 19, 2009

Worker rights, human rights, working class issues and the Minnesota Tea Parties

From: Alan Maki [mailto:amaki000@centurytel.net]

Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 6:04 PM

To: Mitch Berg, the self-avowed king of right-wing talk radio

Cc: 'stpaulteaparty@gmail.com'; 'pata@mnfreemarketinstitute.org'; 'dgjohannes@comcast.net'; 'margaretlee@amblerLLC.com'; 'toni@movingmn.com'

Subject: Worker rights, human rights, working class issues and the Minnesota Tea Parties

Mr. Mitch Berg, the king of sling on right-wing talk radio,

I am forwarding you this to remind you about my initial concerns surrounding your “Tea Parties.”

You seem bent on trying to evade real debate on the real issues.

As for how I did on the Chris Baker Show I feel just fine about it considering the massive number of calls and e-mails I have received.

Thousands of people who never really considered the consequences of having over 800 U.S. foreign military bases dotting the globe now understand they are paying for these bases instead of getting a world-class public health care system with health care free for everyone (including you).

These same thousands of people tell me they never thought of the consequences to the health of over forty-thousand of their fellow Minnesotans suffering as the result of working in these smoke-filled casinos.

You may not particularly like the Chris Baker show; however, from the responses I am still getting, lots of people listen and for them, they say, this is the first time Mr. Baker has ever met his match.

I ask people who call me if my voice is like the voice they heard on the air and they all say no. They wonder why this is. And, I explain to them that you folks in right-wing talk radio use all kinds of gimmicks to suck people in; including using digital methods to try to make callers sound illiterate. Well, anyone speaking to me on the telephone soon learns the meanness of your business and how unethical those of you in right-wing talk radio really are.

People are not as stupid as you and Mr. Baker seem to think they are.

People who have heard me speak and know my voice know that during the time I was on the air with Mr. Baker my voice was digitally altered through electronics… sheer deceit… a few right-wing nut-cases might truly appreciate your antics; most people are highly offended and resent your undemocratic methods.

As for how Mr. Baker did in relation to how I did; I got out much of what I intended to, knowing full well the tactics you right-wing talk hosts use and the limitations.

Let us not confuse what took place on Mr. Baker’s program with what constitutes real debate where the same sound system--- unaltered between participants--- is used and there are time limits agreed to before hand for opening statements, rebuttals, etc.

Mr. Baker did not debate me… he succumbed to his own racist, anti-communist, anti-working class arrogance and took my bait.

I assume you are fully in agreement with the “issues” as has been reported by yourself and the news media as to what the issues are which are fairly well defined surrounding the “Tea Party” movement which you tea baggers are trying to entice people into believing you provide some alternatives when in fact you provide no alternatives.

It is those issues which I issued a challenge to the organizers of the Tea Party to debate at real debates.

I am aware you use your own dictionary; but most of humanity accepts my definition of what constitutes a “debate” since I haven’t seen any challenge to the definition provided in the Oxford Dictionary where I get the meaning of the word: debate.

Now, I have been more than willing to continue exchanging meaningless barbs with you as long as it was part of a more purposeful effort… it is “fun” isn’t it?

Especially when I am winning at playing the game you invented the rules to and you change the rules as you go along... it takes quite a dummy to lose a game playing by their own rigged rules… suffice it to say you have managed to accomplish this feat with quite a little effort on your part and dozens of right-wing talk radio hosts from across the country who tried to pitch in to help you out.

However, I do take great offense at you suggesting that it is appropriate to use people for the sake of pleasuring yourself at the problems so many people are experiencing in this country at this time… and, it is those problems consisting of the issues which I made the challenge to the organizers of the Minnesota Tea Party to have a debate on. Those cowardly and gutless bigots are listed in the “Cc” line of this e-mail. More chicken shit patriots like you.

Since Mr. Chris Baker refused to discuss any of the issues I said I would be happy to debate him, or anyone else on; I won. He lacked any ability or competence to address these issues.

Perhaps too many issues have been brought forward by the organizers of the Minnesota Tea Parties, and those of you bigots with pea-sized bird-brains are not able to “chew gum and walk or talk at the same time.”

I note that you have yet to respond to me with one single issue with which you disagree with me. I am left thinking that it would be unfair to take advantage of you by debating you… but, my offer stands.

Obviously you fear a real debate or if time was really the problem you would have suggested one debate where the debate would be hosted by a disinterested third party where rules for the debate are established and agreed to by each side. You could even bring your children to the debate so they could watch their daddy get pummeled.

From the e-mails and phone calls I have received from people who have been reading our communications most people agree with me that you and Chris Baker really are “chicken shit patriots” who have fun--- for pay--- promoting wars that neither of you are willing--- nor have the courage--- to fight… let alone sit down side by side at a table to debate these issues with those who disagree with you.

I don’t know your background; but, I would venture to guess you come from a fairly well-heeled family living in an upscale neighborhood--- perhaps in one of St. Paul’s “better neighborhoods,” or one of a few similar wealthier neighborhoods someplace else in this country. Usually when I come across very arrogant people like you who lack empathy for working people experiencing problems, I find they often had some kind of education in private or parochial schools where they were taught that they are better than everyone else and they ended up believing this bigotry they were taught… if this isn’t true, why would you make fun of me or any other working class person attempting to express our views about our problems?

Anyone can see that you and Mr. Baker have met your match in me.

You seek out the well-heeled crowd for whom politics is just a game--- be these people leftists, liberals or conservatives; for all of you it is as you describe it yourself: “fun.” How sad, sick and pathetic that you are able to have “fun” at the expense of fostering the kind of bigotry that keeps the problems of working people from being resolved.

I don’t see anything “fun” about people getting foreclosed on and evicted nor having to work in smoke-filled casinos only to have some cowardly bully sitting in control manipulating the sound from an “On Air” room at some radio station--- talking over someone after asking for an explanation and then ridiculing a person they claim is less adept at expressing themselves as you are even when the issues are what is important.

The fact that you and Mr. Baker have been dragged into this “confrontation” with me on my terms constitutes a victory for me putting forward some important issues in most everyone’s eyes.

Everyone, including those small business people who Fox and the other right-wing media brought into the “Tea Parties” to make a few bucks is being exposed slowly but surely… this “Tea Party” movement is going nowhere.

Once people figure out they have been had by those of you seeking to turn these “Tea Parties” into one more racket to profit from the stupidity of bigotry, the “Tea Party” movement will go the way of the religious right-wing movement… although, I seriously doubt it pans out as far as the religious right was able to go simply because it has been organized by a bunch of rinky-dinky shysters like you, Mr. Baker, Shawn Hannity and Rush Limbaugh..

I knew from the beginning of your initiating communication with me, that you never intended to engage in a real debate because you are just a hot-air wind-bag making a buck having “fun.” I did know and understand your slimy business well enough that I would be able to entice a sucker from another of your colleagues to jump to the bait in order to beat you to it… Mr. Baker was the first sucker in prime-time to come along... now I caught two suckers on one worm.

It is not everyday that someone from the left gets an entire letter read on prime-time right-wing talk radio and now the focus is on what is in that letter that you and the other organizers of the “Tea Parties” of the right-wing talk radio circuit are having to respond to since my letter, thanks to you, has been picked up far and wide--- and it was the contents of that “Open Letter to the Organizers of the Minnesota Tea Party” that I wanted circulated widely.

I think you have figured out by now you have been had.

I now have no more use for you so I would appreciate it if you will now end all communication with me unless you decide to sit down at a table with me for a real debate--- the time and place of your own choosing, as long as there is an impartial moderator prepared to enforce the rules of the debate on each participant in a fair manner.

Please note for the record: I have never, neither ever contacted, nor sought out, participation in your program or the program of any other right-wing radio talk show host… you and Mr. Baker came to me when I dangled the bait; the problem is, for some reason you got the bait when it was meant for the “Organizers of the Minnesota Tea Party” and I dangled this bait in front of them--- is there a reason you were in the same school of suckers?

Now, it is you and Mr. Baker along with the rest of the idiots hosting right-wing talk radio who are caught on a very sharp and barbed hook… I wish you the best of luck in getting free. Of course to get set free, you will have to explain how it is you took bait sent to, and intended for, the Organizers of the Minnesota Tea Party. You and Mr. Baker are in fact, along with the other hosts of right-wing talk radio, the only organizers of the Minnesota Tea Party.

I find your complaint about my “spamming” to be hilarious coming from someone pretending to be part of a movement dating back to the days of the American Revolution and its traditions of leaflets and broadsides… perhaps the British would have lodged the same complaint against Tom Paine and Benjamin Franklin.

You seem to be working (if I can call your form of having “fun” working) under the illusion that all speech has to be filtered through you, and with your consent and permission, for it to be legitimate. You are more like some arrogant British colonel sipping tea with the King than a revolutionary participant in the Boston Tea Party.

By the way, talking about a waste of tax-payers’ money--- an issue you like to talk so much about… you might want to file a Freedom of Information Act request with the United States Department of Justice to find out why they spent so much of your tax-dollars creating a massive dossier now consisting of over 15,000 pages on me after J. Edgar Hoover testified that I was one of “the most dangerous persons in America” because he claimed I was “one of the most articulate and knowledgeable people in the international Communist movement.” Now, if your conclusion that I am just a dunce of some kind is correct, you might want to find out just how much of your tax dollars have been wasted by the National Security Agency, military intelligence (now there is an oxymoron if I ever heard one) and the FBI and various local and state police agencies and even the gendarmes of several Caribbean Nations and Canada’s RCMP and CSIS.

If you want to find out how tax-dollars are really being wasted, maybe you should invite FBI Director Mr. Mueller and me to appear on your program to discuss whether watching me for over 40 years has paid off for American tax-payers; and, if so, how?

Now, in case you forgot; here are my original two letters to the “Organizers of the Minnesota Tea Party (also, further below I have included information about the plight of casino workers). Also, please take note, the “Organizers of the Minnesota Tea Party” are clearly against socialism--- I doubt that you will find anyone to dispute that I am the most open and articulate advocate of socialism in Minnesota, so if they can’t debate me for fear of losing this argument their entire case is very weak, I would think:

What I see in your Tea Party “movement” is:

1. racism
2. vicious anti-communism
3. warmongers
4. people sucked in by Wall Street
5. a gross distortion of “patriotism.”

I would encourage all of you to read “Citizen Tom Paine” by Howard Fast and his other historical novels on the American Revolution to get some kind of basic grounding and understanding as to what constitutes fighting for freedom, justice and liberty.

You really have a very shallow understanding of the issues.

For instance—

Why no mention of this “little” fact:

Our government is wasting trillions of dollars maintaining over 800 U.S. military bases on foreign soil dotting the globe in countries where we have no business when, instead, we should be establishing 800 public health care centers spread out across the United States providing free health care for everyone.

It is easy for you all to say things like you do using assumed names and monikers… I am wondering if you would dare to say such pathetically stupid, harmful and hurtful things if you had to sign your real names and provide contact information?

I would challenge any of you to debate these issues: anytime, anyplace anywhere.

Any takers?

Bak, bak, bak, bak, baaakkk, bak, bak, bak, baaaaakkkkkkkk.

Just a bunch of chicken shit patriots.

Give me a call if you can converse intelligently.

Alan L. Maki
218-386-2432




I have also sent this e-mail to the "Tea Baggers:"

At their e-mail addresses:

'stpaulteaparty@gmail.com'; 'pata@mnfreemarketinstitute.org'; 'dgjohannes@comcast.net'; 'margaretlee@amblerLLC.com'; 'toni@movingmn.com'; 'stpaulteaparty@gmail.com'
An open letter to:

The organizers of the “Minnesota Tea Parties.”

What kind of ideas do you people have if you are afraid to debate and fear the ideas of others?

You are no better than, certainly no alternative to, Barack Obama and the pathetic Democrats and the even more corrupt and disgraced Republicans.

Come on, put your ideas up against a real socialist.

I challenge you to hold debates in every one of the Minnesota communities where you had your big-business/Wall Street financed “Tea Parties.”

Just give me the dates and times and I will be there to debate any of you on the issues you claim to be so concerned about.

It is easy for you to rant and rave against the perverted caricature of socialism you have created without having to sit side by side with a socialist and debate the issues.

Here I am… let’s have at it… or are you afraid to put your ideas out where they can be challenged in the “public square.”

Alan L. Maki

Director of Organizing,

Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council




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


-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Maki [mailto:amaki000@centurytel.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:03 AM
To: 'peterb3121@hotmail.com'
Cc: 'WCS-A@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: Re: National Lawyers Guild human rights forums in Minneapolis

(Please feel free to circulate and distribute widely)

Mr. Peter Brown--- National Lawyers Guild;

I saw your notice in Shove’s “Progressive Calendar” for your upcoming discussions on human rights in the Twin Cities.

I just wanted to let you know one of the most massive denial of human rights in the United States involves the two-million casino workers employed at over 350 casinos where workers are employed in a smoke-filled workplace at poverty wages with NO rights under state or federal labor laws protecting all other workers under terms of “Compacts” creating the Indian Gaming Industry.

I have noticed the National Lawyers Guild and your speaker has not addressed this issue in the past or present… thought you might want to consider changing this here in Minnesota where over 40,000 Minnesotans are now employed in these unjust and deplorable conditions--- many of whom are undocumented workers, people of color and young women of child-bearing age for whom this smoke-filled work environment is especially pernicious. I addition, many pensioners are increasingly forced to work in these smoke-filled environments as they are forced to supplement their meager Social Security checks which is another human rights abuse in its own right.

I would note that it has been the Democratic Party that developed these “Compacts” in order to keep huge amounts of campaign contributions flowing their way from the mobsters who manage these casino operations which many Native American communities have been sucked into fronting for under the guise that everyone is going to become extremely wealthy. To be sure, some have become extremely wealthy beyond the imaginations of most Native Americans… but, for most Native American communities these casinos have resulted in tremendous debt which exacerbates poverty and despair--- bringing everything from loan-sharking and prostitution to drug dealing and the family violence which accompanies this kind of government authorized working and living environment.

Rather than alleviating the deplorable racist and genocidal conditions including all kinds of abuse imaginable spun by years of U.S. governmental repression and oppression intentionally carried out by the government of the United States, this Indian Gaming Industry operating under the Draconian terms of these “Compacts” has added a vicious anti-labor element and dimension as most Native Americans are working class and require the protections of state and federal labor laws more than any other segment of our society.

I would hope that you would consider the fact that workers who are employed under the conditions of having NO rights or voice at their places of employment have NO rights in the communities where they reside.

The Mystic Lake Casino empire with over 5,000 employees is a case in point. Workers are forced to sign a statement which is part Minnesota’s legislated “at-will hiring and firing policy” taken to the extreme. As a condition of employment, workers are forced to sign statements acknowledging that they will not engage in union organizing activities in any way. This casino management has fired workers for the act of maintaining blogs--- even when those blogs have nothing to do with their employment. And these are typical of the human rights abuses centered around democratic rights and human rights.

In fact, one can take the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights and our own Constitution and Bill of Rights and find every single abuse of the very rights on a mass scale that these documents are intended to protect while going through any of these more than 350 casinos spread out across the United States employing some two-million people.

I hope the National Lawyers Guild will finally consider speaking out boldly in defense of the rights of casino workers and the government mandated and legislated abuses they are being subjected to day-in-and-day out; twenty-four hours a day, every single day of the year.

I would further point out that these deplorable conditions have created an industry where a huge turn-over of the workforce is the result of these Draconian and unjust conditions meaning many more than two-million workers employed daily are ultimately at risk; and for many young workers just setting out in the working lives, these casino jobs are their first jobs which sets the stage for a very docile workforce willing to “adjust,” and accept, injustices in other industries.

As the economy heads south, these employers in the Indian Gaming Industry use this as an opportunity to “tighten the screws” in controlling their workers.

Again, in writing, it is my hope that the National Lawyers Guild will end its over twenty years of silence on this question by letting public officials know that these injustices must be set right by renegotiating the individual “Compacts” under which each of these casinos are given authority by state governments and the federal governments to operate. I would further note, the FBI and state agencies like the Minnesota Department of Public Safety are responsible for “policing” these casino operations as far as drug dealing and assuring that slot and table games are operated on the “up-and-up;” so, the issue of “sovereignty” is not the issue here when it comes to the rights of labor… rather, it is a matter of public officials providing these casino managements with labor force of workers who are completely at the mercy of management in terms of employment.

I would also note, also, that these “Compacts” are in fact “contracts.”

As we have seen with the auto industry, public officials right on up to the president of the United States think nothing of using their power and influence to force workers to re-open and renegotiate their contracts.

These same public officials are fully aware that their actions in creating these “Compacts” resulted in the wholesale denial of the most basic and elemental human rights to working people; this wrong and injustice must be set right.

In closing, I would call to your attention that the very same political forces and politicians who have intentionally and systematically denied free access to health care to all people is a double whammy to casino workers for whom second-hand smoke creates all kinds of adverse and catastrophic health problems as has been articulated so well by the American Cancer Society and the Heart and Lung Foundations.

Finally, I would point out that the Canadian Province of Manitoba has put an end to smoking in its Provincially owned and Native owned casinos; if this can be accomplished in Manitoba, it certainly can be accomplished here in Minnesota and across the United States where the government continues to fund more than 800 U.S. military bases on foreign soil dotting the globe in countries where human rights are systematically abused instead of creating 800 public health care centers spread out across the United States… it truly is a dirty shame that our own government can’t even match the number of service centers of the auto industry to maintain their “lemons” by a similar number of public health care centers to maintain human health and get people well when sick… something not lost on the two-million coughing casino workers many of whom are contracting employment related cancers, heart and lung diseases.

Casino workers need the independent voice of the National Lawyers Guild to be heard boldly, loudly and clearly in their defense for rights at work and a voice in the workplace so they can fully participate in their communities… we are talking about the intentional and systematic abuse of very basic democratic and human rights by government working hand-in-hand with some of the most violent mobsters like the Fertitta family and the Kansas City Mob who dominate and control the Indian Gaming Industry who have at their disposal huge lawfirms/lobbyists like Brownstein/Hyatt/Farber/Schreck.

I would request that the Minnesota Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild address this issue at your earliest convenience, request action from the National organization--- perhaps in the form of a letter to all state and federal public officials; and I further request that you pass on my concerns to your guest, noted human rights activist Ajamu Baraka.

Notice I received from David Shove’s “Progressive Calendar:”

--------14 of 19--------

From: Peter Brown
Subject: Ajamu Baraka 4.17 1:30/3/4:30pm

Dear Colleagues for Justice:
We are pleased to confirm three community conversations with Ajamu Baraka, nationally and internationally recognized human rights scholar, advocate, and organizer on Friday afternoon, April 17, 2009, in advance of his keynote address at the National Lawyers Guild-Minnesota Chapter's annual Social Justice Dinner - Saturday April 18, 6PM at William Mitchell College of Law Auditorium ---

1. 1:30PM at Minneapolis Urban League, 2000 Plymouth Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN

2. 3:00 PM at Sabathani Community Center, 310 East 38th Street, Minneapolis, MN

3. 4:30PM at MLK, Jr. Community Center, 270 Kent Street, St. Paul, MN

To give you a more complete view of Ajamu Baraka's activity here in the Twin Cities during these days, I am attaching his full itinerary for these days.

Ajamu is very enthusiastic about this opportunity to meet and speak with you and the other justice activists you gather for this conversation and I'm sure with your help we will make the most of our time together.

I am also attaching the poster previously sent since it contains additional background information about Ajamu Baraka which you may choose to incorporate into outreach you do for this conversation. Peter 612-824-6533


--------15 of 19--------

From: Hamline University Law School in the Twin Cities of St. Paul, and Minneapolis Minnesota (http://law.hamline.edu)
Subject: Natl Lawyers Guild 4.17-19 5:30pm

EVENT: Weekend Program of Events at Hamline Law School
National Lawyers Guild - Hamline Chapter

The National Lawyers Guild Midwest Regional Conference will be held April 17, 18 and 19 at Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota.

WE DISSENT: Taking Back our Civil Liberties

Friday April 17th 2009
Sundin Music Hall
5:30 - 7:30 Set Up and Registration
7:00 - 7:30 Meet and Greet ;
7:30 Keynote Speaker ; Ken Tilsen introduced by Bruce Nestor

10:00 - close Rebellious Bar Review ; Bedlam Theatre 1501 S. 6th St. on the West Bank, Minneapolis


Saturday April 18th 2009
9:00 - 10:00
Session 1: Solomon Amendment ; discussion by Phil Duran, staff attorney for OutFront Minnesota
Room: Sorin Hall A

9:45 - 11:15
Session 2: Twin Cities Culture Panel ; with Abigail Cerra, Abdirizk Bihi and Roman Gonzalez.
Room: Sorin Hall B

10:00 - 11:00
Session 3: International Human Rights Applied Domestically ; presented by Peter Brown with Ajamu Baraka, Execitive Director of the US Human Rights Network
Room: Sorin Hall A

11:30 - 1:00
Session 4: Ramona Africa ; Move9
Room: LAW 105

1:45 - 3:15
Session 5: Securing the Human Rights of Arrestees and Detainees: the Right to Medical Attention ; Peter Brown, former MN NLG President and Jordan Kushner, sole practitioner
Room: Sorin Hall B

Session 6: Legal Workers of the World, Unite(d)! (As faculty for lawyers after law school.) ; facilitated by Michael Friedman, Executive Director of Legal Rights Center with Abigail Cerra, Jude Ortiz, Michelle Gross
Room: Sorin Hall A

3:15 - 4:15
Session 8: Inexpensive Legal Research ; Professor Grace Mills, Law Library Dir. and Assoc. Prof. of Law Hamline University
Room: Sorin Hall B

Session 9: Living with Debt While Being an Effective Advocate ; with Heather Rastorver Vlieger and Sharon Fischlowitz of LRAP
Room: Sorin Hall A

6:30
Minnesota NLG Social Justice Dinner
William Mitchell School of Law


Sunday April 19th 2009
9:30 - 10:30
Session 10: TBD
Room: LAW 101

Session 11: Legal Observer Training ; presented by Jennifer McEwen, Rachel Bengston and Carla Magnuson
Room: LAW 04

10:30 - 12:00
Session 12: The Movement For Reproductive Justice: New Strategies For Organizing And Coalition Building ; with Kate Hannaher, founder and chair of Hamline Law Students for Reproductive Justice, and Sara Thome, Legal Aid attorney, founder and former chair of Hamline Law Students for Reproductive Justice.
Room: LAW 101

Session 13: Student Chapter Forum ; facilitated by Micah Ludeke, co-chair of NLG Hamline Chapter
Room: LAW 04

12:00 - 1:00
Session 14: Know Your Rights (and how to explain them) ; presented by Jude Ortiz of Coldsnap Legal Collective
Room: LAW 04

Session 15: TBD
Room: LAW 101

Additional Information
Visitor parking at the Saint Paul campus
Visitor parking is located in the White House lot on Hewitt
Avenue at Pascal Street. Parking is enforced Monday-Friday, 8
a.m.-4 p.m. Visitor parking is enforced as signage indicates.
All parking lots, with exception of the staff/faculty parking
Lot H, are open to visitors without permits after 4:30 p.m.
weekdays and all weekends
Driving Directions
You may also call 651-523-2441 for directions.

Hamline University School of Law | 1536 Hewitt Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55104-1237 | U.S.A. | 651-523-2941


The anti-labor, racist and fascist edge to the “Tea Parties” being held across our country makes it all the more imperative that our concerns be addressed at this time without procrastination.

We wish you well and hope for your success in endeavoring to educate Minnesotans concerning human rights.

Yours in struggle for justice and human dignity;

Alan L. Maki
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: amaki000@centurytel.net

Check out my blog:

Thoughts From Podunk

http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/




-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Maki [mailto:amaki000@centurytel.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 7:57 PM
To: 'WCS-A@yahoogroups.com'
Cc: 'jan.alswager@educationminnesota.org'
Subject: Tea Parties: Obama has created fertile soil for the development of fascism...

We are requesting that you circulate our concerns as widely as possible so working people have the opportunity to have a full discussion on these issues.

Thank you,

Maggie “Patty” Bird
President,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

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



Contrary to the thinking of the muddle-headed middle class intellectuals posing as progressives, Barack Obama’s campaign and his time in office to date has been nothing but a right-wing, pro-war, pro-corporate agenda which anyone could see was going to result in the right-wing having a field day under the guise of “populism.”

These muddle-headed middle class intellectuals for whom politics is a high-priced game that they play instead of Scrabble, Cribbage, Chess or Checkers have knowingly aided and abetted Wall Street bankers and coupon clippers living like parasites off the wealth created by labor as they used the election of Barack Obama to set the stage to push this country further to the right than anyone could ever have imagined.

Five-hundred of these muddle-headed middle class intellectuals banded together in “Progressives for Obama;” other thousands through outfits like Progressive Democrats of America and Moveon.org who used progressive to make millions of dollars as they, like Obama, engaged in a very selfish, self-serving and self-promoting form of politics to sell their books and magazines… the Nation Magazine has been one of the worst abusers of the progressive label in this regard along with the Campaign for America’s Future which is the “think-tank” for the high-paid, class collaborationist, sell-out leadership of the AFL-CIO.

Anyone can see from reading this article below that these people are hitting at very legitimate issues that the left should have been on top of addressing long ago by becoming the most vocal critics and protesters of Barack Obama’s Wall Street policies and agenda.

What was needed, and is still needed, is for working class liberals, progressives and leftists to come together through some kind of “people’s lobby” to explain what is the real nature and source of the problems the right is bringing forward here.

We cannot wait for these “leaders” from the labor movement, the peace or environmental movements to step forward into this fight of the people versus Wall Street because they have no clue to what is happening in this country… many of them make just as much as the corporate CEO’s and have not an inkling or a clue as to the problems being experienced by working people. Our problems are nothing more than footnotes in some government or think-tank reports that they use to sound good when making speeches, writing books and magazine articles--- which most working people can’t even afford to purchase.

We can see from what has been transpiring on the Internet that many of the participants in these “tea parties” are honest working people just plain fed up; many of whom pay dues to unions that have leaders they don’t trust largely because these union leaders have been complicit in supporting Barack Obama when they should have been opposing Obama on most issues--- and why should working people trust these “leaders” who backed Barack Obama to the hilt while failing to put forward the resources to mobilize the working class in defense of their own interests and to improve their own standard of living.

Working people have no interests in supporting the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Working people have no interests in bailing out the Wall Street bankers and insurance companies.

Working people have no interests in bailing out the auto or steel industries.

Working people have no interests in supporting tax-increases.

Wars are robbing the working class of their sons and daughters along with squandering the wealth workers have created.

Working people had no part in creating this mess; Wall Street bankers and coupon clippers did this all on their own--- now, let them clean up the mess they created.

Wall Street bankers and insurance companies have all the wealth required to bail themselves out of the problems of their own making; they don’t need tax-payer bailouts.

Instead of bailing out Wall Street, tax revenues should be going into socially useful and necessary programs like public health care, public education, public mass transit, public recreation programs for youth, public child care centers and public libraries.

For what Obama has spent bailing out the auto industry--- and what he intends to spend bailing out the steel industry--- the government could purchase the entire industries, lock, stock and barrel; nationalize these industries and bring them under public ownership. Why the government would want to purchase these industries rather than just take them over in the public’s best interest we don’t understand.

All tax-increases should be in the form of capital gains taxes on the super wealthy Wall Street crowd with a tax placed on every single stock and bond transaction.

The one issue that has the very best potential to unite the people of this country and create a real change in direction is the health care issue… there isn’t a single person who doesn’t require access to health care. Yet, those muddle-headed middle class intellectuals, some of the most well-known and preeminent writers in this country, have failed to articulate a clear alternative to the health care mess.

The solution is simple: Close down the more than 800 U.S. military bases on foreign soil dotting the globe, and build 800 public health care centers spread out across the United States providing everyone with access to health care.

If anyone doubts that such a call for this kind of initiative would not be overwhelmingly supported by the American people, we suggest that 800 forums on this issue be organized in the very communities where these public health care centers would be located to best serve the health care needs of the American people, and ask the people to come out and provide their opinion on this issue.

Every public school and public library could be turned into voting centers with people using their Social Security card numbers to vote electronically on the question:

Should the United States government close down more than 800 U.S. military bases on foreign soil and use the resources saved to build 800 public health care centers stretching out across this country strategically located to provide the American people with free access to all basic health care needs required by human beings?

Barack Obama and these muddle-headed middle class intellectuals posing as liberals, progressives and leftists talk about creating a country linked with state of the art broad-band communication network and people don’t even have access to health care--- where is the logic to this, where is the common sense, where is the basic human decency… first they insinuated this broad-band communications network would be free; now, they say, like health care, it will be “affordable.” Well, we have the technology available right now to see how popular and efficient the Internet can be by holding a nationwide referendum on putting an end to war and militarism and using the wealth and the resources of this country to serve the very best interests of the people by providing free health care for all.

If the “Progressives for Obama,” “Moveon.org,” Progressive Democrats of America and all the labor unions, peace organizations, civil and human rights organizations and environmental organizations were to come together in a massive “people’s lobby” we could force Barack Obama and the politicians to hold a nationwide referendum on this health care issue.

And, as far as economic stimulus and job creation, not a better and more effective way can be found to create jobs faster and pump more money into the economy so working people can purchase those things they need to live decent lives.

Such a vast network of 800 public health care centers serving all of the American people would employ some four-million people while it would require some 3.5 million construction workers to build these public health care centers… talk about your “shovel ready” projects!

Not even considering the jobs that this kind of massive undertaking for the good of the human race would spin off, which would be well over eight-million jobs, we create over 15,000,000 (fifteen-million jobs) which would create a full-employment economy with workers receiving decent pay for decent jobs.

The working class youth now living in the ghettos, barrios and on Indian Reservations would have real futures to look forward to serving the health care needs of their communities and families.

The United States would finally reap the dividends of peace by learning to live in harmony with the rest of the world, too.

With the money saved not being siphoned off by the health insurance and health care industries, we would have billions to spend on clean, green, mass transit systems.

The spin-offs of funding real public health care would be enormous; including a healthier, longer-living, happier population.

There is something terribly wrong when the politicians of this country cannot understand that the primary task is to put people before Wall Street’s profits; this is what is creating such disharmony in our society and is fueling this ultra-rightwing, fascist upsurge of “tea baggers.”

The liberal, progressive and left opinion-makers are doing us a great disservice by failing to add their voices for a real progressive agenda that brings the working class into opposition to the Wall Street policies of Barack Obama.

This country is going to move much further to the right; or, it will move to the left.

The rightwing has a very well-funded organizational structure; apparently abandoned by liberal, progressive and left intellectuals, it is now up to rank-and-file workers to initiate the kind of grassroots effort through education and organization if we are going to move this country left onto the high-road of a politics and economics of livelihood, and we should begin by addressing the primary issues of concern to working people: health care, peace and jobs--- real justice for the working women and men who create the wealth of this country with a great deal of help from Mother Nature.

Ending the obsessive militaristic binge this country has been on since the end of World War II as Wall Street has sought to dominate the entire world in quest of ever greater profits will be a major factor--- the single largest factor--- in bringing global warming under control… something those who are pushing for “greening the economy,” also, completely ignore.

To give this some perspective; scientists estimate that over one-third of all the ore mined on Minnesota’s Iron Range has gone for war and militarization; it doesn’t take a genius to figure out how much fuel the transport and processing of this ore into steel consumes--- the coal, the coke, the electricity and gas.

Our society is paying a terrible price in so many ways for its addiction to militarism which stems from Wall Street’s drive for corporate profits.

William Z. Foster--- the great trade union leader, working class intellectual and activist, and Marxist thinker and writer--- pointed out that the very best education the American people could ever get would be an anti-imperialist education; he was so right.

Minnesota’s two most popular ever governors, Floyd B. Olson and Elmer Benson--- both socialists--- said the very same thing as William Z. Foster.

And, Albert Einstein in his essay “Why socialism?” written in 1949 for the socialist magazine “Monthly Review” clearly articulated why war and militarism sapped our country of its wealth in explaining the nature of capitalism and its most barbaric, parasitic and cannibalistic stage: imperialism.

Instead of a “tea party;” workers need a socialist party to advance an alternative agenda. A “people’s lobby” can get us headed in this direction.

Capitalism is on the skids to oblivion; do we want to be dragged down this dark, scary, bumpy road to perdition?

Let’s talk about health care.

Let’s talk about peace.

Let’s talk about a “people’s bailout.”

Let’s talk about the politics and economics of livelihood--- for real change.

The time has come to make a “left turn.”

Education. Organization. Unity. Action.

With two-million casino workers employed in smoke-filled casinos at poverty wages without any rights under state or federal labor laws, we know a little something about why this country needs a quality, public health care system providing free health care for all… we know that many illnesses and health care problems working people suffer from are directly related to their places of employment--- once again, the bosses get rich; working people suffer and get stuck with the bill.

It is not our intent to speak ill of anyone; but, at some point a line needs to be drawn in the sand. On one side of this line stands the working class; on the other side stand the Wall Street bankers and industrialists. It really is as simple as that.

As workers, we have no interest in saving capitalism; our concern is getting working people through this mess with the required reforms as we struggle to put an end to capitalism while building the socialist alternative.

Together, the working class--- united--- has the power to create real change.

We ask you to read and digest what is in this article below. The dangers ahead cannot be exaggerated; the dangers are very real.

We are firmly convinced that the struggle for real health care reform when combined with the fight for peace can defeat the forces pushing our country precariously to the right, while advancing a progressive working class agenda. We invite your comments and concerns.

Our Organizing Council has allocated some of our limited resources in an attempt to initiate a struggle for 800 public health care centers spread out across the United States instead of continuing to fund 800 U.S. military bases on foreign soil.

We hope you will add your voices to this campaign and join our efforts.

Maggie “Patty” Bird
President,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

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



Check it out…


Tax deadline brings out thousands of protesters


http://apnews.myway.com//article/20090415/D97J44280.html

Apr 15, 4:22 PM (ET)

By JOE BIESK


(AP) Several hundred protesters participate in a tax day protest on the Boston Common in Boston,...
Full Image





FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) - Thousands of protesters, some dressed like Revolutionary War soldiers and most waving signs with anti-tax slogans, gathered around the nation Wednesday for a series of rallies modeled after the original Boston Tea Party. They chose the income tax filing deadline to express their displeasure with government spending since President Barack Obama took office.
The protests were held everywhere from Kentucky, which just passed tax increases on cigarettes and alcohol, to South Carolina, where the governor has repeatedly criticized the $787 billion economic stimulus package Congress passed earlier this year.
"Frankly, I'm mad as hell," said Des Moines, Iowa, businessman Doug Burnett, one of about 1,000 people, many in red shirts declaring "revolution is brewing," at a rally at the Iowa Capitol. "This country has been on a spending spree for decades, a spending spree we can't afford."
Large rallies were expected later in California and New York.


(AP) Protestors take part in a tea party demonstration, Wednesday, April 15, 2009, in Lafayette Park,...
Full Image



In Atlanta, thousands of people were to gather on the steps of the Georgia Capitol, where Fox News Channel conservative pundit Sean Hannity was set to broadcast his show Wednesday night.
In Boston, a few hundred protesters gathered on the Boston Common - a short distance from the original Tea Party - some dressed in Revolutionary garb and carrying signs that said "Barney Frank, Bernie Madoff: And the Difference Is?" and "D.C.: District of Communism."
The tea parties were promoted by FreedomWorks, a conservative nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington and led by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas, a lobbyist whose corporate clients including Verizon, Raytheon, liquor maker Diageo, CarMax and drug company Sanofi Pasteur.
The group's federal tax returns show its educational and charitable arms received more than $6 million in donations in 2007, the most recent year for which returns are available.
Organizers said the movement developed organically through online social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter and through exposure on Fox News.


(AP) Five-year-old Elianna Dickens participates in a rally sponsored by West Virginia Concerned Citizens...
Full Image



And while they insisted it was a nonpartisan effort, it has been seized on by many prominent Republicans who view it as a promising way for the party to reclaim its momentum.
"It is a nonpartisan mass organizing effort comprised of people unhappy with the size of government. All you have to be is a mildly awake Republican candidate for office to get in front of that parade," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
The movement has also attracted some Republicans considering a 2012 presidential bid.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich planned to address a tea party in a New York City park Wednesday night. His advocacy group, americansolutions.com, has partnered with tea party organizers to get word to the group's members.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, another likely 2012 GOP presidential hopeful, planned to attend tea parties in Columbia and Charleston. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal sent an e-mail to his supporters, letting them know about tea parties taking place throughout the state.


(AP) Protesters carry signs at a rally sponsored by West Virginia Concerned Citizens to protest...
Full Image



There were several small counter-protests, including one in at Fountain Square in Cincinnati, where about a dozen people protested the protesters, one carrying a sign that read, "Where were you when Bush was spending billions a month 'liberating' Iraq?" The anti-tax demonstration, meanwhile, drew about 4,000 people.
In Lansing, Mich., outside the state Capitol, another 4,000 people waved signs exclaiming "Stop the Fiscal Madness,""Read My Lipstick! No More Bailouts" and "The Pirates Are in D.C." Children held makeshift signs complaining about the rising debt.
"I'm really opposed to spending the way out of our problem," said Deborah Mourray, 56, a business administrator from the Detroit suburb of Troy. "How I run my home is I don't spend more money so my situation improves. Save and conserve."
In Connecticut, police estimated 3,000 people showed up at the state Capitol in Hartford and another 1,000 at a rally in New Haven. Many carried makeshift pitchforks and signs with messages aimed at the Democrats who control Congress and the White House.
In Montgomery, Ala., Twisted Sister's "We're Not Gonna Take It" blared from loud speakers as more than 1,000 people gathered at the Alabama Statehouse.


(AP) Russell Wirtalla, dressed as a Colonial soldier, joins tax protesters rallying on the north steps...
Full Image



Greg Budell, a radio talk show host, said the tea parties could have the same impact as when Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of a Montgomery bus during segregation in 1955.
"If one woman could change the world by refusing to move to the back of the bus, we ought to be able to change it by saying we are not going to let our government throw us under the bus and our children and our grandchildren," he said.
In Frankfort, about 250 people gathered at the Capitol, where just a few months earlier Kentucky bourbon producers emptied whiskey bottles on the steps to protest alcohol taxes.
David Ransdell, a 66-year-old retired Baptist missionary from Lawrenceburg, donned an empty tea box as a hat and dangled tea bags around the sides.
"The future does not look real good for our country," Ransdell said. "People are afraid that they're going to be out on the street."
---
Associated Press Writers Mike Glover in Des Moines, Iowa, Stephanie Reitz in Hartford, Conn., Beth Fouhy in New York, Kelsey Abbruzzese in Boston, Scott Bauer in Madison, Wis., Shannon McCaffrey in Atlanta, Terry Kinney in Cincinatti, David Eggert in Lansing, Mich., and Phillip Rawls in Montgomery, Ala. contributed to this report.
---
On the Net:
http://taxdayteaparty.com/


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:

Thoughts From Podunk

http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Saturday, April 11, 2009

New York Times spins Rasmussen Poll finding only 53% of Americans support capitalism

No matter how the New York Times tries to spin the Rasmussen Poll finding last Thursday that only 53% of Americans favor capitalism over socialism in spite of the most well-financed campaign of Big Lies ever concocted and waged against an idea, they are still hopelessly engaged in futile efforts to bury socialism for the umpteenth time by waging a vicious anti-communist campaign; this time aimed at creating an image for Barack Obama as they want him to appear rather than what he really is.

Also at a time when capitalism is on the skids to oblivion and many people can see through the fog (the lies of the New York Times) that we are being dragged down the dangerous, pot-holed and bumpy, curvy, short road to perdition... and we aren't on a joy ride, either.

Be it a war or creating an image for a President, the New York Times is doing what it does best: disorienting and confusing the American people with outright lies, dis-information and mis-information.

What I find very interesting is in the second article declaring Barack Obama not to be a “socialist;” but, rather, a “social democrat;” as if this is some kind of undisputed fact like the unfounded, misinformed statement that the United States has never had a Socialist Party.

This is what passes for journalism from the most preeminent newspaper publisher in the world?

I find it very strange that no one, including the New York Times, seems to be able to take Barack Obama’s word for what he calls himself: a pragmatist.

It is like no one wants to believe what Barack Obama wrote in his own essay submitted for exclusive publication to “Foreign Affairs Magazine;” the July/August 2007 Issue. Barack Obama’s essay carried the title he created: Renewing American Leadership…

< http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62636/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership >

This is the one and only piece of Obama’s own writing where he clearly articulates in his own words his world view and vision.

What Obama has written in this article makes immediately clear without any ambiguities that Barack Obama is neither a “socialist” nor a “social democrat.”

Clearly, Obama is from the Wall Street crowd of “pragmatists” who believe that you do whatever needs to be done to advance the corporate agenda always within the imperialist framework in quest of maximum corporate profits--- shunting aside, sometimes killing, any obstacles in the way of attaining maximum corporate profits.

The New York Times allows everyone except socialists to voice their opinions on what socialism is; and what socialism is not.

Not often, but once in awhile, the New York Times publishes the views of social democrats… although the editors at the New York Times don’t seem to appreciate the social democratic views expressed by Canada’s Jack Layton any more than the socialist views of Tony Benn.

A suggestion to the New York Times: Why not invite Barack Obama to write an essay defining himself and expounding on his world view by insisting that he state specifically what his world outlook is? Then, and only then, will we all know the answer to this much sought after question which must be of some importance since so many people want to know what Obama is; after all, it is only logical that people, not only the American people; but, people from all over the world, want to know the answer to this question because their futures’ will largely be determined by what Barack Obama and his Administration do in the hours, days, months and years ahead.

Many people, including those who most enthusiastically supported Barack Obama, are asking: Where’s the change?

Apparently, bailing out the banks and Wall Street wasn’t the change most people had in mind.

It is quite possible that people were swayed to support Barack Obama--- and now are willing to “Give Obama a chance” because so many people tried to define who Barack Obama is in so many different ways.

Maybe, just maybe, if we all hear from Barack Obama himself as to how he defines himself in terms of his world view, people can then reassess whether they are comfortable “giving Obama a chance.”

Let’s find out who Barack Obama really is from Barack Obama.

Is Barack Obama the kind of man someone representing a large constituency with a gripe can sit down and talk to, believing legitimate problems can be resolved; because, if so, I would like to talk to the guy to find out if there isn’t something that can be done about re-negotiating these “Compacts” creating the Indian Gaming Industry which has left two-million American workers employed in smoke-filled casinos at poverty wages without any rights or protections under state or federal labor laws to endure the most extreme “at-will hiring, at-will firing” situation in the country, and without access to health care to boot.

I like the idea of Barack Obama that contracts are always re-negotiable based upon the circumstances... "Compacts" are contracts.

Certainly if auto contracts can be re-opened for re-negotiation there isn't any legitimate reason not to reopen the "Compacts" creating the Indian Gaming Industry to provide casino workers with the same rights and protections all other working people rely on in the United States.

As we can all see, the mobsters running the Indian Gaming Industry aren't that much different from the C.E.O.'s at A.I.G. or General Motors or Ford... and Bernie Madoff ran with them all to make deposits in the Cayman Islands.

I suppose if no one else wants to talk to Obama about what constitutes a living minimum wage based upon real cost of living factors and peace, I could talk to President Obama about these things, too.

In less than fifteen minutes I could probably convince President Obama why we need a “people’s bailout” which includes a moratorium on home foreclosures and evictions as well as the need to extend unemployment benefits from time of joblessness to reemployment.

I could probably make a pretty darn good argument to President Obama as to why we need 800 public health care centers scattered across the United States instead of financing over 800 U.S. military bases on foreign soil now dotting the globe.

I wouldn’t mind talking to the guy about the benefits of socialism over capitalism, either; after all, Frank Marshall Davis--- a leading African-American Communist journalist and activist--- was his mentor for years.

Maybe President Obama would be willing to let journalists from the New York Times take in such a democratic endeavor; I know I would be all for it.

I can envision the headlines squeezed onto the obituary page of the New York Times: “Obama denies being a closet communist but meets with pissed off socialist worker.”

The New York Times likes to boast that it is the leading voice in the world for democracy.

Now that the editors at the New York Times have established that socialism is the most significant political trend in the United States and it is acknowledged that Marxists provide the main ideological critique of capitalism; isn’t it time for the New York Times to set aside space for a column for socialists to voice their views and concerns on a daily basis in response to current events, issues, problems and their solutions?

I wonder if I should wait for a phone call from the editors at the New York Times?

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


**************

New York Times

April 10, 2009, 10:30 pm

Weekend Opinionator: A Different Sort of Red America

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/weekend-opinionator-a-different-sort-of-red-america/

By Tobin Harshaw

Perhaps the most telling line in the Oxford English Dictionary’s (O.E.D.) definition of “socialism” is this one:

“The range of application of the term is broad.”


That’s something to bear in mind as we consider a much-discussed poll, released by Rasmussen on Thursday, that found that “Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.” For the record, here is the primary O.E.D. definition:

A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society; advocacy or practice of such a system, esp. as a political movement. Now also: any of various systems of liberal social democracy which retain a commitment to social justice and social reform, or feature some degree of state intervention in the running of the economy.


As for Rasmussen’s definition, well, there isn’t one: “The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism.”

‘Socialism’ rises in the polls — but do Americans even know what it means?

But the pollsters did point out an anomaly: “It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy. The fact that a ‘free-market economy’ attracts substantially more support than ‘capitalism’ may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets.”

So, has the nation really drifted that far to the left, or are we simply struggling with our semantics? Plenty of folks in the blogosphere were happy to answer that question.

Steve Benen, the Political Animal, is pleased, but also sees a shifting in the lexicon.

In terms of interpreting these results, the numbers certainly aren’t what I expected, and it’s hard to know why respondents answered as they did. Perhaps “capitalism” lost some of its appeal when our economy collapsed. Maybe a lot of people heard the media connect Obama and “socialism,” and since they like the president, they figure socialism can’t be that bad. In a similar vein, if right-wing blowhards like Limbaugh keep screaming that socialism is manifestly evil, there may be some who assume the economic model must have merit.

But I was especially intrigued by the 27% who weren’t sure which was better. Talk about a sign of the times — more than one in four aren’t quite sure whether capitalism or socialism is the superior system.

Mark Thompson at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen feels his fellow conservatives have nobody to blame but themselves. “When you falsely complain that every single thing your opponents try to do is socialism and absurdly hold your bloviating, unpopular selves up as bastions of capitalism, you probably shouldn’t be surprised when people start thinking socialism doesn’t look so bad, and capitalism doesn’t look so good,” he writes. “Let the record also reflect that I, personally, remain firmly with the 53 percent; I just don’t blame the other 47 percent for thinking otherwise.”

Matt Yglesias of Think Progress feels that times have changed enough that “socialism” is “good branding”:

The whole idea is that we should put society first rather than capital, or money.

That sounds good! But in the United States we never had a Socialist Party so “socialism” was primarily associated with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which was not at all good. But to people under 30, there’s less of that old resonance. And saying that Obama, who’s popular, is a “socialist” may simply tend to make people have warmer feelings toward the word “socialism.”

The New Republic’s John Judis seems to think the poll’s younger respondents have a better fix on things than the O.E.D.:

According to the poll, 53 percent of Americans think capitalism is preferable to socialism, while 20 percent say socialism is preferable. And among those trustworthy adults under thirty, 37 percent prefer capitalism, 33 percent socialism, and 30 percent are weighing the alternatives. What, you might ask, does this all mean? I don’t think it’s a vote for Soviet-style socialism. While Cold War conservatives did their best to identify socialism, and European social democracy, with Soviet or Cuban communism, the identification doesn’t seem to have survived the Cold War itself.

Instead, what those 30 percent of under-thirties probably mean by “socialism” is a much greater degree of government–and public–control of private corporations and of the market. That would put the United States closer, say, to Sweden, France, or Germany, but would not put it anywhere near the old Soviet Union, which tried to abolish the market itself. Most of all, I imagine, it’s an expression of extreme disillusionment with the magic of the market as preached by Republicans and some Democrats as well.

It’s also, I think, not an incorrect understanding of socialism. As a political philosophy, socialism predated Marx as any reader of “The Communist Manifesto” or of “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific” is aware. In America, too, there were Christian socialists like Walter Rauschenbusch, who was an important influence on Martin Luther King, and prairie socialists in Kansas or Oklahoma who never envisioned giving up their farms for socialism. The point that runs through all these many varieties was not collectivism, but instead the subjection of large banks and businesses to social priorities: “people before profits,” as Bill Clinton said in 1992. And that’s what those 20 percent of Americans in the Rasmussen Poll seem to be opting for.

McQ at QandO, however, sees this youthful exuberance as little more than naïveté:

As you’ll note, the older someone is, the more likely they are to understand what socialism is and how it is inferior to captialism. The under 30 crowd, with no wisdom and little practical experience outside of academia - not to mention having not yet [completely] traded their utopian fantasies for the best practical system which has been shown to work - have a large group who either believe socialism is better or just aren’t with it enough to have an opinion.

Once past 30, and having put a few years under their belt in the real world, suddenly the utopian scales begin to fall from their eyes and they have a bit of an epiphany. As for those over 40 being so strongly for capitalism, most of them remember the old USSR and how well socialism worked there.

While Dr. Steven Taylor at PoliBlog thinks we should ignore the whole thing: “Given that it is manifestly clear from recent political rhetoric that people in general have no idea what an appropriate definition of either of these terms is, it is impossible to ably interpret these results. Further, if we assume that part of the question did include the issue of which is ‘better’ we would have to know what that meant to the respondents as well. ‘Better’ at doing what?”

Others on the right, however, are alarmed. TigerHawk blames the tax code:

The percentage who approve of capitalism in this poll (53%) is very close to the percentage of the population that pays (or belongs to a family that pays) any federal income tax (as of 2006, 59%). Indeed, since the top 50% paid more than 97% of all federal income collected in 2006, it is safe to say that the proportion who support capitalism, as opposed to socialism, is almost identical in size to the percentage of Americans who earn enough actual income to pay material income taxes. While the correlation between the two groups is not perfect — no doubt there are Hollywood types, professors, and United States Representatives who both pay income taxes and profess to be socialists — it is almost certainly high. Again, it should not surprise us that the beneficiaries of socialism would support it, and the people who pay for it would prefer a system that allows them to keep more of what they produce.

And, as Kathy at Comments From Left Field points out, steveegg at Sister Toldjah blames the schools: “The worse news is that those under 30 are almost evenly divided, with 37% saying capitalism is better, 33% saying socialism is better, and 30% unsure of what they think. It is not a coincidence that the radicals of the late 1960s were entering the decision-level positions of the education establishment 30 years ago.”

Susan Duclos of Wake Up America, however, urges her compatriots to see the glass as 53 percent full:

Rasmussen headlines with “Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism.”
In that results piece it shows that 53 percent of American’s prefer capitalism over socialism, with only 20 percent thinking socialism is preferable and 27 percent that are not sure what they believe.

Amazing they would headline with the word “just” in there when it clearly shows the majority, 53 percent, favors capitalism with a 33 percent different between the two opposite ends of the spectrum.

I don’t even count the “unsure” totals because even if you divide it straight down the middle you still have 33 percent more favoring capitalism …
Many think 53 percent is not a large enough number, but considering socialism only gets a solid 20 percent support, I say the numbers are very good indeed and people shouldn’t focus on those who are “unsure” because when capitalism is called “free market economy” that 53 percent rises considerably to 70 percent.

Dr. Helen Smith, a.k.a. Mrs. Instapundit, manages to agree with both Duclos and steveegg: “Frankly, I am amazed that so many people think that capitalism is better. That’s a good sign. Also, I wonder if most Americans, especially the younger ones could even give an adequate definition of socialism and capitalism. Perhaps they just hear the buzzword, Socialism, and say that is better, like some kind of trained parrot. No surprise there, with what they learn in many schools.”

But Jesse Taylor at Pandagon thinks that while education is a red herring, one of the right’s favorite events of the last half-century actually kicked off the trend:

What element of modern primary and secondary pedagogy over the past, say, 20 years has led our youth to believe that socialism is awesome? Actually, nothing. The real secret is that the Berlin Wall fell, which paved the way for conservatives to call everything Democrats have proposed in the interim socialism (this isn’t to say that they weren’t doing that before, but it became much easier for them to say it without the Giant Socialist Enemy Beast forcing us to duck and cover under our desks every day). I came up in a world where “socialism” was defined in popular parlance as “liberalism”. Bill Clinton, effectively a liberal Republican, was a socialist. Barack Obama, a moderate Democrat, is a socialist. There’s an actual socialist in the Senate, and yet all the Democrats in the Senate (except Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh)? Socialists.

The main people responsible for the embrace of “socialism” are the pro-capitalist conservatives who’ve so diluted its meaning that it’s okay to embrace socialism, because the majority party in the country and our tremendously popular president are socialists.

So, amid all this partisan bickering and sophistic solipsism, enter the éminence grise of Marxist historians. Writing at The Guardian (and commenting on a real crisis rather than a methodically questionable poll), Eric Hobsbawm raises a question: “Socialism has failed. Now capitalism is bankrupt. So what comes next?”
The basic idea that dominated economics and politics in the last century has patently disappeared down the plughole of history. This was the way of thinking about modern industrial economies, or for that matter any economies, in terms of two mutually exclusive opposites: capitalism or socialism.

We have lived through two practical attempts to realise these in their pure form: the centrally state-planned economies of the Soviet type and the totally unrestricted and uncontrolled free-market capitalist economy. The first broke down in the 1980s, and the European communist political systems with it. The second is breaking down before our eyes in the greatest crisis of global capitalism since the 1930s …

Impotence therefore faces both those who believe in what amounts to a pure, stateless, market capitalism, a sort of international bourgeois anarchism, and those who believe in a planned socialism uncontaminated by private profit-seeking. Both are bankrupt. The future, like the present and the past, belongs to mixed economies in which public and private are braided together in one way or another. But how? That is the problem for everybody today, but especially for people on the left.

Nobody seriously thinks of returning to the socialist systems of the Soviet type - not only because of their political faults, but also because of the increasing sluggishness and inefficiency of their economies - though this should not lead us to underestimate their impressive social and educational achievements. On the other hand, until the global free market imploded last year, even the social-democratic or other moderate left parties in the rich countries of northern capitalism and Australasia had committed themselves more and more to the success of free-market capitalism. Indeed, between the fall of the USSR and now I can think of no such party or leader denouncing capitalism as unacceptable. None were more committed to it than New Labour. In their economic policies both Tony Blair and (until October 2008) Gordon Brown could be described without real exaggeration as Thatcher in trousers. The same is true of the Democratic party in the US.

Well, that’s not very cheery. And why is it a problem primarily for the left?

You may say that’s all over now. We’re free to return to the mixed economy. The old toolbox of Labour is available again - everything up to nationalisation - so let’s just go and use the tools once again, which Labour should never have put away. But that suggests we know what to do with them. We don’t. For one thing, we don’t know how to overcome the present crisis. None of the world’s governments, central banks or international financial institutions know: they are all like a blind man trying to get out of a maze by tapping the walls with different kinds of sticks in the hope of finding the way out. For another, we underestimate how addicted governments and decision-makers still are to the free-market snorts that have made them feel so good for decades …

A progressive policy needs more than just a bigger break with the economic and moral assumptions of the past 30 years. It needs a return to the conviction that economic growth and the affluence it brings is a means and not an end.

Lovely thought, that, but it does bring up the question of what “end” we’re looking for, and we’re hardly likely to find social consensus there — call it a contradiction of Marxism. In any case, Barbara O’Brien of the Mahablog anticipates a few other criticisms Hobsbawm is likely to engender and attempts to nip them in the bud.

The True Believers of both sides will argue no, no, no, pure Marxism/Free Market Capitalism has never been tried. But “pure” anything has never been tried. That’s the reality of our human condition. Any endeavor that requires human input is never pure. It will suffer some degree of corruption. Put together people, money, and power, and corruption is a certainty. That’s why any workable, sustainable model factors in corruption and makes some provision to keep it to a minimum.

That’s what the Marxists and the Ayn Rand culties cannot understand… There has to be a way to reign in the power, to diffuse it, to oversee it and make it accountable to other power. That’s one reason the public and private sector need each other — to keep each other semi-honest.

Nicholas John Mead has similar predictions on how Hobsbawm will be received: “Many of the comments that follow his piece however take issue with his assertion that socialism has failed. The communist brand of ’socialism’ practiced in Russia wasn’t socialism at all - more a vicious state centralised authoritarianism that had little to do with true socialist ideals. The same could be said however for the type of neo-liberal capitalism we have today which has strayed so far from the principles and ideals of pure capitalism as outlined by founders such as Adam Smith that it’s almost unfair to say that capitalism has failed also.”

Another British blogger, Karl Naylor, thinks Britain might be primed for the revolution.

In many ways, Britain under New Labour has been a feeble old body politic artificially hooked up to a life support machine through the injection of capital, migrants, indeed of life from elsewhere whilst its internal organs have started to pack up.

The cosmetic changes after 1997 did nothing to reform what had been going wrong with Britain: relying on London as the dynamo sucking international capital and injecting it back out across the rest of a lame deindustrialised candyfloss economy and listless acres of legoland …

The way in which Britain has deluded itself that even if it is not an economic and political powerhouse of the global economy it can be a Global Player, with Lilliputan figures like [Foreign Secretary David] Miliband ‘positively’ demanding NATO expansion into Eastern Europe in the face of Big Bully Russia.

Where New Labour commissars, Liberal mandarins and the British Council have desperately sought to emphasise that Britain’s “cultural power” makes it fit to strut about on the World Stage and pontificate about how great it is and why the world should buy into its stupid universe of pop royalty dreck and BBC costume dramas.

The harder the crash, the better it might be for Britain. It might finally wake up to the reality of its shrunken economy, decaying political system, and overextended strategical posture and try to live within its means, as well as to just stop pontificating about the superiority of its supposedly higher ‘values’.

And O’Brien, for her part, thinks that liberals in the United States might be in a stronger position than their British counterparts.

Hobsbawm talks about recent British history, New Labour and Thatcherism. But similar things go on here (is it the almost-common language?). Our Right has effectively taken itself out of the conversation (even though it won’t shut up) because it can’t let go of its old ideologies and aphorisms that don’t work any more. I’m not sure if what passes for a “Left” here is fully cognizant of the new reality, either.

But unlike the Right, the current Left has no one economic model that we all put on an altar and worship. At least some among us are looking hard at the current reality and thinking through solutions that might work in the real world, as opposed to solutions that make good sound bites and look good on a bumper sticker.

So there you have it: the worse the crash the better off we are, good riddance to the altar of free-market capitalism, and we’re now following blind men in mazes. The stock market may be rallying, but it doesn’t seem helping us shape the economy, or the socio-economic ideologies of tomorrow.

**************************


New York Times

Opinionator

March 10, 2009, 12:45 pm

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/obama-is-a-social-democrat-not-a-socialist/

Obama is a Social Democrat, Not a Socialist


By Eric Etheridge

Yesterday at Balkinization, Andrew Koppelman published a lengthy post on the issue of whether Barack Obama is a socialist, the charge that many are now hurling at him. Via a long historical review of left political responses to capitalism, Koppelman argues that “Obama properly belongs in a specific anti-socialist movement on the left, Social Democracy, which accepts a capitalist economy but demands a strong state to moderate its failures and excesses.”

Social Democracy aims to deploy the state for two central purposes. One is to correct capitalism’s operational failures, where capitalism wastes wealth instead of producing it. The current market collapse is an example: many well-functioning businesses that were competently producing goods and services have been destroyed, in a spreading cycle of depression. Obama’s stimulus measures and bank bailouts aim to stop this downward spiral.

The other big aim of Social Democracy – and this is what the accusation of “socialism” is really about - is to ameliorate the market’s distributive consequences by spreading around the wealth that capitalism produces. That was Obama’s big theme in his campaign, before the economic crisis hit, and it is embodied in his tax and health care reforms. The second aim of Social Democracy is more controversial than the first. Bush and McCain were both willing to do whatever was necessary to keep the recession from becoming a depression, but neither had any interest in redistributing wealth.

Having fixed Obama’s position vis-a-vis the market and government, Koppelman then tries to do the same for Obama’s opponents:

So the real question isn’t socialism, because Obama isn’t a socialist. The question is Social Democracy. And to see what this question involves, we have to contemplate the alternative – a government that gives the market its head, and does not intervene to ameliorate its systemic or distributive consequences. That minimal government is what is implied by the denunciation of any government intervention as “socialism.”

Who is drawn to this vision of minimal government? In contemporary American politics, its proponents fall into two broad camps. . . .

One view holds that whatever an unregulated market produces is appropriate. There is no external standard to judge what the market produces. It is itself the standard for distributive justice. Those who take this position understand that an unregulated market will produce booms and busts, and will leave some people impoverished. But they can live with that. It’s a heartless view, and the most one can say by way of excuse is that its proponents are so enchanted with the market’s undoubted virtues that they find it hard to focus on anything else. Call them Market Fetishists. . . .

Not all opponents of Social Democracy are Market Fetishists, though. Some of them care about the same things that Social Democrats care about. They want all Americans to have a decent standard of living. They don’t like children going without health care, or urban schools falling apart, or people starving. But they think that these conditions can be ameliorated without massive government programs. . . . Call them Sentimental Fools.

The Republican Party today, at least with respect to economic policy, is a coalition of Market Fetishists and Sentimental Fools. Bush was an incoherent combination of both. . . . A notable mongrel is Bush’s prescription drug insurance plan, which was straight Social Democracy, but which as administered, in Market Fetishist fashion, told its beneficiaries to navigate through complex insurance markets with no help from the state. . . .

There is a legitimate place for a conservative party that is suspicious of social programs. Social Democracy has characteristic pathologies of its own: programs become entrenched beyond their usefulness, develop rent-seeking constituents, and so can become a wasteful and counterproductive burden on the economy. So its measures need shrewd and skeptical critics. The hypothesis that this or that area of the economy ought to be returned to market control is always worth considering. Who mourns the abolition of the Civil Aeronautics Board, which artificially raised airfares for years? Who can responsibly support farm subsidies? But these criticisms amount to tinkering with the Social Democrat program rather than abolishing it.

The Market Fetishists dare not allow their views to be fully understood, because the consequences would be so cruel that most of the country would not stand for them. That is why they need the Sentimental Fools to cloak them with a patina of reasonableness. To the extent that the Sentimental Fools shrink from dismantling the regulatory state, the Republican party is as “socialist” as Obama. They are simply haggling about how much regulation is appropriate. To whatever extent Obama is a socialist, we are all socialists now.

************


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:

Thoughts From Podunk

http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Monday, March 23, 2009

The United States has 800 military bases on foreign soil...

What we need--- instead--- is 800 public health care centers spread out across the United States where people can universally access, for free, all their health care needs from pre-natal care, to general health care to eye, dental and mental care right through to burial.

Instead of moving in this progressive direction, President Barack Obama and the United States Congress are moving in a most reactionary direction towards establishing military bases in outer space as they seek to insure the profits of both the merchants of death and destruction and the profit-driven health care industries... talk about skewed priorities and your wacky ideas devoid of common sense.

In addition to these 800 U.S. military bases on foreign soil, Barack Obama and the United States Congress continue funding--- with our tax-dollars--- the Israeli killing machine to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.

A network of 800 public health care centers spread out across the United States would create over four-million good-paying, decent jobs--- talk about your "economic stimulus" package!

We would be planting the seeds of socialism while helping to eradicate poverty as we keep people healthy and get them well when sick.

Think about this kind of solution in relation to what Barack Obama, the U.S. Congress and the Wall Street bankers and coupon clippers are offering the American people, and the peoples of the world... just what is the reason for bailing out the banks and AIG and maintaining more than 800 expensive U.S. military bases of foreign soil?

The Mt. Carmel Clinic in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada offers us a glimpse at what militarization and wars continue to rob us of.

The problems created by Wall Street will not be solved as long as the military-financial-industrial complex is allowed to squander human and natural resources on militarism and wars... we might just as well be dumping these resources out into the ocean... at least no one would die in wars.

These merchants of death and destruction must be stopped if humanity is to survive in a livable world.

The time has come to talk about the working class Marxist politics and economics of livelihood... capitalism has failed humanity miserably and left us a real mess.

Something for working people to think about and discuss around the dinner table... the capitalist sooth-Sayers certainly are not going to broach such solutions to the problems of working people as they hide behind the skirt of Rosy Scenario as this global capitalist economic depression intensifies.

The times call for "building a new era of justice and peace;" this is one step in that direction.

Alan Maki

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Henry Kissinger: The world must forge a new order or retreat to chaos

This is Barack Obama's real "Inaugural Speech." Make no mistake, when we hear talk about the "politics of pragmatism" and "real politics" this view being pushed by Henry Kissinger the day before Barack Obama was sworn into office is what is being referred to.

The "politics of pragmatism" as advocated here by Henry Kissinger is the politics of imperialism; some people refer to this as "neo-liberalism;" while others just refer to it as Wall Street bankers and industrialists wanting to control the entire world in in quest of maximum profits.

I'm not so sure we have to agree what we call this thinking, but, we do have to understand the full ramifications of where we are headed if we allow this policy to be put in place.

Make no mistake; capitalism is in serious trouble... the New York Times describes the present state of the capitalist economy as "in the toilet," while the head of the Federal Reserve says this "isn't your garden variety economic downturn," and the European leaders are warning that "capitalism may never recover."

In fact, we are in a world-wide capitalist depression... capitalism is on the skids to oblivion and Barack Obama following Henry Kissinger's advice here has us well on the road to perdition. And, Obama has only been in office two days now.

Unless the working class smartens up real quick to what is going on here we are in for big, big trouble.

Henry Kissinger speaks for the military-financial-industrial complex... as working people do we want these merchants of death and destruction destroying our lives and our planet?

This essay by Kissinger can only be read to mean one thing... the Wall Street crowd is going to try to do whatever it takes to save their rotten capitalist system... make no mistake; the peoples of the world will never stand for this and this means one thing, and one thing only: war and more wars.

Alan L. Maki




Henry Kissinger: The world must forge a new order or retreat to chaos


Tuesday, 20 January 2009




Not since JFK has there been such a reservoir of expectations



As the new US administration prepares to take office amid grave financial and international crises, it may seem counterintuitive to argue that the very unsettled nature of the international system generates a unique opportunity for creative diplomacy.


That opportunity involves a seeming contradiction. On one level, the financial collapse represents a major blow to the standing of the United States. While American political judgments have often proved controversial, the American prescription for a world financial order has generally been unchallenged. Now disillusionment with the United States' management of it is widespread.

At the same time, the magnitude of the debacle makes it impossible for the rest of the world to shelter any longer behind American predominance or American failings. Every country will have to reassess its own contribution to the prevailing crisis. Each will seek to make itself independent, to the greatest possible degree, of the conditions that produced the collapse; at the same time, each will be obliged to face the reality that its dilemmas can be mastered only by common action.

Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being. It will fragment disastrously if the various priorities cannot be reconciled.

The nadir of the international financial system coincides with simultaneous political crises around the globe. Never have so many transformations occurred at the same time in so many different parts of the world and been made accessible via instantaneous communication. The alternative to a new international order is chaos.

The financial and political crises are, in fact, closely related partly because, during the period of economic exuberance, a gap had opened up between the economic and the political organisation of the world. The economic world has been globalised. Its institutions have a global reach and have operated by maxims that assumed a self-regulating global market. The financial collapse exposed the mirage. It made evident the absence of global institutions to cushion the shock and to reverse the trend. Inevitably, when the affected publics turned to their political institutions, these were driven principally by domestic politics, not considerations of world order. Every major country has attempted to solve its immediate problems essentially on its own and to defer common action to a later, less crisis-driven point.

So-called rescue packages have emerged on a piecemeal national basis, generally by substituting seemingly unlimited governmental credit for the domestic credit that produced the debacle in the first place, so far without achieving more than stemming incipient panic. International order will not come about either in the political or economic field until there emerge general rules toward which countries can orient themselves.

In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonised in only one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world; or by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures, which is likely to lead to a new mercantilism, perhaps of regional units. A new Bretton Woods kind of global agreement is by far the preferable outcome.

America's role in this enterprise will be decisive. Paradoxically, American influence will be great in proportion to the modesty in our conduct; we need to modify the righteousness that has characterised too many American attitudes, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That event and the subsequent period of nearly uninterrupted global growth induced too many to equate world order with the acceptance of American designs, including our domestic preferences. The result was a certain inherent unilateralism – the standard complaint of European critics – or else an insistent kind of consultation by which nations were invited to prove their fitness to enter the international system by conforming to American prescriptions.

Not since the inauguration of president John F Kennedy half a century ago has a new administration come into office with such a reservoir of expectations. It is unprecedented that all the principal actors on the world stage are avowing their desire to undertake the transformations imposed on them by the world crisis in collaboration with the United States.

The extraordinary impact of the President-elect on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order. But it defines an opportunity, not a policy. The ultimate challenge is to shape the common concern of most countries and all major ones regarding the economic crisis, together with a common fear of jihadist terrorism, into a strategy reinforced by the realisation that the new issues like proliferation, energy and climate change permit no national or regional solution.

The new administration could make no worse mistake than to rest on its initial popularity. The role of China in a new world order is crucial. A relationship that started on both sides as essentially a strategic design to constrain a common adversary has evolved over the decades into a pillar of the international system. China made possible the American consumption splurge by buying American debt; America helped the modernisation of the Chinese economy by opening its markets to Chinese goods.

Each side of the Pacific needs the cooperation of the other in addressing the consequences of the financial crisis. Now that the global financial collapse has devastated Chinese export markets, China is emphasising infrastructure development and domestic consumption. It will not be easy to shift gears rapidly, and the Chinese growth rate may fall temporarily below the 7.5 per cent that Chinese experts define as the line that challenges political stability.

What kind of global economic order arises will depend importantly on how China and America deal with each other over the next few years. A frustrated China may take another look at an exclusive regional Asian structure, for which the nucleus already exists in the ASEAN-plus-three concept. At the same time, if protectionism grows in America or if China comes to be seen as a long-term adversary, a self-fulfilling prophecy may blight the prospects of global order. Such a return to mercantilism and 19th-century diplomacy would divide the world into competing regional units with dangerous long-term consequences.

The Sino-American relationship needs to be taken to a new level. This generation of leaders has the opportunity to shape relations into a design for a common destiny, much as was done with trans-Atlantic relations in the postwar period – except that the challenges now are more political and economic than military.

The complexity of the emerging world requires from America a more historical approach than the insistence that every problem has a final solution expressible in programmes with specific time limits not infrequently geared to our political process. We must learn to operate within the attainable and be prepared to pursue ultimate ends by the accumulation of nuance. An international order can be permanent only if its participants have a share not only in building but also in securing it. In this manner, America and its potential partners have a unique opportunity to transform a moment of crisis into a vision of hope.

The author was National Security Adviser, 1969-75 and US Secretary of State, 1973-77.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

"Threats" against Obama will be used as the pretext to silence proponents of a progressive agenda

What we have developing here is a fear of the very grassroots which elected Barack Obama.

The police and various law enforcement agencies will use "security" as the pretext to boot out anyone carrying signs protesting the Israeli killing spree in Gaza from the Inaugural events.

Talk about your "hate" and trying to stifle real dialogue discussion and debate in this country and one only has to consider the very narrow-minded and vicious attacks on progressives coming from outfits like "Progressives for Obama," Campaign for America's Future and Move0n.org to the AFL-CIO and Change To Win to the revisionist leadership of the Communist Party, USA who cry tears of joy for Obama but don't shed a tear for the children who are the primary victims of this Israeli rampage and killing spree.

Key to what these security" outfits will be looking for is anyone showing sympathies for the Palestinian people--- victims of this Israeli genocidal campaign--- who are automatically on the "lists" compiled by the FBI and Homeland Security.

These people who, during the election campaign--- fronted for Obama in trying to thwart and wipe out any dialogue discussion and debate on issues ranging from U.S. backing of Israel to single-payer universal health care to issues surrounding the Minimum Wage and the Employee Free Choice Act are now taking the initiative to make sure the American people suffering the affects of poverty and despair of a rotten capitalist system on the skids to oblivion which has put our country squarely on the road to perdition are not heard--- or seen.

Police agencies arrested leafleters at Obama campaign events and tore signs advocating single-payer universal health care from people's hands as the price for admission to Obama campaign rallies will now step up their undemocratic activities as they try to head off a massive anti-imperialist movement in solidarity with the suffering Palestinian people from developing.

The mere suggestion that I was going to bring pictures of the dead and suffering children to those celebrating Obama's election in Cass Lake, Minnesota drew the most venomous response from the organizers who are members and activists with Moveon.org who stated in no uncertain terms that they would not tolerate their "part-tay" being "disrupted" by someone like me sowing "hate" and "division" around an "issue of no local relevancy." Which corresponds to the statements from "security" officials we read below albeit couched in more Madison Avenue language.

Interesting that the Israeli killing spree of the people in Gaza is not a "local issue" even though among those who castigated me for saying that they could bring the food and drinks for their "part-tay" and I would bring the pictures of the death and destruction from the Israeli rampage and killing spree in Gaza went on to say that they were concerned with "local poverty and suffering" and these fools do not even understand that when the United States government spends thirty-billion dollars supporting this Israeli killing machine using their tax-dollars this creates poverty in their own community... and they say the Israeli killing spree is not a local issue so I can come to "part-tay" but don't rain on their fun by showing them what their silence has wrought... with one individual suggesting I would be offended if he voiced his contrary opinion on Gaza even though I have never tried to silence anyone... what this coward is saying is that he is too embarrassed to state his support for Israel while looking at the faces of the Gaza dead... then insinuating he can't express his opinion because I would try to suppress his views!

I think what all of this demonstrates very clearly is that a huge chasm of earthquake proportions has developed between Obama's rhetoric of "hope" and "change" and "yes we can" and the reality of the imperialist depravity of what Barack Obama really represents: a new voice for Wall Street out to hoodwink the American people as the children of Gaza continue to die at the hands of the Israeli butchers and the American people continue to reap poverty wages for their hard work and have their homes foreclosed on to pay health care bills... all of which are local issues, along with the killing in Gaza that has turned into what can only be described as a full-fledged pogrom.

Moveon.org can take its victory celebrations and stick them where the sun doesn't shine... these people are so callous and uncaring that it doesn't even pay to try to talk to them.

For these people in Moveon.org and their associates, they have "won" an election... their candidate, like them, has remained silent concerning the most vicious carnage since Hitler's S.S. storm troopers and fascist thugs marched into Lidice and "retaliated" against the brave heroes during the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

Like the German people who patronized the bars and "part-tayed" as they turned their heads in indifference (and support) to the injustices being perpetrated in their name; they too did not want to be bothered with the truth... and if bothered, the Hitler youth were brought in to shut people up.

Who says history does not repeat... when people aren't taught or are unwilling to learn.

Yesterday Paris burned... today it is Gaza... and the "security" police took charge.

Today, like "yesterday"... "security" is the pretext for destroying democracy and silencing those who speak out against injustice.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090115/pl_afp/uspoliticsinaugurationobamasecurity_20090115063336

Unprecedented security as Obama set for White House

WASHINGTON (AFP) – An unprecedented security blanket has been draped over the US capital for Barack Obama's inauguration next week, and the threat level to the country's first black president is expected to remain high well beyond his swearing-in.

More than 12,500 active troops and military reservists, thousands of metropolitan police as well as personnel from 57 departments around the nation are descending on Washington to protect against any potential terrorist attack during Tuesday's historic ceremony, according to officials.

With estimates of up to a record two million people attending, the Department of Homeland Security has designated Obama's inauguration a national special security event.

"I think we all have to be concerned about a chemical, biological, radiological potential attack," Major General Richard Rowe, head of the Armed Forces Inaugural Committee, said Wednesday.

To counter the threat, officials are putting in place what is likely to be the biggest and most advanced inaugural security operation ever.

The US military will fly air patrols, man surface-to-air weapons systems, ply the Potomac River with gunboats, assess chemical and biological threats, organize large-scale medical support in the event of an attack, and provide visible and undercover on-the-ground security.

But a "perfect storm" of factors is brewing that will require security forces around Obama to be in top form for long after he takes office, according to Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Policy Law Center (SPLC) which tracks hate groups.

Outside elements include the vicious economic downturn which may fuel hate groups and extremists in the United States, some of whom "are enraged at the ascendancy of a black man to the White House," Potok told AFP.

"It's perfectly obvious that our first black president is faced with some dangers that other presidents would not be," he said, noting that Obama received official protection 18 months before the November 4 election, earlier than any other presidential candidate.

The SPLC says the Secret Service tasked with protecting presidents acknowledges that Obama has received more threats than any incoming chief executive in history.

They include one that came days before the election in which two white supremacists were arrested in Tennessee for plotting to kill him.

Attacks and threats have soared since his victory, ranging from physical attacks and the burning of crosses in their yards to second-graders chanting "assassinate Obama" on an Idaho schoolbus last November. Potok says Obama has been hanged several times in effigy.

A California man was reportedly arrested last week for posting a note on an Internet message board predicting "he (Obama) will have a 50 cal(iber) in the head soon."

The Secret Service does not provide specifics on the new security regime, but it says it is prepared for any contingency.

"We understand the historical significance of his election, and we pay attention to that," Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan told AFP. "We look at every single aspect of protection... any factor that you could imagine."

The president's skin color has clearly added to security concerns in the country, where there are more than 200 million legally owned firearms and about 30,000 gun deaths per year, and where four sitting presidents have been assassinated.

Obama spoke on the campaign trail with The New York Times about his life in the security cocoon, saying "I've got the best protection in the world... So stop worrying."

The protection level ramps up come Tuesday, when Obama will start being whisked to and from appointments in the most secure presidential limousine ever, a hulking Cadillac said to be tough enough to withstand a rocket-propelled grenade.

Experts say threats are amplified by an accumulation of outside factors, including the tanking US economy and the simmering immigration issue which has led to a surge in hate-group numbers.

Fred Burton, vice president of counter-terrorism at geo-political intelligence analysis firm Stratfor, cites as an example the Gaza war being waged by US ally Israel.

"A Sirhan Sirhan-type (attacker) could become the needle in the haystack" that eludes federal agents, Burton said, referring to 1968 presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy's convicted assassin. Sirhan is believed to have acted out of Arab nationalism.

"The problem is, it's one thing if you know that person and you have leads to go after," Burton said. "But you're really challenged when you're out there looking for ghosts."