Why GOP Administrations Do Not Create Jobs

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

What tycoons of old understood was that if wage earners earn more, they spend more. Jobs are created. Even more spending follows the additional jobs. That's the left/dem/progressive model. But the GOP method is just the opposite and so --too --the miserable results.

The effects of the GOP model are confirmed with official stats from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Commerce Dept and various other studies.

A GOP tax cut --from which only elites benefit --is invariably followed by a recession/depression, increased joblessness, higher prices and the export of jobs, most often, to China. [See: CIA'S World Fact Book, online] For example, Reagan's "infamous" tax cut was followed quickly by a depression of some two years (or longer). It was the LONGEST, DEEPEST depression since H. Hoover's GREAT DEPRESSION.

The Axis of Reagan/GOP are wrong. Wealth does not and has never trickled down. "Suppy Side Economics" was and remains a scam, a con job sketched out, it is said, on a napkin by Arthur Laffer. Laffer is remembered for his "Laffer curve" illustrating the theory that reducing taxes for the very wealthy would result in increased production. That has never happened. It's either a lie, a fraud, a fairy tale or all of the above. The Axis of Reagan/GOP are wrong. "Suppy Side Economics" was and remains a scam, a con job sketched out, it is said, on a napkin by Arthur Laffer. Laffer's curve, it was said, would result in increased production. That has never happened. It's either a lie, a fraud, a fairy tale or all of the above.

GOP tax cut for its elite base was quicklly followed by a recession of some two years. It was the deepest, longest depression since H. Hoover's big one! Not addressed with Laffers curve is the fact that elites have the purchasing power to bid prices UP! They also have offshore bank accounts. The results are not inflation! At least since Ronald Reagan occupied the White House, the GOP has tried to peddle tax cuts that have benefited only the elite classes with various forms of trickle down theory. No GOP plan has ever worked!

---

---

Why the GOP Occupied Texas II

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Though Texas is now thought of as a 'red' state, it was not always so. From January 15, 1874 to January 16, 1979 every Texas governor was Democratic. Moreover, most of them could be described as 'progressive Democrats'.

This topic has come up as Texas is now thought of as GOP occupied territory, i.e, a 'red' state. If this is, indeed, the case, the GOP had best be kind to Texas. A cursory survey of the red-blue map of the U.S. indicates that Texas is the only state among GOP/red states to have electoral votes in two digits. As a result, Texas may be essential to the GOP which seems hell-bent on self-destruction, courting irrelevance, skirting eventual oblivion.

Under the Constitution, the office of President is supposed to represent the 'people'. If that is the case, then WHY are Presidents elected by states and appointed 'electors'? The final 'vote count' is watered down to the extent it may be irrelevant.
There are several remedies but one is most urgent: the abolition of a relic called the Electoral College! What IS it good for? Absolutely NOTHING! (apologies to Edwin Starr)

There are, in fact, various methods by which a popular vote could and would allow the people to elect their representatives directly, thus cutting out the middle man. The office of President is, under the Constitution, responsible directly to the people --not the states. It is, therefore, absurd that the holder of that office be elected by any method other than a direct election of the people to whom the President is ultimately responsible.

That, of course, is why the GOP will oppose this proposal!

The question is: how responsive is the government to the will of the people? It is self-evident that public officials should achieve public office by way of elections that most accurately reflect the will of the people. Otherwise --why have elections? The most egregious outrages against this principle include election thefts as, in fact, happened in Florida. That is, in itself, an outrage. It might have been predicted that the only beneficiary of this outrage --George W. Bush --turned out to have been among the very worst Presidents in U.S. history. That alone is outrageous and even more so as it followed Bush v Gore, the very worst SCOTUS decision in U.S. history.

Questions remain; solutions are scarce. Nevertheless, there must be a better way. The good news is: there is a better way: the President could be elected directly by the people. Party machines capable of 'stealing' elections may be bypassed, made irrelevant. An election can be made scientific, the tabulation of votes made accurate and the casting of votes themselves made more representative of the 'will of the people'.

I have in mind a direct election of the office of President by all of the people. This has the advantage of getting powerful 'state machines' out of the 'national election' business save for the primaries. The office of President --responsible directly to the people --should, therefore, be elected by the people, not the States. The 'electoral college; should, therefore, be abolished and good riddance!

Why was Texas targeted for occupation by the GOP?

That's easy, covered in 'Election Grabbing 101', first semester! With 38 electoral votes, Texas is, by far the plum in the GOP bag o' dirty tricks. If Texas should turn blue, the GOP is FINISHED. Look at the other 'red' states with electoral votes ranging from 3 to 16. I will put it this way --the GOP needs Texas a hell of a lot more than Texas needs the fucking carpetbaggers of the GOP.

Under the current system, some votes are worth more than others. For example, a single vote in a state having very few electoral votes (Rhode Island with 3 electoral votes) is not worth nor should be worth as much as a single vote in a large state like Texas with some 38 electoral votes or California with 55. At last, 'Southern Strategy' EXPLOITS the present system and is in fact, a huge argument in favor of the kind of reforms I propose.

ALL the people!

Currently, typically minorities are inadequately represented. That's the point behind direct elections. Cut out the middle man; stop 'watering down' the vote. Prior to re-districting by one Tom DeLay, Texas had not been the solid 'red state' that millions now believe it to be. For a period of some 100 years, for example, EVERY TX governor had been Democratic. Some --like the Furgusons --were VERY PROGRESSIVE. It was a better state for it.

---

Political Decision Theory Made Easy

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

I lost patience long ago with so-called 'progressives' because Democrats are 'imperfect'! Who is perfect? I've never seen such a person on any ballot! I prescribe an introductory course in 'decision making'! So what if the MESSIAH is not on the ballot!? You are stuck with two viable choices in any case. You don't like either though one is clearly superior to the other.

NOT voting is not an option; it puts a crooked moron in the Whie House! So --what do you do? You stay home, don't vote and piss and moan about it on FB while a criminal elitist takes over the White House.

I actually consulted a GOP campaign once. I wish I could say that it was an act of 'infiltration' to study GOP tactics and attitudes. Though it was not, I did learn --from the inside --how the GOP thinks. I was in the 'Belly of the Beast'. I even picked the 'brains' of one Tom DeLay --the evil genius who delivered Texas to the GOP on a platter.

Texas had been a Democratic state for some 100 years prior to Tom DeLay's GOP 'revolution'. The GOP campaign manuals actually cover the art of voter suppression. The GOP does not want you to vote. The GOP wants you to BELIEVE that Dems are not better. And --if you buy that crap --you lose!

Short of real revolution, we are stuck with a crappy and inaccurate system, a system that seems designed to keep the very best candidates OFF the ballot. It could not have worked out better for the GOP had they conspired to create it. Come to think of it --they did. That said, the GOP could NEVER, EVER have gone as far as they have of late if idealistic Democrats and Utopian progressives had not decided to boycott the election.

---

---

The Price We Paid for the GOP's Free Lunch with Ruling Elites

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

I am in a cranky mood!

C'mon Obama! Take the gloves off! Obama did not mention several issues that may be found in his own ads. Why not hit Romney with the infamous '47 percent'? Obama could have beaten Romney with his own words. Obama could have held Romney to his his own failed 'standard'.

Obama might have, could have disproved the utter and often meaningless crap that passes for speech these days. Obama might have hit Romney on the issue of the many jobs Romney cut at Bain. Will Democrats never learn this lesson: put the GOP on the ropes or let them hang themselves with GOP absurdities, lies and significant omissions?

Whomever really 'won' the first debate no longer matters. The issue is about the effect it's had on Romney's billionaire buddies who are now prepared to BUY the office for a moron and co-conspirator.
Romney is reported to be collecting money from his millionaire donors "hand over fist". Unless Democrats reach down deep, the race could turn around and elect an UN-ABASHED SHILL for the ruling elites. Latest polls put Romney within one point in Florida (47-46) and just two in Virginia (48-46s).

It would not be this close but for the money factor. Until that issue is addressed, Americans must live under an oligarchy at best, a dictatorship of the 1 percent at the very worst.

While the GOP, kowtowing to the desires of the ruling 1 percent of its creation, poses a clear and present danger to the rule of law, the rights enumerated in our Bill of Rights, the rights of everyone who must, of necessity, work for a living, the rights of those would dissent and protest the right wing destruction of the values of our founding.

The rights of those who wish to work honestly for their living are likewise threatened by the documentable export of jobs during every GOP administration, the export of jobs that are, in fact, the RESULT of GOP policies. And --no --assertions that there are no differences between the parties is (politely) uninformed; and less politely, it's stupid. Democrats who stay at home believing Obama is at fault might as well wait in vain for a Messiah to come again or a Klaato to beam down out of a space craft. Rather than waiting for a 'bailout', I urge Democrats and/or progressives to assume some responsibility and, at the very least, show some initiative.

This is, in a nutshell, the core problem facing liberals. Those who wish to become activists need to direct their energies to dismantling the corporate special interest system and restoring greater equality of income.

--Steve Kangas, The Origins of the Overclass

If the GOP did not invent the sellout, this ongoing auction of the U.S. to the ruling elites, they might as well have. This 'sellout' has enslaved U.S. citizens and, at the same time expects them to pick up the tab for their military adventures on behalf of the obscenely wealthy.

In the meantime, the American people are brainwashed by big media. That's by design. Why do you suppose the Reagan administration worked tirelessly to abolish, perhaps erase the memory of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE?

Why do you suppose that the ownership of media is concentrated in the hands of some five or six huge conglomerates? Was this decreed by God? Is this the result of 'natural selection', good genes, or is it a product of the Big Bang. No --it was the planned result of the Reagan attack on the Fairness Doctrine specifically and, in general, every provision of the Communications Act of 1934.
The internet has proven NOT to have been effective in countering the well-oiled, well-heeled right wing money and propaganda MACHINES.

---

---

What the GOP Did to Texas in a Nutshell

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Prior to the arrival of the Bush crime family in Texas, the state had been progressive and liberal; it was still possible to get a good education. That is true in no small part because every Texas Governor had been Democratic since Richard Coke took office on January 15, 1874. It was not until Bill Clements was sworn in on January 16, 1979 that a Republican would live in the Governor's mansion. It was at that moment that the Texas star began to tarnish.

The GOP has accomplished a great deal since 1974:

• Briefly the GOP successfully subverted public education with notable results.
• The label 'murder capital' stuck on Dallas for the resulting 'rise in crime'.
• The corporate-owned prisons were filled-to the brims! Cause and effect?

Under Rick Perry, Texas executed 235 people in a period of just 11 years. That amounts to more than 21 people per year. Under Bush, 152 people were executed in Texas. That's 30 per year. It reads like a competition!

How did the GOP manage to get away with this scam? I submit the following explanation found on the blog: Blue Bloggin

Texas today is enduring losses of a personal and political kind that resemble the struggle against Santa Anna. Texas leadership has it’s hands in everyone’s pockets and takes what it wants, with a Texas sized smile. The concept of “No State Tax is the shiny object politicians dangle in front of our eyes to convince Texans that Texas ‘stays out of your biz’nez’. No they don’t. That is a Texas sized lie. Texas politicians want to divert all Texas funds to special interest at the expense of education and infrastructure. Texas State sponsored scams are the biggest ponzi schemes our politicians have pulled over our eyes.

Texas politicians want to control your personal freedoms, control your body, control your love life, pollute your land or just take your land away, for the pleasure of their campaign donors. Every decision made by the Texas Republican Congress has a big campaign donor behind it and the likes of Governor Rick Perry has his lies exposed on a regular basis. The ballot box is the greatest weapon Texans have, and even that is being manipulated by these crooks to make sure they have another shot at scramming Texans. Don’t fall for their lies. Vote them out!

Texas politicians have sold their soul so many times to so many special interest that Texans have no idea where their rent, grocery and car payment went. Makes you wonder how these crooks keep up with all the deception.

--Blue Bloggin 

---

---

Why the U.S. is No Longer a Productive Nation

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The decline of the U.S. as a net exporting nation is the inevitable result of the growing, yawning gulf between rich and poor. A nation cannot be productive if it has failed to invest its wealth in the creation of jobs.

It is, at last, 'labor' which creates wealth to begin with. Since Adam Smith wrote 'The Wealth of Nations', every major economist --right or left --has espoused a 'labor theory of value', i.e, 'value' (wealth) is created by labor and is the result of labor. A nation in which wealth is concentrated in the hands of a ruling elite of just 1 percent cannot be productive or efficient. Today --the U.S. is literally owned by China which occupies the No 1 position on the CIA's World Fact Book with the world's largest POSITIVE Current Acct Balance. The U.S. is on the very bottom of that list with the World's largest NEGATIVE Current Account Balance, formerly called the Balance of Trade Deficit.

To make this clear --China makes its living by manufacturing and selling that product to the United States. The U.S., by contrast, is on bottom because U.S. manufacturing of cars, appliances, electronics et al no longer competes. Entire industries have ceased to exist in America. Detroit is a specimen to be studied.

An aside: the right wing recently tried to blame 'Muslims' for the fall of Detroit. Total BS! Muslims had no more to do with the fall of Detroit than did Christians the fall of Rome. The fall of Detroit is the result of stupid/incompetent policies put into effect by Ronald Reagan and his idiot disciple ---George H.W. Bush. It was under Reagan, that the long and depressing decline of America began.

The vast gulf between rich and poor in America is a fairly recent development, a product of the 'robber baron' era. Even so --FDR reversed those trends and the official stats prove it. The Great Depression had been both the result and the symptom of absurd inequities associated with and caused by the era of Robber Barons. It was preceded by three very conservative, very Republican administrations --Coolidge, Harding and Hoover.

An expanding economy, that is, an economy that creates wealth and jobs requires a more egalitarian distribution of wealth. Otherwise --to whom will manufacturers sell? A prosperous middle class is absolutely essential to 1) GDP growth 2) retail sales. An impoverished population will buy increasingly fewer luxury items; an impoverished population will struggle to maintain the very basics --food and shelter.

A nation in which just 1 percent owns more than the remaining 99 percent is an economy on the very brink of collapse. It has happened many times in the past. The best example is Rome. Like the U.S. today, Rome was a teeming city of the very, very poor. Many were refugees from nations that had been conquered by Rome. Like the U.S. today, the currency of Rome --the sesterces --was essentially worthless, a mere 'token' that would admit you to the Gladiator 'games' in the Coliseum.

By impoverishing the U.S. middle class, the GOP capitulated to China which found --in GOP America --a market for its cheap crap. The PRICE of that 'crap' is not found on the label or the check out counter. It is found in the GOP destruction of the American labor movement, American productivity, the American 'standard of living', and, of course, our very futures.

The GOP is NOT a political party. It is a coven of kooky cultists who sold us ALL out to China and the Military-Industrial Complex which orchestrates our LAST REMAINING EXPORTS ---death and destruction.

---

---

A Case for Ending the Current Method by Which Presidents are 'Selected'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The office of President is connected to the electorate 'metaphorically' but not in fact. The very method by which the President is elected is complicated by party machines, primaries, state election procedures and most notably an antiquated and completely useless 'Electoral College'.

As long as there is an 'electoral college', 'third parties' are reduced to playing 'spoiler'; 'states' are given powers they should not have. The 'President' is supposed to represent ALL the people but he/she is, in fact, elected by states and/or state party machines. And those, in turn, are but pawns of big contributors, organized lobbies and special interests.

The only viable alternative is to end the primaries; replace them with a single national popular election defined and decided by an 'instant runoff'. A benefit of this is that free of 'party' machinations, candidates must run on issues. The 'President' of the United States (in theory, at least) must represent all of the people of the United States. A 'direct election' can make a truth of this fiction.

Then --why is the 'President' elected by 'states'?

The following criteria are listed in [an] LWV study:

• Ensure majority rule. Most major political races currently can be won with only a plurality.
• Encourage minority representation, where minority is defined by either party or cultural
• affiliation.
• Encourage fair gender representation.
• Produce fair and accurate representation of diverse political views in legislatures.
• Increase voter participation.
• Encourage geographical representation.
• Encourage “sincere” voting, as opposed to “strategic” voting.
• Maximize effective votes/minimize “wasted” votes.
• Provide a reasonable range of voter choice.
• Prevent fraud and political manipulation.
• Encourage competitive elections

--League of Women Voters in Oregon, Criteria for Evaluating Election Systems, Election Methods: Review of Alternatives and Oregon, Proposals, Executive Summary

There are many ways to arrive at the 'people's choice following a national popular election. The Borda count, for example, is a single-winner election method. Voters are given a list of candidates representing every party fielding a candidate. The voter simply RANKS the candidates in the order of their preference. Their favorite, for example, is 'number one', etc.

Thus the Borda count determines a winner by giving each candidate the number of points which correspond to his/her rank as 'marked' by each voter. Nothing could be simpler: the winning candidate is the one with the most points.

The Borda count is but one system. There are competing 'range' and/or preference systems. All of them, however, must meet certain criteria if we are to achieve the goals of any new proposal.

Everyone's vote must 'equal' everyone's else's vote, i.,e no system should result in any vote or sub-set of votes having more 'weight' statistically than any other vote. One man (person), one vote must become more than mere slogan. It is possible that it be made a fact!

What does this mean to voters? Simplistically, a vote in rural Arizona must --and can -- carry as much 'weight' as a vote in Houston's very, very posh and elite 'River Oaks'; a vote in Harlem must --and can -- carry the same weight as a vote in Minnesota or a vote in any other place, city, neighborhood or enclave in these United States. The President is --after all --said to be elected by popular vote. But that has not been the case in fact and practice. The biggest offender is the 'Electoral College'. Thanks to the electoral college, the value of individual votes in small states are not worth much.

Another benefit is that party machinations may be, can be minimized. Any party can 'elect' within its rank any candidate it desires. Let the parties do what they want within their ranks --as long as its legal. But --as more parties are sure to spring up --more points of view will be represented. The obvious benefit is that voters are no longer reduced to voting between two shades of gray, between frick or frack, between GOP or GOP-LITE. The people will at last been given a choice. Democracy will have at last come to the United States.

The greatest benefit of all may be that the cost of elections will decline. Candidates must address issues over postures and strategies. Voters will themselves sense that --at last --their vote is actually counting for something, that it is not merely lost amid the electoral college and/or the machinations of increasingly complicated and completely out-of-touch parties, primaries and machines.

---

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Subscribe

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

A Free People?

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Democrats are unhappy. I daresay most criticism of President Obama these days is from the left wing --not the GOP! Much of this criticism of both party and the President is misplaced. As old West Texans might have said: "They would complain if they were being a hanged with a new rope!"

I daresay neither the party nor the President are responsible for conditions creating most of this 'unhappiness'. Primarily, I am reminded that just 1 percent own more than the rest of us combined. That outcome is not the result of Democratic policy but of GOP tax cuts going back to Ronald Reagan whose legacy it is. I am reminded that the Military-Industrial Complex has apparently set up shop on K-Street! But --I wonder --was this not noticed when it happened under Herrs Reagan, Bush and Bush?

As it was said in W. Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar': "The fault dear Brutus lies not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings!" That is not said to absolve the Republican party of its many sins. It does mean that we should think clearly about a President who may not have 'undone' Bush as quickly as we might have preferred. It means that we should be loath to make the wrong reforms of the right party.

From Wiki:

"The United States has had a two-party system for over a century. Following Duverger's law, the winner take all system for presidential elections and the single-seat plurality voting system for Congressional elections have over time created the two-party system.

Until these 'conditions' are changed and until MONEY is taken out of the equation, there is NO point in talking about '3rd Parties' which have the effect of splitting what little is left of the left when the GOP has sucked up all the campaign monies from elites for whom DEMS are but a hedged bet!

I have been writing about the transfer of wealth upward since the Reagan years. I witnessed the effects of much of that in Houston where, even in 'boom town', tent cities sprang up in parks, open spaces, under overpasses. The Reagan 'Recession' was clearly the worst recession/depression since the GOP-HOOVER Depression of the 1930s. There has been a 'recession' under every GOP regime since. Even Eisenhower (whom I called the last 'honest' Republican) presided over a recession/depression. By the way, the words 'depression' and 'recession' are synonyms, though folk think 'Depressions' worse. Bottom line: every Democratic President at least since WWII has presided over greater job and GDP growth than any Republican President.

From time to time you hear names of parties ---progressives, libertarian et al. Third parties have a disastrous history in the United States. That is because only the very rich have enough money to help finance campaigns of either party. Most money is concentrated at the top --the so-called 'ruling elite' of just 1 percent of the total population. This 'elite', as a result of Reagnomics specifically, owns more than the rest of us combined. To be expected, this 'elite' will vote the party that made them richer than almost everyone else in the United States. They will vote GOP.

The responses to this outcome have been irrational. Some propose that the opposition to this state of affairs be diluted even more than it already is with third, fourth, fifth parties. That's not smart! Others propose that Democrats might get more votes following a name-change. The usual suspects make the rounds: "progressive" being used from time to time to identify various shades of liberal and/or democrat. None of these 'movements' are viable because none of them have access to money!

There is no need to change the name of the 'Democratic' party. The name comes from the Greek --'demos' --for 'people'. Now --the word 'liberal' is from the Latin 'liber' for 'free'. Therefore, I am a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT. What fascist is going to convince me that there is something wrong with being FREE PEOPLE?

Ike Warns of the M.I.C.

The Military-Congressional Complex

---

How Progressives Can Take Back America

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Many 'progressives' who voted for Obama expected a 'savior'. There are none! The best strategy left to disappointed progressives is to take back the party many believe abandoned them. I was among those who believed Clinton should have taken a stronger stand in defense of liberal and/or progressive values. I despised 'triangulation'.

My biggest disappointment was Janet Reno's attack on the Branch-Davidians in Waco, an unlawful attack violating federal and state laws --most egregiously --the presumption of innocence and every due process clause known to exist anywhere at any time to include the 14th Amendment

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

--U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights.

The best strategy available to progressives now is not to create another party but to take back an existing party apparatus --the Democratic party. It will take years to mount an effective third party whose best hope would consist of 'brokering' a deal with more conservative wings of the only organized opposition to the GOP i.e. the Democratic party.

Progressives' best chance for changing the fascist direction taken by American politics may be found in a book that was, in fact, appropriated if not usurped by the GOP. I have in mind one Saul Alinsky whose 'Rules for Radical', written for a liberal, left leaning movement owing much to FDR and war opponents like Eugene Debs.

Interestingly, it is the GOP which has made more effective use of the strategies and tactics than have liberals or Democrats for whom 'Rules for Radicals' was written. It is cited in GOP campaign manuals, practiced in almost every campaign. I have personal knowledge of that, having acquired a few GOP 'campaign manuals' at a time when Tom DeLay was building a conservative machine while gerrymandering the state of Texas.

Alinsky advises 'activists' to work inside the existing system, to utilize the existing networks and/or infrastructure. Starting from scratch is inefficient, time consuming, wasteful of time and resources. Democrats have an infrastructure in place already. Use it! As ALINSKY himself said:

"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future."

--Saul Alinsky

If 'liberals/progressives will not heed and benefit from a 'legendary' liberal organizer/activist like Alinsky, I have a slim chance of waking them up! If the 'left' insists upon walking off a cliff there is little anyone can do for them.

There is now, however, an opportunity to be seized. Whatever your feelings about the Bush occupation of Iraq, the political fact of the matter is that millions of Americans seemed to have bought into the many lies that the right wing told in order to justify the massive theft of oil resources in the Middle East. The invasion of Iraq, we were told, was part of the bigger 'war on terror' (more properly, 'terrorism'). Bin Laden was the boogeyman upon which were directed the fears and prejudices of much of the population and especially the right wing which wanted to believe. For Bushco, they were an easy sale!

Recent events have turned the Bush strategy on its head! This is a paradigm shift rarely seen in American politics in which a right wing and a left wing had dug their trenches and had begun a long seige. In just a few short days, the news that Bin Laden had been killed --NOT on Bush's watch but by a Democratic U.S. regime --has shaken the GOP to its rotting foundations. There is really very little the GOP can do but praise the efforts of a Democratic President. It must hurt! My heart bleeds!

There are, therefore, opportunities to change the very complexion of U.S. politics but only if progressives work with the existing Democratic infrastructure.

Through a process combining hope and resentment, the organizer tries to create a “mass army” that brings in as many recruits as possible from local organizations, churches, services groups, labor unions, corner gangs, and individuals. Alinsky provides a collection of rules to guide the process. But he emphasizes these rules must be translated into real-life tactics that are fluid and responsive to the situation at hand.

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.

Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

--Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

The GOP is now robbed of its cause celebre --the capture and/or death of Osama Bin Laden and, at the same time, robbed of its erstwhile raison d'etre --the war on terrorism!

---

Decision Theory for Progressives

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Anyone telling me that there are no differences between GOP and DEM had best prove it! The government's own stats prove that every Democratic President since WWII (possibly since 1900) has better GDP and job growth than ANY GOP president. Those are perhaps the most significant, the most important differences between the two parties. Certainly --without GDP growth, without the creation of new jobs, the economy will collapse in short order. If there were no other differences between the parties, these alone are sufficient to justify never, ever voting GOP. Unless, of course, you are a robber baron member of the ruling 1 percent.

In Texas, there is yet another strikingly significant difference between Gopps and Democrats: EDUCATION. Every Democratic governor in TX has enjoyed higher rankings and it was under Bush Jr ( as Governor) that Texas beat out the likes of Mississippi et al for dead last in high school graduations. As high school graduations declined, crime --not surprisingly --rose! Who benefits? Simply --the corporate sponsors of the GOP who own the 'privatized' prisons. There may be no better way to launder a payoff.

The GOP benefits in yet another way: an uninformed and/or semi-literate population is sure to be fooled by GOP propaganda. A population that does not read must rely upon the electronic media for information. Conveniently, right wing regimes have 'de-regulated' the media, allowing its consolidation into fewer and fewer huge corporations. Just as conveniently for the GOP, an ideological right-wing court has decreed that 'corporations', in fact, just legal abstractions, are to be considered 'real people' in the eyes of the 'law'.

In Texas, the fortunes of the Bush crime family rose as education, quality of life and air quality declined. This is another cause and effect from which only the GOP and its crooked sponsors benefit. A corollary: as Bush family fortunes increased so did crime, poverty and unemployment.

If you wish to be informed you must ask: why is that the case? Dismissing that verifiable fact with a PC platitude like: "...there are no differences between the parties' is a convenient cop out, an excuse not to think, a ruse designed to absolve the GOP. It's a 'childhood' defense: "...but Harry did it too, teach!" But did he?

Have the Democrats, in Texas, ever dared to pull off such an overt and heinous crime? Indeed --no! In fact, it is often joked that Democrat crimes (if there were any) benefited the people. The folk wisdom --'he may be a crook but he's our crook' --was and is still often said of Democrats and their constituency: the people! It is NOT said of the GOP. The GOP is no one's crook but that of huge corporations and the corporate money-brokers, i.e, K-street pimps...uh...shills.

Any Democrat chosen at random beats ANY gop re: the environment. Additionally, you will find more effective opposition to 'corporate personhood' among Dems than among Gopps if any opposition among GOPPS whatsoever! The GOP, by and large, defend the recent SCOTUS decision which does what even God nor the Wizard of Oz could do --it bestowed upon corporations, mere legal abstractions, 'personhood'! What other miracles await us? I had feared to ask!

A Bullshit Decision

Every intelligent person most certainly knows that SCOTUS blew it with 'corporate personhood'! But when I say that Antonin Scalia may not know, I am being generous. I may be giving him a benefit of doubt that he neither earned nor deserved! If he knows better and rules otherwise, he is just a common crook! Bertolt Brecht could not have described Scalia better than his terse summation of crookery:

"A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook!"

Scalia either drools in public like most GOP morons ---OR he knows 'corporate personhood' is utter crap and lies about it. He doesn't care one way or the other! He long ago sold his soul. He's a lost cause, a hard case, a closed file! Scalia is a crook. To sum up: Scalia is either a moron or he is a crook! The only remaining option is that Scalia is both a crook and an idiot.

Perhaps GDP growth, jobs and economic opportunity are unimportant to you. If that is the case, vote GOP! You will not regret it. The GOP --since WWII --has not excelled in either. Perhaps, corporate personhood is just fine with you. Perhaps you can live with the fact that the GOP is the enemy of edcuation. If you're OK with all of the above --fine! Vote GOP! But don't call yourself a 'progressive'.

You get ONE vote!

Who says that by voting you should expect to change the world? We consider 'voting' a right and so it is! But it is a right that must be exercised if it is to have any meaning at all. If, for example, you have the right to vote but fail to exercise it, the outcome is the same if you had not had the vote to begin with. Ergo: not voting is a vote for anything that is anti-Democracy! Not voting is only an option for those who can live with a dictatorship; not voting is an option only if you're OK with idiots telling you what to do, think or say. Not voting is an option only if you think GOP crimes are just fine!

It is narcissistic, perhaps neurotic and most certainly immature to expect everyone you vote for to be precisely what you want. There are no guarantees that any election will please all the people all the time. To believe otherwise is immature, self-indulgent.

At last --the root of the word DEMOCRACY is 'demos'--Greek for 'people'. You have 'a' vote among many. You are not a dictator. But --history will support the warning that a people so self-absorbed that they will not vote for the best possible result but --rather --waits until a 'dream team' is beamed down to them from on high --is done for. I don't recall anyone promising anyone a Utopia.

---

---

Revolution Postponed, Perhaps Indefinitely

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

I have been urging a 'peaceful revolution' for some 20 years now! I might have been wasting my breath and keyboard! The time for that has come and gone!

In America, too many progressives seemed content to post ugly caricatures of Bush Jr or the usual and almost always correct assessment of his utterly failed regime. Anyone would have been better, we supposed!

It was too easily forgotten that in the United States there is no 'left wing' with which to mount an effective opposition --let alone revolution. Campaigns are incredibly expensive to 'run' and even more so to 'win'! Only the increasingly concentrated, corporate media benefits. In a nation in which right wing policies --most notably those of Ronald Reagan --have resulted in the enrichment of an increasingly tiny elite, the tiny elite tolerates elections to maintain the appearance of 'Democracy'. I will not bother to post the actual 'Gini Indices' that prove that point --a point that should already have been made, documented, and known by all. In short, American wealth is increasingly concentrated in fewer hands with the rise of the GOP. It is not a coincidence --it's policy! Reagan's 'tax cut' and subsequent GOP largesse was and remains a payoff to the base.

But what is to be done about it? Forget about waging revolution in the conventional sense. The only hope left Democrats is a peaceful revolution waged first from within the party. It must be recalled that Hitler's 'Beer Hall Putsch' succeeded in getting Adolph arrested and thrown in jail. It is tragic that he learned from his mistake and eventually won the leadership of what was, at the time, a 'socialist workers' party. It would not remain so long. A. Hitler --like so many American politicians --pulled a 'bait and switch' on the German people.

The Democratic party is reduced to 'sloppy seconds'; they are but a hedged bet for those who buy and finance not just individual politicians but the process itself. We are property! Realistically --how 'radical', how 'progressive', how innovative can a Democratic candidate be when his/her entire campaign is financed by the same folk who brought you Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush --the three worst 'presidents' in U.S. history --the 'three horsemen of the political apocalypse'?

Progressives were content to sit on their asses and bitch about the choices in the general election! In many ways, the general election is the least important aspect of a political campaign. Policy and issues have been long decided. Is it no wonder, then, that elections are increasingly boring. Nothing new is ever said. Indeed, progressive issues are always the target of the right wing, prominently --Social Security.

To combat socialism Bismarck put through between 1883 and 1889 a program for social security far beyond anything known in other countries. It included compulsory insurance for workers against old age, sickness, accident and incapacity, and though organized by the State it was financed by employers and employees. It cannot be said that it stopped the rise of the Social Democrats or the trade unions, but it did have a profound influence on the working class in that it gradually made them value security over political freedom and caused them to see in the State, however conservative, a benefactor and a protector. Hitler, as we shall see, took full advantage of this state of mind. In this, as in other matters, he learned much from Bismarck. ”I studied Bismarck’s socialist legislation,” Hitler remarks in Mein Kampf (p. 155), ”in its intention, struggle and success.”

--Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, as quoted by William Shirrer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, p 87.

Nazis were attacking 'Social Security' even in the 'Third Reich' and, given a chance, the GOP will attack and finish it off in a 'Fourth Reich' of their creation. As far as 'Social Security' is concerned it is --arguably --the government's ONLY success story, contrary to the following 'specimen' of the kind of fallacious and idiotic thinking that is destroying our nation before our eyes:

Regardless of what you personally think, Social Security is completely illegal and unCONstitutional, if you believe that the CONstitution is legally binding on anybody. I, on the other hand, take Spooner's attitude that it is NOT, and that therefore, the criminal syndicate referred to by dolts as the "federal government" has no legal authority at all.

--An idiot

If Social Security were illegal (it is not) it ought NOT to be! Without it, any one of a number of GOP recession/depressions would have decimated millions of productive Americans whose 'work' made the nation strong. For the same reason, the ruling elites of the right wing will cut off their own noses but --sadly --not until they have relegated the rest of us to misery in the land of the worthless dollar! Alas! Comments like the excerpted one above tend to confirm many in the growing belief that we will have deserved our fate.

It is often said that there are no differences between the parties --a simplistic excuse for not getting involved at the local level during the primaries. If there are few differences between the major parties, then millions have been disenfranchised, left with no one to vote for. Any large block reduced to voting 'against' a major candidate has already lost, before the elections, the opportunity to vote 'FOR' a candidate.

The oft repeated excuse is: '...but there are no differences between the candidates'! There never will be if most of the population 'sits out' the primary process. There are, in fact, real differences between Democratic and Republicans not the least of which is the fact that every Democratic President at least since World War II has significantly better GDP and job creation records than any Republican president. There are other less significant differences but real nonetheless. But few people know this and, Democrats seem too timid to mention it during campaigns. Democrats should be beating the fricking GOP over its collective head with the truth!

In summary, the GOP dictates the agenda because it is owned by the ruling elite and, as a result, GOP policies are designed to enrich this elite. As long as the money drives campaigns, the differences between the parties will continue to blur and/or diminish. At present, Democrats get monies from the same people who finance the GOP. The Democratic party is reduced to a 'hedged bet'. The elites have the money, finance the elections. Democrats cannot afford to be truly independent. It's all a self-fulfilling prophecy, an echo chamber in which real people are simply drowned out. If you don't think so, just try getting 'equal time' to counter the bullshit that is spewed by Fox, Limbaugh, Beck, Billo and the boys!

Real reforms that could change things would be opposed by the big corporations. Naturally --when corporations via K-Street dictate policy, nothing will change. The power is entrenched. A real revolution would mandate mass bustups of the entrenched powers --corporations, the corporate kingmakers who 'select' the candidates they like with a check!

By the time, the 'general election' rolls around, the slate is reduced to Frick or Frack, Dumb or Dumber! There are no viable third choices! Nevertheless --not voting concedes the nation to the GOP. That is not an option. The better option --the third option --does not exist: a viable, grassroots, active 'progressive party' (if that is the preferred label these days)!

As I have written time and again --if 'progressives' want a real revolution they must first wage one inside the existing Democratic party. Progressives must take back the Democratic party --the party of Roosevelt and real progressives.

Even Hitler did not start from scratch; he and his goons got involved and took over an existing party, rebuilt it in their image, organized at the local level and eventually became a force to be reckoned with. Read Shirer's 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich'. Read any history of any revolution. Revolutions are not waged nor won by sitting on one's ass watching CNN and bitching about things. Do you think Hitler invented the Nazi party? No --he did not! But neither was he sitting at home --swilling a lager --while listening to 'primary' returns on the radio!

Many people claim to have options, choices, privileges, luxuries that they don't have, perhaps never had! But sitting out the primaries is not one of them if you wish to make a difference. Hitler did not invent the NAZI party; he took it over. With it, he built up a base of support that Hindenburg had to deal with and eventually make concessions to.

Anyone not willing to get involved in local conventions might as well stay home, swill a beer and watch the returns! But don't bother! Because millions think as you do, the end result has all been worked out on K-Street! One of only two viable candidates will win having been financed by the very same big money that bankrolls both major candidates. Interestingly, less money is given to the Dems! The Democrats have been reduced to supporting an illusion of Democracy.

Arrowsmith [Aerosmith] Eat the Rich!

Bringing Progressive Politics Back To The People

Subscribe

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Election Postmortem: A Picture of Dorian Gray

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

It is said that insanity is repeating a failed strategy in the expectation of one day getting a different result. Because that never happens, the nation is nuts! Just enough people always vote against their own interests to guarantee that wealth will continue to 'trickle up', that wars benefiting ONLY the very wealthy will continue to be waged, that everyone else will suffer declines in education, the environment, living standards, and the plague of fascist law enforcement taser fetishists and/or authoritarian perverts.

Like a vain Dorian Gray, a huge chunk of the U.S. electorate has sold its soul for a temporary feel good. Keep it up! There will be a reckoning. If I were living in a posh suburb and voting GOP, I would be well advised to check on that oil portrait collecting dust, out of sight, down in the basement.

The mid-term election pleases no one and disappoints everyone. Surely, the screwed-up process and endemic flaws at every level could be overcome were there a will to do so or if 'politicians' had anything meaningful to offer. To be honest, I have not checked the 'turn out' numbers. What for? What's the point? I doubt that there are any surprises except, perhaps, that anyone bothered to show up at all. That is not cynicism on my part but a lingering optimism that should any politician ever tell the truth, eschew spin and BS, outline a real program with real solutions about real issues, the people would --indeed --show up and vote! Ummm maybe not! Maybe we're just screwed up! Maybe we should expect or deserve to be robbed by just one percent of the total population. I will say this: if you voted GOP or tea bagger, you are a big part of the problem.

The chart at right is just a small part of the economic debacle, the black hole left Obama by Bush. That anyone not a member of the plutocratic one percent votes GOP is simply insane.

The people themselves are part of the problem and until they stop blaming everyone but themselves, the nation, Democracy itself, is finished as the economy is sucked into an increasingly tiny black hole: the nation's wealthiest one percent.

If the wealthy are so wealthy, where is the money? The quick response: OFFSHORE!

If the economy needs a stimulus, who should get the money? If you said rich investors, corporations and/or banks, you FLUNK this course. That is precisely what is done with every stimulus and, in every case, it fails. The wrong people get the money which they quickly invest offshore, perhaps Switzerland or Panama or wherever the financial cognoscenti squirrel away their 'winnings' these days! The point is this: they are cashing in their chips and leaving the casino with their booty, your ass! Ocean's 11 have nothing on these guys. This heist has been going on at least since the ascension of Ronald Reagan. The official stats at the Bureau of Labor Stats, the Census Bureau and the U.S. Commerce Department - B.E.A. confirm me.

Democrats, meanwhile, have a classic positioning problem. That they perform better economically is not enough. Most people don't understand economics and are often suckered with slogans. Sadly for the nation, being right is no longer good enough to get you elected. And being wrong is --unfortunately --not enough to get you thrown out of office; ergo we are stuck with the increasingly stupid but powerful, evil right wing noise machine.

So --how does one begin a revolution? The late Howard Zinn left us a clue and it is that great Texan, Bill Moyer, who draws our attention to it in one of his recent speeches.

One month before his death he finished his last book, The Bomb. Once again he was wrestling with his experience as a B-17 bombardier during World War II, especially his last mission in 1945 on a raid to take out German garrisons in the French town of Royan. For the first time the Eighth Air Force used napalm, which burst into liquid fire on the ground, killing hundreds of civilians. He wrote, “I remember distinctly seeing the bombs explode in the town, flaring like matches struck in the fog. I was completely unaware of the human chaos below.” Twenty years later he returned to Royan to study the effects of the raid and concluded there had been no military necessity for the bombing; everyone knew the war was almost over (it ended three weeks later) and this attack did nothing to affect the outcome. His grief over having been a cog in a deadly machine no doubt confirmed his belief in small acts of rebellion, which mean, as Howard writes in the final words of the book, “acting on what we feel and think, here, now, for human flesh and sense, against the abstractions of duty and obedience.”

--Bill Moyers: "Welcome to the Plutocracy!", 2010

Another friend of Dorian, the artist Basil Hallward, awakens Dorian’s vanity. After admiring a portrait of himself painted by Basil, Dorian declares that he would give his own soul if he could remain eternally young while the portrait grows old. He gets his wish, and the picture shows the gradual disfigurement of his soul as he sinks into a life of degradation and crime.

--Excerpt: Synopsis of 'The Picture of Dorian Gray'

Don't believe the pundits: It's not over 'til it's over!

by Guest Columnist, Doug Drenkow

News flash! Despite what a lot of the pundits might lead you to believe, the election of 2010 has not yet been decided. Until Tuesday morning, it has not yet even begun! (Except, of course, for mail-in ballots, which -- again despite what some pundits had led us to expect -- are running decidedly in favor of Democrats)

Do we want less regulation of the very companies that crashed our economy?

Do we want greater inequality of wealth in our country?

Do we want to increase our national debt by lowering taxes on the rich?

Or do we want to invest in infrastructure and green energy and other pressing needs in the short run, to increase demand and bring down unemployment -- by the way, the only way to pay off our debts -- in the long run?

Are we going to be bullied by the history-twisting, race-baiting, immigrant-fearing, health reform-hating, climate science-denying, fascism-flirting phenomenon of the Tea Party?

Are we going to give in to the Right-wing political, media, and corporate powers that foment and finance the Tea Party, the very same powers that the Tea Party dupes publicly rail against?

In short, are we going to give our country back to the very same party that drove us into the ditch we're now trying our damnedest to get out of?

Or are we going to say No! to The Party of No, and vote -- and get out the vote -- for Democrats?!

And while we're at it, let's keep up the growing pressure to reform the filibuster rules -- possible only on the first day of the new Congress -- that have killed off more good legislation in the Senate and given the GOP more power than anything else.

Well, as I wish progressive candidates and their supporters across the nation all the best, here are some excellent candidates and strong positions on propositions for our election in California, along with some very good reasons for voting and for getting out the vote:

C A N D I D A T E S

GOVERNOR: JERRY BROWN. He has devoted his life to public service, and done so effectively and with honor. Jerry Brown has consistently worked for fiscal responsibility, environmental protection, diversity, workers rights, new technology, and infrastructure development -- keys to growing new jobs in California -- while being tough on crime, including the "white collar" variety. Even those who have on occasion disagreed with him know that Jerry tells you exactly what he believes; and he's usually been ahead of the curve, out in the lead -- as with his big emphasis on education years before it became fashionable to recognize it as the key to our economic competitiveness in the 21st century. Compare that to his opponent, who has flip-flopped (to say the least) on everything from immigration to abortion. And do we really want to make governor of our great state someone who not only has no experience in government but who also got into big trouble making big backroom deals with Wall Street?

SENATOR: BARBARA BOXER. Sen. Boxer has always stood up for Californians and what's best about California. She has proudly supported economic stimulus money and other legislation protecting and creating clean energy and millions of other U.S. jobs, after-school and education programs for kids, health care reform for all, environmental protections, women's rights, programs for veterans and seniors, and -- overall, as I see it -- standing up for "the little guy and gal" up against formidable powers-that-be. By contrast, her opponent, again someone with no experience in government, paid herself handsomely while shipping American jobs overseas. Are those really the values we want representing California in the U.S. Senate?

LT. GOVERNOR: GAVIN NEWSOM. Yes, he's been an outspoken proponent of civil rights for gay people, and all people. So how is that a bad thing? As mayor of San Francisco, Newsom championed biotech and other new technology jobs, nearly universal health care, solutions for homelessness, and urban renewal. He's a natural leader and will make a great Lt. Governor.

ATTORNEY GENERAL: KAMALA HARRIS. As the first African American woman and South Asian American woman in California to be elected as a district attorney, Kamala Harris has been extremely effective as D.A. in San Francisco, cracking down on crime -- particularly violent crime, as against children -- and working to improve the quality of life, as by increasing prosecutions for vandalism, graffiti, and auto burglary. Harris has brought free legal clinics to immigrant neighborhoods, expanded services for crime victims and their families, and developed programs to prevent re-offending. Like her predecessor, our current Attorney General and candidate for Governor, Kamala Harris will be tough on crime and good for California.

TREASURER: BILL LOCKYER. As State Treasurer, Lockyer has held the unenviable position of having to confront the national recession, the greatest economic challenge of our lifetime. But his smart, hard work with the state's finances has created and maintained more than 100,000 good-paying construction and related jobs and saved thousands of projects for highways, schools, parks, natural resources, and affordable housing. As other investment funds lost trillions when the financial system crashed, Lockyer's prudent investments protected the state's $80 billion investment fund, which actually earned dividends and never lost a penny! He led the national fight against the Wall Street rating agencies that contributed to the crash; and even as credit has dried up nationwide, California has been able to sell bonds at historic low interest rates. Having proved himself "under fire," Bill Lockyer definitely deserves to be re-elected Treasurer of California.

CONTROLLER: JOHN CHIANG. Not only has he already proven himself well qualified for the job, as the state's "independent fiscal watchdog" -- weeding out waste, fraud, and abuse and making the state's finances more transparent and accountable to the public -- John Chiang has courageously stood up to both the governor and the legislature in the state's budget crisis -- denying them accounting tricks and holding their feet to the fire. What's more, John has shown himself to me, personally, to be intelligent and sincerely concerned with the issues affecting everyday Californians. He, too, deserves re-election!

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER: DAVE JONES. As Assemblymember from Sacramento, Dave Jones has earned a reputation standing up for consumer rights, children and families, affordable housing, early childhood and other education, environmental protection, healthcare, privacy rights, civil rights, equal access to the courts, and economic development. In short, Dave Jones has what it takes to make a great Insurance Commissioner, looking out for us.

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION: TOM TORLAKSON. A science teacher -- a second-generation teacher -- and high school coach, Assemblymember Tom Torlakson has fought for school funding, textbooks, computers, campus safety, student health and fitness, after-school programs, student nutrition, and physical education, and against hazing, crimes against children, junk foods on campus, and our alarming dropout rates. As State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Torlakson wants to work for safe schools, career and technical education, college prep, arts and music programs, and excellence in school management. A vote for Torlakson is a vote for our kids.

SECRETARY OF STATE: DEBORAH BOWEN. As Secretary of State, Bowen has earned a national reputation for exposing flaws and ensuring security in our electronic voting systems. She has also streamlined her agency and cut its budget, increased the public's access to agency information online, improved voter education, and held private contractors more accountable. Sec. of State Bowen has earned our votes for re-election.

P R O P O S I T I O N S

PROP. 19: MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION. YES. Regulate and tax the sale of this already widely available substance, like we do alcohol; the existing prohibition, like that we had against alcohol, costs society dearly -- in terms of policing, incarceration, enriching and empowering gangs and drug cartels, and making criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Supported by L.A. Co. Dem. Party.

PROP. 20: CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING. NO. Empowers the 14-member state redistricting commission -- appointed by three state auditors, in a very untransparent and unaccountable procedure -- created by Prop. 11 (2008) and prevents redistricting by the Legislature -- accountable to us voters -- and does not guarantee the right of voters to reject boundary maps by referendum. If both this and Prop. 27 (below) pass, then the one with the most votes prevails. Opposed by CA and L.A. Co. Dem. parties and the CA Sierra Club.

PROP. 21: SURCHARGE FOR PARKS AND WILDLIFE. YES. Pay an extra $18 a year on your vehicle licensing to not only preserve and protect our wonderful state parks (in need of a lot of maintenance) and irreplaceable wildlife, but also to get for yourself a free day-use admission to all the state parks. Supported by CA and L.A. Co. Dem. parties and the CA Sierra Club.

PROP. 22: PROHIBITION ON STATE'S BORROWING OR TAKING FUNDS FOR TRANSPORTATION, REDEVELOPMENT, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROJECTS. NO. A close call -- a power struggle between state and local governments -- but the facts that it will further hamstring the state budgeting process -- already nearly impossible -- and open the door for "sweetheart" deals with local developers argue against this proposition. Opposed by CA and L.A. Co. Dem. parties.

PROP. 23: SUSPENDS "GREENHOUSE GAS" AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW. NO. Don't let the Texas oil companies behind this initiative tear down our state's leading environmental law and destroy clean energy jobs! Opposed by CA and L.A. Co. Dem. parties and the CA Sierra Club.

PROP. 24: REPEALS CORPORATE TAX BREAKS. YES. Close a big tax loophole that recently passed but benefits almost entirely a few huge corporations, not small businesses, and restore funding to schools and other vital public services. Supported by CA and L.A. Co. Dem. parties.

PROP. 25: SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE FOR BUDGET. YES. Make state budgeting fairer and more effective. Restore majority-rule -- and get rid of minority-rule, by The Party of No -- by dropping the requirement for a 2/3 supermajority and requiring only a simple majority (51% or greater) to pass a state budget (although there still will be a 2/3 supermajority required to raise taxes). What's more, if legislators fail to agree on a budget by the deadline, they forfeit their state pay! See also Prop. 26 (just below). Supported by CA and L.A. Co. Dem. parties and the CA Sierra Club.

PROP. 26. SUPERMAJORITY VOTE FOR FEES AND CHARGES: NO. Changes the vote to approve certain fees and charges -- as on big oil and tobacco, to clean up their pollution and other health hazards -- from a simple majority (51% or greater) to a 2/3 supermajority; in other words, allows minority-rule, by the Party of No. See also Prop. 25 (just above). Opposed by CA and L.A. Co. Dem. parties and the CA Sierra Club.

PROP. 27. ELIMINATES REDISTRICTING COMMISSION. YES. Eliminates the 14-member state redistricting commission -- appointed by three state auditors, in a very untransparent and unaccountable procedure -- created by Proposition 11 (2008) and returns redistricting to the Legislature -- accountable to us voters -- and guarantees by constitutional amendment the right of voters to reject boundary maps by referendum. If both this and Prop. 20 (above) pass, then the one with the most votes prevails. Supported by CA and L.A. Co. Dem. parties.

Voting is power to the people! Use it or lose it. Vote and get out the vote!

---

---

Part Tinker Bell, Part Predator Drone: The Fantasy of the Presidency as Deus ex Machina

by Guest Columnist,Phil Rockstroh

The devices employed in US election cycles and its national politics, in general, are akin to the dramatic conventions of children's theatre. Every two to four years, voters are instructed to clap their hands and believe in Tinker Bell. "Children, you have to believe -- you really, really have to believe in Tinker Bell." But behind the stagecraft is oligarchy. President Obama took millions from Goldman Sachs, et al. If there is a Captain Hook in this show, it is those Wall Street pirates who threw the global economy to the crocodiles for their ill-gotten gains.

Of course, this is a tired, old show, riddled with shopworn devices, performed by a rotating cast of hacks. Ronald Reagan set the fool's gold standard of a president playacting the role of populist, matinee hero -- Clinton, Bush, and Obama all learned from him -- as, all the while, he, in reality, went about the business of protecting and enhancing the holdings of the moneyed elite.

In Reagan's case, this con game was both an act of inspired career advancement and banal casuistry. Reagan, b-grade actor that he was, was never deep enough to harbor any belief he wasn't paid to evince. By professional necessity, he convinced himself he believed those bright and shining lies and polished platitudes he pitched to a public of credulous marks; for this is the mode of mind of effective salesmen and good showmen ... having the ability to conflate shallow self interest with the good of all.

Such self-deception -- played out as public legerdemain and state stagecraft -- is now the modus operandi of media age presidencies. The effect of this transformation, from executive gravitas to virtual playacting, has been somewhat less than salubrious for the health of the republic. When, for example, an American city drowns in floodwater and Americans are drowning in economic woes, US presidents know how to act like a president -- but not act as president. The soundbites make the man; not the man makes the soundbites.

Thus far, Obama's role has been to front the status quo. Whose interest do you think he had in mind when he picked Larry Summers and Tim Geithner as his top economic advisors? Hint: not those who clutch a subway strap nor sit stranded in freeway traffic, in bank-financed motor vehicles, on their daily commute to and from work.

Presidents, as is the case with all people, internalize the social and cultural architecture of their times. Reagan, the actor, had to find a way to believe what movie industry scriptwriters and film directors wanted from him insofar as the creation of character -- and, during the cold war and McCarthy era witchhunts, when G.E. and other defense industry giants started writing his checks (after his movie career died a lackluster death) he performed his role as resolute cold warrior as requested. And he, as has every president since, became a shill and enabler of the national security state.

Barack Obama's transformation from progressive hope-monger to status quo water-carrier should not come as a shock. It would be nearly impossible for the US populace, chief executives included, not to have internalized the tenets of the corporate capitalist/consumer empire. This corporate structure is as pervasive internally as it is extant. It exists as both outer architecture and inner psychological imprinting. Therefore, corporatism is as real to us as the deep forests and its woodland gods were to European pagans and The Church and its dogma was to the peasants of the Dark and Middle Ages.

The circumstances of the present era, like the ancient belief in the acts of self-involved gods whose doings were heedless to the fate of mere mortals, are larger than us and will not cede to our demands to behave with compassion or even sanity. To name but one example: The earth's oceans are suffering, many oceanographers say dying, due to the death cult calculus of runaway capitalism. In essence, we are confronted by a situation in which we experience abject powerlessness. An aura of unease and anomie prevails.

This unease contributes to a desperate fantasy of the presidency as deus ex machina. The right's deification of Reagan cast the fantasy into the realm of bughouse raving: The dead president as savor zombie. The belief that Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviet Union with 1940's era movie jibes and bromides is such a preposterous fantasy ... that it evokes one of my own: Ronald Reagan, endlessly imprisoned in a soundbite loop in Hell, throwing back his shoulders, doing that portrayal of manly resolve he wore out during his time in office ... then bandying into the indifference of eternity, this variation of his patented platitude, "Mr. Devil, tear down this wall of fire."

What is the emotional toil taken by the reality that in life, unlike theatre, there will be no sudden plot reversal brought about by a device of deus ex machina? In these desperate imaginings, we demand our president both lay on hands to heal the wounds inflicted by capitalism and smite our perceived enemies abroad. We insist he be not only a steely eyed warrior-king but our collective killer Christ.

Democratic presidents, and their handlers and advisers, become possessed of this errant archetype as well. Hence, according to the fantasy, to be viable as commander-in-chief, they are driven to prove their toughness, preferably, in some he-man display of resolute stupidity. They must prove they have a pair of killer/redeemer god balls -- which might be termed, Christesticles -- by bombing somebody -- anybody. At present, it appears this fraternity of hubris-blinded killer clowns has Iran in their cross hairs.

The act of imagining enemies serves as distraction from the angst arising from the vast economic inequities of life in the contemporary US. This is the good versus evil, dramatic conventions of the children's theatre of our politics: We boo the villains -- and are instructed to clap our hands to bring about an intervention by supernatural forces ... In this case, in the form of an action hero/magical being to do our killing: a deity -- who is part Tinker Bell, part predator drone.

But our situation is closer to that of the flawed protagonists in Waiting For Godot -- Samuel Becket's brilliant take on the self-deception at work within the alienated hearts of those who believe their suffering will be assuaged by the arrival of a god-like being. The last lines and final stage instructions of the play are emblematic of the Obama presidency:

VLADIMIR: Well? Shall we go?

ESTRAGON: Yes, let's go.

(Stage direction: They do not move.)

Obama and the Democrats do not move. They do not act. They do not govern. They do not serve their constituents.

Although, in reality, they do serve their true constituents ... the corporate elite -- the forces behind the rising level of authoritarian control over the lives of the people of the nation, both of ordinary citizens and the political class. In situations of veiled coercion, where unspoken threats to one's economic security and social standing are the primary motivating factors determining an individual's response to an exploitive system, there is no need to threaten potential dissenters with crude, old school totalitarian methods of repression such as forced deportment to labor and reeducation camps. In the class stratified, debt shackled US work force, where the personal consequences of financial upheaval are devastating, the implicit threat of being cast into the nation's urban gulag archipelago of homelessness coerces most into compliance with the dictates of the corporate oligarchs.

The effects are insidious. In such an environment, there is no call for the Sturm und Drang of mass spectacle, replete with blazing torches and blown banners hoisted by serried ranks of jut jawed, jack-booted ubermensch: corporatism establishes an authoritarian order by way of a series of overt bribes and tacit threats. This social and cultural criteria causes an individual to become cautious. A Triumph of the bland reigns. Obama's bland, non-threatening charm was cultivated in this hybrid, corporate soil.

As is the case with Obama, corporatism demands employees (and Obama is first among us underlings) render themselves fecklessly pleasant. This is the mandatory mode of being demanded of corporate hires -- self-annihilation by habitual amiability. And Barack Obama has perfected the form.

In his memoir, Dreams From My Father, Obama stated that he learned early: Never scare old, white people ... that is a good description of how he has dealt with BP and the banksters, and all the other old white men in their perches of privilege and power.

Obama, as was the case with Bill Clinton, will not challenge the corporate oligarchs. Both he and Clinton are gifted, intelligent men, but are products of their time. They are men of, what was once termed, "modest birth" who -- out necessity to rise past the circumstances of their origins -- studied, internalized, and made allegiance to the corporate structure. Why? Because, in the age of corporate oligarchy, they knew the only way to rise to power would be to serve its interests. In contrast, FDR came from the ruling class; he knew their ways ... wasn't tempted by the rewards and adulation that come with privilege. He was born into it, could never lose its advantages, and it held no novelty for him.

I'm not positing Clinton was simply a shallow narcissist, as was a fashionable invective aimed at his hulking frame and over-sized persona during his tenure as POTUS ... such palaver was so much shadow projection on the part of the vampiric careerists of the Washington-New York nexus of blood-sucking media undead. Rather, Clinton was a big talent. He was Byronic in his expansive nature. And like Byron he could claim, in all honesty, he could love a thousand women (and not only women, but varieties of constituents) in a thousand different ways, all at once. He was a romantic at heart in an age of crackpot realists. He was a large presence in a small-minded time. And this is how his trouble in the 1990s, and ours, in the present time, began.

When the Cold War ended, and the arrogant fantasies of neoliberal capitalism were ascendant, virtuoso of the zeitgeist that Clinton was, his prodigious wings caught those heady updrafts and he took the nation on an Icarian flight of Reaganesque economic deregulation, that would, later, contribute to the spiraling fall -- known, at present, as "the economic downturn."

Clinton could have used some saturnine apprehension regarding the dark side of capitalism, rather than the intoxication gained from the provisional, mutually serving alliances he made with his Wall Street bubble salesmen buddies, Rubin, Summers, and Geithner.

Clinton's periodic, erotic contretemps were not the problem; it was his and his advisor's flights of economic fancy that had real consequences for those of us who live at ground level among the debris and ash resultant from the inevitable fiery crash of their vanity and cupidity.

Enter Obama when the bubble burst. The stage is set for sweeping reform. Instead, we have received faux populist bromides, as all the while, behind the scenes, he has gone about the business of accommodation, capitulation, and general lickspittle boot-buffing of the corporate class.

If you listen closely, you might hear, all the way from the realm of the damned below, Ronald Reagan cackling in glee over it with his lower order demon companions from within their eternal prison of flames.

Spread the word