The Modern Left

Interview with Socialist Party USA 2012 Vice Presidential Candidate Alex Mendoza

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:10:00 +0000

In a nutshell, what is your platform?

I believe in the democratic transformation of capitalism through the creation of a democratic socialist society. I believe in the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to peacefully assemble, and protecting those freedoms. I believe that people have a right to a good job with a living wage, quality health care, quality education, and affordable housing. I oppose the US’s occupation of other countries and I call for an immediate end of all wars that we are currently engaged in. I oppose loopholes in the tax code that only benefits the large corporations and wealthy individuals. I believe in a comprehensive policy to protect our environment from fossil fuels and man-made pollutants that are damaging our planet. I believe in investing in our infrastructure and investing in sustainable and renewable energy. I believe in creating banks that do the job banks should do. A public bank operated as a highly regulated public utility with comprehensive regulations to protect the consumers is sorely needed. Why Socialism? Can you explain for those who aren't familiar with the platform you are running on?

Personally, I think that a democratic socialist society will provide the basic needs for everyone to have the opportunity to live a happy and fulfilling life, including basic health care and a job that pays a living wage are unattainable for millions of Americans. Healthcare should be a human right provided to every human being as a part of a socialized medical system. The national healthcare system should be publicly owned in the same manner as Fire Departments, Post Offices and Sanitation Departments currently are. Private health insurance companies would no longer be necessary. We need an increase to the federal minimum wage would provide workers with a living wage and a national program that guarantees safe affordable housing. A first step would be an immediate moratorium on all housing foreclosures. Community land trusts which move housing away from the market and towards the idea of housing as a human right should also be well financed and encouraged at the Federal level. These are just a few of the points in the SP-USA program. Overall, I believe that socialism is fair, equal, compassionate, and sustainable ... whereas capitalism is tailored to benefit the privileged few – the 1% in society; capitalism promotes deregulation to benefit the corporations; capitalism promotes worker exploitation by allowing profits to be the sole motivator; and capitalism breeds inequality between people, cultures, religions and races. Socialism would encourage compassion, solidarity and just among all the people of the world. What specifically makes your campaign unique?

I think timing makes this campaign unique. In recent history, and especially since the first George W. Bush presidency in 2000, we have seen policies implemented that only benefit the wealthy such as massive tax breaks, the doling out of sweetheart military contracts and the corporations, and little has been done to benefit working people. Unfortunately, our current president, Barack Obama, has continued to implement policies that are not designed for a society that is coming out of a recession. People have seen, day after day, that the current administration – and the government as a whole – is not looking out for us, but instead is concentrating on enriching the same financial sector that funded his campaign. Obama’s various jobs bills, including the most recent proposal, have amounted to little more than public relations stunts that will do little alleviate the lingering crisis of mass unemployment. The emergence of social movements such as Occupy Wall Street demonstrate that Americans are waking up to the reality that a capitalist system – especially the capitalist system here in America – is in a downward spiral. Americans are asking themselves, why has the average salary of a CEO increased between 200% and 300% since the 1980s and the average salary of a worker has only increased a few percentage points? What American voters will find in the Alexander/Mendoza campaign is candidates that seek to address the issues of unemployment, the lack of adequate housing and the lack of healthcare in a positive way that uses democracy as a means to end the corporate control of our everyday lives. We are presenting some “concrete utopias” to the usual two-party dead end.

What drew you to the Socialist Party?

What primarily drew me to the party was the SP-USA’s message of equality and compassion. I agreed with the basic stance that the party took on many issues – human rights, the economy, foreign policy, education – and the more involved I became and the more I educated myself, I found that I wholeheartedly believed and supported the platform of the Socialist Party USA. I recall being impressed by how welcoming everyone was and the party made me feel as if I wasn’t just another name on their member list, but that I was part of something tangible, that I was part of the struggle along with every other American. Why should people vote for your ticket instead of that of President Barack Obama or whomever wins the GOP nomination?

President Barack Obama and the GOP nominee will continue to represent the wealthy and the corporations. Even a quick glance at the 2008 campaign finance reports will tell us the names of these corporations – Goldman Sachs, Microsoft and J.P. Morgan. Their message may differ slightly from each other, but it is evident for whom they ultimately represent and fight. In 2008, Americans were fed up with the eight years of the Bush administration … our economy was in the gutter, we were still fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, people were losing their homes at an alarming rate, and jobs were very scarce. For many, then-candidate Barack Obama represented “hope” and “change.” Here we are almost four years later and not much has changed: President Obama has continued the failed policies of George W. Bush and we have seen him be influenced and manipulated by the special interest groups. What happened to the Employee Free Choice Act? Where is the Federal Jobs Program? Where is Immigration Reform? What happened to supposed pro-Environment initiatives? Not only didObama not deliver on his promises of change, but many people lost hope … lost hope in what seemed like an opportunity for change. Americans now see that true change does not come in the form of a rich businessman from Texas or a Harvard-educated, corporate-backed politician from Chicago. True change comes from poor and working class people standing up and demanding change from the ground up. One part of the larger struggle against the politics of the 1% is electing individuals who understand the struggle, who have lived the struggle, and who represent a party who is truly by the people, for the people. This is what we hope to offer in 2012. What would you say most influenced your personal politics?

It’s hard to say what influenced me the most in my personal politics. I think it was just growing up the way that I did, the struggles I’ve experienced, and trying to survive along the way is what got me to where I am today. I did not have a privileged upbringing. So many issues that I see many Americans facing today, I either saw my family struggle with and face those issues or I’ve experienced them myself. I was born in the US, but my family moved to Mexico when I was very young. I recall that we had a comfortable life in Mexico. We were definitely not rich (from a money standpoint), but we owned a home, had a car, we went to a private school, my parent owned and operated a small neighborhood store, we were involved in the community, and had lots of family friends that constantly saw in the neighborhood, church, or school … so life seemed enjoyable and fulfilling. I never felt that we were missing anything, never felt hungry, never felt sad, and never saw my parents fight or argue. Even though we would visit family in the US and would see the big houses, the nice toys, the big malls, I never felt that we were missing anything. It wasn’t until my family immigrated to California that I started to see my family struggle. We lived in a tiny apartment, did not know anyone, did not know the language, and both of my parents worked. My father worked the graveyard shift, so we hardly saw him except on weekends. And my mother, who didn’t work before, now worked a full-time job. Before, my parents were involved in our daily lives, and now they didn’t have time to take us to school, help us with homework, or even have a family dinner sometimes. It was very clear that we were struggling. Even at a young age, I felt like we were struggling. I always wondered, why did my parents leave their life of comfort in their own country and come to America where they were struggling from day one? The only answer I ever received from my parents was that they did it for us; they felt that we had more opportunities in America than anywhere else. Though I agree, I also know that those opportunities come at a very high cost if you don’t have your basic needs met. For example, I don’t recall ever having health insurance growing up; either it was never offered to my parents where they worked or it was too expensive to afford. I recall my father losing his job and my parents struggling to put food on the table. I recall going to a church on Wednesday nights to pick up food that they would give away. I recall both of my parents working full-time but still struggle to provide for the family, always living paycheck to paycheck. Today I wonder how our lives could have been different if my parents had universal health care for them and the family, or if my father had a full-time job that actually paid a living wage. I know that millions and millions of families and individuals are living paycheck to paycheck in a country that is bound with opportunities, but those same people are unable to live comfortably in their pursuit of happiness. Instead, they are struggling. America is better than that – we as Americans are better than that.

As the Vice Presidential candidate on the 2012 Socialist Party ticket, how would you explain the role of the Vice President and what you would do in the job?

There is an exceedingly simple reason that I am running for the office of Vice-President. I hope to be one of the public voices of a growing anti-capitalist movement. I hope to speak for the person reading this interview who doesn’t have healthcare. I hope to speak for the unemployed, those who have lost hope in the future and those who are struggle just to meet their bills. I hope that the legislation and initiatives we propose would bring some financial and psychological relief to people suffering under the chains of student debt. I taking my cue from the old Socialist candidate Eugene Debs who once said, “While there is a lower class I am in it; while there is a criminal element I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.” This is what I hope to accomplish as Vice-President.

What do you think are the three most important problems facing American's today?

First and foremost, we’re in the midst of an unemployment crisis, which includes “underemployment.” Americans need good paying jobs – not jobs to barely get by on. Second, our economy is suffering, which translates to the loss of jobs, a rising number of foreclosures, the increased loss of benefits and general hopelessness. Our campaign would call for an immediate Moratorium on all housing foreclosures. Meanwhile, corporations are making record profits and the wealthy are getting wealthier. We, as Americans, cannot and should not accept this. And third, we need to end the wars and bring our troops home – bring those tax dollars home. In one way or another all these problems, or issues, all relate to each other; you can’t address one without address another or address and fix one in a vacuum. What do you plan to do to fix those issues?

To address the unemployment crisis, we would put unemployed and underemployed people to work immediately through an emergency federal jobs program. This isn’t just about implementing a short-term relief program; it’s about setting the foundation for a fully employed economy that is based on the principle that every human being has the right to work. Next, we would address the economy by developing new sectors – sectors that are owned and managed by the workers. We see this happening already: the local bike shop or coffee shop is an example of what the future of employment could be in the U.S. We would use this kind of creative thinking to encourage, protect and fund new, cooperative sectors in areas like environmental cleanup and the educational system – sectors that we can develop right away. Lastly, we would call for an immediate cut of 50% to military spending. This can easily be accomplished by ending the war in Afghanistan, closing Guantanamo and military aid to other countries.

We need to make a significant investment in our depleting and deteriorating infrastructure. Investing in our own infrastructure is a win-win. Throughout history we have seen nations pull themselves out of a recession by investing in their infrastructure. For example, Italy has invested billions – I think it’s over 10 billion dollars – into their infrastructure because they understand that by investing in infrastructure, jobs are created. People want those jobs; they make money, and then they spend the money. The same principle applies here in the US. If Americans have jobs, and they have the money, they will spend money; this will stimulate the economy, and manufacturers will hire workers to supply the demand, which will create more jobs … it’s a wonderful cycle. Americans have jobs, and our economy will only improve. But like I said, you can’t address one without addressing the others. It’ll be great if we can stimulate the economy from the ground up, but there must be regulations in place that protect the consumer, that does not allow employers to exploit workers, that jobs are kept here in America instead of exploiting workers and natural resources in other countries. The party’s platform calls for an immediate cut of 50% to military spending – this can easily be accomplished by ending the war in Afghanistan, closing Guantanamo, military aid to other countries, and many other things – and instead, allocate those funds to stimulating our own economy. What would you most like potential voters to know about you?

I would like voters to know that I am a patriot and a proud American. I served in the military because I have a strong sense of patriotism, and almost 20 years ago, I felt that I could do my part by enlisting in the Marines. Still today, I feel that I have an obligation to do absolutely everything I can to ensure that everyone in this country has the opportunity to live a happy and productive life. I have a family and I want my children to have a better life than I did growing up. I believe in a constant effort to improve and grow… I try to improve as an individual, as a husband, as a father, as a humble public servant … I try to improve as a small business owner, I try to improve the party, I try to improve my community, I try to improve my home state of Texas … and I will never stop trying to improve my country.

Interview with Socialist Party USA 2012 Presidential Candidate Stewart Alexander

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:55:00 +0000

In a nutshell, what is your platform?

The Stewart Alexander Presidential Campaign is committed to socialism, democracy, ecology, feminism and racial equality. My platform is committed to the transformation of capitalism through the creation of a democratic socialist society. To create a better future for working people, my platform will offer a guide that will establish a new social and economic order in which democracy will allow the 99% to shape our own future – in our neighborhoods, in our local government, and, perhaps most importantly, in our economy.

We need to create a new democratic voice that helps us to make rational decisions about industry, financial institutions, and the use of our precious natural resources. Overall, I intend to put the vast wealth of this society to work to finally satisfy human needs instead of feeding the profit hungry 1% and the corporations that they own.

I call for doubling the minimum wage and indexing it to the cost of living — equal pay for equal work, and for work of comparable worth and guaranteeing the right of all workers to organize. My Platform calls for a 30-hour work week at no loss of pay, with six weeks annual paid vacation. I call for a Universal Basic Income Guaranteed to alleviate poverty and homelessness.

As part of my peace agenda, I call for an immediate 50 percent cut in the military budget, followed by additional cuts, with the aim of rapidly reducing the military budget to less than 10 percent of its current level with the peace dividends directed to essential social services and to the cost of cleaning up contaminated military sites. I call for the disbanding of NATO and all other aggressive military alliances, and the closing of all overseas bases. Socialists have always understood that war is a rich person’s game for which poor and working class people are made to pay the ultimate price.

My administration would defend and extend liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. We would repeal the U.S.A. Patriot Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act. I call for the abolition of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and all other institutions of covert warfare.

Why Socialism? Can you explain for those who aren’t familiar with the platform you are running on?

Capitalism has never worked for the majority of people in society. Capitalism is a system that has continuously exploited working people in order to increase the profits of a few multi-national corporations and the world’s super rich. Socialists believe the economic model for the nation must change from capitalism to a democratic socialist economy; a change from a “free market” economy that is based on competition, profit and greed, to a system that is based upon assuring that the basic human needs of all are met. Just take a look at the real human effects of our latest Capitalist economic crisis and you will find the answer to the question, “Why Socialism?”

What specifically makes your campaign unique?

The Stewart Alexander 2012 Presidential Campaign will offer a full democratic socialist alternative to voters. We will be a left-wing option to the parties of the 1% - the Democrats and Republicans. The Stewart Alexander 2012 campaign will directly challenge the corrupt money-driven politics in Washington DC while not being bashful about talking about the failed policies and promises of Barack Obama. My campaign is really about transforming the political landscape.

What drew you to the Socialist Party?

I have been involved with the Socialist Party since 2007. However, I have known about the party for many years. I joined the Peace and Freedom Party (PFP) in California in 1998 and was involved in much of the PFP’s local and state politics. In 2007, my political interests were more on a national level and the PFP was a California-based political party. I decided to attend the national convention for the Socialist Party in St. Louis as a presidential candidate. Although I did not receive the presidential nomination, several delegates entered my nomination as the vice presidential candidate for the 2008 presidential ticket and I received the nomination by an overwhelming majority. Both the Socialist Party and the PFP are founded on the principle of protecting the interests of working people. This idea really attracted me to them.

Why should people vote for you instead of President Barack Obama or whomever wins the GOP nomination?

Working people should vote for me as president because I represent the people. I hope that when they read my program, or hear me speak, or watch me on TV they will encounter ideas that connect with their everyday lives. I hope they will see socialism as a way out of the debt and despair of capitalism. They will also find that President Obama represents Wall Street and the GOP candidates represent Wall Street. I come from the 99%, I live with the 99% and I will represent political positions that will better the lives of the 99%. Wall Street will invest billions to insure the corporate candidates are re-installed; I am not asking working people to make huge contribution to my campaign, I am asking working people to invest their vote for a better future for working people everywhere.

Your Wikipedia bio states that you were in the Air Force Reserve. Has having a military background influenced your politics?

Near the end of my military service, I was able to look back on that experience, and I realized that war is not about protecting our freedoms; war is big business with a high cost of human life and suffering. The U.S. has been engaged in smaller military conflicts or full wars since WWII and cost is staggering. Unfortunately, working people bare the cost (human and monetary cost), and the multi-national corporations enjoy the profits. I began to learn this from many of the soldiers I worked with and came in contact with during the time I spent in the Air Force. I came to the somewhat cruel reality that Vietnam was not about protecting our freedoms. Today a new generation of soldiers is finding out the same thing about Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan and, perhaps, Iran. These wars are not about freedom, they are about protecting the interests of the super rich.

As the Vice Presidential candidate on the 2008 Socialist Party ticket, do you feel that campaign made any mistakes and how will your campaign differ this time?

My approach in 2012 has been to get my vice presidential running mate involved in the campaign from day one. We have 14 individuals working with my national campaign committee; however, it is important that we all work as one. Alex Mendoza has many roles in the campaign. He is the National Campaign Executive Administrator. In this position, Alex is working directly with Mimi Soltysik, the National Campaign Manager; along with Mimi, Alex oversees all aspects of the daily working of the campaign. Alex is a vital component of the campaign, a spokesperson and an ambassador for the Socialist Party USA and the socialist movement. The Alexander/Mendoza campaign is also about communication — in our committees, in the party and in reaching the nation.

In addition, the Occupy movement has changed the political landscape of our country, so there is no telling what exciting possibilities lie ahead for the campaign. This is a big difference from 2008 when we often struggled to get a basic message about socialism out. Now, with Occupy, thousands of people are already discussing issues that we want to talk about.

What do you think are the three most important problems facing American’s today?

First: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, the need to move to a full employment economy
Second: Reclaiming our constitutional rights
Third: U.S. military aggression and the costs of war

What do you plan to do to fix those issues?

First, the Stewart Alexander Presidential Campaign has a dynamic plan to create jobs. Forget Obama’s multi-billionaire dollar bank bailouts or his flashy tax incentives that produced few jobs. We will create jobs directly and immediately by creating an emergency national employment program and by providing public funding for an independent worker-owned and worker-managed cooperative sector.

Second, I will defend and extend liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Repeal the U.S.A. Patriot Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act. I call for the abolition of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and all other institutions of covert warfare.

Third, I will call for an immediate 50 percent cut in the military budget, followed by additional cuts, with the aim of rapidly reducing the military budget to less than 10 percent of its current level with the peace dividends directed to essential social services and to the cost of cleaning up contaminated military sites. I call for the disbanding of NATO and all other aggressive military alliances and the closing of all oversees bases.

What would you most like potential voters to know about you?

Know that I am a working person and I am just like the majority of Americans. Know that I am asking you to support my candidacy for president because I think I can make a positive difference. The representatives from the two corporate parties will only represent the interests of Wall Street. I represent a new direction for working people, in which workers and community members will take responsibility for and control of their interpersonal relationships, their neighborhoods, and their destiny. Capitalism has failed working people; a democratic socialist society is the new direction we need as a nation to move toward a better future.

Thoughts for Sunday

noreply@blogger.com (The Modern Left) — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:15:00 +0000

Saving American Democracy Amendment

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 15:54:00 +0000

Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed a constitutional amendment entitled the Saving American Democracy Amendment which would overturn the Supreme Court decision in a case called Citizens United vs. FEC which defines corporations as people.

The text of the amendment states:

SECTION 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

SECTION 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.

SECTION 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.

SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.

There is a petition to show support for the amendment here. Please think about signing it.

Strange priorities

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:58:00 +0000

Apparently, when I wasn't looking the live action Alvin and the Chipmunks films have been so successful that there is a third film entitled Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked being released today.

As of this writing, the film is hovering at 10% critical approval according to Rotten Tomatoes a far cry from the 21% of the second film and the 26% of the original.

But while critics seem to shrug these films off, people tend to adore them. A lot. Moviefone created a graph to illustrate the popularity in cash.

Since the singing chipmunks were once lonely little orphans who were rescued by their talent manager, Moviefone decided to compare the Chipmunks' movie dollars with some real charities devoted to animal welfare and art achievement.

click for larger version

These films have made more almost ten times more than the Make-A-Wish foundation received in donations for 2009. Of course, that is all Chipmunk films compared to a single year of donations. But if we look at individual film grosses it doesn't get much better.

The first film made $217,326,974 domestically and $361,336,633 worldwide. The second film dwarfed that with a haul of $219,614,612 domestic and $443,140,005 worldwide.

But according to the graph, the Make-A-Wish foundation received a little over 97,000,000 in 2009 and the Environmental Defense Fund made slightly over $134,000,000.

Some others?

American Friends Service Committee for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010 had a total income of $27,585,741

Feeding America for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010 charted $25,284,767 in individual contributions.

Having never seen any of the chipmunk films, I am not criticizing them as films...but I find it shockingly sad that people would rather collectively give $217,326,974 to watch a film about three computer generated chipmunks than give a similar amount to an actual charitable organization doing some good in the world.

Our individual priorities affect this country just as much as the priorities of the United States government and Wall Street. Americans are more than happy to stand in long lines waiting to spend $500 for an iPad 2 but balk at the government helping those in need.

A world where we are more amenable to showering money on critically reviled entertainment than in donating money to organizations which actually help others isn't a very noble world at all.

Firefighters watch house burn

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 15:53:00 +0000

In October 2010, I wrote about a subscription based fire department in Tennessee. At that time, the Cranick family called 911 and the firefighters refused to show up because the Cranick's hadn't paid the $75 subscription fee.

This time, the firefighters showed up. And watched a house burn to the ground.

Vicky Bell told WPSD-TV that she called 911 when her mobile home in Obion County caught fire. Firefighters responded but did not put out the blaze because she does not subscribe to the local fire service.

The subscription is a fee paid to a local town. No fee, no services.

Rural residents who want fire protection can get service from the nearby town of South Fulton, but they must pay a $75-a-year fee. South Fulton Mayor David Crocker said that if the city's firefighters responded to people who didn't pay there would be no incentive for anyone to subscribe.

See? It is all about incentive. If we just help everyone who needs help, then nobody will pay for help. Capitalism at its finest.

Who would create such a policy?

A local newspaper further pressed Mayor Crocker about the city’s policy, which has been in place since 1990. Crocker, a Republican who was elected in 2008 and serves with a county commission where every seat is also filled by a Republican...

Oh....right.

New report about military spending

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 17:19:00 +0000

It is a common refrain from the right that defense spending creates jobs and boosts the economy.

In September, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated that defense cuts would increase unemployment.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is warning members of Congress that threatened defense cuts in the order of $1 trillion over the next decade would add 1 percentage point to the U.S. unemployment rate, a senior defense official said on Thursday.

In October 2011, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) claimed:

As a fiscal conservative, I tend to oppose increasing government spending for the purpose of job creation. But I think we must understand that the defense industry is unique in that it relies entirely on federal government dollars. We don’t spend money on defense to create jobs. But defense cuts are certainly a path to job loss, especially among our high skilled workforces.

But this isn't really all that...um....true.

Dean Baker, macroeconomist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, recently blogged about a new study done by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts.

Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics' employment requirement tables, they find that on a per dollar basis spending on health care or energy conservation creates 50 percent more jobs than spending on the military. Spending on education creates more than twice as many jobs as spending on the military.

The report, entitled The U.S. Employment Effect of Military and Domestic Spending Priorities: 2011 Update, makes it very clear while military spending may create some jobs, there are far more productive ways to create jobs.

Since mid-2011, the impact of military spending on job creation has been discussed prominently in the United States, as one component of the broader debate on how to reduce the federal government’s fiscal deficit. The figures we present here aim to help clarify that debate. Our key finding is that spending on the military is a poor source of job creation relative to spending on the green economy, health care, education, or even personal household consumption.

The U.S. government spent $689 billion on the military in 2010.2 This amounts to about $2,200 for every resident of the country. The level of military spending has risen dramatically since 2001, with the increases beginning even before September 11, 2001. In constant dollar terms (after controlling for inflation), military spending rose at an average rate of 5.3 percent per year from 2001 – 2010, i.e. through the full eight years of the Bush presidency and the first two years under President Obama. By contrast, the overall U.S. economy grew at an average annual rate of 1.6 percent over this past decade. As a share of GDP, the military budget rose from 3.0 to 4.7 percent between 2001- 2010. At the current size of the economy, a difference between a military budget at 4.7 rather than 3.0 percent of GDP amounts to $250 billion.

Domestic spending gives you more bang for your buck, too.

Nevertheless, because spending on clean energy, health care, and education produces substantially more jobs overall per $1 billion in spending, it also creates more good jobs. This includes jobs paying within a mid-range, which we define as between $32,000 - $64,000 per year, as well as high-paying jobs, i.e. those paying over $64,000.

There are many reasons why non-military domestic spending is more productive. Many have heard of the old $400 claw hammer and a $9,000 wrench but now the military is spending $400 per gallon of gas.

Parachuting a barrel of fuel to a remote Afghan base takes sharp flying skills, steady nerves and flawless timing.

It also costs a lot of money—up to $400 a gallon, by military estimates.

But the Pentagon is stuck with the expense for the foreseeable future, especially given the recent deterioration in U.S.-Pakistani relations.

"We're going to burn a lot of gas to drop a lot of gas," said Capt. Zack Albaugh, a California Air National Guard pilot deployed with the 774th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron.

I care more about teachers than $400 a gallon drums of gasoline. How about you?

A brief history of corporate whining

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:37:00 +0000

Cartoon from Ampersand

How our tax dollars are spent

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:28:00 +0000

Folk song Tuesday

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:50:00 +0000

This land is your land, this land is my land
From California to the New York Island
From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and me.

As I went walking that ribbon of highway
I saw above me that endless skyway
I saw below me that golden valley
This land was made for you and me.

I roamed and I rambled and I followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
While all around me a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me.

There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;
Sign was painted, it said private property;
But on the back side it didn't say nothing;
This land was made for you and me.

When the sun came shining, and I was strolling
And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
A voice was chanting, As the fog was lifting,
This land was made for you and me.

This land is your land, this land is my land
From California to the New York Island
From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and me.

Republicans don't want you to vote...or talk

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 05:11:00 +0000

Increasingly, Republican state legislatures are trying to restrict voting so that only Republican voters can take advantage of their constitutional rights.

Republican legislators in South Carolina have crafted a new voter identification law which disenfranchises minority voters.

The AP’s analysis of the state’s 2,135 precincts reveals there are 10 precincts where almost all of the people impacted by the new law are minority voters.

But they don't just want to stop some people from voting. They don't want those people to participate in the democratic process at all.

Freshman Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA) held a town hall meeting...but it was more of an intimate private party.

Herrera Beutler told the approximately 24 people who attended her community “coffee” Monday that her office contacted “between 5,000 and 10,000 people,” inviting them to the meeting.

“The whole purpose is to hear from you,” she said.

Herrera Beutler wanted to hear from those 24 people. But basically, only those 24 people. If just any old people were allowed to attend then things could get out of hand. Or be...you know...a democracy.

On Friday The Chronicle in Centralia received a phone call from Herrera Beutler staffer and Communications Director Casey Bowman informing the newspaper of the meeting. Bowman asked that a meeting announcement not be placed in the paper. However, he did invite the paper to cover the event.

The Chronicle refused his request and published an announcement in Saturday’s paper.

The reason for not publishing an advance notice of the meeting was the fear that people from outside the immediate area could come and “just yell” at the congresswoman “whatever’s on their minds,” Bowman said Friday.

Herrera Beutler isn't the only Republican who has no desire to speak to a crowd she can't control. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) cancelled a speech at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania because the university was going to have it open to the public.

While Cantor claims the university changed the original terms, the university claims that this was always going to be the case and Cantor's people knew this fact.

Penn spokesman Ron Ozio said in a statement that Wharton’s speaker series “is typically open to the general public, and that is how the event with Majority Leader Cantor was billed. We very much regret if there was any misunderstanding with the Majority Leader’s office on the staging of his presentation.”

The statement continued, “Wharton deeply regrets that the event … has been canceled. The University community was looking forward to hearing Majority Leader Cantor’s comments on important public issues, and we hope there will be another opportunity for him to speak on campus.”

I wonder why Cantor would change his mind?

About 500 to 1,000 protesters affiliated with Occupy Philadelphia planned to march from City Hall to Locust Walk in front of Huntsman to protest Cantor’s presence, according to Keystone Progress Executive Director Michael Morrill.

Right. That might do it. Especially since Cantor has referred to 99% protestors as "the growing mobs occupying Wall Street and the other cities across the country". I can see why he might not want to have to actually confront the people he has been insulting.

While these "mobs" of 99% protestors are complaining that the government doesn't care about them, Republicans are proving it by blocking any real job creation coming from Washington. After blocking Obama's jobs bill, they are offering their own.

If you think it has a chance of alleviating unemployment then you haven't been paying attention.

Senate Republicans’ proposed jobs package would not reduce unemployment or spur the economy’s growth in the next year or two, according to a leading economic forecasting firm that has predicted that President Obama’s plan would achieve both goals.

And a central piece of the Republicans’ plan — a balanced-budget amendment to the constitution — “would quickly destroy millions of jobs while creating enormous economic and social upheaval” if implemented soon, said Macroeconomic Advisers, a St. Louis-based firm that has done work for the Federal Reserve. But an amendment and the required deep budget cuts are virtually impossible anytime soon; an amendment could take years to be ratified by enough states even if Congress were to approve the language this year.

Not only do they have no desire to create jobs, but they want to remove any support system for people currently unemployed.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) wants to severely limit people's access to food stamps.

Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain compared Social Security and the income tax code to slavery and "involuntary servitude".

We know that these conservatives want the country to fail, but how casually dismissive they are about anyone who isn't a multimillionaire is painfully apparent. Why exactly do any middle or lower class people vote for these guys?

Thoughts for Sunday

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 11:00:00 +0000

You are talking to a leftist. I believe in the redistribution of wealth and power in the world. I believe in universal hospital care for everyone. I believe that we should not have a single homeless person in the richest country in the world. And I believe that we should not have a C.I.A. that goes around overwhelming governments and assassinating political leaders, working for tight oligarchies around the world to protect the tight oligarchy here at home. - Abbie Hoffman

Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least. - Eugene V. Debs

Do not accumulate wealth whilst millions are hungry. Do not take as the aim of your life, fame, profit, wealth or sensual pleasure. Live simply and share time, energy and material resources with those who are in need. - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

When an individual is protesting society's refusal to acknowledge his dignity as a human being, his very act of protest confers dignity on him. - Bayard Rustin

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. - Howard Zinn

The Robin Hood Tax

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:36:00 +0000

Here's an idea...

The Robin Hood Tax campaign started as an idea. People loved it. We became a movement. And we're still growing.

We're committed to reducing poverty and tackling climate change by taxing financial transactions.

We believe it's time to rewrite the contract between banks and society.

We are charities, green groups, trade unions, celebrities, religious leaders and politicians.

We are world leaders – President Sarkozy of France, Chancellor Merkel of Germany, Prime Minister Zapatero of Spain, among others.

We are businesspeople – FSA Chairman Lord Turner, financier George Soros, entrepreneur extraordinaire Warren Buffet.

We are economists – Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, Earth Institute Director Jeffrey Sachs and 1,000 other economists from across the world.

We are 256,000 Facebook friends, and tens of thousands of people taking action around the UK. We are over 115 organisations, including charities like Oxfam, Barnardo’s and Friends of the Earth, all the major trade unions and faith organisations such as the Salvation Army.

We are part of a movement of campaigns in more than 25 countries around the world with millions of supporters.

We are a force to be reckoned with, and we're demanding justice.

Are you?

You can find out more at The Robin Hood Tax.

This just in: Gays too politically powerful

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:24:00 +0000

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a law which expressly defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996, it is frankly a terrible and unconstitutional law which violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

Which means that Republicans love it. Never mind that whole small-government states-rights thing they are always talking about.

Attorney General Eric Holder has stated that at least parts of the law are unconstitutional and as such DOMA will not be defended in courts by the Justice Department.

So House Speaker John Boehner decided that the House of Representative should defend DOMA and hired a law firm to do so. That law firm, King & Spalding, soon announced that they would not defend the Defense of Marriage Act on behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives. But that's cool. See the partner who took the case on behalf of King & Spalding, Paul Clement, just decided to jump ship to another firm and continue on.

This new firm, Bancroft PLLC, was probably more Clement's speed anyway. The founder of the firm is Viet Dinh (the Bush-era Justice Department official primarily responsible for authoring the PATRIOT Act) and other partners include H. Christopher Bartolomucci, who served as associate counsel to President George W. Bush from 2001-2003.

In any case, this month Bancroft PLLC made their case. And it is kind of a silly case.

In an Oct. 14 motion filed with the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, attorneys representing the House make the case that gay people "are far from politically powerless" and can't say they face "discrimination [that] is unlikely to be soon rectified by legislative means" -- unlike other groups of people who are discriminated against.

"The very significant gains made by homosexual-rights groups both in legislative terms and in popular opinion -- and the phenomenal speed at which those victories have come -- demonstrate that they have ample ability to attract the favorable attention of lawmakers," reads the 36-page brief filed by Bancroft PLLC, the firm hired by House Republican leaders to defend the constitutionality of DOMA.

See, you gays are just too good at voting and stuff so there is no need for a court to overturn the federal ban on gay marriage. With all your marching and voting and stuff you could get that thing overturned on your own if you really wanted to.

Plus, it isn't as though you guys have been discriminated against all that long. I mean, homosexuality wasn't even discovered until like 1897 or something, right?

Gay people also haven't been discriminated against for very long, so they can't say they have a history of discrimination, the lawyers say. The label of "homosexual" was "not even recognized in the United States until the late nineteenth century," they argue, citing a 2004 interview with the author of a book on gay marriage who said most anti-gay discrimination was "put in place between the 1920s and 1950s, and most [was] dismantled between the 1960s and the 1990s."

See? No biggie.

After all...according to Herman Cain you can probably just wash that gay off, right?

Well, Congressman Mike Honda doesn't seem to fully grasp the barely discriminated against gays and their mighty political power. He has decided to push for hearings about this whole using taxpayer money to fund Bancroft PLLC's defense of an indefensible law thing.

Today, US Congressman Mike Honda (CA-15), Ranking Member of the House Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, sent a letter to the Subcommittee’s Chairman calling for a hearing to shine light on the House Republican Leadership’s irresponsible, backdoor use of taxpayer money to pay the private law firm Bancroft PLLC to represent the House in support of the constitutionally-questionable Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). After having Bancroft PLLC blow through the original cap of half a million dollars, the House Republican Leadership recently modified the contract, likely tripling the cost for the American taxpayer to $1.5 million. During a time of professed fiscal responsibility, the House Republican Leadership has chosen to continue to spend taxpayer money to protect discrimination through a process that has lacked any semblance of transparency.

I'm still a little confused about how Boehner can think that there is a vast and powerful homosexual activist lobby when he thinks being gay is a choice. He has also voted against enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. Probably because the gays are too powerful and self-chosen to need protection from hate crimes....or something.

Time to rethink war

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:17:00 +0000

For two years running, the United States military has lost more troops to suicide than it has to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that is not all. It actually gets worse. 2010 was the sixth consecutive year the Army’s suicide rate increased. Apparently, war isn't good for a person's psychological state.

Overall, the services reported 434 suicides by personnel on active duty, significantly more than the 381 suicides by active-duty personnel reported in 2009. The 2010 total is below the 462 deaths in combat, excluding accidents and illness. In 2009, active-duty suicides exceeded deaths in battle.

If that number seems scary, it isn't even the full picture. There could be many more to add to that number.

But the Air Force and Marine Corps do not include any non-mobilized reservists in their posted numbers. What’s more, none of the services count suicides that occur among a class of reservists known as the Individual Ready Reserve, the more than 123,000 people who are not assigned to particular units.

Suicides by veterans who have left the service entirely after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan also are not counted by the Defense Department. The Department of Veterans Affairs keeps track of such suicides only if the person was enrolled in the VA health care system — which three-quarters of veterans are not.

But even if such veterans and members of the Individual Ready Reserve are excluded from the suicide statistics, just taking into account the deaths of reservists who were not included in last week’s figures pushes the number of suicides last year to at least 468.

That total includes some Air Force and Marine Corps reservists who took their own lives while not on active duty, and it exceeds the 462 military personnel killed in battle.

This has been a problem for some time. In 2009, I wrote of increasing suicides. Later, in January of 2010, it was reported that we had hit our highest number of military suicides since they started tracking them.

By late November, at least 334 members of the armed forces had committed suicide in 2009, more than the 319 who were killed in Afghanistan or the 150 who died in Iraq. While a final figure is not available, the toll of military suicides last year was the worst since records began to be kept in 1980.

This past September, the military released numbers which showed the following:

Defense Department statistics indicate that since January, 2001, 2,293 active-duty service members have taken their own lives, including the ones who never deployed overseas. By comparison, 6,139 service members have died in Afghanistan and Iraq in the same period.

Back in 2004, MSNBC reported that 1 in 8 returning soldiers suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

The Army’s first study of the mental health of troops who fought in Iraq found that about one in eight reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

The survey also showed that less than half of those with problems sought help, mostly out of fear of being stigmatized or hurting their careers.

Back in 2009, I found the following sad cry for help. This is an example of how some of these soldiers are treated upon their return. It is from a website called FMYLIFE where people anonymously write in with bad things that have happened to them.

Yep. The guy's own mother called him "a whiny bitch" because he is still dealing with the things he saw and did in Iraq. War does horrible things to a person. Currently, the system is stretched and can't even accommodate all the returning veterans that need help.

In a more personal vein, I have a neighbor who suffers from PTSD. He has told me that the military just doesn't do much to help returning veterans and they are largely forced to fend for themselves and seek help. As noted above, many don't because they still fear being stigmatized. My neighbor told me about a subgroup of people suffer from PTSD who basically become professional warriors. They continually reenlist or join private security firms like Xe Services (better known by their old name "Blackwater") because they just can't cope in a world without war.

The War Resisters League has a pie chart showing how much of Federal income tax goes to the military machine and funding perpetual warfare. $1,372 billion. Yep. Billion with a B.

It costs too much. It is destroying people's lives. Enough. No more war.

If it's natural to kill, why do men have to go into training to learn to do it? - Joan Baez

Conservatives want the country to fail

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:02:00 +0000

A Tea Party activist named Melissa Brookstone has decided that she is fed up with the President and his policies so she is going to do her best to help tank the economy.

Resolved that: Our President, the Democrats-Socialists, most of the media, and most of those from Hollywood, have now encouraged and supported "Occupy" demonstrations in our streets, which are now being perpetrated across the globe, and which are being populated by various marxists, socialists and even communists, and are protesting against business, private property ownership and capitalism, something I thought I'd never see in my country, in my lifetime.

I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country, hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war against business and my country is stopped.

I hereby declare that my job creation potential is now ceased.

Yes. This proud American has vowed to do her part to further destroy the economy because she doesn't like President Barack Obama.

It isn't as though she has this opinion in a vacuum. Here is a screengrab of a few comments from her post.

see bigger

Of course, this shouldn't be a surprise. When CNN asked people "In general, do you hope that Barack Obama’s policies will succeed or do you hope that his policies will fail?" 51% of Republicans voted for failure. 66% of independents and 67% of Americans overall want Obama's policies to succeed. But the majority of Republicans want his policies to fail.

The only two Obama ideas polled that are opposed by Republicans are an increase of unemployment benefits and tax hikes on those over $250,000. Meanwhile, 58 percent of Republicans support cutting the payroll tax for all workers; 63 percent of Republicans support federal aid to states to hire teachers and first responders; 56 percent support federal spending on infrastructure; and 56 percent of Republicans support raising taxes on millionaires.

But when asked about Obama policies, Repblicans want them to fail. Go figure.

Some Republicans like Eric Cantor are even trying to actively make money off the collapse of the economy.

But honestly, as much as Republicans love making money this is more about scoring political points and taking over the government to remake America in their own image.

Earlier this year, Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow noted:

"In cynical political terms, it doesn't serve them if things turn around (in the economy)." Sen. Stabenow said, "They want our country to fail to win an election, and they're willing to take the people of this country with them."

Two weeks ago, Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain stated "Don't blame Wall Street. Don't blame the big banks. If you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself."

Last night, he reiterated the same point...and of course, the audience cheered.

Don't mistake this for all conservatives. That isn't the case at all. But there are some conservatives, and many in the Republican party, who actively want this country to fail and fail hard. And they are doing everything in their power to make that happen.

Trouble for schools and teachers

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:38:00 +0000

Bucks County’s Pennsbury School District in Pennsylvania is having a budget crisis. Earlier this year, they were forced to cut the budget by $3 million and even had to dip into savings for a additional $3.1 million.

But they have hit upon an idea which could help alleviate the budget problem: sell ad space.

Three ads will be placed in each elementary school and five in each secondary school.

Advertisements could begin going up in Pennsbury schools as early as next week, district officials said.

The school district has hired an advertising firm named School Media Inc. Supposedly, this could bring in close to $425,000 in advertising revenue this school year alone.

Now, this isn't the first time a school has been forced to resort to advertising to stay afloat. In 2008, I wrote about a school that was selling ad space on test to fund the cost of printing them.

But while those were small ads on a test, these will be rather larger ads which will be viewed all day long.

The Minnesota-based firm has lined up several advertisements to display in district schools, board member Allan Weisel said at the governing body’s meeting last week.

The ads will be 5-feet by 10-feet in size, said Weisel, who chairs the board revenue development committee that recommended using ads to raise money.

Pennsylvania isn't alone.

New Jersey is allowing school districts to put ads on on the outside of school buses for the first time. Regulations are being finalized, and the ads should go up next year.

Now granted, ads on the outside cannot be seen by students on the inside but I still find it a little wrong for corporations to be peddling their wares to a captive audience of children who are forced by law to be in attendance and viewing this material.

But none of this would be necessary if state and federal government cared more about educating our youth and less about giving tax breaks to wealthy people and corporations (which apparently are people too).

Just this month, Republicans decided to block passage of a $447 billion jobs bill. The President has vowed to press for passage by breaking the bill up into smaller parts.

The new effort will start with a proposal to provide $35 billion in funding to states to prevent further layoffs of teachers, police officers and firefighters, Obama said.

Here in Ohio, governor John Kasich with his Republicans majority decided to punish teachers (and other public workers) to save money. Ohio SB 5 strips public worker unions of the ability to go on strike, it eliminates binding arbitration, and severely limits collective bargaining rights.

Ohio unions, of course, aren't happy. Luckily, Ohio has a referendum law which allows the citizens to throw out certain laws after passage.

Differing from the recall approach in Wisconsin, Ohio unions have banded together to utilize a little-known Ohio referendum law to put the fate of the state's collective bargaining law -- Senate Bill 5 -- on the November ballot. Ohio law allows for a statewide referendum on laws passed by the governor and legislature if enough petitions signatures are gathered. Ohio unions gathered 1.3 million signatures -- a million more than the needed amount to put the measure on the ballot. Voters are being asked to decide the fate of a bill that eliminates collective bargaining regarding benefits for public employees, and that Gov. John Kasich (R) has said is central to his ability to control the state budget.

See governor Kasich really cares about controlling the state budget. He really cares about saving money. Because otherwise...how would he give it to corporations?

As promised, Gov. John Kasich is pursuing job creation at every turn, but his biggest successes have involved offering packages of more than $240 million in grants, loans and tax breaks to convince a handful of Ohio companies to sit tight or move just a few miles rather than pack up and leave the state...

...In March, American Greetings landed a state incentive package worth $93.5 million to abandon any notion of moving 2,000 jobs to Chicago and instead move its headquarters less than 15 miles, from Brooklyn to Westlake near Cleveland.

Yep. $93.5 million. But Kasich is worried about the cost of allowing teachers to collectively bargain.

This bill doesn't just affect teachers but also firemen and police officers. Police officers like the one who gave governor Kasich a ticket. The one Kasich publicly called "an idiot".

Teachers just want to do their jobs: teach. Apparently, they are even willing to sell advertisements to fund the education of our youth.

Let's stop punishing them just so Republicans can win political points...or avenge themselves against "idiot" cops.

Rick Santorum doesn't understand bullying

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:35:00 +0000

On Saturday Night Live, they have a long history of ridiculing politicians from Dan Ackroyd's famous impressions of Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter to Dana Carvey's popular George H.W. Bush to Fred Armisen's Barack Obama.

With the Republican Presidential debates dominating news coverage, it makes sense for SNL to parody the campaigns of GOP candidates. Most people claim to be flattered when they are satirized on SNL.

Except Rick Santorum. He thinks it is "bullying".

"The left, unfortunately, participates in bullying more than the right does," Santorum said. "They say that they’re tolerant, and they’re anything but tolerant of people who disagree with them and support traditional values."

That isn't "bullying".

When Fox host Chris Wallace asked Santorum if he agreed with the statement "The army is not a sociological laboratory. ... Experiments ... are a danger to efficiency, discipline and morale and would result in ultimate defeat." Santorum agreed. Then Wallace revealed that the quote was from Colonel E.R. Householder, a World War II-era official. The statement was made in opposition to racial integration in the military.

Santorum responded by attempting to distinguish between racial discrimination and discrimination based on sexual orientation, denouncing the former, while insisting the latter is an acceptable condemnation of inappropriate "behavior."

Telling people it is OK to discriminate based on sexual orientation creates a hostile environment. It makes it OK to treat certain people less civilly than others based on sexual orientation. See, now that is bullying.

Ask Jamey Rodemeyer. Well, you can't. See, he was bullied and then committed suicide last month.

"I always say how bullied I am, but no one listens," he wrote Sept. 9. "What do I have to do so people will listen to me?"

Just over one week later, Jamey was found dead outside his home of an apparent suicide.

You could ask Jamie Hubley. He authored an entire blog about the pain and loneliness he felt being an openly gay teenager.

Sadly, he committed suicide, too. This past friday.

Jamie Hubley, a gay 15-year-old from Ottawa, Canada, committed suicide on Friday.

The 10th grade student documented his life, including his depression and the hardships of being a gay teen, in a blog, reports the Ottawa Citizen.

His last blog update states the following:

Well, Im tired of life really. Its so hard, Im sorry, I cant take it anymore....

...Being sad is sad : /. I’v been like this for way to long. I cant stand school, I cant stand earth, I cant stand society, I cant stand the scars on my arms, I cant fucking stand any fucking thing.

See...these two teens were bullied. By people who thought they were defending "traditional values". People who felt that homosexuality was inappropriate "behavior."

That's what bullying is, Rick.

61% of Americans still support death penalty

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:05:00 +0000

A new gallop poll shows that support for the death penalty is lowering.

Sixty-one percent of Americans approve of using the death penalty for persons convicted of murder, down from 64% last year. This is the lowest level of support since 1972, the year the Supreme Court voided all existing state death penalty laws in Furman v. Georgia.

61% supporting the death penalty may seem pretty high (and it is way too high for my tastes) it is noticeably lower than more recent levels. While there was a brief period (the late 1950s to the early 1970s) when the numbers of support dipped below 50%, generally support for the death penalty has been quite high with its peak during the mid-1980s through the mid-1990s. 1994 had an all time high of 80%.

The poll further notes more specific feelings about the death penalty.

This year, 40% of Americans say the death penalty is not imposed often enough, the lowest such percentage since May 2001, when Gallup first asked this question. Twenty-five percent say the death penalty is used too often, the highest such percentage yet that Gallup has measured. The rest (27%) say the death penalty is imposed about the right amount.

This flies in the face of the reaction Republicans gave during the Reagan Library Republican debates last month. When it was noted that Gov. Rick Perry's tenure had a record of 234 executions, people in the audience erupted into applause.

The New York times noted the mood.

Even supporters of the death penalty used to consider execution a solemn state responsibility, not an occasion for celebration. But the crowd of Republicans who gathered at the Reagan Library last week to watch their presidential candidates debate actually applauded and cheered when a moderator noted that Texas had executed 234 inmates under Gov. Rick Perry, by far the most under any governor in modern times.

It is possible the execution of Troy Davis has swayed some against the death penalty. Davis was convicted of murdering an off-duty Savannah, Georgia police officer. In the case, there was a critical lack of evidence linking Davis to the murder and numerous people who were prosecution witnesses had since recanted their stories some telling Davis' attorneys that they had been pressured by police to testify against Davis.

Of course, if Davis was innocent, he certainly wouldn't be the first innocent man put to death. DNA testing has allowed some unjustly convicted people to go free, but not everyone is allowed to use DNA testing.

Seventeen people have been proven innocent and exonerated by DNA testing in the United States after serving time on death row. They were convicted in 11 states and served a combined 209 years in prison – including 187 years on death row – for crimes they didn’t commit.

Just this last October, three men in three different states were released after having served a combined six decades in prison.

In Texas, Michael Morton, who was convicted of killing his wife in 1986 based on circumstancial evidence, was cleared by new DNA tests. Jacques Rivera from Illinois was convicted of a gang-related murder on the basis of false evidence. In California, Obie Anthony's murder conviction was overturned after it was established that the primary witness in his case had lied after making a deal with the prosecution.

Earlier this month it was reported that new evidence could exonerate 14-year-old George Junius Stinney Jr.

A lawyer and an activist both told Raw Story recently that new evidence will show that the black boy could not have possibly murdered two white girls, 11-year-old Betty June Binnicker and seven-year-old Mary Emma Thames.

Unfortunately for Stinney, he was executed on June 16, 1944.

Activist George Frierson has been working on Stinney's case since he came across it five and a half years ago. Frierson draws parallels to Davis' case.

Frierson hopes that clearing Stinney’s name would make people think twice in other death penalty cases like that of Troy Davis, who was recently executed by the state of Georgia. Since his conviction, seven of the nine people who testified against him had recanted or changed their testimonies.

“I have a problem with the death penalty because it is irreversible,” Frierson said. “You find out later that someone actually was innocent then you go and say we’re going to settle a wrongful death lawsuit. What does that do for the victim? Nothing. It doesn’t do anything for them.”

“I think it will make people look a little more closely. Just like the seven people that recanted in the Troy Davis case… After seven people recanted a story out of nine, if that’s not reasonable doubt, I don’t know what is. And yet, the state of Georgia decided to go through with the execution.”

Now I would assume that any sane and rational person would be against executing innocent people. But how about guilty people and an unjust system?

How about the case of Duane Edward Buck?

To recap, Buck was convicted of killing two people and shooting a third in Houston in 1995. He has admitted his guilt, but his lawyers claim he should be resentenced, because a psychologist told jurors at the murder trial that because Buck was black, he was likelier to be violent in the future. A propensity for violence has a bearing on whether defendants receive a death sentence instead of life without parole.

Buck's case is particularly disgusting because being black already guarantees a higher probability of receiving the death penalty without a having a licensed psychologist telling juries that black people are more likely to be violent.

African Americans are disproportionately represented among people condemned to death in the USA. While they make up 12 per cent of the national population, they account for more than 40 per cent of the country’s current death row inmates, and one in three of those executed since 1977.

Luckily for Buck, he was granted a temporary stay by the U.S. Supreme Court.

More than two-thirds of the countries in the world have now abolished the death penalty and yet America still cheers its use. Still, 61% support it and 40% of Americans believe it isn't used often enough.

Until the death penalty is finally abolished in America and worldwide, and I hope that day is very soon, you can help organizations like The Innocence Project.

The Innocence Project is a non-profit legal clinic which fights to exonerate innocent men and women on death row.

Most of our clients are poor, forgotten, and have used up all legal avenues for relief. The hope they all have is that biological evidence from their cases still exists and can be subjected to DNA testing. All Innocence Project clients go through an extensive screening process to determine whether or not DNA testing of evidence could prove their claims of innocence. Thousands currently await our evaluation of their cases.

You can conveniently donate online here.

Thoughts for Sunday

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 11:10:00 +0000

Now my friends, I am opposed to the system of society in which we live today, not because I lack the natural equipment to do for myself but because I am not satisfied to make myself comfortable knowing that there are thousands of my fellow men who suffer for the barest necessities of life. We were taught under the old ethic that man's business on this earth was to look out for himself. That was the ethic of the jungle; the ethic of the wild beast. Take care of yourself, no matter what may become of your fellow man. - Eugene V. Debs

There is a great fear of our Union - a fear that I do not fully understand, but that I know is present...What is it that causes some men to act so hastily and so cruelly? It cannot be that we are so powerful. Is it so much to ask that the poorest people of the land have a measure of justice? - César Chávez

If you would attain to what you are not yet, you must always be displeased by what you are. For where you are pleased with yourself there you have remained. Keep adding, keep walking, keep advancing. - Saint Augustine

Neither a wise man nor a brave man lies down on the tracks of history to wait for the train of the future to run over him. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

We need, in every community, a group of angelic troublemakers. Our power is in our ability to make things unworkable. - Bayard Rustin

Extreme anti-abortion law in the making for Ohio

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 16:41:00 +0000

Some radical anti-abortion activists in Ohio have decided that Roe vs. Wade shouldn't really apply because...well, because they don't want it to. That's why. They support a bill which would severely restrict the abilities of a woman to use her legal right to an abortion.

This potential law would outlaw abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which is generally six to seven weeks into pregnancy. The bill grants no exceptions for rape, incest, or mental health of a woman.

Abortion-rights groups say such a law would effectively ban abortions entirely because most women don't know they are pregnant that early in their pregnancy.

"It's obviously an undue burden if you can't have an abortion even before you know you are pregnant," said Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Ohio.

Now obviously this bill is pretty extreme. It's sole purpose is to outlaw abortions without actually outlawing abortions. Even Ohio Right to Life decided that the bill is a little extreme and could potentially backfire.

Ohio Right to Life leaders have said they are concerned that passage of the bill could backfire and lead to a U.S. Supreme Court decision reinforcing a woman’s right to an abortion.

The Ohio Supreme Court established a woman's right to an abortion in its landmark 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling, which forbid states from banning abortions until a fetus is viable, generally about 24 weeks into pregnancy.

When a statewide Right to Live organization realizes that your transparent attempt to sidestep Roe vs. Wade will only invite a court battle which the anti-abortion activists will clearly lose...then you know the bill is pretty extreme.

But never let is be said that there aren't some who don't believe in "too extreme". These anti-abortion extremists have decided to form a rival organization with the express purpose of passing this law.

Backers of the “Heartbeat” bill - legislation which would ban abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected- on Wednesday announced that they have formed Ohio ProLife Action, a new statewide “pro-life” organization...

...“The first order of business is to help pass the most protective pro-life bill in the state - the Heartbeat bill,” Linda Theis, president of the new group and a former president of Ohio Right to Life, said in a press release.

Oh...and Ohio Right to Life went and changed their mind. Maybe the idea of there being two statewide anti-abortion groups was just too much for Ohio Right to Life to stomach. Nobody steals their thunder! Nobody!

“After months and countless hours of research by this national pro-life working group, the federal bill delivers the heartbeat message with great clarity and will withstand any judicial challenge, which means we can save lives right now,” Marshal Pitchford, chairman of Ohio Right to Life’s board of trustees, said in a press release.

While a day earlier they thought this could backfire, now they are positive it will withstand a legal challenge. Even though nothing changed in the bill.

Of course saving lives is important. That's why these groups are focused on pushing a bill that will never pass legal muster in a state whose unemployment rate averaged 16.1 percent through the first three months of the year. These groups aren't concerned with helping the unemployed keep shelter and heat through the winter. Making sure they have food. Things like that. Nah, screw them. They're just people! These anti-abortion activists only care about potential people. Once they're born...who cares?

Brad Drake wants to toss people off bridges

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 04:02:00 +0000

A Florida death row inmate named Manuel Valle was executed in September after spending 33 years on death row. This seems to have some people a little peeved.

So peeved that one representative has authored a bill, HB 325.

HB 325 would eliminate Florida's standard method of execution, lethal injection, and allow for executions only by electrocution or firing squad.

The author is one Republican Brad Drake who represents District 5 in the Florida House of Representatives. Apparently, earlier this week Drake was in a Waffle House and overheard a conversation.

In a Waffle House in DeFuniak Springs, Drake said he heard a constituent say, "'You know, they ought to just put them in the electric chair or line them up in front of a firing squad.'" After a conversation with the person, Drake, 36, said he decided to file the bill.

"There shouldn't be anything controversial about a .45-caliber bullet. If it were up to me we would just throw them off the Sunshine Skyway bridge and be done with it," Drake said.

Brad Drake seems to want to throw people off this bridge

OK. Maybe Drake doesn't actually want to throw anyone off a bridge (but then again, maybe he does. Who knows?) but he does want to expedite the death penalty. And make it harsher.

"So, I say let’s end the debate," he said in the release. "We still have Old Sparky. And if that doesn’t suit the criminal, then we will provide them a .45 caliber lead cocktail instead."....

...."I am sick and tired of this sensitivity movement for criminals," Drake said. "Every time there is a warranted execution that is about to take place, some man or woman is standing on a corner holding a sign, yelling and screaming for humane treatment.

"I have no desire to humanely respect those that are inhumane," he said in the release.

Really? A ".45 caliber lead cocktail"? That doesn't seem to be the sort of imagery one expects from a state representative. Or an adult.

On his website, Drake has a section entitled "Brad On The Issues". In that section, Drake outlines his basic beliefs that guide him as a State Representative. A couple of them are:

» Family values should take precedence.

» Firm Pro-Life advocate: protecting the sanctity of life and the unborn, believing that life begins at conception.

» (With no apologies) God should never be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance when spoken in our schools or removed from / within government buildings.

» Prayer should be allowed in schools.

I don't know how to break this to Brad Drake, but throwing people "off the Sunshine Skyway bridge" isn't a family value. Nor is it exactly consistent with being "Pro-life". That is actually more accurately being "Pro-throwing people off the Sunshine Skyway bridge".

Believing in keeping God in the Pledge of Allegiance and having prayer in schools would lead one to believe that Drake is a Christian man. His "About Brad" section of his website shows that he is a member of 1st Baptist Church of DeFuniak Springs.

Maybe Drake has been busy with all that time spent in Waffle House listening in on other people's conversations and hasn't had much time for reading. If so, I would like to point out a few passages from a book he might own.

You shall not murder. (Exodus 20:13)

Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy. (Matthew 5:7)

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. (Matthew 5:9)

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; (Matthew 5:38-39)

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:43-48)

Then Peter came and said to him, "Lord, if another member of the church sins against me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?" Jesus said to him, "Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times." (Matthew 18:21-22)

I just thought I would throw those out there. Lots of stuff about love, forgiveness, and not killing....and nothing about the virtue of throwing people off bridges. Or using firing squads. Or intentionally having "no desire to humanely respect" other human beings.

Glenn Beck promotes public libraries

noreply@blogger.com (J.D.) — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:54:00 +0000

Glenn Beck gave a speech at the Values Voters Conference.

At one point he states:

If you can’t afford to go to college, go to the free public library. I did it. It works.

Except that it isn't as though he avoided college entirely.

He even enrolled at Yale, with a written recommendation from an alum who was a listener at the time, Senator Joe Lieberman.

How did he meet Lieberman? Through his radio show. Something Beck has been doing since he was 18 years old. A job he presumably didn't apply for in the local public library.

But let's take Glenn Beck at his word. Let's say that the free public library "works". Do you know why that public library is free? It is publicly funded. You know...socialism.

When the government provides the money and the infrastructure for services that are free for all to use regardless of status or wealth...it is socialism.

So I guess Glenn Beck is saying that socialism works. I agree.

A nice growth of family income infographic

noreply@blogger.com (The Modern Left) — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:17:00 +0000

see bigger

Infographic from ConnectTheDotsUSA.com

Just a financial update on the war...

noreply@blogger.com (The Modern Left) — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 22:37:00 +0000

Infographic from usaction.org