I have often been disrespectful of Democrats here, saying things like they are a poor excuse for a political party. That’s because I think they are a piss-poor excuse for a party and ought to just fold their tent and clear the way for something that this country has long needed: A second party.

I just spent the last hour and a half here in Billings, Montana walking the perimeter of Riverfront Park while listening to Governor Brian Schweitzer on my IPad. He hosted David Sirota’s morning talk show in Denver.
Continue reading “The only living Democrat in US” →

The very fact that Iran is seen as some kind of military threat to the Unites States is testimony to the effectiveness of our propaganda system. The idea is absurd on its face. Further, the people who inhabit what we now call Iran have been at peace with their neighbors for centuries. The last time they were involved in armed conflict was response to an invasion by Iraq, whose ruler at that time was a US client. They remember this. They remember 1953, the brutal Shah (another US client), and the Vincennes.

But suppose that Iran’s leaders, who are viewed as irrational through our lens, decided to fire a missile at Turkey or France or Israel. What would happen? Scorched earth. It would be suicide. Countries do not commit suicide.

The US wants regime change in Iran, preferrably the Shah in democratic garb, a new dictator who would abide by our wishes. The US surrounds Iran with missiles, aircraft carriers are always nearby, and there are constant threats of violence against the country. The US spent millions of dollars to disrupt their elections a few years back. Imagine that any country were to behave in such a violent manner against us – what would be the consequence if Iran’s leaders continually said that the US must be defeated, it’s nuclear program (which is in violation of the Non-proliferation Treaty) sabotaged, it’s leadership brought down. What would be the consequence? (I support all of that, by the way.)

Iran’s leaders are very rational, and know exactly what they have to do to survive: build a nuke. Once armed in this manner, any potential invasion by the US (sometimes called “NATO”) would be stalled. It is called “credible deterrence.” That is the only reason why the US fears Iran having a nuclear bomb.

So tell me, who is the irrational party here?
____________
Interesting link below, first comment by Susan Dirgham. I have been curious why, given the US attitude about democracy in general, it would be offering support to the Syrian movement while trying to undermine all the others. Plausible answers in her link.

Hi. You’ve just clicked on this web page. Please rate your experience by going on line at wemakelistsformarketingpurposesandneedvalidemailaddresses.com

You’ll have a chance to win $5,000. Or whatever other unachievable fantasy you might have.

Who is on top of things – Abraham Lincoln, who said that labor is the source of all wealth, or the Randians and modern-day “conservatives,” who say that wealth is the source of all labor?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (From a document that is irrelevant during times when wealth is threatened)

Albany, NY police have refused to enforce illegal orders by Governor Cuomo and Mayor Jennings to break up peaceful demonstrations called the “Occupy Albany”, part of a larger national movement. This is refreshing and good news. It helps that Albany police chief Krokoff is not politically subordinate to the mayor, but the larger issue is a centuries-old debate concerning the liabilities of subordinates when they carry out illegal orders.

The law at stake here is the law of the land, the US Constitution, First Amendment, cited above. It trumps all. As long as demonstrations are peaceful, demonstrators cannot be forced to seek permits or disperiise when ordered to do so by local authorities. Continue reading “Should cops be prosecuted for illegal crackdowns?” →

The unfortunate passing of a brother has left me in a fortunate position. I am now majority owner of a business. I won’t say anything about its name or location for sake of privacy, though those who know me will know.

I urged my brother over the years (as did another brother) to treat his hired help with more respect and dignity. But, GRHS, my brother thought that hires were a drag on profit, rather than part of its source. Over the years, he refused to offer higher wages, eliminated benefits, and refused to even consider offering more hours than demand justified. He built a nice cushion to insulate himself from downturns, but no one else benefited. GRHS. Continue reading “An experiment” →

I heard or read this somewhere, from a person looking on Occupy Wall Street and all of its offshoots:

The kids are OK.

I’m just picking up on the thread below here: Picture a corporate executive working for, say, Nike, and sitting beside him a sweatshop laborer working for, say, Nike.

One of these people knows a whole lot more about free markets than the other. Guess which one.

OK then. Guess again.

I am looking for positive things to put up here, and scanning the political horizon, there is not much. But there are protests going on, and that is a good thing.

We live in a thought-controlled culture, so that protests are usually seen by the mainstream as aberrant or even goofy. The media adds to this perception by showing the freakiest elements they can find. There are only two ways to keep those who have broken free of thought control in check – marginalization, and violence. The New York police Department, which is protecting criminals inside the buildings of Wall Street from protesters outside, seems aware that violence only feeds the movement.

The complaint most often voiced about Occupy Wall Street and it’s offshoots is that it is mere free-floating anger without an agenda or objective. That is a valid point, but the absence of an agenda should be expected in a nascent movement. If it is going to amount to anything, coalitions must form, leaders must emerge, and thinkers must start forming blueprints. But for now, just the overcoming inertia and breaking free of thought control is a big step.
Continue reading “Breaking free” →

I am only going to have one thought today. This is it:

There has been a lot of discussion here about the nature of power – why do people with money affect government policy, while people who vote don’t?

The answer is organization. Corporations and wealthy people, with the exception of “Hollywood,” do not simply throw money at candidates and hope for the best. They assemble it in large quantities, and use it as a lever. They have many other tools at their disposal, but I’ll stick to that.

Organization is effective. That’s why the notion of labor unions is so distasteful to powerful people. They don’t want working people to have real power. They want workers to vote for either party, as their whims dictate, and otherwise not meddle.