-Gila Region Community News, Calendar, Forum-

Reader Supported Silver City News & SW New Mexico, Grant County NM, Gila NF
* Login   * Register

* FAQ    * Search

All times are UTC - 7 hours

News     Columns     Food: Growing, Fixing     Features     Water     Health     Business     Education     DIY & How-tos     Classifieds     Forum     Home 

Silver City Food Coop



We Are Reader Supported
Your recurring contribution goes to support the Forum, Calendar, and Email List, which exists to further local, sustainable, place-based community.
MONTHLY RECURRING GIFT
    Bill Me Now For: $

ONE-TIME GIFT
Bill Me Now For: $

You may also mail a check or cash to
Moses Clark
PO Box 1792
Silver City, N.M. 88062


Get your ad here








Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author ------ Message
 Author: rearnheart
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:45 am 
EDITORIAL DESK
So, if I’m to judge by what I have seen and heard, it’s OK to be a racist in America again. It’s also OK to hate other religions with impunity. It’s evidently OK to hide my worst behavior and ideas behind the gloss of the Constitution and Jesus Christ. Seemingly, any peer reviewed science is fair game for ridicule, any hard earned collegiate merits are ripe for disdain, and any long sought changes in civil liberties in this country merit nothing more than a sneer. It’s also fair game to ridicule the poor for being poor, worship the rich for being rich, punish the elderly for being old, and humiliate the unemployed because…well, they’re unemployed. It is fashionable now to be ignorant and mean and to flaunt that ignorance and meanness as some kind of American merit badge. This is what is OK now in Tea Party America. This is the poison in our blood.

I can honestly say that I used to know some members of the Tea Party very well. I worked with them. I ate with them. We talked gardening and fruit trees. We always had differences of opinions about guns and politics and race, but we got along because we also shared some strong beliefs. But (and I’ve looked into this) the Right To Hate and the Right To Lie aren’t in the Constitution and as one of our founders (a Mr. B. Franklin) said, “Facts are stubborn things’. No one can lie about them forever and not get strangled by their behavior.

I see the entire Tea Party movement as an American nervous breakdown, letting all our nation’s pent up demons loose in one fetid, angry moment in history: all our racism, all our anger at the economic injustice of the world, all the betrayal from the promised Disney utopia of capitalist democracy. The Tea Party movement is armed and dangerous. It is ill bred, grain fed, and brain dead. And it will win the House of Representatives where fear will then be the order of the day. I quote: ‘A government of fear is no government at all’.- John Adams.

I used to know honest Republicans. We disagreed. We broke bread. We built bridges together to get to the future. Now, you former, rational, caring Republicans, now you must make a choice to either be led in chains into the asylum of your own making or stand against the lunatics who have turned you into Beckian sheep. My guess is that some of you will fall to your knees and pray to Ronald Reagan to save you from the monsters of your design. Others of you will find the courage to say ‘enough is enough’ and shackle the demons you have loosed upon the world.

The sane among you know that differences and tolerance are essential to humanity and should be embraced. The insane among you believe this to be a weakness. I ask you then; in what perfect Christ moment shall you choose to cast the first stone?

Richard Earnheart


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: rearnheart
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:51 pm 
To let you know...the Sun News couldn't print this letter in its original form because of its length, not because of its contents.

Rearnheart


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:06 pm 
This is the only Newspaper that would dare print such blasphemous truth so eloquenty revealed. A must read. You didn't actually beleave the sun news did you?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Antithesis
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:11 am 
Referring to the Tea Party folks by their chosen name disrespects the brave patriots at the original Boston Tea Party. Big Time.

How about we refer to them from now on as the TP Movement?

Much more appropriate...

_________________
A rock in the shoe. A thorn in the side.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: jef
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 10:29 am 
Yeah, welcome to post-rational America!
Good job Richard.
I suggest the book "Freedom", a novel by Jonathan Franzen. Yes, a novel = fiction, but it really helps in understanding the political/financial incentives for those who spend a lot of $$$ to dis-inform the rest of America.
I recently came across "teaboogers" as an alternate name.
Elizabeth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: teamediaperson
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:27 pm 
It is pretty hard to ignore 30 plus million Constitutionalists--those folks on the "right" side of issues that you so vehemently disagree with. We all just got tired of politics as usual--compromise as usual--ignoring the Constitution and the intention of our extremely intelligent forefathers in writing both it and the Bill of Rights. So we finally got it together enough to stand up for the Constitution and its original intent--free markets, limited government, and low taxes.

We want an atmosphere to exist in the U.S. today that encourages free enterprise. It is a sorrowful thing that many who are against free markets and the right to work have not been able to make themselves successful in that atmosphere. Americans are basically a "giving" sort of people--when we see a neighbor in need (either our next-door neighbor or a whole "Katrina" neighborhood) we flock to help with a vengeance! It's just the way we are. But what we DON'T want to have is an over-reaching federal government that takes our hard-earned money, pays a huge chunk of it to a government agency, and then doles out the rest to that needy neighbor as IT sees fit. Why not let the good-hearted American--liberal or conservative--do that out their own good heartedness?

TEA Partiers are not hateful people--you only hear of meanness when it comes from certain labor organizations who rally and rabble-rouse. We even clean up our messes when we rally--check that out. TEA Partiers mostly hold paying jobs and are not on the government dole. Check that out. TEA Partiers are nice to others and welcome everyone--of every political persuasion--into our midst. Check THAT out. We advertise our meeting times and location. You are welcome.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: jef
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:34 pm 
I don't disagree with some of this defense of Teabag philosophy.
However... if you REALLY want to stop government give away, in a HUGE way, stop the endless war! It doesn't take too much research to see just how huge an interest private corporations have, and have had since day one, in continuing to send our kids there. Very few regular folks in Iraq or Afghanistan, people like you and me, feel any benefit of this spending, and so far, there is no evidence that we have furthered democracy in any way.
Elizabeth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:36 pm 
Was that 30 million TP's clapping as they watched the Rand Paul Tea Party supporters, 2 big men, beat and stomp on Lauren Valle? The one a campaign coordinator for Rand Paul in Kentucky who is seen stomping on her, seemed to be wearing a "Don't Tread On Me" button. Why didn't any of these "loving people" step in to protect her? The video is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39865585/

A few days ago the vice-president of a School Board in Alabama wrote on facebook that he was glad that gays were bullied into committing suicide and was very satisfied when they did commit suicide.

I haven't heard the TP'ers speaking out about either incident, have you?

The only "free enterprise" that the TP'ers want is for the freedom to freely plunder the earth wherever and whenever they want (often with the us military's help) and enslave the workers just like they did before those pesky unions you speak of.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: teamediaperson
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:44 pm 
Crow, don't be so combative!

The TEA PARTIERS (not baggers as you so in-eloquently put it) are not mean. The person who was doing the dastardly deed is, rightfully, in trouble with the law and has been arrested for assault. Personally, I think it was despicable and so think all my TEA Party compadres. Please keep in mind that this "lady" jammed her sign into Paul Rand's face--still no excuse for that man's behavior. The lady had to be pulled away from Mr. Rand, and it is more than unfortunate that one of Rand's defenders lost his temper. Shame on him.

But let's address the three main issues that remain at the forefront of the TEA Parties: Constitutionally limited government, free markets, low taxes. It is not effective to scatter our attention toward all the social issues upon which there is major disagreement among our population. If we don't correct our economy and get jobs for those out of jobs (Democrats, Republicans, DTS's, Independents, Green's, etc.), we won't have a country where it even matters about the social issues.

I would hope that the leaders we have now will recognize that Europe is quickly falling apart due several decades of government largess and we need to do a different thing. It is sort of stupid to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. The heart of man is ever-wicked and no generation of mankind is "better" than any other generation has ever been. History proves it.

Hopefully, too, our new Congress will begin to write simple, short, one-subject legislative bills, leave out amendments having NOTHING whatever to do with the bill, stop earmarks, make themselves subject to all laws they pass for the rest of us (including SS and health care), and check all legislation against what the federal government is allowed to do according to the Constitution.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: alan wagman
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:47 pm 
The original tea partiers were not particularly patriotic, and today's variety claim the mantle of patriotic constitutionalists only by distorting the meaning of the words patriotic and constitutionalist.

The original tea partiers' real gripe was not a high tax on tea, but a tax that was too low for their liking. Parliament had levied a whole series of taxes. The colonists protested "taxation without representation." As a conciliatory measure, Parliament repealed all taxes but one -- the tax on tea -- which it reduced to a token level but left in place to assert the principle of Parliament's right to tax. Sam Adams was a tea smuggler whose smuggled tea undersold British tea as long as British tea was heavily taxed. The lightly taxed tea on the ships in Boston Harbor would have undersold Sam Adams's tea if it had been unloaded and come to market. Adams's solution: Commit a criminal act and cloak it in patriotic language. I don't know if it fooled anyone at the time, but it has certainly fooled a lot of people since.

As for the current claim that tea partiers are constitutionalists upholding the original intent of the founders -- with the implication that the rest of us are not -- well, balderdash.

First, the claim that the founders were for low taxes. Actually, the debate among the founders was more about the right of the federal government to tax at all than it was about the level of taxation. George Washington, having watched his army starve and freeze during the revolution because the Continental Congress could not or would not levy taxes, was determined that the new nation would have the power to tax. When people protested taxes, President Washington personally led the army against them. Look up "Whiskey Rebellion."

Second, the claim that we can actually know the founders' intent. The men at the Constitutional Convention disagreed on almost everything. Much of the final language in the Constitution did not reflect agreement about what they wanted to accomplish, but instead intentionally enshrined their disagreements. Many, if not most, of the delegates were lawyers, people who made their livings arguing about meanings of words and who knew well that words are slippery things. Many provisions of the Constitution were intended to give all sides the ability to argue later about what they meant -- i.e., the language was purposely vague. Any claim to clairvoyance now about intent is rooted in a denial of reality.

Looking to the actions of the founders does not help much. John Adams betrayed his small d democratic principles by pushing through the Alien and Sedition Acts. Thomas Jefferson, who opposed taxation and wanted the weakest federal government possible (and repealed the tax over which Washington suppressed the protest) did not hesitate to push federal power out of the envelope when faced with a now-or-never, use-it-or-lose-it opportunity to buy a third of the continent from France at a fire sale price with money he did not have. Anybody who has never said or heard the words, "Yes, that's what I said, but I didn't mean it the way you're interpreting it, and if I did, I've changed my mind about it" has never been in a relationship that has lasted longer than a few minutes.

The prospect of a government based upon the principles enshrined in the Constitution as it was written is truly appalling. The original Constitution sanctioned slavery and indentured servitude, provided rights only to white males who owned land, and allowed those white males to tax women and non-property-owning men without representation. Worse, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government -- not to the states. If we still lived under the original constitution and Bill of Rights, the New Mexico State Police, the Grant County Sheriff, and our local police could all stop each of us for any reason or no reason at all and strip search us -- and our children -- without violating the U.S. Constitution. It was not until 1948 that the Supreme Court began using the Fourteenth Amendment -- passed about 80 years before -- to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.

What the founders did understand was that if the Constitution was going to last, there needed to be a mechanism for changing it. That is, they knew that "original intent" might have been a successful blueprint for government at the original moment, but original intent was not going to be a successful guideline forever. So, they provided the means to amend the Constitution. There is no clearer proof that the founders' original intent was to create a malleable document not cast in cement than the provision allowing for amendment.

I take from all this the following: First, we can't possibly know what the original Constitution means or what the founders intended, because (1) many of its provisions were intentionally ambiguous, (2) even those that were not intentionally ambiguous were understood in contradictory ways by the people who were drafting them, and (3) the intentions and understandings of the drafters changed over time; second, the worldview and society endorsed and protected by the original Constitution is one which I hope everyone finds appalling; and third, the founders understood that the world was going to change and that the Constitution would have to change with it, meaning that their "original intent" was what the Constitution meant when it was written but not what it had to mean for all time.

Finally, the bottom line: It does not bother me that tea partiers espouse policies with which I disagree. Where I have a problem is the spurious claims of "more Constitutional and more patriotic than thou." You are not more American or more loyal or more patriotic or more Constitutionalist or more righteous than me. You are just fellow Americans with whom I disagree. No more and no less.

AW


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: teamediaperson
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:37 pm 
Regarding your most recent post, and taking your last paragraph first, I don't disagree that much with you in your assessment of historical events. (As an aside: I just finished watching a 3-part movie named "Liberty," an historical documentary/reenactment of our history from 1776 - 1787. I recommend it highly as it is historically accurate.)

However, I never said anything that should have led you to think that I, or any of my TEA Party friends (and I thank you for referring to us by our commonly used name of TEA 'Party') think we are "more patriotic" or "more Constitutional" than thou. Even considering everything you wrote about in your treatise, the way our American way of life--politically, culturally, economically, etc.--developed led us to become the most successful country in the world (if you look at it from our having the highest standard of living in the world). And don't think I mean the richest in money, necessarily. I don't envy rich folks, but I am happy I live in a clean house, clean country, have decent furniture and good food, have water to drink and bathe with, electricity, and on and on. Those kinds of things make a high standard of living that most people in this world do not have--due to the kind of governments they have--not due to the kind of government WE have.

Personally, I do not feel guilty that we were blessed to become exactly that, nor do I feel like I should pay higher taxes to give to the poor who may not want to work for THEIR money. As I stated in my first post in so many words, we will always have poor with us who we need to feed. That can best be done through charitable acts of individuals, churches, as well as private organizations and groups.

And if the country doesn't live up to the "old" standards of the Constitution, it is still an ideal document to TRY to live up to. And you are so right about the Amendment process--which has obviously WORKED. We no longer have slavery and women vote. And one of the ideas in that old-fashioned Constitution indicates and in many instances, plain states, that it means for the Republic of the United States to have a Limited Constitutional Government, free markets (property rights), and low taxes so people can feel encouraged to go as far as they can individually go to create products, services and jobs. The more of all that, the higher revenues (with low tax rates) pour into the government coffers, with which to do Constitutional things like keep our roads and highways in good condition, have railroad tracks, air traffic, border security, a well-trained military, and other things for the welfare of the general population.

I'll bet we can agree on much of the above. And thanks for the history lesson--you're ahead of me there.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: BillyMack
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:42 pm 
Good Evening.
I've been following this post, interesting how much bitterness is being put out.
One nice thing about being a long time Tea party member, I believe in the Constitution, I believe in every one's right to speak their mind, and I will stand beside anyone and everyone's right to do so.
For all you people that are upset with the Tea Party now, wait a copel of days, then get back to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: alan wagman
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:18 am 
Dear teamediaperson: You describe yourself and your Tea Party mates as "Constitutionalists" who "got tired . . . compromise as usual . . . ignoring the Constitution and the intention of our extremely intelligent forefathers in writing both it and the Bill of Rights."

If you and your views are "Constitutionalist" and all other views compromise or ignore the intentions of the founding fathers -- which somehow you and your mates can divine, apparently, even though the founding fathers disagreed among themselves about their intentions -- then the clear implication is that all the rest of us must be less patriotic and less Constitutional than you.

You cannot denigrate the idea of compromise with those of us less enlightened than you and still retain the right to deny a "holier than thou" attitude.

AW


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: jef
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 8:47 am 
Maybe we are less patriotic - the Nation we grew up in has become a very different place.

It's become a nation that declared war, which looks never likely to end, based on made up 'evidence' of WMD and a puppet president catering to the cronies of his father, the people who make millions of dollars off of war. It has become a nation which feeds its children intellectual crap to the extent that most college level children cannot write a meaningful paragraph. It feeds its children 'McFood' which is produced in a way that not only does not nourish children, but creates disease, while destroying the land and water on which it is grown.

Remember these lyrics?

Oh beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain.
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea.

What have we made of the Nation that inspired these words? The spacious skies are visibly brown from outer space, mountain tops have been ravaged for coal, the amber waves of grain are now filled with poisons and patented GMO seeds. The sea is being destroyed, unbelievably, for oil.

"Brotherhood"? Depends on what you consider family, who you can prove your citizenship/birthright to, whether you are a laborer looking for work or the president.

Elizabeth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: timothius
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:38 am 
Well Richard, you certainly know how to stir up a can of worms. Well done!

Best

Tim

_________________
If you are not outraged,,,, You are not paying attentiion!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: kelliotes
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:57 am 
+ The number of Constitutionalists in the US currently approaches 311 million (although that number includes minors, who do not count as voters).

Someone may already have pointed this out; I don't know: I'm afraid I'm too faint-hearted to slog my way through every post here.

A claim that only Tea Partyists respect the Constitution would be too silly to dignify. Silly claims entail a loss of credibility. Those in the business-as-usual frame of mind should learn this.

If I'm the only one who's mentioned these numbers: Lucky for you: You can simply label me "sanctimonious." That should suffice in post-religious America.

But if one or two others have done so already, or if one or two others agree, the Tea Party has a problem requiring spin.

The use of silly claims shows that Tea Partyism is just more political business-as-usual.

the monk Herman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: teamediaperson
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 11:16 am 
This post will be short and, well, hopefully you'll think it's sweet!

All of the posts in opposition to anything I've written herein have some aspect of 'supposition' about what I am saying. Each of you is reading something you wish to read between the lines of what I've written. I've not said a thing that should lead you to think I am feeling any more "Constitutional" than any of the rest of you. As I said in so many words, as a nation of diversely-opinionated people, we will find plenty of things to disagree about. And that's OK.

What I have tried to point out is that our nation simply needs to be more fiscally conservative (balance the budget--don't you balance your own?), promote less federal government (to allow freedom to create your own way in this world), and lower taxes (so we keep more of our own earnings to pay our bills and live comfortably, and can provide help to those in need when we see that need).

That's all. Don't read anything else into what I am discussing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: rearnheart
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:57 pm 
So I get out of the shower from weed eating and I find all this. Makes it all worth while.

First, I want to be on Team Wagman, the 'A' list of sensibility, JEF inspirational and dedicated as always, Timothius-continuing in the fine tradition of reason and compassion, B. Mack...'copel' is actually spelled 'couple' (please put the lid on the Playdough when you're done), and Crow, this would be a good time to ask for a raise, right?

Second, Teammediaperson: I attended the first hate seminar at your alma mater where a Bagger Lady sat next to me in a furor over Death Panels, AFDC, immigrants, and socialized medicine. She was not bothered by the fact, however, that her grandson was on permanent Medicaid disability. This is the hypocrisy that lies at the root of your 'movement' and there is no Constitutional 'cloak of invisibility' large enough to hide it.

I would gratefully welcome an opportunity to (per your outline) 'reduce the national debt', 'cut federal spending', 'reduce the size of government', and 'lower taxes'. But I don't have to, because all save one of these requests has already happened. The debt was lowered with Health Care Reform (as was Federal spending), your taxes were cut by $117 billion with legislation in the Recovery Act. Smaller government? I'm game. Remember the movie Dave? Fun film. 'Dave', as president, wants to find some savings in the Federal budget to save a special program so he calls in his personal accountant to look at the 8 foot tall budget. The guy is stunned but finds the money to cut and all is well. I feel like that guy. You give me the budget and I'll reduce the debt, make government smaller and more efficient, and lower your taxes. You may not like the way I do it, but I can do it, and without my foot on anybody's neck and without a gun strapped to my leg and without handcuffs.

Here's the deal: I don't believe anything you say. What people say and what they write pales in comparison to what they do. And I have watched what you do with ever increasing doubt.

The Tea Party is to the Constitution as AIDS is to sex: You destroy the very thing you seek.

Have fun.
Rearnheart


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: teamediaperson
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 1:28 pm 
Mr. R. Earnheart:

I guess the reason you call names is that you lack substance in your arguments. As you've noticed, I've not resorted to playground antics like name-calling. We are TEA "Partiers," not "Baggers." That's naughty, I understand, although I am proud to reveal that I don't really know what the term "baggers" means. Don't tell me.

I guess you haven't heard about the taxes that are going to start kicking in after December 31 in order to pay for this "free" health care. Your personal, home budget will notice within the next year or two. And all small, medium and large businesses will notice an effect on January 1 with having to keep much more detailed accounting records in order to send 1099's to places like fuel service stations (if fuel is an expense) and office supply stores (like Wal-Mart or Office Max) if $600 or more is spent per year. 1099's don't just apply to contract labor anymore. I am not sure projected 16,000 more IRS agents will be able to handle the trillion or so 1099's that will start coming in in February of 2012 for the year 2011. And on and on. Read the bill--as Nancy Pelosi said sometime back, "We need to pass the bill so we can find out what is in it." That statement should alarm even the most liberal citizen, let alone the conservative citizen.

Come to a meeting one of these times--meet us and learn that we say what we mean and mean what we say. We aren't perfect people--and I don't think you are either--but we do believe in these main three principles: Constitutionally limited government, free markets and lower taxes. That's what make any country viable and much more able to deal with all the other critical issues of any society.

Please no sarcastic remarks--stick to the subject.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: jef
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 1:30 pm 
"What I have tried to point out is that our nation simply needs to be more fiscally conservative (balance the budget--don't you balance your own?), promote less federal government (to allow freedom to create your own way in this world), and lower taxes (so we keep more of our own earnings to pay our bills and live comfortably, and can provide help to those in need when we see that need)."

Here's how to accomplish everything you want-

Fiscal conservation?; Stop the war - current cost since 2001 is $1,100,319,900,00, and growing. You can go to http://www.costofwar.com to see a ticker of the dollars mounting up. Currently, the ENTIRE annual budget for all education in the US is the equivalent of THREE WEEKS of this war. If we're spending it on war, what's left for education?

Less government?; How big a chunk of our government is involved, from health care to feeding to housing to moving troops and weapons, etc., etc., etc. is directly a result of the military? It takes heaps of hours to make rules, regulations and laws about the military and it's activities, from planning attacks to administrative tasks for soldiers' families. And while you're thinking about that, don't forget that the War On Drugs, another little battle that creates huge profits for some folks, at the expense of others, with no benefits to most Americans.Prohibition created criminals and huge governmental departments to deal with them. When it was over, there were just as many alcoholics as before prohibition, and the product was taxed and regulated. You'd empty a lot of jails,allow law enforcement to take care of real criminal activity and end the battles between rival drug gangs if marijuana was legalized. (I'm not a stoner; this is just a ridiculous law.)

Just with those two acts, ending the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan and the War On Drugs, would shrink the federal government so fast it'd take your breath away. What was left would be plenty to take care of things like education, infrastructure and environment. And those folks would probably be a little more careful with our country and its money after watching what happened to the ones that got fired!

Lower taxes? As long as this war continues there is a snowball's chance in hell that your taxes will go down, unless you are in the highest tax bracket.

But my biggest question to the Tea Party is, where were you when G.W.Bush was acting like King George and running rough-shod with Dick Cheney over the constitution?

Elizabeth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: teamediaperson
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 3:05 pm 
In reference to your last paragraph: Don't you remember that George G. W. Bush Constitutionally sought a congressional resolution to authorize "the use of military force against Iraq." It was passed by the Senate 77-23, with Senators Edwards, Reid, Kerry, Clinton & Biden (among others) all voting in favor? Don't you remember that?

Don't you remember that our intelligence was confirmed by the Germans, French, Jordanians, Egyptians, Russians, and the Israelis? The major intelligence services in Europe and the Middle East were warning the US government that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Even Bill Clinton and Al Gore believed that. And John Edwards. Don't you remember?

What if George Bush the second's gamble to go to war had been decided the other way--and if Saddam had gone ahead and fired off one of those weapons of mass destruction? Hundreds of thousands of precious human lives would have been lost.

Don't you remember how it was discovered after the 1991 Desert Storm Gulf War that Saddam had repeatedly ordered mass killings of Iraq's Kurdish minority? Men, women and children. Even little children were forced to watch their parents' executions with bullets to the head. Don't you remember?

You need to rethink your vitriol against our conservative leaders and the military. If it weren't for the military we'd be speaking Japanese on the West Coast and German on the East. Don't you remember?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: jef
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 3:52 pm 
War begets war. Peace begets peace.
There is no war that cannot be traced to greed and the desire for power over others lives and resources.
WWll was a direct result of the Allies greedily dividing up the German spoils after WWl, leaving the German populace starving and willing to be cowed into hatred, willing to believe some nut case who said their despair was caused by the Jews. Americans made a whole lot of money off that war, long before the spin became that it was about rescuing victims of concentration camps.
The Gulf Wars are a result of our unwillingness to believe we are not entitled to the world's resources, like oil, regardless of the costs to those who live where there are resources to exploit.
I could go on and on, but the first sentence of this post is the most concise thing that can be said.
As for the former president and his war; there are way too many people coming out, who were engaged in the scam, for that to be considered any kind of defense. I do not, and did not, support any of those who voted for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Antithesis
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:10 pm 
My Dear teameaperson,

It looks like this is dealing with specifics, and I'd like to inquire if you'd be so kind as to answer some basic questions about the ''free market'' capitalism you so proudly espouse.

When I was studying economics eons ago, it occurred to me that capitalism has nothing resembling a conscience. Nothing to look out for the welfare of the world, much less any of its citizens. The only responsibility of corporations is to their stockholders' profits.

Your standard answer that people, churches, true believers will rise up to help out any misfortunate among us is laughable. Or would be if it weren't so untrue.

But I digress. What I would like to hear from you, since you TPers talk so much about values and morality, is your opinion on these two issues:

1. NPR has aired a study that shows that the recent Arizona law concerning immigrants who may be here illegally was written and promoted by someone from the PIC (prison-industrial complex). He and his ilk decided that the next big money was in detaining illegals.

Since rich TPers can invest their hard earned dividends in stock that makes money when people are incarcerated, does this seem like a moral problem to you? Or do you think it is morally proper to be able to invest in the prison system and simultaneously vote for republicans who will make sure as many people go to jail as possible? Who will vote against legalizing marijuana because it will reduce their ''cash crop''?

2. Same question, different victims. Since Obama/Congress has saddled us with this health care ''reform'' that requires everyone to buy insurance from private insurance companies, it would now seem responsible for both republicans and democrats to invest in medical insurance companies. Do you think it is ethical for someone to invest in medical insurance companies, who make more money if they refuse treatment, and to simultaneously vote for (oh, pooh, it doesn't matter anymore, does it?)?

I could go on about your absurd notion that people are unemployed because they don't want to work, are lazy, etc. Most of their previous jobs were outsourced to China, India, et. al. They won't come back.

What if we converted some of the arms factories (socialized, in that they are supported by tax payer dollars) and convert them to making sustainable energy stuff, such as solar panels, windmills, ocean wave energy machines?

Oh, and one other thing for now, how do you feel about the TP Movement knowing it was financed by David and Charles Koch, Texas oil billionaires (in the top five worldwide)? They have been influencing congress for decades, and now, you!! For example, they own a big company that makes formaldehyde, and paid congress to downgrade its toxicity. Good thing you actually weren't in New Orleans during Katrina and relied on the help not only of the loving neighborhood TPers, but the assistance of Bush and "heck of a job Brownie'', which would have placed in you a toxic trailer full of the same formaldehyde that your buddies, Dave and Chuck made.

But their stockholders rave on.

Many of hope that someday, you on the right realize that there is actually a positive thing that can come from good government--such as education (we are falling behind every other country that could leave the US in the dark) protecting human rights, maintaining and upgrading infrastructure, carrying out that thing about "the pursuit of happiness".

In addition to defending our country. Has it occurred to you that it might be a wee bit excessive to maintain over 600 military bases in some 130 countries throughout the world? The poor souls who live on Okinawa tried to get the US to take its base and move it, but to no avail.

Finally, do you think the world will ever have peace, freedom from terrorist threats as long as the US supports Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian lands? Want to cut some budget items? I've read estimates ranging from $3-10 billion a year in foreign aid to Israel.

I'll get back, dude. BTW, you seem to be worried about tax increases. The Obama plan leaves in place the cuts below $250k, so you still get those. Are you making over that?

Over and out,

Ant

_________________
A rock in the shoe. A thorn in the side.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: alan wagman
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:37 pm 
It is frustrating when people claim their positions are those of the founding fathers but pick and choose which founding fathers and which positions. Consider the following, from the founding father whose governing philosophy probably most echoes the alleged verities of the Tea Party:

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is
to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the
higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they
rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our
moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our
government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of
our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

"The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no
passion or principle but that of gain." --Thomas Jefferson to
Larkin Smith, 1809.

"Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and
unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.

When I hear Tea Partiers acknowledge these positions from a founding father, I will respect them.

When I hear Tea Partiers espouse these positions, I'll sign up.

AW


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: teamediaperson
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:56 pm 
Dear Alan Wagman and Antithesis:

I'm tired of debating--it is late--I've just come from a rally for the next conservative representatives from my district to Santa Fe and the U.S.

All I can say to both of you, and any others who feel the same, is the following:

If you are so unhappy living here in the United States, made up of about 80% conservative folk and 20% liberal-progressive folk, why don't you move to Michael Moore's promised land of Cuba, or, you could move to Russia, or China, perhaps Venezuela, or any one of a number of communist or socialist countries? It would free you to pursue happiness in a manner more fitting to how you think governments ought to be run. Perhaps the U.S. Government would even pay your expenses to start over elsewhere.

Good luck and God bless. Oh, and Thomas Jefferson ALSO said to a questioner in Philadelphia who asked after the Constitution was written, " And what have you given us, Sir?" His reply, "A Republic, Ma'm, if you can keep it." Looks like 20% of you don't want it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: mirocook
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 9:24 am 
To teamediaperson:

The quote you attributed to Jefferson was said by Ben Franklin. It is reported that a woman at the close of the Constitutional Convention asked Mr. Franklin, "Well Doctor, what have we got--a Republic or a Monarchy? Franklin replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html

Michael


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: jef
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:08 am 
The number of us who want to continue to debate, to think about these questions, regardless of our political orientation got me to wondering.

According to various media, Glenn Beck's Washington hate rally had some where around 85,000 - 87,000 attendees. The Rally To Restore Sanity yesterday had between 215,000 - 250,000 attendees. If we use the number of people able and willing to attend a Washington rally as representative of America, there are roughly about 3 times more people willing to be seen supporting sanity as there are people willing to be seen supporting hate and fear. Those are far different numbers than those quoted by teamediaperson, who gave the ratio as 80% conservative to 20% liberal-progressive.

I always wonder, what is it that those who call themselves conservatives think they are conserving? Certainly not the future for our children and grandchildren!

As far as being included in the liberal camp; I consider 'liberals' the kind of folks who spend $25 on a made-in-china, re-usable grocery tote, which they carry to the store in a $40,000 SUV that is traded in every year. 'Progressive' gets a bit closer, and I do occasionally see signs of progress in this post-Bush, post-rational America, but I'm probably closer to Tom Paine, who wrote a widely read piece called "Common Sense", as well as "The Rights of Man".

"Love it or leave it" - how about a viable, lively democracy instead?
If the invitation to love the Tea Party version of America were made law, imagine the brain-drain!

Elizabeth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Barbara Fleming
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:12 am 
No one has asked this point blank yet, so I will.

Do you Tea Partiers not understand that corporate America owns you, is leading you around by the nose, and is laughing all the way to the bank? And it’s not just corporate America now – it’s the entire corporate world, thanks to the recent Citizens United Supreme Court decision. While proudly “regular folks” like Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell -- the lightweights – are out there whipping up snark-loving crowds -- Koch Industries and others like them continue to work [mostly] out of the spotlight, to dismantle every regulation that stands between them and higher profits.

And do you not understand that unless you are fabulously wealthy, worth millions, you are shooting yourselves in the foot? Maybe you, personally, think you are so smart and so well off that you don’t need programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC and the like – well, good for you. But what about all the rest of your family? Can you and will you financially support them in tough times? And if not, are you willing to watch them struggle, in the absence of any sort of safety net?

A corollary question: When you talk about “taking our country back” – the most inane refrain of all time, btw – exactly whom do you think it should be taken back from? The liberals? The Democrats? The minorities? The educated? Actually I think it’s all of the above, but you totally miss the point. Corporate America has an ever-increasing stranglehold on this country; we need to take our country back from the corporations. But you don’t get it and you don’t want to get it because it’s hard and it’s complicated, and you have deceived yourselves into thinking that the corporations are on your side. (see the many articulate postings above). It’s easier and more fun to create your own boogymen.

P.S. It is priceless that Teamediaperson claims not to know what teabagging means and is so proud of his ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: alan wagman
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:39 am 
Oh, what's the point of continuing this? The Tea Party claims to be the exclusive inheritor of the founding fathers' legacy, but when I quote Thomas Jefferson, I am invited to leave the country -- with a suggestion that the concept of "limited government" might be stretched to pay for the departure.

AW


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: rearnheart
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:53 am 
From: Anton Baggerovitch
To: Honorable Teamediaperson
Subject: Mother Russia


Greetings, fellow democratic capitalist! Since you have television I am werry confident dat you have noticed that we are no longer Big Bad Wolf in communist clothing but are now werry experienced capitalists.

All government elected officials very democratic. Ve have also many political parties, some every night, with lots of blondes.

Please do not send us liberal progressives as discussed in blog. Prisons too full right now to put forward thinkers. Plus, they get in way of more pollution which is more money for us. Pollution=money. You understand, da?

Also, why you bother with this at all? Ve have television, too! Russia is capitalist democracy run by thugs. I see you are working for the same. Ve get shipping off political opposition, ve invented it!
Also, if you are hot, please send photos.
Anton

From: Juanita Archenko, Garden Brigade Commander
To: Teamediaperson
Subject: Cuban immigration


Hola, Teamediaperson! We would love to be the recipients of your progressive liberals! As the head gardener of Local Garden 10722 in Havana, we look forward to learning the latest survivable gardening techniques developed in the US.

Since you are such an advanced democracy, I’m sure that you are all energy independent and completely supplied with locally grown organic food, as we are trying to be.

Our doctors stand ready to help with any medical need for free, should they arise, but I’m sure that you are the healthiest people on earth, as your pharmaceutical advertising says.

Since there is still no travel between Cuba and the United States (pity!), please note that you must enter this country through Canada. My I suggest Vancouver or Montreal.
Via con Dios, amiga!
Juanita

From: Hector de la Vaca, Immigration Advisor, El Presidente Hugo Chavez
To: Teamediaperson
Subject: Immigration of American progressives from less developed nations


While we understand that the deportation of political opponents was done historically in our country, we do not understand its necessity in the United States.

You hold yourselves up as a beacon of tolerance and understanding to the world yet you practice barbarian political techniques to achieve political ends. You embarrass yourself. Grow up.

We will be shipping another tanker of free heating oil to your New Jersey to assist you in your times of economic hardship.

May this gesture of good will not be interpreted as a propaganda ploy on your Glenn Beck comedy hour.

Yours in Democracy,
The Honorable Hector de la Vaca


PS: I use the term ‘Bagger’ instead of ‘Patriot’ because words still have meaning. Its use is derogatory and is intended to be. Because you deserve it.

rearnheart


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:04 pm 
Headline: Tea Party propaganda minister flees GilaCommunity.net (aka "the forum") rather than face an unrelenting highly intelligent skepticism of TP platitudes.

The nameless, faceless corporate shill and party propagandist, in a parting shot slung a variation of the fascist authoritarian slam of "love it or leave it". Reminiscent of the 60's and early 70's warmongers, promoters of fear and hate and fake patriots, this motto was used and is still used to let us know that we won't live in a benevolent and open democracy after they solidify their power so we better shut-up or leave.

With the use of empty (but loaded) catch words such as "Constitutional (fundamentalism), Free Markets (buyer beware capitalism), Less Government (for corporations) and Less Taxes (from the rich to pay for the wars they love)" the TP propagandists have attempted to hide their true agenda but have been met by the intelligentsia and caring people they so despise throughout the country.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: timothius
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:09 pm 
Crow,

This is insulting to both sides of the fence. Richard is usually pretty cool but John you shut the Deputy down for the same friggin crap. Richard please do not attack others in this forum. Brother we're all in the same bad boat and no one wants to believe it! This year it them and next year it's those. Who cares!!!!


best

Tim

_________________
If you are not outraged,,,, You are not paying attentiion!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: jef
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:59 pm 
One last attempt to explain;
if you haven't seen this yet, it is a serious discussion of pretty much verbatim Tea Party philosophy...words have actual meanings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnUfPQVO ... _embedded#!

Elizabeth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: alan wagman
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:31 pm 
The youtube video to which Elizabeth links is clearly produced by people who are critical of the Tea Party. This kind of video allows the producer to set up straw men -- i.e., to put forward alleged Tea Party views in a way which may or may not reflect the way Tea Partiers themselves may express them, but certainly in a way which makes them easy to knock down. It is not a truly valid way to learn about Tea Party thinking. This is more sophisticated than but not unlike simply labeling a view other than one's own as either Fascist or Communist and then attacking the view based upon the label rather than upon the specifics espoused.

I would not mind engaging with an intellectually honest Tea Partier who spoke in substance rather than slogans, who actually accepted that it is possible to love and be loyal to the Constitution and the country and still hold radically different beliefs from those espoused by the Tea Party. Such a person would engage in a discussion of why he or she did not like policy approaches based upon the content of the policies rather than assigning a label and dismissing the policies based upon the label.

We all at least at times do such labeling and dismissing. Well, maybe not all of us, but no one I've ever known has been perfect enough not to do it, at least sometimes. Even when we stop short of labeling, much of the what passes for discussion on this forum (and, alas, not just on this forum, in this country) is more in the nature of a game of "Gotcha!" than a serious discussion. That goes for both sides of the arguments, and includes me.

So, here goes, an invitation to anyone out there -- to the left of me, to the right of me, right there (or left there) with me -- to drop the posturing and actually listen to each other. After all, if we can't work it out together, we will all go down the tubes together, and it won't matter which of us is correct about why we're going down the tubes.

AW


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: teamediaperson
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:46 pm 
To all of you who are overwhelmingly liberal--mayhap Teamediaperson is a lady? And it is OK not to want to know naughty stuff. You only identify yourself as inept when you use such language. And thank you Timothius for sort of coming to my defense against radical rhetoric even if you don't agree with my political leanings.

I stand corrected on the person who said, "A Republic if you can keep it." Just don't have all the tools at hand to look up details--nor the time to do so. It was close enough--one of our forefathers who was involved with the process.

You all really should be grateful for companies, both big and small. They helped develop much of our technology because of which we live in pretty good comfort and health today. The space program which contract with PRIVATE companies to develop all their systems to go into space (I once worked for NASA-JSC); pharmaceutical companies (whom I detest for their greediness) develop really good medicines (aspirin's good, right?--and I am aware of numerous recalls on various new medicines--shame on them!), computer companies (Dell, Microsoft, HP, etc.) that allow us to communicate so easily, construction companies who build homes and tall buildings, and on and on.

Do you folks just not work? Or do you actually earn your living from someone who pays you a salary? Or maybe you own your own businesses? Or maybe you work for a publicly supported agency (where MY taxes pay YOUR salary)? Well, if you work and earn a salary (and pay your own SS & FICA taxes), then you are part of this wonderful capitalist system that we live in. Be thankful.

Goodness--what venom is out there against someone who happens to feel differently than you.....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:20 pm 
Well Tim, I stand by my "Reporting". The teamediaperson is the propagandist "front man/woman" unwilling or unable to engage certain issues, then, in frustration invites challengers/dissenters to leave the country (whith all hate and intolerance that the statement implies). As for the Tea Party candidates go, "If you are not outraged,,,, You are not paying attention!" to their regressive and historically failed "solutions".

Discussions here haven't even touched on many hot button topics like equal rights for all people like gays, lesbians, workers etc; torture and other war crimes. Not to mention the role of the judiciary in arbitrating the constitutionality of laws and decisions and the role of religion in government and education. But we know where they stand so there is the reversion to reciting what I call the "Platitudes" (propaganda) that on face value nobody can argue against unless we know what they really stand for in practical terms, it is dishonest at best.

BTW: mike left on his own in a fit of hateful intolerant rage and is not welcome back.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: digitalwiz
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 8:13 pm 
Hey Teamediaperson,

Now wait a minute dude. Where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to fund a space program that you apparently profited from?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: teamediaperson
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 9:21 pm 
Digitalwiz: It's not! Good point!

Democrat President John F. Kennedy gave a rousing speech way back when (before I was old enough to vote) about being the first country to go to the moon. Russia was already in the infancy of its space program, and the "powers that were," so to speak, didn't want them ahead of us because they might use their knowledge to create weapons against us or others in the world that could be launched from a space craft or space station.

Thus, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Remember, though, that the agency put hundreds of thousands of PRIVATE companies and people to work to create the operating systems and hardware used in the program. They worked in conjunction with many government engineers who directed the programs. In a sense, I guess you could say that to some degree, NASA "earned" the money it took to pay for itself through the taxes paid by the private companies and their workers and all the associated business that grew up to support the "primary" companies. I'm not saying there wasn't waste in that program--as in all government agencies, there is waste (obviously something that any Administration needs to work on to reduce).

As for profiting from that--I was just a peon civil service worker for 4 1/2 years--supported my kids on my small salary (salaries then were not at the percentage level that civil service workers are at today). I'm not really sure that even the top brass in that program really made much money from the government. However, some of them probably profited later from creating their own businesses after retiring or quitting; perhaps writing articles for trade magazines, making speeches to organizations, inventing things once they were no longer employees of the government. Keep in mind--and I know this first hand--if any of the engineers "invented" any kind of device or had an idea about how to do something, they were under a contract specifically saying that they had no claim to that invention or idea and could not profit from it. It became the "property" of the federal government (NASA specifically).

Constitutionally, really all our federal government is supposed to be responsible for would include things like roads, border security, military for protection, rail roads to carry goods around the country from imports and internal factories, etc., some aspect of transportation of oil and gas, etc., and some aspect of air flight travel (I'm not an expert on exactly how that works as far as government control). Just things for the GENERAL welfare of all the people. And I am not referring to specific welfare for those who choose to adopt behavior patterns that our government rewards them for. I believe that our government can and should help people who are physically and mentally handicapped and are just not able to hold jobs and interact in a normal job situation. Doing things as I've described in this paragraph, in my opinion, are things that even a small federal government can afford to do.

As a TEA Party-minded person, I think government should be small, not intrusive, reduce taxes on both large and small business and workers, cut WAY back on regulations, all so that business can be creative, expand their product lines and services and thus, pay more revenues into the government coffers. I'll bet Bill Gates pays a bunch of taxes; but he has products and services that he created that hundreds of millions of people use--and pay for. So what? If I could think of something that would improve lives, I'd promote it (and expect to make money from it).

I'll bet no one in this forum works for free. I never did. And I always was quite happy that my employer had plenty of money to pay all of us on payday. I'll bet everyone in this forum is also happy that their employer has money to pay them, too. Not a thing wrong with that! :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Barbara Fleming
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 6:12 am 
Boy, talk about setting up straw men!

Teamediaperson, taking my post as an argument against working for a living and receiving a salary, or as a dismissal of all the innovations made by private corporations since the beginning of time, is ridiculous. You know exactly what I meant, or at least you ought to… If you don't, you just prove my point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: jef
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:29 am 
I agree, Barbara. And I've been thinking about Deputy's name coming up in this thread in regard to Teamediaperson's latest post.
During a discussion of health care, Deputy cited the old "buyer beware" slogan. Yes, we should be paying attention.

Doesn't that seem like lame and useless advice though, now that we know how many families lost homes, illegally, due to bankers signing without reading many thousands of foreclosure documents? Doesn't that seem lame after a summer of serious health issues due to deregulation of food production? There are insurance companies that laugh at million dollar fines for denying health care to those who legally deserved it under their already paid-for policies. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of these sorts of instances where lobbyists and 'corporate persons' used their financial power to eradicate protection of their customers. Because they can get away with it.

Is that the 'creativity' Teamediaperson is so excited about?

The idea that we either go to Cuba or just give up on any kind of protection under the law is naive and ridiculous. Unfortunately, the Tea Party, bought and paid for by the Koch brothers, has enough money to willfully mislead those not willing or able to make the necessary critical distinctions. Aligning one's self with the Tea Party indicates either similar lack of ability to think, or worse, being OK with willfully misleading others.

Elizabeth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: judithelise
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:36 am 
This is one of the best definitions of the tea party that I have seen: "A group of poor, struggling people duped by the wealthy into supporting policies that hurt poor, struggling people."

The word "duped" implies to me that either they are simple minded and incapable of critical thought OR that they are so overwhelmed by emotions (poor, struggling) that their judgement is clouded. These are hard times (but not end-times as Jon Steward points out) and hard times tend to bring out the worst in human behavior. David Sirota has an interesting op-ed at Truthout called "It's the Supidity, Stupid", in which he discusses a kind of a denial reflex at work in our country. He says when people become shaken by an assault on their assumptions they become even more adamant in defense of wrongheaded ideas.

Here is a quote by John Kenneth Galbraith that is thought provoking:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest excuses in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness".

Selfishness is a very human feeling, resentment also. But we don't have to let these feelings dictate our behavior. We all have the responsibility to look within and become aware of how our feelings of selfishness and resentment can poison our vision when we look upon "the other".

So my challenge to any tea party folk that may be listening is simply this: Look within and let me know which definition fits you. Are you simple minded, overwhelmed by your struggles, or just feeling selfish? And please stop yammering on about the constitution (it really isn't about that, is it?). Alan Wagman can argue very well with you and point out the fallacies in your logic there. I really do want to understand, because our country is in deep doo-doo and we have a lot of work to do.

Sincerely,
Overwhemlingly Liberal (?)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Allee Barr
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:53 am 
I invite you all to listen to Jon Stewart's speech at the Rally For Sanity on YouTube... "If we are to get through the darkness and back into the light, we HAVE to work TOGETHER..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVPLIuBy9CY

_________________
Allee Barr, RN, EEM-CLP
Eden Energy Medicine & N.A.E.T.
Private Sessions ~ Consulting ~ Workshops
575-388-3786


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: jef
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:55 am 
Brilliant! Thanks, Allee and Judithelise.
You made my day.
Elizabeth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: judithelise
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:57 am 
From above:
"The quote you attributed to Jefferson was said by Ben Franklin. It is reported that a woman at the close of the Constitutional Convention asked Mr. Franklin, 'Well Doctor, what have we got--a Republic or a Monarchy? Franklin replied, 'A Republic, if you can keep it'."

I might point out that we have neither Monarchy nor Republic but closer to Oligarchy or Plutocracy at this point in time. I would think that this is something that we could all agree on and is probably why most of us are so unhappy and frustrated with our government, whether we realize the cause or not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: teamediaperson
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 1:37 pm 
You guys --

You keep mentioning "Koch." I've not heard of those folks--don't know who they are except I get the idea that some of you reading this post seem to think they fund the TEA Partiers. Of course, you say that without have a shred of evidence--there is none to be had. It would be pretty easy to check out--that would be public information should anyone wish to pursue it.

No, sadly for the lamestream media as well as the liberal mindset of some people, they choose to believe what they want to believe: that there couldn't possibly be a group of truly conservative-minded individuals who remember what it was like to have much more liberty in our lives than any of us in the U.S. has now. And want to have it again.

It seems that you want to force people who are independent thinkers such as those in TEA Parties to think and believe as you do because you think and believe that your way is better. We, on the other hand, just want the arrogant, liberal-minded government officials and bureaucrats to leave us alone to live as WE see fit--and you can do the same. Just don't make us try to live under the restrictions you think are best for us. Let us decide for ourselves how we choose to live--we wish to allow the same privilege for you! If that is simple-minded, so be it. Indeed, let us keep things simple, stupid--as the saying goes. The Constitution is how many pages long--2, 3, 5? Anyway, it is short enough to be read and comprehended to be read by even simple-minded persons.

It certainly isn't like the 2,000 or so page so-called health "care" bill (which actually taxes the hell out of people and takes away a lot of care) that Nancy Pelosi said had to be passed so we could find out what was in it!! My God! What has our so-called intelligent Congress come to!? Even THEY can't understand this "simple" bill. They did not even read it themselves. I don't see how this falacious process can be intelligent, let alone Constitutional.

But I ramble...Sorry.

If you would come to a TEA Party meeting (advertised on this Community's Calendar), you just might see something you don't expect, learn something you didn't know, meet some people you might even like. Don't be afraid of "change"--you might just change your own mind about what you think. And along with that, have hope for a better future in this country in spite of all its imperfect residents and elected leaders.

If the country becomes a third-world country--with everyone poor except our esteemed leaders--you will go down the same as me and other thinkers like me. We'll all be equal and equally poor--a true socialist country--check out Cuba.

Personally, I just don't think the indomitable American spirit will allow that to happen. Sit back and watch what happens during the next 2 to 4 years and beyond. What took 75 plus years to get to won't take near that long to undo. It took our country in the early years about 150 give or take to reach 1776 and a declaration of independence. Then 11 years of war where most battles were lost, but we won the war against oppression. 150 to 11. Not bad.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: jef
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:51 pm 
Unbelievable that teamediaperson seems so conversant with the Tea Party, yet has never heard of the Koch Brothers, though I noticed that entering "koch brothers & tea party" in a google search yielded not a single word from Fox News on the Kochs.
So, here is a 5 minute search in "lamestream" (not Faux?) media on the Koch brothers...

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010 ... fact_mayer

http://theweek.com/article/index/206405 ... petmasters
(this one is an easier to read synopsis of the New Yorker piece)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/sca ... -tea-party

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =129425186

http://exiledonline.com/a-peoples-histo ... -movement/

This quote grabbed my attention; "A study released in 2010 by the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. Charles Lewis, founder of the Center for Public Integrity, said, “The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times.”" from this article
http://themoderatevoice.com/84381/billi ... -of-money/

and the local paper where the boys own two very big businesses;
http://iowaindependent.com/41877/the-ko ... y-movement

http://www.examiner.com/political-issue ... n-ideology

http://www.grist.org/article/koch-broth ... rmed-video

another interesting quote; "Their agenda opposes all environmental laws, after all they are in the oil business. It also opposes Social Security, Medicare and all forms of government regulation. These guys are so right wing that William F. Buckley called their agenda, "Anarcho-totalitarianism." from this piece
http://www.naplesnews.com/blogs/world-a ... artydupes/

There were at least 10 more pages under that entry.

I think everyone deserves life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness here in the US of A. NO ONE deserves unending riches and unlimited control over their fellow Americans, and the land we share, at the expense of the rest of us.

Elizabeth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: jef
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 3:36 pm 
PS; I actually do know some people in the Tea Party. A local business man, Billy Mack, seemed like a really nice man the few times I've met him. My brother, who I love, plays on the fringes of the Tea Party. And others.

And I would ask the same of them - how can an intelligent person swallow this crap?

In the case of my brother, I think it's the only way for him to deal with a non-white president. Perhaps that really is the basis. No one was spouting this stuff before Obama was elected. No one cared to see GWB's birth certificate, even though people in Texas will tell you straight out and seriously that it is an independent republic. I think the Brothers K. parlayed fear and this quiet racism by inciting some humble folks into objecting to fantasies like death panels, socialism, and a Muslim take over of Christianity. It snow-balled into state & local pols thinking to win the hearts of those paying for the woes of a post regulatory, post rational, post GWB economy. Show me anything the TP proposes that even hints at loosening the strangle hold the military industrial complex, as Ike called it, has on us

"Government out of my Medicare" seems to sum it all up nicely.

Elizabeth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: judithelise
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 4:13 pm 
Thank you Elizabeth. I found the New York times article informative and easy to read. The Koch brothers sound really spooky. Let's boycott Lycra and burn our dainties!
Judithelise


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Bruce
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:56 pm 
What an outpouring! I have a few points.

The Tea Party isn't a party. This is it's greatest defense. If I criticize some position that some Tea person has made, it's easy for others to deny that position. That's how Teamediaperson can say he or she has never heard of the Koch brothers and mean it, and perhaps the local Tea Party really hasn't received a penny from them. There are several Tea Party organization, and those organizations do get money from the Kochs. But some local organizations may be completely independent.

In reading about the "Tea Party Convention" that one of those groups organized in Tennessee a few months ago, it was clear that even those who showed up (not to mention those who boycotted or couldn't afford it or didn't even hear about it) were all over the map--from Christian fundamentalists to Ayn Rand skeptical libertarians.

It's not a party; it's a general discontent.

When Teamediaperson says the US is "made up of about 80% conservative folk and 20% liberal-progressive folk", he or she is making a common mistake that I sometimes see liberals make on this forum. We mostly talk to others like ourselves and assume others think the same. Well, tomorrow night we're going to get a vague idea of how powerful the Tea Party really is. But only a vague idea because there is no party, and as usual, everything will be open to interpretation. I doubt the vote will show anything like an 80-20 split. It will more likely confirm what anybody can see without counting--our country is very confused right now. We're all over the map. We can all see that something is very wrong, but we're not sure why or what to do about it. The only people who aren't confused are the people who are wrong.

Although I think many Tea Party people have serious misunderstandings about the constitution and our country's history, we still owe them a debt for making it too clear to ignore that something needs to change, even if it's not what they think.

Bruce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: teamediaperson
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 6:48 pm 
Thank you, Bruce. Those are the kindest words anyone on this forum has said to or about me in regard to my statements and opinions and analyses.

You are probably right that the vote won't reflect anything near an 80-20 split. There are many, many moderates who, like us conservatives and lots of liberals, realize something is terribly wrong with the economic direction and not real sure what to do to resolve it. Probably stop spending more stimulus dollars to start--then lets work through the rest.

God Bless America.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: msauber
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:16 pm 
I believe any true God would bless the whole world without any exceptions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: jef
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 6:37 am 
"The only people who are not confused are the people who are wrong".

Unlike teamediaperson, I don't understand Bruce's post as words of kindness or support.

Come on, Bruce, do you really believe that?
I admit to areas of confusion in my life, but please allow me, and the rest of the Forum, the benefit of some convictions.

For instance, for many reasons, I am certain that I am not wrong in voting against Steve Pierce. At a recent gathering he pledged to spend time (and your taxes) in Washington researching President Obama's citizenship! From the absolutely not progressive/liberal Sun News;

"Speaking at a town hall event in Los Lunas on Sept. 30, Pearce pledged to a concerned questioner that, if he returns to Congress, he would support concerted efforts to determine once and for all whether the president was born in the United States....While Second District families from Deming to Doña Ana are reeling from the effects of a tough economy, Steve Pearce has resorted to scare tactics to try to boost his electoral prospects. Responsible candidates are articulating innovative solutions to jumpstart a bleak employment outlook. Pearce is purporting myths to drive up turnout among his conservative base."


So, is my vote the result of being wrong or confused?

Elizabeth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ynotwrite2
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:09 am 
yep ! when you're hurting you yelp, when you're yelping you're confused.
this even happens to liberals and moderates.
teaperson:
i respect your willingness to talk to the liberals.
i saw your pain and now your anger at the bailout of wallstreet bankers, the 2000 page healthcare bill and, sadly came to the same conclusion that "they" don't feel your pain or give a shit about you and most of the rest of us.
but, interestingly, there are some ,and these some could be anywhere, in any walk of life, who can take a moment, even in the midst of great personal pain, and empathise with the suffering of others, such as yourself, or any of the others who've posted on this blog, and know what you are feeling.
yes,
most of us with moderate means and ambitions want a decent life with peace and prosperity...just like you.
it ain't gonna happen in a black and white world built in your heads, filled with faraway evildoers or a muslim, harvard educated president.
truth and lie submit to the test of everyday life, the life of choosing, helping your neighbors, struggling to understand.
perhaps sometimes
even talking it out with someone.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Barbara Fleming
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:51 am 
I'm really tired of hearing people complain about THE BAILOUT. I read quite a long time ago that a large chunk of the bailout $$ had been paid back and just recently Jonathan Alter was on TV and noted that ALL the "bailout" funds have been paid back, with interest. So please give that one a rest.

Besides the simple fact that the $$ has been paid back (you can fault OBAMA big time for not effectively getting the word out on that), it's worth noting that the bailed-out corporations had a big [self-serving] incentive to pay it back -- because it got them out from under some business-practice-type restrictions that accompanied the $$. It also underscores the point that has been made many times in the media -- which is that while Wall Street has experienced some measure of recovery, that recovery as not brought Main Street ANY relief at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: jef
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:25 am 
"muslim, harvard educated president"
Huh?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: mirocook
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:26 am 
This may be considered slightly off topic but it concerns the legal precedent of how corporations came to have the legal status of personhood. The 1886 case of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad is often cited as the precedent for corporation personhood, yet Thom Hartman, in an excellent article at Alternet.org shows how that case did not grant corporations personhood. Check it out:

http://www.alternet.org/story/148608/th ... age=entire

Michael


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Bruce
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:41 am 
Elizabeth,

I'm pretty sure I want to vote against Steve Pearce. I'm just confused about why I have to vote for Harry Teague. I did it. I held my nose and voted for Teague. I held my nose and voted for Dennish. But I don't have any illusion that if they win everything will be all right.

Bruce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jill Steidl
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 10:07 am 
“We, on the other hand, just want the arrogant, liberal-minded government officials and bureaucrats to leave us alone to live as WE see fit--and you can do the same. Just don't make us try to live under the restrictions you think are best for us. Let us decide for ourselves how we choose to live--we wish to allow the same privilege for you!”


I have to say that the idea of all of us getting to decide how we choose to live and not having to live under restrictions someone else thinks are best for us sounds quite a lot like Anarchy. I would have no problem with benevolent anarchy where people (not corporations and money) on a local level determined how they would live in community together. Teamediaperson, I wonder if you realize what you have proposed? Or is it that you just don’t realize that you actually want things to be the Corporate greed/Tea Party way or the highway (to Cuba), and not the way of individual and community self-determination where we can place limits on corporate or organizational power and their ability to affect us and the earth in the negative ways they can. That is not to say we need to limit their creativity, we simply need them to apply that creativity to figuring out how not to pollute the earth, for example, rather than to figuring out how to circumvent laws meant to protect the environment.

There is a need to think of what is good for the whole, teamediaperson, as well as what is good for the individual. That doesn’t mean that they can’t overlap and it doesn’t mean the individual must be subservient to the whole. What it means is that corporations and individuals must be responsible in their behavior and accountable for their actions. This is what seems lacking in your philosophy.

Jill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: alan wagman
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 10:33 am 
Bruce, and others:

Harry Teague has an 86 (out of 100) rating from Conservation Voters New Mexico. Steve Pearce's rating is 0.

VOTE!

AW


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Bruce
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:29 am 
Steve Pearce has a zero rating on health care reform. Harry Teague has a zero rating on health care reform. I agree that Pearce is worse than Teague, but I also don't want to forget how Teague betrayed us.

Bruce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: alan wagman
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:13 pm 
When the health care bill was coming up for a final vote, once it was clear that there were enough votes for passage, Nancy Pelosi gave several Democrats in tight races in conservative districts dispensation to vote against the bill. I don't know that Harry Teague was one of those with dispensation, but his standing and this district certainly meet the description for who was to get the dispensation.

AW


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: timothius
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 6:30 pm 
After reading the past few posts it is pretty apparent to me that we have nothing to vote for and yet again nothing to vote against. This is all too sad. regardless of the outcome we're screwed! I am certainly not happy with what I am seeing. So how do we over come this BS? I would certainly like to hear more than Dems this and Tea Partiers that! Come up with some real substance and talk. Perhaps another thread?

Thanks

Tim

_________________
If you are not outraged,,,, You are not paying attentiion!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ynotwrite2
PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 6:45 am 
Barbara Fleming wrote:
I'm really tired of hearing people complain about THE BAILOUT. I read quite a long time ago that a large chunk of the bailout $$ had been paid back and just recently Jonathan Alter was on TV and noted that ALL the "bailout" funds have been paid back, with interest. So please give that one a rest.

dear barbara,
you still have a job, you didn't have your retirement fund decimated, you ARE making your mortgage payment and your credit card bills?
lucky you. and your friends, too ?
goldman sacks payed back the feds.
hooray.
p.s.
are you one of those who can figure out how much a medical proceedure is going to cost? you? medicare? the supplement ins?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: jef
PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 7:17 am 
Good morning; New Mexico has elected a congressman who has been endorsed by Sarah Palin and has pledged to spend his time (and your tax money) determining whether the President is, indeed, a citizen.
Congratulations!
Elizabeth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Nancy Kaminski
PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 8:32 am 
CONGRESS a Problem with Perception!
A Record To Be Proud Of
Regardless of what happens in the voting booths, the 111th Congress will be coming to an end. According to polls, many people -- in fact, most Democrats -- may be happy to see it go: a recent Pew and National Journal survey shows that only one-third of Democrats think this Congress achieved more than recent congresses, while 60 percent think it has achieved the same or less. Unfortunately, this perception is divorced from reality. The 111th Congress has been easily one of the most productive congresses in American history, having passed major reforms of health care, the financial sector, and the student loan industry, while also pumping a massive stimulus bill into the economy that helped save or create millions of jobs. The New York Times described this Congress as one whose accomplishments rival "any other since the New Deal in scope or ambition."

A FOCUS ON ECONOMY: When Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) gaveled in the 111th Congress in January 2009, the country faced severe problems, none more pressing than a cratering economy. The unemployment rate had skyrocketed since 2007 with no signs of relenting, and the private sector needed a jump start. In its first month, the 111th Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which President Obama quickly signed into law. The non-partisan CBO found that the bill created 3.7 million jobs, and GDP and manufacturing have both grown steadily over the past year. The bill also included significant tax cuts. The Tax Policy Center found that the tax cuts contained in the stimulus bill saved an average of $1,179 for 96.9 percent of U.S. households in 2009. Congress later passed, and Obama signed, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 , which cut taxes by $12 billion for small businesses and leveraged $300 billion in private sector lending for small businesses. Congress also passed -- and Obama signed -- a $26 billion jobs bill to save over 300,000 teachers, police, and other public workers from layoffs. Congress provided additional stimulus for the economy with the Hire Act, which created up to 300,000 jobs by starting a payroll tax holiday and other tax credits for businesses that hire unemployed workers, and with an extension to unemployment benefits for those still unable to find work in a tough economy. Aside from these major steps to jump-start the economy, the 111th Congress also reformed several dysfunctional institutions. The Affordable Care Act transformed the country's health care system, by reforming health insurers' discriminatory practices, expanding Medicaid coverage, and income-based help for health care, and creating health insurance exchanges where consumers can shop for high-value coverage. The Wall Street reform bill ended taxpayer-funded bailouts of large financial institutions, created numerous regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior by such institutions, and created the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to serve as a Wall Street watchdog. The 111th Congress also reformed the student loan industry by passing a bill that marked the largest investment in college aid in history: it increased Pell Grants, strengthened community colleges, and ended wasteful subsidies to private lenders. The bill is expected to pump $100 billion into the economy thanks to the increased earnings of new students who can take advantage of the reforms. Congress also passed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which restored basic protections against pay discrimination towards women.

THE LITTLE THINGS MATTER: While these issues -- the stimulus measures, and reforms of the health insurance, financial, and student loan industries -- received much national attention, there were myriad other small acts that went largely unnoticed but figure to create significant improvements for many Americans. For example, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights created significant protections against deception and abuse by credit card companies. The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act tripled volunteerism opportunities and increased college financial awards. The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act guaranteed access to medications and care for low-income patients with AIDS and HIV. The U.S. Manufacturing Enhancement Act lowered or eliminated duties on some materials that are not made domestically, so that American manufacturers can compete with foreign manufacturers. For Americans that fly commercial airlines, the Airline Passenger Bill of Rights Act provides improved passenger safety via stronger training requirements for commercial pilots. Congress also passed a bill authorizing the FDA to regulate the advertising, marketing, and manufacturing of tobacco products, which are the leading cause of preventable U.S. deaths.

STILL WORK TO BE DONE: While these measures are no doubt significant, the 111th Congress is leaving a lot of runners on base, with further work to be done on issues such as climate change and immigration reform. The House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, also known as the cap-and-trade bill, which would have provided a marketplace in which to regulate dangerous carbon emissions while creating 1.7 million jobs and helping free America from dependence on foreign oil. The Senate has not acted on that bill. The House also passed bills that would have eliminated a liability cap on the damages BP faces for the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and that would have given the BP Oil Spill Commission subpoena power to investigate what went wrong. There is still a bill to create a public option for health insurance on the table, for which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has promised a vote. Also, the Senate and the House have yet to take action to pass the DREAM Act or comprehensive immigration reform, a promise Obama ran on in 2008. The House also passed the Disclose Act, which would prohibit foreign entities and government contractors from influencing American elections, while establishing extensive disclosure rules for political contributions. Two bills in the House, the Jobs for Main Street Act and the Small Business & Infrastructure Jobs Act, would create significant investment in American infrastructure through redirection of TARP funds and by increasing bonds and tax breaks for infrastructure development. All of these issues await action by the 112th Congress, which has large legislative shoes to fill, despite what the polls say.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: digitalwiz
PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:17 am 
Here's an interesting take on the Tea Party by Frank Rich in the New York Times.

"What made the Tea Party most useful [to Republicans] was that its loud populist message gave the G.O.P. just the cover it needed both to camouflage its corporate patrons and to rebrand itself as a party miraculously antithetical to the despised G.O.P. that gave us George W. Bush and record deficits only yesterday. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/opinion/31rich.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: teamediaperson
PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:31 pm 
"I have to say that the idea of all of us getting to decide how we choose to live and not having to live under restrictions someone else thinks are best for us sounds quite a lot like Anarchy. I would have no problem with benevolent anarchy where people (not corporations and money) on a local level determined how they would live in community together. Teamediaperson, I wonder if you realize what you have proposed? Or is it that you just don’t realize that you actually want things to be the Corporate greed/Tea Party way or the highway (to Cuba), and not the way of individual and community self-determination where we can place limits on corporate or organizational power and their ability to affect us and the earth in the negative ways they can. That is not to say we need to limit their creativity, we simply need them to apply that creativity to figuring out how not to pollute the earth, for example, rather than to figuring out how to circumvent laws meant to protect the environment. "

Jill Steidl - I simply copied and pasted your 2nd paragraph so that isn't any question on what you said. I note that you, actually, are calling for Constitutionally limited federal government as are the TEA Partiers. You just express it a tad differently. Of course, you know I don't believe in anarchy as a viable way a society should live. First, to have a government of laws, there has to be some moral standard by which to set up the laws. The laws get set up (the Constitution of the United States), and there are only a few enumerated powers given to the federal government and the rest of the powers to make laws goes to the States individually--and the other local entities--cities and counties.

As I've said before, I don't necessarily ALL corporations are greedy and bad. I am certain they are in business TO MAKE MONEY. Indeed, don't you work for money? I do. And I want my own tiny company to make enough to pay me! Goodness. I am not saying that there aren't greedy corporations--there are also greedy, but poor, individuals. That is a heart condition of those individuals and the individuals who run the greedy corporations! If we can agree that no one has a perfect heart (only God), then we can begin to understand why there is greed and other evil in the world. Only then can we begin to walk in forgiveness of those people and ask our own God to help us not be that way.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: judithelise
PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:08 pm 
Teamediaperson,
The difference between your tiny business and a publicly held corporation is that the corporate decision makers have to do anything and everything they can to maximize profits for their stockholders. This almost always means that they will (if they can get away with it) ignore public safety issues, worker safety issues, ethical issues or anything else that might impact the profitability of the corporation. Where YOU might have a conscience and you might use it when you make business decisions, corporate leaders can’t do that when they make decisions. They can only look at the bottom line and their responsibility to their stockholders. Do you get the huge difference? Especially huge at election time when you vote for congressmen who are beholden to those very corporations and will do everything in their power to support those corporations? It’s kind of akin to selling your soul to the devil if you ask me. This is why progressives get so angry and frustrated at the ignorance of tea party voters. This country needs jobs for happy healthy workers who will go out and spend their paychecks on goods and services that local businesses have to offer. The way things are going with all the jobs going overseas the workers of the US will sink lower and lower until probably something really radical will have to happen. I guess we will just have to wait and see what that will be because you and your ilk refuse to wake up and see that when you vote tea party you are voting to support interests that are NOT looking out for you, your neighbors, your beloved constitution, or anything else you value.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: timothius
PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 2:01 pm 
Well! I doesn't matter any more, does it? Lets all take a breather and watch!

best

Tim

_________________
If you are not outraged,,,, You are not paying attentiion!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: timothius
PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 8:02 pm 
I have watched! Have you?

I bid you a good day!

Tim

_________________
If you are not outraged,,,, You are not paying attentiion!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: teamediaperson
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:08 am 
Judithelise--what a lovely name!

Judith,

Thanks for expressing your thoughts well. Unfortunetly, you lost your credibility with your condesending "you and your ilk" remark. The TEA Party Patriots are founded on three fundamental principles: Constitutionally limited government, free markets and lower taxes. The TEA party is made up of conservatives who believe in these principles; 40% of our member are Democrats and Independents. You're probably just upset over the major rejection of your progressive administration on Nov. 2.

I do know that large, publicly traded companies have stockholders for whom to make profits. But I also know that the EPA and other overreaching government oversight agencies force companies to follow safety guidelines, ethical guidelines, etc., in order to legally operate. I am fairly certain that none of them get away with operating illegally on any consistent basis. There are too many people who work for those companies who would blow the whistle--and quite a few who have done so in the past 20 plus years. Which has also made it impossible for many of them to continue operating in the US. since they have to compete against companies that have moved their operations to China and Mexico. Such is the way of capitalism.

And if you want to compare capitalism to communism/socialism, go read and learn about the history of Russia. Tell me it is an up and coming country with booming business and prosperous people. People there don't have the freedom (or money) to start and grow businesses and make a profit. They aren't allowed to own property, so why bother to earn enough to try to acquire any. Seems like a pretty stilted economy to me. I don't want to live there. Do you? I could point to Cuba as well, and a number of other countries that don't just come to mind at this late hour.

I worked for Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (they were as safety conscious as anyone), Schlumberger Well Services, Exxon, Texaco, T. J. Bettes Mortgage Company (I think it were privately owned at the time), and other very large companies. All of these were rabidly safety conscious for the employees, trucks, work areas, harassment of all kinds, etc. So I am not sure where you are getting your idea that this is not happening with companies today. Do you have some examples of specific companies--some specific examples of safety violations and so on that are gross, ongoing, constant? To boot, show me in the Constitution where all that protection is required?

Next, who are the stockholders and investors who put money into companies in order for them to grow & make a profit -- to make products and do services for us to buy and for them to make that profit? We the people, that's who. Those investors investigate these companies before investing to be sure that they will be viable and will make a profit for their investment. Yes they want to earn a profit--but our congress has taxed the hell out of all the "rich" companies--who don't have to stay in the U.S. So they go overseas in order to make their products and sell back to us at cheaper prices so that no U.S.-based company can compete! Duh! Wonder where the jobs are?

American-owned companies are in China & Mexico so THEIR citizens are the ones who are getting rich off our backs. China's GNP is growing at around 10-12% plus per year, now. And your tax dollars are bailing out companies here--such as Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM. (How stupid is THAT? And where in the Constitution is that allowed?) GM makes the stupid politically correct car, the hybrid Volt, an experimental $45K car (Toyota Prius's at 24,000 are 3x's the car). No one wants an inferior product like the Volt--Unless you are a Progressive liberal, PC, rich, and maybe a little stupid.

You sound so intelligent that I would think you would have opened a book on economics at some point and read about how it really works.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: gorwest
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:02 am 
Congratulations, Richard, on another lively column. Lots of spirited give and take, you certainly have a knack for stirring us up. But the fact that we don't have a handle on what to do about the impending increase in gridlock and chaos, and the worthless effect of doing nothing but bitch-slapping each other for the forseeable future, makes me viscerally uneasy.

What concerns me is that the evolution of American politics is growing ever further from reducing the campaigning and increasing the governing. The 800 pound gorilla, the man behind the curtain, the Godfather of the American familia, is the corporate juggernaut.

The recent Supreme Court ruling favoring the ability of corporate and large money interests to bury any reasonable selection and governing process in incomprehensible muck may be the final nail in the coffin of our political leaders' capacity to bring us back to rationality in government.

Corporations are like the Borg; a cold, relentless machine that cares for nothing but the calculation of profits and the onward march of existence. We citizens are like the Matrix, existing only as sources of energy to feed the machine.

I think the time has come for a people's process to strip the illogical and insane "personhood" rights of corporations. Our electeds will be too afraid and preoccupied with surviving the next election, ad infinitum, to ever attempt it.

"Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated". We must kill the Borg in order to survive. Anybody game for drafting a bill to properly define the rights of corporations and press it in State and national politics?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ynotwrite2
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:51 am 
i see the conversation is getting sharp, and well it should, because the issue is life and death, wealth and poverty, for me and my loved ones, friends, and the members of my tribe (community, town, state, nation, planet) as a person who saved over the years and even worked a little with my own company, for university in a hospital setting, and for a large mining company, i now look at what's happening in the u.s. as disfunctional and destructive, so i've voted to protect my savings by moving more and more of it as fast as i deliberately and prudently can out of the u.s. . what does this mean for my fellow citizens? it means there's fewer dollars to invest, less opportunity for increased prosperity here. i look at the numbers, the charts and graphs, i hear the rancor and negative campaining and it all increases the urgency i feel to protect the savings i have to live a comfortable retirement. i know that many other decision-makers faced with the present situation are voting the same way i am.
i have been abroad several times, often staying in a foreign place for several weeks or more. i can't speak for the "communist" countries, but in the european places i've been people appear quite comfortable and heathy. no, they don't drive big cars and pickups or live in mcmansions.
where are we heading?
i'm getting medicare, now i have to wade through reams of information about drug plans, medical suppliments.
when i go to the dr's office i have to sign a form signing away my rights to medical privacy.
i've considered posting all my medical records on facebook.
(crow might give me space on the forum for this?)
my medicine is half price in palomas even considering my medicare plan benefit. (sodium alendronate for bone health)
oh well!
enough for now.


Last edited by ynotwrite2 on Thu Nov 04, 2010 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ynotwrite2
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:58 am 
ynotwrite2 wrote:
so i've voted to protect my savings by moving more and more of it as fast as i deliberately and prudently can out of the u.s.


"communist"china produces 3 times the engineers the u.s. does
"c"china makes half the worlds solar panels
how much bad economic news can you stand?
if you can take it, i can dish it out.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jill Steidl
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 8:25 am 
Gordon, I agree that the Supreme Court decision needs to be challenged or reversed somehow. I don't know enough to know the best way to do that. Is it by drafting legislation or is it by constitutional ammendment? Is there a way to simply challange the decision and have it be reconsidered (I know that might sound foolish). Alan, do you have some thoughts about that?

ynotwrite2, is your money safer outside the US? The world is so economically tied together its hard to imagine that it could be. I do understand the idea of protecting your savings. But I also think that the idea of keeping and accumulating things and money that belong to us as individuals, and then the need to protect what is ours individually, is one of the elements of our current culture that will need to change if we are to grow beyond our current dilemas.

Jill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: jef
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:06 pm 
I am laughing my ass off at teamediaperson's idea of the people of Mexico getting rich off of our moving factories there. Do some research into maquiladoras and what they have 'accomplished' for Mexican working people.

Meanwhile, what you don't see on Faux news is that more private sector jobs have been created in 2010 under President Obama, than during GWB's entire administration. read it here;

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/08/it ... ush-years/

Maybe the GOP could learn something.

Elizabeth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 1:23 pm 
Right you are Jill about the culture needing deep fundamental changes "to grow beyond our current dilemmas". But people hate, or otherwise are afraid of change that may throw us off our carefully balanced house of cards existence. Industrial corporations are unlikely to return as long as workers demand more than a third world subsistence, like their fair share of the profits for doing the work. Many factories that moved out of the country have moved more than once as workers demand fairness and or government requires enviro protections they're outa there.

TeaMediaPerson, on the issue of corporations not breaking the laws and or injuring people or the planet, shall we start with BP and their subcontractors? Or perhaps the banks and other lenders and traders of mortgages that brought the economy down and injured many people and families? They also oppose "big government" that may make them behave. Now they still use fraud to reposes those houses. And why shouldn't big rich corporations pay big taxes, especially those who make big money off war or raping the earth, shouldn't they pay for the war and their cleanups?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ynotwrite2
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 4:10 pm 
jill,
i really don't know if my money is safer out of the country, but if history provides guidance my assets should be well distributed geographically. we can judge how safe money is in banks where almost always the interest paid on accounts doesn't keep up with inflation.
so those of us that hope to enjoy retirement, which really is the opportunity to work without pay on projects and activities with personal value, are compelled by political economic and social mores to take some perhaps alot of risk with our savings in an attempt to have a reasonable stash.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: gorwest
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 4:52 pm 
Jill,

The Constitution does not grant "personhood" to corporations. The only mention is in the 14th Amendment, which was drafted to grant rights to freed slaves, but has been used also to protect property rights of corporations.

The initial "legislation from the bench" precedent for a long string of funky judicial activism that has led to our modern granting of the right to corporations to spend as much money as they want in buying our government through a perverse interpretation of free speech (whew, I'm out of breath!) arose from "Headnotes" comments written by a court reporter, who was a former president of another railroad (not the actual words of the court) in 1886 Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S.394;
"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

You see that this statement refers to the rights of a person, though the case was specifically involving a corporation and equal protection of the laws, so it has been therefrom derived that a corporation is a person. Pretty big intuitive leap there, and from that to free speech rights.

Many are of the opinion that a simple piece of legislation that defines what a person is (a living human individual), and what a corporation is (a business machine) would do the trick. Interestingly, corporations don't presently have ALL of the rights of human individuals. Some "rights" make logical sense, like the owning of property (which is actually the collective owning of property by the owners of a corporation... hey, isn't that Socialism?). Others don't make sense, like allowing a corporation to run for public office. Free speech and the buying of elections by a business machine doesn't make sense. Corporations can't vote, why should they have any right to participate in any way in politics? The owners of corporations all have human natural rights, isn't granting them collectively (more Socialism!) another set of rights double-dipping?

Anyway, we will discover the proper course of action to strip corporations of this insane and perverse power. We make it issue #1, others around the country are doing the same thing, pretty soon we got ourselves a movement! Given the Constitutional and personal rights implications, I expect the TP'ers to be part of the uprising.

Briefly, on ynot's investing outside of the U.S.: the solution is to invest in real things within your community. Your money is no safer wherever it is, and it is certainly not useful there. There is a growing movement of figuring out how to invest at home, reaping multiple benefits in social and economic well-being. A good start is to put your bucks in a local bank or credit union. Actual investment opportunities in tangible things are coming to a neighborhood near you, stay tuned!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: jef
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 5:22 pm 
"Briefly, on ynot's investing outside of the U.S.: the solution is to invest in real things within your community. Your money is no safer wherever it is, and it is certainly not useful there. There is a growing movement of figuring out how to invest at home, reaping multiple benefits in social and economic well-being. A good start is to put your bucks in a local bank or credit union. Actual investment opportunities in tangible things are coming to a neighborhood near you, stay tuned!" gorwest

Amen!

And if our banking system goes to crap, so does theirs, and how will you get your hands on the money?

Elizabeth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ynotwrite2
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 6:55 pm 
And if our banking system goes to crap, so does theirs, and how will you get your hands on the money?

well for starters, this little recession we're going through certainly rocked the u.s banks and rippled around the worlds financial "system" but many nations were affected quite a bit less.
i've been fortunate enough to be able to lend directly to my local neighbors with "disposable" assets/income i've had and the results have not been always good. because of that i understand better than i used to why banks now will lend to qualified borrowers at 4% and pay depositors 1/2%.
i much prefer physical labor as a form of local contribution.
people around the world need capital, human, intellectual, financial ,so i hope wherever my savings are working, the people using them in their enterprise are meeting needs. as just one person with modest assets i can't hope to supervise the behavior of the people using them. i just hope they are meeting needs and not indulging excessive desires. local or worldwide, saving and investing requires trust and risk tolerance ..as i see it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: jef
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:47 pm 
Sorry, maybe I didn't make my point clearly.
If you have foreign investments and the US banks fail, literally, how do you think you will be able to access your money? Even if somebody across the sea mailed you cash, how negotiable would foreign currency be at that point, and would US dollars be available in the country where you have them stashed? or worth any thing? See what I mean? On your paypal account? I think you'd be screwed without planning a long journey.

Mailing gold - mmmm, that would be expensive & risky!

More seriously though, I highly recommend lending on Kiva- small loans, like $25, for businesses all over the world. I've never had any one default on a loan yet. Way cool way to be engaged with working people globally!
http://www.kiva.org/about

And with one exception, loans I've made to friends and neighbors in Silver have always been paid back fully and on time.

Elizabeth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ynotwrite2
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:09 am 
E.
we could do lunch or sit together and have a more nuanced discussion about my personal investment philosophy.
my basic point was my faith in the ability of the people of america to provide for their welfare relative to other countries is diminishing rapidly and i'm voting with my "feet" as one of my choices among others.
after many views of this forum and other media, and experience in lots of local organizations, i .... i'm disillusioned and not so hopeful.
i've even reviewed my own responses to events and found them wanting in the same ways, repeatedly, even after what i believed was great personal effort to change.
i don't see corporations as evil, they're shells to organise the efforts of people to a common goal, not just to maximise profits.
just like you as an individual organism has to take in enough nutrients and avoid dangers.
take a look at haiti, a hard look, even now , in the images on t.v. one sees lots of "healthy" individuals milling around, not working their asses, off with few resources, what's wrong there?
an earthquake aftermath, cholera, the fruit of colonial oppression,indifference of the first world, ....
here i sit,
early in the morning, hunting and pecking
a grasshopper in the fall,
1 antenna.
3 legs missing.
still kicking,
frost soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:57 am 
I agree that we need to keep our money local, not send it further away. There are plenty of people in Silver City who'd love to have someone invest in their home so they could keep them; might be a nice match for someone with money to invest who'd like to be able to actually see what they've invested in.

_________________
jean7eisenhower@gmail.com
www.jeaneisenhower.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: jef
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:08 am 
The frost is sparkling on flopped over leaves outside my house, and the thermometer reads 28 degrees. Yet in our tiny hand built green house, the temp is 55 degrees, due to two 30 gal. black garbage cans filled with water and left to warm all day in the sun. No electric heater needed.

Not so much a comment on greenhouse management as a comment on learning a little bit every day about sustainability, and being prepared. I'd rather know how to grow food than how to invest, if I had to choose.

Corporations are not essentially evil, they are like money; the ways in which it is used for common good or used for individual greed determine its worth.

There are groups of people here in Silver working for community sustainability. They keep my hope alive. I encourage you, ynotwrite2, and others to join in their efforts.

Elizabeth
PS The green house also heats our bedroom toasty warm except on completely cloudy days. Warm sheets and fresh vegies!


Last edited by jef on Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:46 am 
We have thousands of homes in Silver City that need help - and will really need help in the event our economy fails more than it has. Money invested now in simple things like solar-gain rooms or even simpler home-made panels (see below) can keep us all more comfortable (possibly alive), but more important: can re-emphasize that we all do have the ability to care for ourselves outside the infrastructure. Investing in this now - for neighbors we may or may not yet know - will build goodwill, connections, and a sense of capability in the entire community - very important when the tendency may be toward fear in a time of greater crisis (which often leads to people following dangerous leaders). On the other hand, forging connections within our community now, by investing locally and teaching easily transferable skills, which can help people with the most basic needs - warmth, water and food - is probably the most important thing we can do to prepare for future crises.

My last home had a greenhouse/bathhouse which stayed warm entirely by storing all the rooftop-harvested water inside the building (maybe a "waste of space" but the tanks were protected and the thermal mass of the water provided this heating function).

Every building design problem (modern buildings are almost all problematic) will have different solutions, but many will be very inexpensive. One friend in town used a few 2x4s and some clear plastic to add a narrow (4-inches deep - all he had room for) heat-gathering space (about 8 feet wide by 8 feet tall) on the south side of his home to funnel solar heat in through one window during the winter.

And then some people could just use help with their mortgages. If banks won't lend, individuals could consider being the lender (with protection), and they'd be able to see with their own eyes where their money is going. This could also be done with a Community Land Trust, a decades-old concept.

There are many good ways to invest money locally. And some of those investments can create habits of cooperation and a sense of self-sufficiency that will give no hold to the ideologies that lead to fear and fascism. Invest locally!

_________________
jean7eisenhower@gmail.com
www.jeaneisenhower.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: mirocook
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:50 am 
To gorwest and others discussing the absurd proposition that corporations are persons,

There is a thoughtful discussion of this in the Oct. 2010 issue of Harper's by Roger Hodge. He states, in part: "By what logic can a corporation be granted personhood and the constitutional right to speak money, yet be denied the constitutional right to vote? How can our system permit these corporate persons to be enslaved through ownership? Does not the force of all logic and morality require us either to deny the personhood of corporations, or to grant them the right to vote and to free them from slavery? If we insist on maintaining their status as persons, at least let us give ourselves the power, if they commit serious crimes against property, to put corporations to death."

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/10/0083125

Another good discussion of the present political situation is a talk given by Bill Moyers at Boston University this fall. It is rather long but goes through our political history from the nation's founding to where we are today. He calls it "Welcome to the Plutocracy."

http://www.truth-out.org/bill-moyers-mo ... dirty64766

Michael


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: judithelise
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:50 am 
Teamediaperson,

In response to:
"But I also know that the EPA and other overreaching government oversight agencies force companies to follow safety guidelines, ethical guidelines, etc., in order to legally operate. I am fairly certain that none of them get away with operating illegally on any consistent basis." and "All of these were rabidly safety conscious for the employees, trucks, work areas, harassment of all kinds, etc. So I am not sure where you are getting your idea that this is not happening with companies today."

I think the point I was trying to make was that on a theoretical basis anyway a corporation would not have much interest in safety or ethical issues, hence the need for governmental oversight. It is my understanding that many tea party advocates would like to dismantle government oversight of industry and I am wondering about the potential consequences of that. Seems to me the high school history books are full of information about worker abuse that occurred before such legislation was enacted. So whether these types of laws are constitutional or not I would think that they may be necessary. Anyway I do understand that there is a theory that too much governmental control can strangle business interests. I just don't know if that is really a problem or a just a hype at this point in our history. Certainly most businesses will wail loudly (through their lobbyists) when asked to make changes that might affect their bottom line, but they are also pretty good at adapting when they have to.

Since you seem interested in economics I will share an interesting piece about "trickle down" theory. It even has graphs.
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html.

Lastly, in reading your post I think I have a more clear idea of where you are coming from and I would have to say that I think the reason why we disagree politically is probably due to the fact that we hold different values. Since values are not something that change often we may not agree on much. However, understanding is a good thing and I thank you for sharing.

judithelise


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Layla
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:02 am 
I voted this election but only afters days of agonizing over why I should do so and finally decided it is a right and duty as a citizen I could not ignore.The Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, allowing corporations to spend unlimited money on independent political expenditures leaves no doubt as to who runs this country.4 billion dollars were spent on this last election a historical amount.Texan Bob J. Perry, who funded the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,donated millions of dollars to the Republican candidates this election, giving $450,000 to the campaign of our newly elected Republican governor.
.
The average American refuses to educate themselves by researching and re-visiting history and are not able to discern the truth from propaganda fed to them through our oligarch owned media. They are easily manipulated into supporting, trusting and believing in the very people who have destroyed what they are so desperately fighting for. But the educated ones aren't any better off because our political system doesn't offer us a way to change our current situation, we are only offered a chance to elect the bought and paid for representatives of the oligarchs, be they Republicans or Democrats.

Below is an excerpt from Bill Moyer's excellent article"Welcome to the Plutocracy! Michael has a link to the article in his comments.

Moyers describes the scope and depth of the problems we currently face and puts it into a historical context.It is a lengthy article but worth the reading regardless of your politics. It can be read on Truthout or Common Cause.


"But here's the key: If you're fighting for a living wage, or peace, or immigration reform, or gender equality, or the environment, or a safe neighborhood, you are, of necessity, strongly opposed to a handful of moneyed-interests controlling how decisions get made and policy set. All across the spectrum people oppose the escalating power of money in politics. It's because most Americans are attuned to the issue of fair play, of not favoring Big Money at the expense of the little guy - at the expense of the country they love. The legendary community organizer Ernesto Cortes talks about the "power to protect what we value." That's what we want for Americans - the power to preserve what we value, both for ourselves and on behalf of our democracy.

We are no longer valued citizens of the US, but consumers and commodities manipulated in a Global economic free for all. Corporations are now valued "Persons", and "The People" are merely numbers on their balance sheets.
The plutocracy may very well wind up dominating the globe (although now, somehow I doubt it), but they will have destroyed the intent and spirit of the Declaration of Independence, read it and weep. And they will have destroyed the spirit of The People. Our problems are not from outside our borders, but completely from within.

But let's be clear: Even with most Americans on our side, the odds are long. Money fights hard, and it fights dirty. Think Rove. The Chamber. The Kochs. We may lose. It all may be impossible. But it's OK if it's impossible. You heard me right. I've learned something about this from the former farmworker and labor organizer Baldemar Velasquez. The members of his Farm Labor Organizing Committee are a long way from the world of K Street lobbyists. But they took on the Campbell Soup Company - and won. They took on North Carolina growers - and won, using transnational organizing tactics that helped win Velasquez a "genius" award from the MacArthur Foundation. And now they're taking on no less than R. J. Reynolds Tobacco and one of its principle financial sponsors, JPMorgan-Chase. Some people question the wisdom of taking on such powerful interests, but here's what Velasquez says

"It's OK if it's impossible; it's OK! Now I'm going to speak to you as organizers. Listen carefully. The object is not to win. That's not the objective. The object is to do the right and good thing. If you decide not to do anything, because it's too hard or too impossible, then nothing will be done, and when you're on your death bed, you're gonna say, ‘I wish I had done something.' But if you go and do the right thing NOW, and you do it long enough good things will happen-something's gonna happen."

Metta,
Layla


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: gorwest
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 3:20 pm 
Bringing this back to Richard's initial post re: the TEA Party, I think we have discovered the root of the TP's slogan, "We want to take back America!" I had wondered before just who the TP was going to take America back from, since the apparent target of the effort seemed to be other Constitutionally legitimate citizens. Of course, that WAS the meaning of the slogan, which is a manifestation of a long and intense propaganda campaign funded and implemented by the extreme right wing and Big Money.

But underneath the shallow meaning there is a deeper and more universal sentiment, a desire shared by ordinary citizens of all political stripes, to take back America from the shadowy nonhuman owner that controls politicians of both major parties... Big Money.

As we have been discussing, Big Money and its freshly sanctioned Big Free Speech, are enjoying rights not granted to them in our Constitution. Big Money is abusing us real citizens illegitimately under the falsehood that corporations have the same rights (more rights) as persons born or naturalized in the United States.

teamediaperson, I am soliciting your opinion as a spokesperson for an entire movement of angry people whose primary goal is to see that the Constitution of the United States is preserved and upheld. Can we count on TEA Party support in taking back OUR country from corporate corruption? (Please note that I use the meaning of the word "corruption" in the sense of something that functions differently, in a degenerative way, than it was intended; as in a "corrupted computer file").


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: hayranur
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 6:41 am 
1982 is when Buckminster Fuller published Critical Path. Here are several pages (which I typed ! there’s not an electronic version) that have stuck in my memory:

By World War II’s end labor was earning so much that, for the first time, it was feeling truly secure, affluent, and successful. Emulating the pattern of the rich, individuals of labor were becoming little capitalists, with many enjoying the realization of their own home and land, with two shiny new post-World War II cars in the garage, their kids going to college, and some savings in the bank. The workers began buying shares in IBM and other superpromising private enterprise companies.

The Wall Street lawyers, being astute observers of such matters, realized that this labor affluence had brought about a psychological reorientation of the body politic. People no longer remembered or felt the depression of spirit that was experienced in the Great Depression of social economics following the Great Crash. The Wall Street lawyers’ grand strategists saw this as the time for breaking through the New Deal’s hold on government, an event which, up to that time, seemed impossible. The lawyers said, “Whoever can get the victorious, supreme-command American general of World War II as their candidate for President will be able to get the presidency.” They captured Eisenhower. Eisenhower had no political conviction, one way or the other. His vanity was excited at the idea of becoming president of his country.

The Wall Street lawyers explained to Eisenhower the prevailing new psychology of affluence and convinced him that the new affluent majority would elect a Republican. Thus they successfully persuaded him to be a Republican. With the healthy economy the new wage-earner capitalists, with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, readily voted for Eisenhower on the Republican ticket. Eisenhower’s Wall Street lawyer-managers explained to him that he had been able to win the war because of the vision, courage, and ingenuity and the productive power of American free enterprise. They convinced Eisenhower that “the U.S.A. is, in fact, free enterprise.” They also convinced him that the Democrats’ New Deal was socialism and therefore the inherent enemy of free enterprise. (102)

As soon as the Wall Street lawyers had Eisenhower in office in 1952, they instructed him to break loose all the economic controls of the New Deal. They had him cut all price controls, all rent controls, all interest-rate controls; they had him terminate anything that was stymieing the making of big money by big business. For instance, they persuaded Eisenhower to allow the insurance companies to invest their vast funds in common stocks. Before Ike’s liberation of the insurance companies they were allowed to put their funds only in “Class A” bonds and similar investments. Cheered by the capitalist-owned sector of the press, his Wall Street lawyer-advisors for a long time had Ike feeling like a great liberator.

The Wall Street lawyers’ grand strategists put the Wall Street lawyer John Foster Dulles in as Ike’s Secretary of State to dictate the American foreign policy of “Soviet containment,” and Foster Dulles’s Wall Street lawyer brother Allen Dulles was put in as head of a new brand of absolutely invisible, U.S.A.-financed, capitalistic welfare department, the CIA, established ostensibly to cold-war-cope with the secret-agent operations of our enemies. So secret was their operation that the people of the United States and its Congressional lawmakers had no idea of the size of the unlimited funds given to the CIA, nor for what those unknown funds were expended. The CIA and Allen Dulles had a U.S.A.-signed blank check for X amount of money to do X tasks. I call the CIA, “Capitalism’s Invisible Army.”

The great U.S.A. corporations, having been saved in 1933 by being only “unilaterally socialized,” and having in the subsequent fifteen years become powerfully healthy from enormous war orders, immediately after Eisenhower’s election started escalating prices. Their logic was that the first corporation head to increase prices in a given field of production would be the first to be able to distribute that “upping” as profits to his stockholders and thereby to gain for himself greater economic management status and personal wealth.

* * *

As a long-time student of foreign investment I saw a pattern developing. Between 1938 and 1940 I was on the editorial staff of Fortune magazine as its science and technology consultant, and my researchers harvested all the statistics for Fortune’s tenth-anniversary issue, “U.S.A. and the World.” In that issue I uncovered and was able to prove several new socioeconomic facts – for the first time in the history of industrial economics: (1) the economic health of the American – or any industrial – economy was no longer disclosed (as in the past) by the total tonnage of its product output, but by the amount of electrical energy generated by that activity; tonnage had ceased to be the criterion because (2) we were doing so much more given (103)

work with so much less pounds of materials, ergs of energy, and seconds of time per given function as to occasion ever newer, lighter, and stronger metallic alloys, chemicals, and electronics. Though at that time universally used as the number-one guide to the state of economic health of any world nation, tonnage no longer represented prosperity. The amount of energy being electrically generated and consumed became the most sensitive telltale of economic health. Furthermore, I was able in that issue to study carefully all the foreign investments made in America all the way back to its colonization in the early seventeenth century.

The ramifications of my studies in foreign investments in America and elsewhere are wide. An example of my findings included discovery of the swift, post-American Revolution in U.S.A. ventures by the British (East India Company-advised) financial world as already mentioned.

I found a similar situation to be existent in World War II. As head mechanical engineer of the U.S.A. Board of Economic Warfare I had available to me copies of any so-called intercepts I wanted. Those were transcriptions of censor-listened-to intercontinental telephone conversations, along with letters and cables that were opened by the censor and often deciphered, and so forth. As a student of patents I asked for and received all the intercept information relating to strategic patents held by both our enemies and our own big corporations, and I found the same money was often operative on both sides in World War II.

The East India Company, whose flag I had shown to be the origin of ours, was a private enterprise chartered by the British. Quite clearly the East India Company didn’t lose the American Revolution. The British government lost the Revolution, and the East India Company swiftly moved large amounts of its capital into U.S. America.

With World War II over I began to watch very closely the foreign investments patterning and the strategic metals movements, especially of copper, but those of silver and gold as well. In 1942 America had all the monetary bullion gold in the world in the Kentucky hills. During World War II what was called “the China Bloc” – which was the Sung family and others backing Chiang Kai-shek – were able to persuade the American Congress that China had always been corrupt and was eternally corruptible; to completely avoid communism in China Congress should let them has $100 million worth of gold bullion ($2 billion at January 1980 gold pricing) to be taken out of the Kentucky hills. Personally I don’t think that gold ever went anywhere near China. I think it went right into the Swiss bank accounts of some clever thieves But with that much gold out of the Pandora’s box of the U.S.A. Kentucky hills vaults, it provided a “gold lever” with which to progressively pry loose more and more gold to be reintroduced into the “lifeblood” of world economic accounting. (104)

After World War II, with only the one exception of the $100 million worth of monetary gold bullion of the China Bloc, all the rest of the world’s international monetary gold bullion was residing in the Kentucky hills, U.S.A., vaults. All countries outside America had gone off the gold standard. In the course of international monetary negotiating that accompanied the U.S.A.’s post-World War I inadvertent ascendency into being the master economic state, and the U.S.A.’s post-World War II attempts to rehabilitate the leading economies around the world by rehabilitating the economies of its vanquished nations and thereby increasing international trading, the U.S.A. was persuaded to re-establish the gold standard for accounting the international balances of trade.

Gold is the super-helicopter of the open world-market-trading stratagems of the makers-of-money-for-self by the legalized manipulation of the money equity of others, all unbenownst to the initial wealth equity-owning others. In 1934 Roosevelt’s New Deal prohibited the further use of gold by U.S.A. citizens or U.S.A. businesses.

By 1953 it became apparent that the Wall Street lawyers were moving the major American corporations out of America. Of the 100 largest corporations in America four out of five of their annual investment dollars in new machinery and buildings for 1953 went exclusively into their foreign operations. This four-fifths rate persisted for a score of years.

The Wall Street lawyers told Mr. Eisenhower that they didn’t like the overaltruistic social viewpoint of the Marshall Plan for helping underdeveloped countries. They liked foreign aid, but not exclusively for the development of underdeveloped countries. The Wall Street lawyers approved of the “foreign aid” wherefore the U.S.A. continued with annual foreign-aid commitments by Congress. The average annual foreign-aid appropriation has been $4 billion (1950 value) per year over the twenty-seven year period from 1952 to 1979, which amounted to a $100 billion total. Each new year’s foreign-aid bill had a rider that said that if American companies were present in the country being aided, the money had to spent through those American companies. In the foreign countries the corporations and individuals could again deal in gold.

Foreign aid paid for all the new factories and machinery of all the American corporations moving out of America. This became a fundamental pattern: first the 100 largest corporations, then the 200 largest corporations followed, then what Fortune calls the 500 largest corporations. Moving out of America could be done readily because a corporation is only a legal entity – it is not a human being. It had no physical body to pass through immigration or emigration. You and I cannot move out of America because we a physical – we need a passport. A corporation does not.

So the Wall Street lawyers simply move their prime corporate operations (105)

elsewhere. It was clearly evident that with only 7 percent of the world’s population in the U.S.A., and with two cars already in many U.S.A. garages, by far the major portion of further exploitation of the world’s peoples’ needs and desires would develop outside of the U.S. of American. But the main objective of the Wall Street lawyers was for the corporations to get out from under the tax control of the American government. In 1933 the American people had saved the corporations by subsidizing them; then, twenty years later, the Wall Street lawyers moved them out of American, getting the American people to pay for the move. This allowed the corporations to acquire gold equities while the U.S.A. citizens and small domestic businesses could not do so.

Soon after Eisenhower’s 1952 election to the presidency, the lawyers reminded him once more that America clearly had won the war only through his brilliant generalship backed up by American free enterprise, and said, “We want you to stop the welfare-state-inclined government from competing with free enterprise. You must cut out all the navy yards and the arsenals. They compete against the free-enterprise corporations, which are quite capable of doing the same work as the navy yards, but of doing it much more efficiently. You must turn all such production over to private industry, cut out the U.S.A. post office and turn that over to private enterprise, cut out the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and turn that over to the insurance industry.” Although much of this transfer of production from government to private enterprise was never completed, Eisenhower goaded on by his lawyers initiated the flow of taxpayer-financed, highly trained personnel and especially their technical know-how to private enterprise. This irreversible trend continues on to the present day, as can be shown by the history of the whole of the atomic energy field.

… (106)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: gorwest
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:26 am 
Here is a good website to get lots of information and to begin taking action as part of a national movement:

http://www.freespeechforpeople.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: alan wagman
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 10:55 am 
Gordon West is exactly right -- that a nineteenth century railroad company president functioning as a Supreme Court clerk put in the headnotes of a Supreme Court opinion* about a different railroad company remarks that have ever since been taken to have been a Supreme Court ruling that "corporations are persons" under the law. We need to remember what the term "railroad president" meant in the nineteenth century. Today, it prompts a yawn. Then, railroad presidents were the most powerful corporate executives in the United States. If bankers today can bring down the country, railroads could bring it down then. Even so, I'll bet that the clerk/railroad president who wrote the words had little inkling that he was initiating what would effectively become a coup d'etat.

*Just in case it is not clear, a court "opinion" is not exactly what we think of in everyday usage as an "opinion." We normally think of an "opinion" as what someone thinks. A court "opinion" is not a statement of what the court thinks: It is a statement of the law that the court is laying down.

Standing by itself, the comments of a Supreme Court clerk in the headnotes of a court opinion have absolutely no standing as law. Unfortunately, however, subsequent Supreme Court decisions have treated the clerk's notes as if they were a statement of law, accepted it as law, and built an entire structure of judicial opinions upon a premise that had no standing to begin with.

In the world that most of us inhabit -- and which even lawyers inhabit when we're not working as lawyers -- a house built upon a faulty foundation eventually falls. In the world of logic, one starts with an initial premise and then builds from that; if the initial premise is faulty, the entire logical structure is invalid. In the world of law, however, it does not matter that the structure built upon the clerk's headnotes stands upon a non-existent foundation and an invalid premise, it is the structure built up over the years which counts, not the absence of a foundation or a valid premise for the structure. Bottom line: the misguided line of reasoning that ends in the Supreme Court's Citizens United opinion that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as flesh-and-blood persons is valid law, even though the entire logical structure is based upon an initial premise that holds no weight, and the Citizens United decision giving corporations the same free speech rights as human beings stands on its own, no matter the faulty logic that underpins it. In the end, what was begun by a (literal) railroad president for a (literal) railroad president now ends with government of (figurative) railroad presidents.

So, what to do? A court challenge? Legislation? Constitutional amendment? First, I think we can dismiss the idea of a court challenge. This Supreme Court has an ideologically activist agenda and is not likely to become introspective and re-examine decisions that push forward its agenda.

As for Congressional action, this would be of only limited usefulness. When the court interprets legislation, and Congress does not like the interpretation, Congress can overrule the court by changing the legislation to make clear that the legislation fits into the limitations that the Supreme Court has placed.

However, when the court throws out legislation based upon interpretation of the Constitution (as is the case with the corporate speech decision), Congress can at best only play around the edges. The Court has set out an area in which corporations are granted rights. Congress is basically hamstrung.

That leaves constitutional amendment. Given that U.S. courts have for 124 years accepted the principle first elucidated in the clerk/railroad president's headnotes, the only way to reverse the reasoning is to change the constitution to make it clear that corporations do not have the rights of persons.

How to do it? Someone else provided a website. That looks interesting. Perhaps more interesting is a homegrown idea (if born in New Mexico is homegrown). Our own Senator Tom Udall has introduced a constitutional amendment into Congress. You can see the press release here: <http://tomudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=418>.

One would think that the Tea Party principle of taking the government back would include making sure that the voices of flesh-and-blood take precedence over the voice of government-created entities -- and make no mistake, corporations exist only because the government licenses them and gives them exemptions from normal debt obligations and other special privileges not available to flesh-and-blood people -- but I don't know. Why should entities that would have no existence at all but for government largesse be permitted to overrun the rights of the people who first created the government? Perhaps Teamediaperson could answer that one.

I hope, however, that if and when Teamediaperson does answer, the response will take into account that as far back as 1812, Thomas Jefferson expressed fear of corporations taking over the country, “I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

The last time I mentioned this statement from Jefferson, I was invited to leave the country. Perhaps this time Teamediaperson will leave off the personal attacks and actually address the issue some of us are raising now and our most libertarian founding father raised 200 years ago.

AW


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: mirocook
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:16 pm 
To teamediaperson et.al.
This weekend the Federal Reserve will return to it's spawning grounds on Jeckyl Island, Georgia to celebrate the 100th anniversary of it's founding. Meanwhile, "Helicopter Ben" Bernanke has announced he will pump $600 billion more into the U.S. economy, euphemistically called "quantitave easing" ostensibly to ease the husing crisis. Several nations have accused the U.S. of economic warfare. In an interview on Democracy Now, U. of Missouri professor Michael Hudson outlines what this move by the Fed means to other nations as well as how it will actually hurt the average American. You can either read the text, or watch the video.

Michael

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e26768.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Ayladingo
PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:07 pm 
A lot of Tea Party advocates are quite Libertarian in their thinking. Govenment is just too darn intrusive. What kind of light bulbs we can use! What kind of ingredients in French Fries. The FDA's increasing power over drug approval. Our freedoms are being eroded daily by power grabbers who want to create a Nanny state. I think this is what propels some Tea Party advocates, including myself.

As far as health care goes - expand Medicaid (not Medicare). Make a co-pay mandatory (there are none for most Medicaid patients now, and many can afford it). Make it available to adults without children who are low income. There's no need to create some gigantic public option program that will be so red-tape bound that you'll need a gigantic bureaucracy to wade through all the dumb rules and mounds of paperwork needed to justify the removal of a hangnail, and which will drive private insurers out of business in the long run - thus depleting the already abysmal number of jobs in this country.

I think, pretty much, that the American people have spoken and, with a loud shout, have told govenment to get out of our lives. A


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Gila River Festival Ad


Silver City & Southwestern New Mexico Monthly Community Calendar

Click To Create A New Calendar Event
<<

Community Events
Week of November 15, 2018

>>

15
Deathtrap by SC Community Theatre
The Revelers-Concert
16
Dances of Universal Peace
Gila Native Plant Society meeting
17
Permaculture Silver City - Monthly Meeting
Indie Folk Series with Alexa Rose
18
19
20
21
Improve your memory - Play Gin Rummy










News     Columns     Food: Growing, Fixing     Features     Water     Health     Business     Education     DIY & How-tos     Classifieds     Forum     Home 
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group