Full employment with a living wage for the bottom wage rung

Its all about jobs where the BOTTOM rung pays a living wage for adult workers ... with FULL employment. This nation is wealthy enough with enough work to do. (Also -- just for those who are always yelling "communism" -- fair wages are NOT equal wages.)

We learned that the greatest society with great universities, great art, great thought, plus, plus plus ... is NOT dependent on slaves or vassals supporting an elite, but on a vibrant middle class built on an adult living wage as its foundation -- a wage that pays for food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, and recreation for a family of four -- and a market based on rules of fairness (standard weights and measures anyone? pay for the damage you cause? ... as examples.)

And you know who confirmed the worth of a vibrant middle class from the lessons he learned in the WWII economy? It was Ike. Born in Texas in 1890, brought up in Abilene, Kansas, President Eisenhower with his Federal Highway System put us to work on INVESTING in infrastructure that would pay off in multiples ... and selling it to the rearward-looking on the far right as necessary for the defense of the nation.

Yet the Evangelical Christian right has become followers of the anti-Christian elitism of ancient Athens and "God is dead" Nietzsche. Proving god is dead ... I surmise.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/29/first-public-option-amend_n_303228.html?page=3&show_comment_id=31906482#comment_31906482

Obama is wagging the dog!

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday (September 26) that "U.S. Knew About Site for Years".

Obviously the firestorm created by Obama wavering in his heretofore unwavering support for winning the Afghan War needed a firebreak, a controlled burn to stop it.

Obama is a Chicago politician, woefully out of his depth in the Presidency, fulfilling the Peter Principle in having risen to the level of his incompetency.

Fair labor practice - posted on Huffpo

The basic political question is how to FAIRLY divide (NOT equally divide) the wealth human labor — our mental and physical effort — creates. And ALL wealth is created by human effort.

Oligarchs want to drive the cost of labor down to that of keeping a mule: food, shelter, harness, sustaining rest, and medical care for the breeding stock.

We the people have learned that allowing workers to have a fair share (again, NOT an equal share) from their labor produced the world's most advanced civilization ... and proved once and for all that a vibrant community, rich in arts and thought, is not dependent on a elite class supported by vassals or slaves.

It's simple, full employment with the bottom adult labor rung paid a living wage for a family of 4: food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education and recreation. We are still a wealthy nation with plenty of work to be done, work that would lay the foundation for creating the wealth of tomorrow ... Much as Eisenhower did with the Federal Highway Program.

Watch Krugman on the American dream.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/michael-moore-calls-out-a_n_298605.html?page=15&show_comment_id=31585305#comment_31585305

Leaders of both major parties are adherents to corporationism: protecting corporations "right" to earn a profit no matter what it costs society. Externalities anyone? (What ever happened to the responsibility to pay for the damage we do?)

Inherent in the elitism of corporationists is the believe and active support of the doctrine that slaves produce the wealth that supports their elite status. This doctrine is carried out in the reduce the cost of labor to that of a mule: food, harness, shelter, training ... and medical care for breeding stock.

A labor/progressive consideration should be the working out of a fair distribution to workers of the wealth their labor -- mental and physical effort -- creates.

A fair distribution of this wealth rests on two principles: (1.) the bottom rung of wages for an adult worker is a living wage -- enough for food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, and recreation for a family of 4; and (2) full employment whereby every adult worker able and willing to work can get a job.

Our nation is more than wealthy enough to provide full employment with a living wage as the bottom rung. This should be the economic barometer for us, not the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/michael-moore-mocks-whiny_n_304033.html?page=5&show_comment_id=31928988#comment_31928988

What the hell is going on, Mr. Obama?!

Didn't you increase the troops in Afghanistan by 21,000 just last March? Didn't you just give a speech in which you said "that a stable Afghanistan is central to the security of the United States"? —http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/world/asia/23policy.html

Here's what Obama said as recently as August 17th. Please note the strong reference to the "comprehensive strategy" he announced in March of this year ... and now he wants to rethink it? He's going to turn himself into a right-wing whipping boy ... either way he comes out of this. This is so bad it is almost unbelievable. He gives a great speech ... but he is proving over and over again that his words are disconnected from his actions to come.

By moving forward in Iraq, we’re able to refocus on the war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why I announced a new, comprehensive strategy in March. This strategy recognizes that al Qaeda and its allies had moved their base to the remote, tribal areas of Pakistan. This strategy acknowledges that military power alone will not win this war—that we also need diplomacy and development and good governance. And our new strategy has a clear mission and defined goals—to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies.

In the months since, we’ve begun to put this comprehensive strategy into action. And in recent weeks, we’ve seen our troops do their part. They’ve have gone into new areas—taking the fight to the Taliban in villages and towns where residents have been terrorized for years. They’re adopting new tactics, knowing that it’s not enough to kill extremists and terrorists; we also need to protect the Afghan people and improve their daily lives. And today, our troops are helping to secure polling places for this week’s election so Afghans can choose the future they want.

These new efforts have not been without a price. The fighting has been fierce. More Americans have given their lives. And as always, the thoughts and prayers of every American are with those who make the ultimate sacrifice in our defense.

As I said when I announced this strategy, there will be more difficult days ahead. The insurgency in Afghanistan didn’t just happen overnight. And we won’t defeat it overnight. This will not be quick. This will not be easy.

But we must never forget. This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.

Going forward, we will constantly adapt our tactics to stay ahead of the enemy and give our troops the tools and equipment they need to succeed. And at every step of the way, we will assess our efforts to defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and to help the Afghan and Pakistani people build the future they seek. (Note: Emphasis added)

—From the Full Remarks of President Barack Obama
Fulfilling America’s Responsibility to Those Who Serve
Veterans of Foreign Wars
Phoenix, Arizona
August 17, 2009

Love is ...

Love is the human emotion of feeling good about wanting a positive outcome for another human being and actively helping to make it happen. When we are willing to forgo our own positive outcomes for another's — and we still feel good about it — it is true love.

We also "love" something when it makes us feel good about what we consider is a positive outcome for ourselves. Music that puts us in a good mood — joyful, peaceful, exhilarating, exciting; chocolate that elicits a warming sense of sweetness; anything that awakens a our senses and emotions positively.

So ... when we say we love someone ... is it because that person makes us feel good? ... or because we want to make them feel good? ... or both?

If loving someone is solely because of the other person making us feel good with the only concern about our making the other person also feel good motivated by enticing them to make us feel good ... well, you can see how convoluted "love" can be.

Because we have a positive emotional response to helping those we love have a positive outcome, "love" is a positive evolutionary force. It pulls/pushes us to help those we truly love, and most assuredly when we love ourselves.

And to deepen the discussion, we are taught whom we can "love". We come into awareness out of our existence learning identity markers for family and tribe. School colors and mascots, anyone?

Then Jesus came along and taught us that all humans are our family ... oops! We are still trying to learn how to ingrain THAT — human being — as our identity marker for those we are allowed to love.

And now that the only remaining barrier to the sharing of sexual pleasure is age ... the providing of sexual pleasure as a "good thing" to another person will be confusing for many ... for awhile.

What else?

A sense of fairness is an universal ethic

I suggest that a sense of fairness is an universal ethic, not what is fair for everyone, but that I consider what is fair for me in the circumstances of my own existence.

And primary to "the circumstances of my own existence" is my being a member of a group, and then my status within that group.

I believe the basic political question is "What is fair?".

Because we have a positive emotional response to a sense of being treated fairly, and a negative emotional response to a sense of being treated unfairly, "fairness" is an evolutionary force. It pulls/pushes us to find fairness in how we are treated.

Fairness is not equality.

I believe a sense of fairness stems from the biological basis of human society as members of hunting tribes — or packs, if we were wolves — in which the kill was divided by the alpha leaders of the hunt.

Corporationism protects the absurd

Dumping the mine detritus from mountaintops into pristine river valleys below is absurd. Allowing it is insane.

It is like as if in our national game of baseball any hit ball would be fair, no matter where it landed.

Or the Yankees could move the home run fence in whenever they were up to bat.

It isn't fair and we all know it. It's absurd and those who allowed it would clearly be nuts.

So when Glenn Beck says — as Frank Rich writes in his NY Times OpEd piece, Even Glenn Beck Is Right Twice a Day —

“Wall Street owns our government,” Beck declared in one rant this July. “Our government and these gigantic corporations have merged.” He drew a chart to dramatize the revolving door between Washington and Goldman Sachs in both the Hank Paulson and Timothy Geithner Treasury departments.

... he (Beck) strikes a chord in we the people over the absurd unfairness of the current and still evolving economics of corporationism.

And America was founded on the fairness of opportunity for all ... even if that initially meant all non-Irish Northern Europeans in many minds.

Geithner, Summers, and Bernake running the financial rules sector of the Federal government is like having Pete Rose, Mark McGwire, and Barry Bond on baseball's rules committee.

Get real. Should I laugh or cry?

Obama does not know HOW to lead

Let's face it, President Obama does not know how to lead.

Leadership requires rewarding your supporters and punishing your detractors. He doesn't do that.

Leaders understand that there are a whole bunch of folks out circling, waiting to knock the leader off the pedestal and take his/her place ... even if in come-up-man-ship only, like a star on a sports team challenging the coach or manager, and getting away with it.

Obama, apparently, has always been mentored into his next higher position ... because he is a great campaigner. He fits the mold of the charismatic politician, and like every other media star does not have to be anything other than out of prison in real life. He is the person others put forward as their "man".

He's never DONE anything except fulfill assignments from others and win elections.

Health care reform is a prime example. First, he has not driven a stake in the heart of rising health care costs by doubling down on any plan that would. And doubling down means having the "chips" to make his opponents pay to stay in the game AND using them. He doesn't have the chips BECAUSE he doesn't think he needs them ... and if he had them, there is no indication that he knows how or when to use them!

Obama gives a good speech. He doesn't know how to knock heads. In fact he never will. It's too late in his career path to learn how, and his choice of financial gurus boxes him out from trying. Geithner, Summers, and Bernake are the foxes for the financial services industry in our hen house. I don't see how it could be worse ... because if the coming crash came faster (in response to those saying the slowing of the spiral downward is a good thing) we maybe then would have the political will to change. As it is, we are descending into Banana Republic status with the financial services elite sucking up the wealth by printing paper instruments of debt ... is there anything nuttier than that?!

Republicans hope - and Democrats fear - that a politically significant percentage of voters will come to see the federal government under Democratic control as redistributing tax dollars to "elites" and to the very poor, as the broad middle class is left on its own to face high unemployment, sharply reduced home values, and gutted retirement savings.

- Angry Populism Could Save The GOP
By Thomas B. Edsall

And — IMHO — whenever we haven't had a president with the interests of we the people and the nation at heart AND with the clout to knock heads in the US Senate, we the people have fallen prey to the elite with the economic power to have that kind of clout.

Corporationism: The corporation as the new tribe in human evolution

The corporation is the new tribe in human evolution.

What is the CEO's — played by Tom Wilkinson — line in the movie, Duplicity, about the struggle between corporations as the current arena for evolutionary progress? Note: When the script is published, I'll quote it.

The economists are the high priests, the witch doctors of the business arena where the hunt is conducted, the battle is fought, the competition is played out for guiding the tribe according to the Golden Rule of Corporationism: "Distribution of profit based on ownership is the foundation of the common good." Tribal members? The shareholders of the corporation ... not the workers. The managers are the tribal leaders. The workers are the wage slaves.

Think back to the dawn of civilization when humans roamed as hunting groups, and the leader of the hunt distributed the kill to the members. There are enough genetically inherited patterns from that period evident in today's business patterns to start me researching the subject. Note: As with Duplicity, I am certain this idea does not originate with me, although it looks like I get to coin "corporationism" in the sense and meaning that it is branch of Capitalism much like Calvinism is an offshoot of the Protestant faith. And I expressly use the religion comparison here for what should be obvious reasons ... to invite the examination of parallels.

This new tribal "structure" with its religion of greed fits the concepts of social Darwinism on both the left and the right of the political spectrum. The "Left" tries to get the corporation/business to pay all the costs of producing its goods and services before declaring a profit. The "Right" says maximizing profit in itself is a legitimate — or sanctioned — act.

For example, looking at health care through the lens of Corporationism, President Obama reveals himself as a true believer in Corproationism as the economic structure to funnel wealth to the top tier of wealth gathers.

The basic political question is, "How is wealth to be distributed in a society?" Remember slavery or feudalism with its lords and vassals? We now have Corporationism as the new form of economic elitism in which the contribution of labor is undervalued for the benefit of whatever new elite has garnered economic and — the resulting — political power. Today we have the “priesthood” of academic economists constructing their “holy bible” to justify this new belief structure … even the god of “The Invisible Hand.”

I happen to believe that the fair distribution of wealth produced by a society to the people who create that wealth is the foundation of the common good for a progressive society. I am anti-slavery, anti-feudalism (with its lords and vassals), anti-monopoly, AND pro-fair labor practices with a living wage for the bottom rung available to anyone able and willing to work in jobs protected by humane health and safety regulations.

A fundamental role of our — the people's — government is to develop and regulate the economic environment that provides the fair distribution of the wealth created within that environment ... including efficient markets to facilitate the exchange of goods and services while paying the costs of producing those goods and services. Note: Money and other pieces of paper having "face value for the bearer" are NOT real goods or services. These financial instruments facilitate the efficient exchange of goods and services across the broad regions of our nation and the globe.

The right of corporations to earn profits is (should be?) bounded by — contained within — the requirement to fairly distribute the wealth they create. For example, costs of environmental pollution should be paid by the corporation creating the pollution. Likewise, costs of injury to workers due to unsafe work practices should be paid by the corporation using such practices. Note: And this is at the heart of the health care debate. Do we fairly distribute health care to all or just to the elite who are defined by having received enough wealth through adherence to Corporationism to be able to afford health care?

And the wealth of our society should be the basis of the guarantee that all participants who are willing and able to work have an opportunity to work at a job that pays a living wage, in other words, a job that provides enough for food, shelter, clothing, education (including child care), health care, and recreation for the worker and his or her family whenever that worker is ready to assume the role of an adult worker in our economy.

What is the point in having a society if its citizens are not provided for? It has been our general view in this nation that the needs of citizens and their families are provided for through the wages and benefits they earn on their work, their jobs. Then it follows that citizens should be given the opportunity to work at jobs that provide for their basic needs ... at a minimum.

And if corporations along with other businesses cannot meet the demand for jobs that pay a living wage for adult workers ... then we need some other market "mechanism" to fill the gap. Typically this has been the "government" (the legal organization of "we the people") contracting with corporations and other businesses to produce goods and services related to infrastructure that improves the business arena for all citizens in the long-term, past the corporate business model's profit cycle for justifying an investment ... such as President Eisenhower and the Federal Highway program.

And so ... President Obama reveals through proffered policy for reforming health care that he is limiting his political solutions to the boundary of the corporate business model's profit cycle — Corporationism — rather than what should be an outer boundary of mechanisms to fairly distribute a nation's wealth ... wealth that is created by that nation's economic environment in which we all have a stake.

We the people need economic principles to live by ...

We the people need economic principles to live by, principles we can understand ... principles that actually apply to the real world.

And we should know and understand the history of how these principles evolved out of our experience.

Like labor laws including those against children working in coal mines at the age of twelve. Did you know about that? Did I say twelve? How about seven and eight?

How about the 40-hour work week, lunch and rest breaks, weekends ... did you know that the concept of the "weekend" was given us by the labor movement?

And then there is the history of imperialism and other economic structures to funnel wealth upward to the top tier of wealth gatherers. Take salt. Take India. Take the British. Take Gandhi.

The Gandhi Salt March
1930

In 1930 in order to help free India from British control, Mahatma Gandhi proposed a non-violent march protesting the British Salt Tax, continuing Gandhi's pleas for civil disobedience. The Salt Tax essentially made it illegal to sell or produce salt, allowing a complete British monopoly. Since salt is necessary in everyone's daily diet, everyone in India was affected. The Salt Tax made it illegal for workers to freely collect their own salt from the coasts of India, making them buy salt they couldn't really afford.

http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/india/SaltMarch.html

There it is. All spelled out in black and white for us. If we have a necessary (without it our basic well-being, health, life itself is threatened directly by not having it) "commodity" that we actually could have in abundance, and some "market force" (in the case of the salt in India, "a complete British monopoly") creates what is quite clearly an artificial price (in this case, a tax) for the purchase of the "commodity" ... and the British do this on the basis of a law ... What do you think?

Life-saving medicines that are beyond their patent-life are what? And what if the law actually says that the market forces of negotiation cannot be applied ... as in the case of Medicare?

This is becoming so convoluted behind the smoke screen of a "free market" that without some common agreement on principle, we are doomed to failure ... or until we the people start our own march to the sea.

The Salt March started a series of protests, closing many British shops and British mills. A march to Dharshana resulted in horrible violence. The non-violent satyagrahis did not defend themselves against the clubs of policemen, and many were killed instantly. The world embraced the satyagrahis and their non-violence, and eventually enabled India to gain their freedom from Britain.

-Ibid.

It's really simple ...

The core political issue is developing the economic structure for a fair distribution — NOT equal distribution — of the wealth produced by the efforts — physical and mental — of working men and women. It has become obvious that current market "forces" do not distribute wealth fairly.

Let's face it, a fair distribution would provide jobs for all able-bodied adult workers and a living wage for the bottom rung of the labor ladder.

AND a living wage would provide for the basic needs of the family: food, shelter, clothing, education, healthcare.

This should be the primary plank the platform of a political party looking out for workers' interests.

AND — IMHO — neither the Democratic Party nor the labor unions in these Unted States of America adequately represent the interests of the workers on this core political issue.

Cameron Todd Willingham: Texas executed an innocent man ... IMHO

The arson didn't happen. The execution did.

Texas executed an innocent man ... IMHO ... for a crime that wasn't committed.

Read David Grann's TRIAL BY FIRE in September 7's THE NEW YORKER magazine

Dr. Gerald Hurst, an acclaimed scientist and fire investigator, concluded:

"... based on the evidence, he had little doubt that it was an accidental fire—one caused most likely by the space heater or faulty electrical wiring. It explained why there had never been a motive for the crime. Hurst concluded that there was no evidence of arson, and that a man who had already lost his three children and spent twelve years in jail was about to be executed based on 'junk science.'"

That man, Cameron Todd Willingham, was in fact executed for the crime that didn't happen, and for sure he didn't commit.