This is America - a year later

Is this your mother, your grandmother, your sister, your aunt?  Do you know where she is, how she survives?

Last year I wrote a post about Barbara, the woman who stands outside the building where I work, begging.  She is 75, which is 10 years older than my wife, and she is still there.

She has been hospitalized a couple times that I know of in the past year.  Once was for pneumonia, and I am not sure out the other.  It may have been after she was mugged.    Who mugs a 75 year old woman for the change she has managed to beg in the streets?

She is having more trouble getting around these days, and I no longer see her every day.  And when I do see her she is often using a walker, always at least using a cane.  I used to make sure I had some ones in my wallet, so I could always give her a dollar or two when I saw her.  But as she is able to make it out less frequently, I think perhaps it should be fives or tens now.

I have never seen her intoxicated, never smelled alcohol on her breath, so I suspect that her only crime against society was that she didn't make a lot of money.

If you have no children to take care of you, if you have the temerity to live past the age when you can be useful to the machine, then this is what the Republican Party has planned for you.  They are trying to drive down wages so that you will need to spend every penny they pay you to survive.  Then they will deride you for not saving.

Is this really the America you want?  If not, then fucking do something about it.

What Ron Paul would bring to the debate

For the most part I cannot stomach watching the Republican debates.  There have been way too many of them and they have been long on bullshit and short on substance.  That is because, for the most part the candidates themselves are long on bullshit and short on substance.  The exception has been Ron Paul.

Let me say that much that he has to say is completely wrong.  If his economic policies were every implemented, our slide into feudalism would be completed.  It would be like Europe during the dark ages.  But on the libertarian side, he does get some things right.

But this is my thought.  Both Paul and Obama are intelligent men.  And I suspect a debate between these two would expose once and for all the issues that the American people really need to think about.  It is about what kind of country that we intend to be.

What should the role of government be?  What should the role of business be?  And just as important, what has worked, for the benefit of us all, and what has proved to be a failure?  All this matters, all this needs to be discussed, and I think that, during a debate between these two, that would happen.

How would Obama respond to Paul's observations on the failure of the War on Drugs, of his contention that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and contrary to all our ideals as Americans?  How would Paul respond the  historical evidence that the middle class has prospered and grown the most during the periods that our tax code was most progressive, and that regulating business conduct had kept us out of this kind of economic malaise since the Great Depression?  These are just a few of the issues where it is important that both sides be heard so that informed choices can be made.

Perhaps I am being naive, but I believe that Paul being the Republican nominee would raise the level of discourse, and allow the real issues facing us to be discussed and debated.  Any one of the other Republican candidates would be running on slogans and personality and character assassination.  Either way, Obama gets re-elected, but a real debate about real issues would do much to elevate the American consciousness on the decisions that lay before us.

There is a war of ideas going in in this country, but the right is doing it's best to conceal what those ideas really are from the public at large.  I think this would get those ideas out in the open.

What Protect IP is really about

The new media has many people scared.  It has the oligarchy scared.  Anyone with a cell phone can record a video of police brutality, of a demonstration of thousands of people, of any event that they would prefer to marginalize, to deny.  But what really makes that an issue is that the video may end up on a blog or on Utube and be viewed by millions of people.

It is really very simple.  If the oligarchy can control what you see and hear, then they can shape what you see as true.  If there are other sources of information that will show you what is really happening, then they lose that control.  Hence, the Protect IP act.

The pretext of this is protecting intellectual property.  That is a worthy goal.  If you put your sweat and effort into producing something, then you expect to be able to reap the rewards.  So if you produce a film, or music, or a novel, then you have a right to expect that someone else will not copy it and sell it, or even give it away.  That is what copyrights are all about.

Now lets look for a moment at the new media,. and how it works.  Think of any of the major alternative news sources, like the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos, or even the quasi mainstream source like yahoo news.  All of them accept commentary, they allow readers to voice their opinions relative to what they have read.  What happens if a commenter posts something quoting a copyrighted source?

Well, under Protect IP, not only is the blog author responsible, so is the web host.  This blog here is hosted by Google, so if you post a comment that someone feels is infringing on a copyright then Google becomes responsible for shutting this site down.  Google becomes the police and the mere complaint by someone requires that this site be shut down.  Now the burden of proof is on me to prove I should be allowed to continue.

Note, I didn't say the the offending content has to be removed, I said Google has to shut me down.  And someone complaining about copyright infringement does not have to prove it to Google, there is no reasonable doubt standard or preponderance of evidence standard that would be necessary in a court of law.  That burden falls on me to justify why my site should be reopened.

Protect IP is about suppressing the truth and nothing else.  That is why it must be defeated.  But, should it become law, then the progressives of this country should invoke another law, the law of unintended consequences.

Any web site which is engaged in soliciting funds for right wing causes, and right wing candidates, should be challenged.  Claims of copyright infringement should flood the service providers, placing them into a constant battle to defend their web sites.  Add to that list the sites of anyone who voted for the law. 

The same rules?

Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

We on the left, would like to limit the influence of corporations and their money, on electoral politics.  Defining a corporation as a person, with all the rights under the constitution afforded a person just seems absurd.  So the struggle goes on to try and rein them in.

Those on the right, would like to limit the influence of unions and their money on electoral politics.  They would be aghast if a union were treated as a person.

How are these two entities different?  Both are composed of people who are the ownership/membership.  Both have a hierarchy that is elected by the ownership/membership to make the day to day decision of operation as well as decisions about political contributions and lobbying.

So why are unions held to a higher standard?
There is never any talk about limiting political activity of a corporation based upon the preferences of an individual shareholder.  And yet the right would say that a union member should be able to object to political contributions made from his or her dues.
When shareholders vote on electing members of the board, or any other business presented to the shareholders for a vote, shares not voting are never characterized as 'no' votes.
Having union dues withheld from your paycheck is no different from having your 401K investment withheld from your paycheck.  Neither is to the benefit of the employer, they are for the benefit of the employee, and yet one is attacked while the other is not.

So here is my suggestion.  In all legislation where there is an attempt to muzzle the unions, the progressives should be fighting tooth and nail to insert 'and corporations' into the text.  Will they fail?  Sure they will.  But at least they will be highlighting the hypocrisy of the right.

Whether or not you can win is not what defines if a fight is worthwhile.  The right relies upon the public not understanding what they are really about.  So every opportunity must be taken to show them for their true colors.