Left Side of the Aisle #64 - Part 4

What is patriotism?

[Note: This was drawn largely from things I have written in the past, many of which have been posted here at Lotus before. So if you are one of my handful of long-time readers, you may well have come across much of this before. Sorry for the repetition, but this is sort of an annual "What patriotism means to me" thing I do around the Fourth pretty much every year.]

This show will be seen in the week following the Fourth of July. I hope you enjoyed your Fourth, I hope you got to see some fireworks or watch a parade or have a barbecue or just loll in your yard or chill on your couch with a cool drink. The Fourth is a time for fun and I hope you had your share.

It's also, of course, traditionally a day of patriotism, of celebrating our nation and our heritage.

Sadly, too many people, especially among politicians, make patriotism a matter of ostentatious display, of flag pins and the Star Spangled Banner and swirling music and fluttering flags. Next time you see a political debate, amuse yourself by noting how many of the men are dressed in red, white, and blue: red tie, white shirt, blue suit.

I say that patriotism measured in terms of wearing flag pins, of having your hand over your heart during the national anthem, and the like is worthless, dangerous, and shallow. It is a hollow "patriotism," a shell that prefers form to substance and too easily, as we too often have seen over the last several years, slides from "patriotism" into jingoism.

Now, don't anyone bother claiming I said wearing a flag pin or whatever is "hollow." I said no such thing and there is no reason why wearing a flag pin can't be an outward expression of an inner conviction. I said that a patriotism measured in those terms is hollow. And it is.

So here is my understanding of patriotism:

In addition to embracing the comment I read some years ago that "it is natural to have an abiding affection for the land of one's birth," I say being a US patriot means being dedicated to the ideals on which the country was supposed to have been founded and which, at its best moments, it strives to uphold in as full a measure as we can manage: Ideals such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as the right to rebellion against oppression, as "promoting the general welfare," as political freedoms, as representative government "of, by, and for the people" - the ideal of, to sum up in a single phrase from the Preamble to the Constitution, an intent to "establish justice," a justice I say must include the economic and the social as well as the political if it is to have real meaning.

Patriotism, that is, lies in the devotion to the ideals, not in any symbolic outward expression of it.

Further, patriotism does not lie in support for or opposition to any particular party or policy except insofar as that support or opposition is an expression of that internal commitment to those ideals. An opponent of the Iraq war who was angered by the Executive branch's usurpation of power is much more patriotic than a war supporter who kept referring to the president as "the commander-in-chief" as if we were all soldiers expected to obey orders rather than citizens with the obligation held by any free people to "question authority."

I do not wear a flag pin. I do not put my hand over my heart during the national anthem (which, I'll note in passing, I was taught as a child was something that some folks did but was not required). I do not sing along with the national anthem. In fact - and I know this will provide ammo for some and lead others to say I undermine my argument, but I don't care, it's the truth - I don't even stand up for the national anthem. (Not intending to give offense thereby, I usually manage to be out of the room at the time.)

But if patriotism can be understood as embracing the ideals of our nation, as striving to hold this country to the highest of those ideals instead of the lowest of its prejudices, if it can be understood as committing to a notion of what the US, of what we as a people, can be and have at times approached being, then I submit that I am as patriotic as they come. And I have neither patience with nor tolerance for those who would make patriotism a matter of gestures and decorations rather than conviction. And I have even less tolerance for those who would insist on their own patriotism by impugning mine.

Even many professional grouches (like me) are actually unregenerate romantics whose sharp words are honed on the inexplicable, indefensible, yet utterly unshakable conviction that things not only should be but can be better than they are.

Some years ago, I wrote to a friend that "our strongest, surest beliefs are those we don't even know we have until we find them within us." That is, our deepest, most abiding beliefs and commitments are not born consciously of careful philosophical argumentation and reasoned analysis but grow naturally from our root moral and ethical convictions. That argumentation, those analyses, can give form to those convictions, they can provide them with substance and weight and direction, but they do not drive them - rather, they are driven by them.

So despite my tendency to argue my points rationally with facts and figures and references - one of my favorite quotes is "passion and substance are not mutually exclusive" - still it's important for me to drop away on occasion from "here's the data, here's the logic, here's the conclusion" to the fundamental, baseline, radical place where I can say, simply, "I believe."

I believe that life is our highest good and advancing life is our highest ideal. I believe whatever advances life, improves life, is an expression of our humanity, that self-awareness, that capacity for love, that reach for hope that separates us from the other animals of the Earth. I believe that which opposes life, which advances hunger, oppression, and violence, are a rejection of that quality, a rejection of our humanity. I believe that to be human is to reach for life, for our potential.

I believe in family, a broad, deep sense of family, of family as based on commitment, not on ceremonies, as based on ties the heart, not on ties of the blood. I believe we must reach beyond the personal to the public; beyond self to others; beyond us and them to we; beyond the individual to the community.

I believe we have social obligations, moral commitments to a type of extended family that includes strangers, people who we'll never see, never meet, never have any contact with, but with who we share a mutual obligation, a mutual moral duty, a community extending even to the community of humanity.

I believe we must ultimately reject the right of so few to have so much when so many have so little, reject the power of so few to control so much when so many control so little. I believe in the right of every human being to a decent life free of hunger, fear, and oppression and I believe in the duty of every member of society to strive to guarantee that right to all others. I believe that while we should have no desire to place a ceiling over anyone’s aspirations, we should desire to put a floor under everyone’s needs.

I believe, ultimately, in justice: not in perfection or idealized utopias, but in human justice, one that rejects ascendancy of bombs over bread, of private greed over public good, of profits over people. A justice that centers on the preciousness of life. A justice that embraces the economic, the social, and the political. And finally, I believe in the indivisibility of that justice: It must be justice for “them” as well as for “us,” for enemy as for friend, or it’s not justice at all but mere favoritism.

I may sound like a philosopher, but what I’m interested in is change: not slogans, not philosophies, but getting-the-job-done type change. We have to be factual, practical, in our programs. As the Italian pacifist Danilo Dolci said, “Faith does not move mountains. Work, exacting work, moves mountains.”

But when I say “practical,” I don’t mean it in the sense of the liberals and the so-called progressives, those people who lower their sights, harden their hearts, darken their vision, and then congratulate themselves on their “realism.” You know the saying “I dream dreams of things that never were and ask Why not?” What we have to do is dream dreams of things that never were and ask “How?” How? What are the practical steps we can take right now, today? We have to approach the world with steel in our eyes.

But we can’t let the steel in our eyes cloud the dream. We have to hold to the vision of what we as a people, what we as a nation, can do, what we can be, and not settle, as so many do, for the mere hope that it will get no worse or even less, that it just get worse more slowly. Achieving wide-ranging justice will not be easy, cheap, or convenient - but it is possible and after all is said and done it is simply the right thing to do.

I have tried to be a steely-eyed dreamer with varying degrees of success; usually it was a little long on the steel and a little short on the dream, a position that makes unnecessary compromise a little too easy and risk a little too - well, risky.

I've come to a point in my life when I've begun to slow down. I haven't spent as much time on the streets as I did in earlier years - nor as much as I'd like to - and my energy level simply isn't what it was. I find it harder to keep my spirits up and many discouraged days I don't regret that I won't live to experience the world I see coming at such times.

And yet in spite of that, maybe even because of that, recently I have begun to look more the the dream than the steel. So despite it all, despite all logic, despite a mountain of evidence, and without any good reason, I still believe that things must be, can be, better than they are, that it is possible. I just do. And will.

Sources:
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-believe.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2008/02/and-its-not-even-fourth-of-july.html

Left Side of the Aisle #64 - Part 3

Clarabell Award: One Million Moms vs. Oreos

The Clarabell award going to be regular feature here at Left Side of the Aisle. It wasn’t supposed to be, it was supposed to be occasional, but now it's. There are just too many clowns out there. Actually, to be more accurate since I won't say there will be one every week, I shouldn't call it a regular feature but a frequent one.

This week's dishonoree is the organization One Million Moms, a paranoid, homophobic group of wackos who are convinced the gays are coming to get us all!

They really are a bunch of loony losers. There were the people who back in February called for a nationwide boycott of JC Penny because the chain hired Ellen DeGeneres as its spokeswoman in its commercials. This drive was so successful that in March, One Million Moms dropped the whole thing, saying "other issues" require the group's attention.

What "other issues?" Here are some:

- In February, they threatened Toys-R-Us with a boycott because the chain's stores carried the Archie comic with the same-sex wedding, which I mentioned a few weeks ago. I notice they didn't call for a boycott of Archie comics; I guess even they realized that was a lost cause.

- In April, they condemned Urban Outfitters for showing a lesbian couple in its catalog

- In May, they were busy slamming DC Comics and Marvel Superheroes for introducing gay characters into their storylines.

So I suppose it's really no surprise that just last week, this concatenation of flakes was all a-quiver over this:

It's exactly what it looks like: a rainbow Oreo cookie. More exactly, it's not an actual cookie, it's an image that was unveiled last weekend on Oreo's official Facebook page. It's an ad. But it was an ad that was done in support of Pride Month and no one, including Oreo, denies the broader meaning. It makes the point simply and clearly and the image has gone viral.

And One Million Moms just can't contain itself, ranting and raving about the imminent demise of human civilization - or, at least, American civilization which is after all the only one that counts. In a way, it's easy to feel sorry for One Million Moms; consider just recently: JC Penny, Toys-R-Us, Archie comics, Urban Outfitters, DC comics, Marvel comics, and now, even Oreo cookies bear the mark of evil! They must feel the world collapsing around them. Which, happily, it is.

One Million Moms, which is a part of the even more deeply disturbed American Family Association, helpfully notes Oreo's are made by Kraft Foods, which has other brands, including Cadbury, Maxwell House, and Nabisco. Thank you for that information, One Million Moms; I'll be sure to keep it in mind when I do my shopping.

That bit of helpful info, however, does not change the fact that you are complete and total clowns.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29/one-million-moms-oreo-cookies-gay-pride_n_1638774.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/ellen-degeneres-jc-penney_n_1247657.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/one-million-moms-drops-ellen-degeneres-jc-penney_n_1332651.html
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=1551464
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/one-million-moms-condemns_n_1546670.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/28/one-million-moms-toys-r-us-archie-comics_n_1307689.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/17/urban-outfitters-lesbian-kiss-photo-one-million-moms_n_1431134.html

Left Side of the Aisle #64 - Part 2

Outrage of the Week: Access to health care "not the issue"

GOPpers have said repeatedly that Obamacare must be "repealed and replaced." But ask them "replaced with what" and the double-talk express gets rolling.

Sunday, July 1, Sen. Mitch "Fishface" McConnell was on "Fox News Sunday." Host Chris Wallace asked him how, if Obamacare is repealed, Republicans would provide health care coverage to the 30 million uninsured Americans who, it's estimated, would gain coverage through the new law.

Fishface answered "That is not the issue."

Incredulous, Wallace interrupted with "You don't think 30 million uninsured is an issue?"

In response, McConnell started spouting out bullet point sound bytes about how bad Europe is and how Obama wants the federal government take over all American health care. Which frankly, I wish it would - it's called a national health care system and could hardly be worse than what we have now.

Wallace pressed him on the issue of pre-existing conditions, asking how he would protect that group of people. McConnell dismissed the issue with a reference to state-level high-risk pools - which don't exist in every state, provide coverage with high premiums, waiting periods, and coverage exclusions, and now serve about 208,000 people - when there are about 25 million with pre-existing condition problems.

This debate has been going on for how long now? I mean about this particular piece of legislation, not the whole health care debate. More than three years, anyway. And after all that time, the blockheads that populate the right still don't have any alternative plans, any actual proposals to deal with the scores of millions of Americans who do not have access to health care.

Now we know why: For them, it's not an issue.

And that is a moral outrage. It's the Outrage of the Week.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/01/mitch-mcconnell-uninsured-obamacare_n_1641033.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2009/06/happy-anniversary.html

Left Side of the Aisle #64 - Part 1

SCOTUS and AHCA

You probably wondered why last week I didn't mention the Supreme Court decision regarding the Affordable Health Care Act, aka Obamacare, aka the Health Insurance Industry Enrichment Act, which certainly was the big domestic news of the week. The reason is simple: The show is recorded on Wednesday and the decision came down on Thursday.

But now I will comment. First, though, I'm not going to re-fight the issue. I will note that by polls taken during the course of the debate, upwards of 20% of the public, over 1/3 of the opponents of the measure, were against the bill because it wasn't good enough, it didn't go far enough in regulating and controlling the insurance companies and drug companies, didn't go far enough toward a single-payer or a national health care system. I was among that 20%. But leave that aside: We have what we have and must make the best of it.

You surely know that SCOTUS upheld law by a margin of 5-4, basically because Chief Justice John Roberts was persuaded that the individual mandate, which requires individuals to have coverage or pay a penalty, could be regarded as a tax rather than as falling under Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce. So he stood with the four moderate (I will not call them "liberal") justices - Breyer, Kagen, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg - to uphold the law on that basis. (Those four, by the way, agreed it could be seen as a tax but also said they would have upheld it under the Commerce clause.)

There are some odd things here. First odd thing and perhaps the most obvious is make-up of the majority. John Roberts making common cause with those other four is indeed odd. There has been lots of speculation about why. It's possible no one except Roberts knows for sure, but I can't help but speculate that he is having some concern about the legacy of "his" Court. We've had the Rehnquist Court, the Burger Court, the Warren Court, and so on; now we have the Roberts Court. This Supreme Court is all but universally seen as the most divided, the most philosophically riven, (and on our side seen as on the part of the right ideologically-driven) Supreme Court in memory, perhaps in the nation's history. It's just possible that Roberts, knowing that a decision to strike down the law would be seen as (and in fact would be) an ideological one, has begun to think that he doesn't want the image of a completely torn, divided Court to serve as his legacy. Only future decisions can indicate if that is true or not.

Another odd thing: The minority, consisting of four members of the court's reactionary wing - Thomas, Alito, Scalia, and Kennedy, whose reputation as a "moderate" or "middle-of-the-roader" has become quite threadbare - would have tossed out the "entire statute," the entire law, from beginning to end.

What's odd is that in arguing that, the minority argued that even constitutional provisions of the law must be ruled unconstitutional and dumped because "the Act’s other provisions would not have been enacted without" the mandate. That is, they are claiming they know that no part of the bill would have been passed absent the mandate, so even what's lawful must be tossed out, including provisions that had already gone into effect, which clearly do not rely on the mandate as it is not yet in force - all because these four know what bills Congress would or would not have passed under some different set of circumstances.

What's more, they go on to say the law "makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult." That is, this not the bill they would have passed - the "sensible" bill and how's that for right-wing corporate speak. And then they had the gall to accuse the majority of "vast judicial overreach," that is, in essence, accusing them of being "activist judges" who "legislate from the bench." Just unbelievable.

There's another part of the majority decision which got less initial attention but could have a major impact on those without access to health care but who at least had reason to hope that the bill would change that. The law calls for an expansion of Medicaid, the program designed to provide access to health care to the poor. That expansion would bring an estimated 17 million low-income people into the program.

The Court upheld the expansion but with a critical caveat: They ruled this is a new program, not merely an expansion of an existing one, and therefore the federal government may not threaten the states that don't comply with the expansion with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding. Essentially, the Medicaid expansion is now optional for the states, and a number of them under the reign of right-wing governors or legislatures are already making noises about refusing to participate.

That could leave millions of Americans with low incomes who do not qualify for Medicaid under their states' current policies stuck between a rock and a hard place: between the mandate to have insurance and fact they may not be able to afford it, with the penalty that could entail. Or, just as bad, with low-cost, high-deductible plans that do them no good because while they can afford the premiums, they can't afford the deductibles, leaving them worse off than before.

Some experts think the Medicaid expansion is a minor issue because the federal subsidies and incentives to take part in the expansion are strong enough that, in the words of Wharton School health economist Mark Pauly, "most people don't expect any of them to opt out unless they were ideologically driven." But that, of course, is precisely the point.

Two other things to note before I move on.

One, again, the minority said the Act "makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult." The whole sentence was:

It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions, provisions that certain interests favored under the Court’s new design will struggle to retain.

In context of whole law being upheld, that sentence makes no sense.

There was some delay in announcing the decision, and I wondered if there were arguments and negotiations until the last minute - because that statement and the discussion of which it was part would make sense if and only if the minority thought the majority was going to strike down the mandate while leaving the rest of the bill intact. I wonder if until very last minute, the minority didn't know what Roberts was going to argue.

The other issue is "state sovereignty," something also raised in the recent case about Arizona's "papers please" law. This emphasis is based on a view of the federal government as "one of limited powers." Not merely "limited" in the sense that there are limits, but "limited" in the sense of "narrow in scope," the sense, bluntly, of being weak. The Court’s right wing is clearly moving toward - some of them have already embraced - an extreme view of states’ rights of the sort that was one of the precipitating causes of the civil war. This bears close watching.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/health-care-dissent_n_1634514.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-health-care-decision_n_1585131.html
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/06/28/usa-healthcare-court-medicaid-idINL2E8HSBAZ20120628
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/supreme-court-health-care-medicaid-expansion-obamacare.php

Left Side of the Aisle #64

Left Side of the Aisle for July 5-11, 2012

This week:

SCOTUS and AHCA
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/health-care-dissent_n_1634514.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-health-care-decision_n_1585131.html
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/06/28/usa-healthcare-court-medicaid-idINL2E8HSBAZ20120628
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/supreme-court-health-care-medicaid-expansion-obamacare.php

Outrage of the Week: Access to health care “not the issue”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/01/mitch-mcconnell-uninsured-obamacare_n_1641033.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2009/06/happy-anniversary.html

Clarabell Award: One Million Moms vs. Oreos
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29/one-million-moms-oreo-cookies-gay-pride_n_1638774.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/ellen-degeneres-jc-penney_n_1247657.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/one-million-moms-drops-ellen-degeneres-jc-penney_n_1332651.html
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=1551464
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/one-million-moms-condemns_n_1546670.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/28/one-million-moms-toys-r-us-archie-comics_n_1307689.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/17/urban-outfitters-lesbian-kiss-photo-one-million-moms_n_1431134.html

What is patriotism?
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-believe.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2008/02/and-its-not-even-fourth-of-july.html

Left Side of the Aisle #63 - Part 5

And another thing...

I wanted to make note of two RIPs of different sorts.

The first is kinda sad, but not tragic: After more than 30 years, Matt Groening is ending his comic strip, "Life in Hell." It was a world populated by "anthropomorphic rabbits and a pair of gay lovers" and was what really provided the opening for a new group of cartoonists to appear in alternative weekly newspapers around the country.

You may not know "Life in Hell" but you do know Matt Groening. For one thing, he's co-creator of one on my guilty pleasures, the animated cartoon series "Futurama." But before that, back in 1985, an actor/producer named James Brooks say a "Life in Hell" strip and wanted Groening to use the characters to develop a series of what are called "bumpers" - short features - for "The Tracey Ullman Show." Groening was worried about the prospect of losing the rights to his characters, so he created an different set of characters for the purpose: the Simpsons.

The other RIP is a sad one: Caroline John has died in London at the age of 71.

I know most of you have no idea who Caroline John was and even after I tell you, a lot of you will still have no idea. No matter. Those of you who do find the name rings a bell might be reminded by this picture.

Caroline John played Liz Shaw, a companion to Doctor Who during the John Pertwee era in the early 1980s. For you poor benighted souls who have no idea who Doctor Who is, he's the one in the middle. Doctor Who, a time-traveling alien who can regenerate his body 12 times (and so has 13 lives) is now on his 11th incarnation in what is the longest-running scifi/fantasy series in TV history, having been on the air over 30 years. Caroline John was only on for one season - 25 episodes - out of that time, but no whovian worth the name (you didn't think my email name of whoviating came out of nowhere, did you?) does not recall Liz Shaw.

RIP, Caroline John.

Sources:
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/177889/simpsons-creator-matt-groening-to-end-life-in-hell-comic/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Simpsons
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18531461

Left Side of the Aisle #63 - Part 4

Unions and the economy

I'm going to tell you something about the economy and while you may not know the figures, you will know the experience, the feel of it. And then I'm going to connect it to something which I bet a lot of you have not thought about.

Start with the fact that according to the Federal Reserve, Americans saw their median net worth plummet nearly 40% from 2007 to 2010. Median net worth was smashed down to the level of 1992. That is, all of the economic gain of the past two decades was destroyed by the banking meltdown. Who was hurt the most? The middle class, of course. The poor had little left to lose - and the median net worth of the rich, here's a shocker, rose slightly even as everyone else was falling off a cliff.

And it happened because the Federal Reserve, with strong bipartisan support in the White House and Congress, used hundreds of billions of dollars of public monies to save the banks and the corporations while ignoring their victims.

The inevitable and obvious result? The rich got richer and the poor got poorer - without the fun in the meantime.

Just one example: Now that 2011 proxy statements have been filed, the extent of executive pay last year has become clear. Median pay of the nation's 200 top-paid CEOs was $14.5 million, including a median pay raise of 5 percent. Did your pay go up 5% last year?

At the same time, corporate profits are rising and rising and rising again. The first graph posted here shows overall corporate profits from the mid-1940s through 2011. (A larger version of each image, with more readable text, can be had by clicking on it.) The vertical gray bars are times of recession. Notice a couple of things: One, notice how dramatically corporate profits had been rising since about 2000. Second, note how in this recession, when the meltdown hit, corporate profits plummeted to the level of several years before - and then rebounded so quickly that the down and up are essentially a single line.

And third how they are now the highest ever. The Fortune 500 generated a total of $824.5 billion in earnings last year, up 16.4% over 2010. Did your earnings go up 16.4% between 2010 and last year?

The next graph is another way of expressing the same idea. It shows corporate profits as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, or GDP - that is, as a percentage of the total economy. Again, notice the dramatic rise after 2000, the plunge and immediate recovery in the recession, and the fact that they are now higher than ever. So no matter which way you measure it, whether in dollars or as a portion of the total economy, corporate profits are now the highest that have ever been recorded.

So now for comparison look at the next graph. This one shows wages as a percentage of GDP, that is, how much a part of the total economy was in wages paid to workers. In this case, notice how the line drops after 2000 and there was no recovery from the latest recession, in fact the line keeps dropping and now is at its lowest point ever.

So, bluntly, the corporations are making more and more and we are making less and less. The corporations (and their CEOs and assorted cronies) are getting a bigger and bigger bite of the apple while we are increasingly left with little more than the stem.

Oh, but we've been told far more than once, it's all about productivity! That's the problem! You've got to be more productive! Well, that's a crock. Check out the next graph.

Here, the blue line shows the change in GDP per capita - that is, per person - while the red line shows the change in median household income. Both lines start in 1989 and both assume 100 as a starting point. Remember, these lines do not display particular values but rather how those values have changed over time.

The point is, the blue line, GDP per capita, is a pretty good measure of productivity. Productivity is actually measured in worker output per hour, but GDP per capita does provide a reasonable approximation. And you can see how productivity has been rising - but median income has not. We have been increasingly productive as workers but have not received the benefit of that increased productivity. Where has that benefit gone? Look back at that first graph. That's where it has gone.

So that's where we stand. The question is why. I'm going to give you a reason why, one I bet most of you have not thought about.

Today's depressed (and depressing) wages can be blamed on a variety of factors, especially when the blaming is being done by people who want to avoid addressing one very important factor - a variety of factors from globalization and offshoring to new technologies that replace workers. But there remains the elephant in the room, one the corporations try to ignore out of existence but which economists and scholars know is important: the dramatic decline in union membership in the US over the past 60 years, which has left ordinary workers without a powerful public advocate or a voice in the workplace or a say in their wages and benefits.

In the 1950s, a time people now look back to with nostalgia for its secure and strong economy, labor unions were a dominant force in the economy. More than a third of American workers were unionized. Today, unionized workers represent about 12 percent of the workforce, and only seven percent of private workers.

What does this mean to you? This is what it means to you: The red line on the graph at the left shows the rate of union membership as a portion of total workforce; the blue line shows the share of total national income going to the middle class. For over 40 years now, the two have declined in tandem. As union membership shrinks, so does the middle class. That's what it means to you.

And think about this: Last week I was talking about the attacks on the pension plans of public workers and how the reason those pensions often enough really are better than those in private industry is that those in private industry used to be as good - and the gap has developed because the benefits of public workers have not shrunk as much as those in the private sector. One reason for that is that public service is one of the most unionized sectors of the economy: 37% of public workers are in a union, which gives them an ability to protect their gains that too many others have now lost.

How good are unions for workers? Studies say that in terms of wages, being a union member is roughly equal to having a college degree. Union membership in the private sector increases a workers' compensation by ten to twenty percent.

And the benefits of collective bargaining go well beyond unionized plants to include non-unionized workplaces and even industries. As unions raised wages and improved benefits and working conditions in unionized workplaces, that fact pulled up the wages and the rest for non-unionized workers because their employers had to go at least some distance toward matching what unions had obtained in order to keep employees. But as labor unions have declined, their power to affect not only their own wages but those across the economy has also declined, so an increasing share of income has gone to the richest among us, which has led to the largest income gap in more than a century.

Just consider: One of my favorite bumper stickers read "Unions: the people who brought you the weekend." More than that: overtime, sick leave, workplace safety laws, child labor laws, social security, workers' comp, the minimum wage, unemployment - it's hard to find a progressive advance of the past century that touches on economics in which organized labor did not have a hand.

Oh but now we're told, oh, unions are passe, they're corrupt, they're unnecessary, they're "outsiders," maybe they were necessary some other time but not now, blah blah and more blah. Just remember who is telling you that: It's those people represented in the first graph. It's those people. And if you can look at that and then look at the graph about wages and think there is nothing more to do, I can only despair for our future.

Sources:
http://www.nationofchange.org/see-you-club-fed-fat-cats-dip-till-1339766272
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/business/executive-pay-still-climbing-despite-a-shareholder-din.html
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/07/479130/record-corporate-profits/
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/05/07/the-2011-fortune-500-the-big-boys-rack-up-record-setting-profit/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/7/declining-number-of-union-members-affects-all-work/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/11/americans-suffered-record_n_1587387.html

Left Side of the Aisle #63 - Part 3

Outrage of the Week: SCOTUS ignores facts to uphold Citizens United

I know you have heard of the Citizens United decision, the one where the Supine Court, bowing as it almost always does to the desires of corporate America, essentially stripped away controls on unlimited money pouring into federal elections.

I still predict, as I have from the day it was announced, that if we survive as a democracy, at some point this decision will come to be regarded with the same disdain as the Dred Scott decision is today, as one of the worst decisions in the court's history.

Be that as it may, several months ago, the Montana state supreme court upheld a century-old state law that says that a "corporation may not make an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party." The corporate clowns and cronies of course appealed to the Supreme Court.

Most people predicted the Supremes would sing their old standard song of "whatever corporations want, corporations get" and overturn the ruling and therefore invalidate the state law under challenge.

Which, in a 5-4 decision on June 25, they did. In fact, they were so eager to do so, so eager to do the bidding of the corporations, that the decision was announced now even though it wasn't expected until after the fall elections. More than that, they dismissed the whole case in one paragraph, precisely eight sentences. Dismissed it out of hand. Of course Citizens United overrules you, they said. What's more, they said, quoting, "Montana's arguments in support of the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case." That statement is wrong on both counts, so wrong, in fact, that it's hard to think is was accidental.

First, the case was clearly distinguished on the grounds that it was state election law, not federal. The general tradition has been to let states regulate their own elections, with the feds stepping in only when some identifiable group of voters was being denied access to the ballot box, which is clearly not the case here, unless the court's right wingers want corporations to be able to vote - and it wouldn't surprise me if they did.

Second, and this is critical, part of the, if I can stretch the word far enough, "logic" of Citizens United was the claim that evidence of the corrupting influence of money was lacking. (No, seriously, they really said that.) The Montana decision was evidence-based, citing the history of mining interests in Montana, the interests who essentially bought state elections, actions are what lead to the ban, as proof. To overturn the ruling, SCOTUS had to either deny that history or deny the relevance of facts - probably both.

Footnote: You know all those Super-Pacs raising all that unlimited money in this year's presidential race as a result of Citizens United? As of a few months ago, according to an analysis of their financial reports done at the time by USA Today, just under 25% of the entire amount raised by all of them had been put up by precisely five incredibly rich people. But money plays no role in politics. So say the greatest legal minds of our nation.

The Supreme Court - You know, I should declare SCOTUS the equivalent of a five-time Jeopardy! champion and retire it from the competition to give others a chance - but still for now, the Supreme Court is once again the Outrage of the Week.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/supreme-court-reversed-citzens-united-montana_n_1605355.html
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-1179h9j3.pdf
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2012/01/passing-thought-1.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2012/02/left-side-of-aisle-45-part-1.html

Left Side of the Aisle #63 - Part 2

Something else on immigration: SB1070 upheld, sort of

Since the subject of immigration has come up, something else on the topic: The other day, in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the core provision of Arizona's infamous SB1070, the xenophobic immigration law known as the "papers please" law. That core provision requires state law enforcement to demand immigration papers from anyone stopped, detained, or arrested who the cops reasonably suspect is in the country without authorization. It also requires police to check on the immigration status of anyone they arrest before they are released.

The case arose because the Obama administration had challenged the law as usurping federal authority in the area of immigration policy and enforcement. While the decision was met with celebration on the right as a rebuke to Obama's desire to, I don't know, allow the brown hordes to overrun our great white nation or something, it was not as much as a victory for them and a loss for rationality as first appears.

First, the decision on the "papers please" provision revolved around the technical issue I just mentioned of whether the law unconstitutionally invaded the federal government's exclusive prerogative to set immigration policy. The majority of the court found that it was not clear whether the law - which has not gone into effect because of legal challenges - was supplanting or supporting federal policy. So they let the law stand - for now. But they also said that, quoting, "this opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect." So when Arizona does - as it inevitably will - begin to target Latinos, the challenge can be renewed.

And indeed, there are already other suits that have been filed against the law on Constitutional grounds involving equal protection, free speech, and due process.

What's more, even as it upheld (for now) the core "papers please" part of SB1070, the Supreme Court struck down three other provisions as stepping on authority properly reserved to the federal government. Two of those made it a crime for undocumented immigrants to be present Arizona or to seek work there, while a third authorized police officers to make warrantless arrests of anyone they had probable cause to believe had committed a deportable offense.

So this wasn't nearly the victory for vindictiveness or the loss for logic as it might first appear. Which I would say marks it as, well, maybe not as good news but at least not as all bad news.

As a sidebar here, Antonin Scalia - to what should be no one's surprise - dissented. He delivered an oral summary in which he said that Arizona is "entitled to impose additional penalties and consequences for violations of the federal immigration laws, because it is entitled to have its own immigration laws."

I want to repeat that. He argued that states are entitled to their own immigration laws. Think about that for just a minute. Think about what it means.

According to Antonin Scalia, every state is entitled to control who can enter that state and who can come to live in that state. Otherwise, what can "have its own immigration laws" mean? Any state - Arizona, for example - could establish its own passport system. Any state could set up roadblocks along its entire border and turn away anybody lacking the "proper papers." Any individual state could establish a quota system and say, for example, "you can't live here; we have already admitted our quota of blacks or Latinos or whatever." That's what Antonin Scalia is saying when he says states can have their own immigration laws.

Why in hell does Antonin Scoliosis get to be described as this "great legal mind?" His opinions are most just ideologically-driven right-wing mush punctuated with a heaping of bile and a soupçon of spleen. Where does the "great legal mind" business come from? I just don't get it.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/arizona-immigration-law-ruling_n_1614067.html
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

Left Side of the Aisle #63 - Part 1

Clarabell Award: Tyranny is as tyranny does

It's beginning to look like the Clarabell Award, given for particularly clownish words or actions, is going to be a regular feature here on Left Side of the Aisle. It wasn't intended to be, it was intended to be something done just occasionally as need be - but it's turning out that there are just too many clowns out there.

I'll start, however, by noting that last week's recipient, Eric Hovde, a GOPper senatorial wannabe in Wisconsin, was honored for his statement that he wanted the media to stop publishing what he called "sob stories" about people struggling in the recession and focus on the deficit. This week he confirmed that he deserved the award by calling Rep. Tammy Baldwin, the presumptive Democratic nominee for that Senate seat, a "communist."

He's not the only GOPper to toss around the term without the slightest clue of what it actually means; recall, for example, when Rep. Allen West claimed about 80 Democrats in the House are Communist Party members.

I admit to having the same reaction to Hovde as I did to West: "Communist? Just what decade are you living in?"

But turning to this week, our dishonoree is Rep. Joe "You lie!" Walsh. There is this bill called the DREAM Act, which provides a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children, have grown up here, identify culturally and politically as Americans, and who meet certain standards and requirements. The bill has been introduced in every Congress since 2001 - and has been blocked every time. Bluntly, I find the idea that this simple, humane bill could even be controversial both astonishing - remember, it applies to people who think of themselves as Americans but who just aren't citizens - and as proof of how much of our immigration debate is being driven by racist xenophobia.

In August 2011, the Obama administration announced that it was going to use "prosecutorial discretion" in dealing with deportations. Put simply, the federal government was going to decline to pursue deportation proceedings against undocumented immigrants who would've been eligible under the DREAM Act had it passed. Recently, the White House announced it was going to continue this policy for two more years.

And the right wing, either not knowing or just not caring that this had been the policy for the past 10 months, went totally berserk. And this is where Joey-boy enters the story. Now, note clearly: Prosecutors have discretion to determine where they are going to focus their energies, discretion to decide which cases to pursue and which to let slide. There is absolutely no question but that what the White House has done is legal and within the DOJs legal powers. Whether you approve of the decision or not - and I do approve - is totally irrelevant. It is legal. Period.

So what does Joe Washed-up do? He goes to a town hall event and says Obama is a "tyrant. I don't know what else you call him." He is a tyrant, that is, for using his unquestionably-legal powers to do the right thing.

A Washed-up campaign representative named Christian Morgan said "Joe calls them as he sees them."

Yeah? So did Mr. Magoo, you clown. You and your boss both.

Sources:
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/senate-candidate-hovde-calls-tammy-baldwin-a-communist.php
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/allen-west-campaign-blasts-stupid-reporter-releases-full-video-of-west-calling-house-progressives-co.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/joe-walsh-obama-immigration-policy-change_n_1612997.html
http://dreamact.info/
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2010/12/pretty-bad-news.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0615/DREAM-Act-stalled-Obama-halts-deportations-for-young-illegal-immigrants-video
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/dreamact.asp

Left Side of the Aisle #63

Left Side of the Aisle for June 28 - July 4, 2012

This week:

Clarabell Award: Tyranny is as tyranny does
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/senate-candidate-hovde-calls-tammy-baldwin-a-communist.php
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/allen-west-campaign-blasts-stupid-reporter-releases-full-video-of-west-calling-house-progressives-co.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/joe-walsh-obama-immigration-policy-change_n_1612997.html
http://dreamact.info/
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2010/12/pretty-bad-news.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0615/DREAM-Act-stalled-Obama-halts-deportations-for-young-illegal-immigrants-video
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/dreamact.asp

Something else on immigration: SB1070 upheld, sort of
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/arizona-immigration-law-ruling_n_1614067.html
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

Outrage of the Week: SCOTUS ignores facts to uphold Citizens United
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/supreme-court-reversed-citzens-united-montana_n_1605355.html
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-1179h9j3.pdf
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2012/01/passing-thought-1.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2012/02/left-side-of-aisle-45-part-1.html

Unions and the economy
http://www.nationofchange.org/see-you-club-fed-fat-cats-dip-till-1339766272
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/business/executive-pay-still-climbing-despite-a-shareholder-din.html
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/07/479130/record-corporate-profits/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/7/declining-number-of-union-members-affects-all-work/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/11/americans-suffered-record_n_1587387.html

And another thing...
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/177889/simpsons-creator-matt-groening-to-end-life-in-hell-comic/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Simpsons
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18531461

Left Side of the Aisle #62 - Part 7

Should Obama be defeated?

Roberto Unger, one of Barack Obama's former professors at Harvard Law School, has caused something of a stir by posting a YouTube video saying Obama "must be defeated in the coming election." Defeated, however, not for the reasons you might immediately think. Rather, it's because, quoting Unger, "He has failed to advance the progressive cause in the United States" and must lose so that "the voice of democratic prophecy [can] speak once again in American life."

In other words, Obama should be ousted from office because while he presented the promise of progressivism, he has governed as a center-rightist who has, among other things, quoting Unger, "spent trillions of dollars to rescue the moneyed interests and left workers and homeowners to their own devices," "delivered the politics of democracy to the rule of money," and "disguised his surrender with an empty appeal to tax justice." He has, Unger said in what I think is one of his strongest lines, "instituted their" - that is, the right wing's - "program with a humanizing discount." Obama's program is, in short, "less a project than it is an abdication."

Not surprisingly, the reaction among the Obamabots, which unfortunately includes many of those who pass for "progressives" these days, was a combination of ridicule and shock that anyone could even propose such a thing. He was called everything from naive to an idiot, with most leaning toward the latter, along with an occasional foray into sneering about "purity." "Oh sure, vote for Romney, that'll make it all better" was a common supposedly witty rejoinder - even though Unger, who is to the left of Obama, of course said nothing about supporting Romney.

The thing is, put another short way, Unger is saying that Obama needs to lose because he is too conservative. And as long as we accept what Barack Obama represents, as long as we accept his platform, as the outer reaches of the possible, then those of us who hope for better will get nowhere. In his video, Unger acknowledged that if a Republican wins the presidency, "there will be a cost in judicial and administrative appointments." And that is surely true and we have to acknowledge that. Still, his point is that our choice is not between good and bad but between bad and worse. And while it's true that worse is worse, it's also true that bad is bad, and if you accept "bad" as your standard, you will never get "better."

At some point you have to make a decision, you have to make up your mind: Are you willing to settle for, is the best you hope for, is for things to get worse more slowly than they otherwise might? For income inequality to get worse a little more slowly than it otherwise might? For the power of the banks to grow a bit more slowly than it otherwise might? For your hope for your children's future to shrivel a bit more slowly than it otherwise might? For the power of arbitrary authority to grow a bit more slowly than it otherwise might?

I can't even include the prospect civil liberties and privacy disappearing more slowly than they otherwise might because they've actually been disappearing at least as fast if not faster under Obama than they had previously.

But is that the best you can hope for, is that what you're willing to settle for? At some point you have to decide.

Even Josh Marshall, who runs the blog Talking Points Memo, knows this. He surely is no radical and no fan of third parties: When Ralph Nader announced he was running for president back in 2004, Marshall called him a "latter-day political narcissist," "an enemy of progressive change," "a cat's paw of the Republican party," and a "pied piper of political oblivion" running on "a platform of vacuous moral posturing and self-aggrandizement." All in eight sentences.

But even he said he had come to "the realization that the key condition of political success is almost always a genuine willingness to lose well." You have to say "on this ground we’re willing to lose." When has Obama done that? When has he as president ever stood on behalf of a progressive program or principle and said "This is where I make my stand and win or lose, I will not back down?"

And, as Marshall noted and this is really important, "A genuine willingness to lose means just that: you might lose. You might lose big."

Every victory worth gaining carries some risk of loss. At some point you have to say "This is just not good enough." And then at some point you have to decide if you are willing to take that risk or are you going to just settle for at most the vain hope that it might not get much worse. If you're not prepared to risk losing, even losing big, you will never do better.

On the particular issue of Barack Obama, here in Massachusetts we have an advantage: Everyone knows O. is going to carry the state. Witless might give him a decent run, but even he can't imagine it will change the outcome here. So don't vote for Barack Obama. Find someone you can positively vote for, not against, and vote for them. For me, that will likely be Jill Stein. But don't vote for Obama. Give them at least some reason to realize that you are at least thinking about taking the risks you do need to take to get beyond "the right wing's program with a humanizing discount."

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/roberto-unger-obama_n_1602812.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Gnf4k8EaL7M
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_02_15.html#002587
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6074121&postID=8380306191896766754
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/03/make_it_count.php#more?ref=fpblg

Left Side of the Aisle #62 - Part 6

Attacking public employee unions by attacking their pensions

In the previous post I talked about misdirection, about trying to redirect attention away from the real issue. Here's another example, this one affecting the health of the economy as a whole and the individual economic health of quite literally scores of millions of American families.

Across the country, nearly 600 bills have been introduced in state legislatures to attack the collective bargaining rights and other activities of public-sector workers and their unions. At least 10 states passed such laws, although in one - Ohio - the law was overturned in a referendum.

The main target the reactionaries are using to advance this cause is the pensions on public employees, which are branded as dangerously high, wildly out of control, omigosh, Henny Penny, they're going to turn us into Greece! A lot of arguments, though, and this is what I wanted to bring out, are designed to appeal to jealousy: "Look at what they get compared to what you get. What makes them so special?"

Combine that with budget crunches and as a result, there are moves on across the country, even in traditionally more liberal areas like California, to cut, reduce, freeze, or some other way hack away at the pensions of public employees. In 2010, 11 states increased employee pension contributions for state workers - that is, made employees put in more so the employer would put in less. In 2011, 18 states did so and 16 lengthened service requirements for being vested in a pension and raised the age when you can start collecting. Colorado, Minnesota, New Jersey, and South Dakota have postponed or cut cost-of-living adjustments for current retirees. In at least one case - New Jersey - it was done while at the same time twice failing to enact legislation to raise taxes on people making over $1 million per year. Voters in San Diego and San Jose recently approved cuts in pensions of present and future employees.

Now, the truth is, public employees often have pretty good benefits, including pensions. But here are really two reasons why those benefits have been as good as they are. One is that it was compensation for the fact that, contrary to popular mythology, public employees typically earn less than comparably trained, educated and experienced workers in the private sector. Studies have shown the average difference to be somewhere between four and seven percent less.

But this is the other reason, the important one here The kinds of pensions and benefits held by public employees used to be the norm for most major private companies around the country.

But over the past several decades there has been a vicious, unremitting attack on unions, particularly private sector unions. As union representation has shrunk, so have benefits, so has the middle class. But instead of letting you have a chance to focus on that, the elites have again, with, unhappily, considerable success, misdirected you, deceived you into looking the wrong way while the trick is performed with the other hand, gotten you to blame those that should be and could be your brothers and sisters in struggle for economic justice instead of blaming the thieves who are stealing away with your economic future.

So this is the whole point here: When you hear someone, anyone, going on about oh those inflated pensions of those public employees, the question that should immediately spring to your mind is not "Why do they have so much" but "Why do we have so little."

And old Chinese proverb says "calling things by their right name is the beginning of wisdom." Recognizing who actually is your enemy is calling things by their right name.

Sources:
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/06/07/3647603/public-employees-under-scrutiny.html
http://www.epi.org/publication/debunking_the_myth_of_the_overcompensated_public_employee/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_Is_Falling_%28fable%29

Left Side of the Aisle #62 - Part 5

Outrage of the Week: NY Times attacked for informing citizens what is being done in their name

Early in June, the New York Times, again proving that the much-maligned mainstream media can be of considerable value when it actually does its job, published a couple of pieces on the Obama crowd's supposed "national security practices." One was about the use of drones as tools of assassination and the "kill list" drawn up so Obama can decide who we're going to kill today; the other was about cyberwarfare directed against Iran. Both were based on classified information.

I've discussed both of these over the past two weeks.

Well, now there's this big brouhaha about the fact that the paper published the info. Both Democrats and Republicans - or Demopublicans, as they should be called - condemned the leaks and the anonymous sources who did the leaking. There were charges of having endangered national security. Senior members of the intelligence committees of both houses vowed to crack down even further on leakers than the White House already has - and remember, PHC* has already charged more whistleblowers under the espionage act than all previous presidents combined, and the law is 95 years old.

To its credit, the Times is standing by the decision to publish the stories, but here is the point: This is classic misdirection, a classic case of trying to change the subject to the accuser to the point where you forget about the accusation.

The White House has a program of assassination where a group of them, including The Great Mr. O himself, sit down and go through a "kill list" of potential dead people to decide who to drop a bomb on. As part of this program, they lie about the civilian casualties they cause by defining every military-age male in the vicinity as a "combatant" without actually knowing a single damn thing about them. At the same time this is going on, the O gang also is committing acts of war against Iran, actively trying to cripple its industrial infrastructure, doing it without even the justification of self-defense, as its own intelligence services are telling it that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.

Assassination, lies, unprovoked acts of war - all this is being done in your name. And what are all these people hollering about? What has got them in such a lather? The fact that you know about it. The fact that you, as citizens, know what is being done to people in other countries in your name. In their minds, doing it is not what's wrong, you knowing about it is what's wrong.

And if you as a citizen don't find that outrageous, I can't imagine what would. To me, it is the Outrage of the Week.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/jill-abramson-new-york-times-leaks-white-house_n_1608357.html

*PHC = President Hopey-Changey

Left Side of the Aisle #62 - Part 4

Passing comment: Scott Brown is a coward

Just a quick comment here, more or less in passing. You know - or at least should be able to tell - that I spend very little time on the horserace aspects of politics, on particular campaigns or who's up and who's down and who said what about who when. But this struck me as particularly boorish and deserved a mention, if only a quick one.

Vickie Kennedy, Ted Kennedy's widow, had invited Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren for a campaign debate to take place in late September. It would be co-sponsored by the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate, which she is taking the lead in organizing, and UMass Boston.

Well, Scott "Pretty Boy" Brown refused to take part unless Vickie Kennedy promised to stay entirely neutral in the race, including not endorsing a candidate. The Kennedy Institute and UMass both refused to buckle to this idiocy, calling it "unprecedented" and noting it "is not being required of any other persons or entities."

Well, then, forget the whole thing, said the Brown campaign. Revealingly, Brown Campaign Manager Jim Barnett said "we cannot accept a debate invitation from someone who plans to endorse Scott Brown’s opponent." In other words, it wasn't any supposed lack of neutrality that was the problem, it wasn't the issue of an endorsement that was the problem, it was who she would endorse. That is, not him. And, like a typical GOPper, when he couldn't manipulate things to his own advantage, he ran away.

Pretty Boy Brown is a coward.

Sources:
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/06/19/vicki-kennedy-rejects-scott-brown-proposed-condition-for-hosting-senate-debate/3v5TqFRQROeXuzzSMdlHyL/story.html?p1=News_links
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/kennedy-institute-rejects-browns-unprecedented-demand-on-vicki-kennedy-for-debate.php

Left Side of the Aisle #62 - Part 3

Clarabell Award: GOPper wants an end to "sob stories" about the poor and struggling

This time, the "meant to be occasional but becoming regular because I keep finding reasons to give it" Clarabell Award goes to Eric Hovde, a candidate for the GOPper nomination for US Senate in Wisconsin. During a presentation to a local Chamber of Commerce recently, after running through the usual corporate bromides about cutting corporate taxes, slashing public programs, and lowering the deficit, he went on to say that he prayed - and yes, he did day he "prayed" - that the media will write about the deficit and stop writing sob stories - and yes, he did say "sob stories" - about people struggling in the recession.

Quoting him: "Stop always writing about, 'Oh, the person couldn't get, you know, their food stamps or this or that.'" Now, leave aside the fact that according to a National Journal study of the five largest-circulation newspapers in the US, the media already give at least as much attention to the deficit as to unemployment, and usually far more. The thing is, you can see his point: The last thing any right winger wants you to hear about is the effects on actual people of the kinds of things they are proposing.

Sean Lansing, a spokesman for the campaign, said Hovde was saying "that issues like waste, fraud, abuse and out-of-control government spending are what's really hurting the poor."

Oh, barf. I remember years back when some lame-o GOPper running for Congress claimed "the cruelest tax on the poor is inflation," which was a GOPper sound byte at the time. Not hunger, not unemployment, not inadequate housing, not inadequate public services, not lack of health care, not lack of opportunity, not the lack of a future or the hope for one, no, no, none of that was the real problem for the poor. It was "inflation." Then, as now, the GOPpers will tell you that the real problem for the poor is whatever they themselves are concerned with at the moment.

Well, that guy was a clown. And Eric Hovde and Sean Lansing: So are you.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/18/eric-hovde-sob-stories-poor-people_n_1605343.html

Left Side of the Aisle #62 - Part 2

Good news: RI passes "Homeless Bill of Rights"

Last week, Rhode Island passed the nation's first "Homeless Bill of Rights" and did so without significant opposition. The measure formally bans discrimination against homeless people and affirms their equal access to jobs, housing and, services. It would also guarantee homeless people the right to use public sidewalks, parks, transportation, and public buildings "without discrimination on the basis of his or her housing status" - that is, just like anyone else. The law also guarantees a "reasonable expectation of privacy" with respect to personal belongings similar to that of people who have homes.

This simple and humane legislation actually flies in the fact of a trend in US cities to criminalize homelessness and things associated with homelessness. Not so long ago, the homeless were a focus of concern - and with an estimated 643,000 people homeless on any given night in the United States today, you'd think they might still be. But instead of dealing with homelessness, cities have increasingly been focusing on hiding homelessness. It's been out of sight, out of mind and we're going to make damn sure you're out of our sight.

A report in April from the White House's Interagency Council on Homelessness noted a "proliferation of local measures to criminalize 'acts of living'" such as sitting, standing or asking for money in public places.

In St. Louis, for example, police cleared out three homeless encampments along the Mississippi River. n the wake of that, a local minister leased a site for the specific purpose of giving the homeless a place to use - only to have the cops kick them out of there, too.

San Francisco has begun enforcing a ban on sitting or lying on sidewalks between 7AM and 11PM. Sit on the sidewalk in San Francisco, and you could be fined up to $500.

In San Jose, California, until recently police were just throwing away the personal possessions of homeless people seized during sweeps of homeless camps.

In Philadelphia, an ordinance took effect on June 1 under which even recognized charities cannot even feed homeless people in public places such as parks.

If you're homeless, you're regarded as a blight, you're looked down on, sneered at, dismissed, treated almost like a disease which must be quarantined. But now, happily, not in Rhode Island. Not any more. Congratulations, Rhode Island. Roger Williams would be proud.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/15/rhode-island-homeless-bill-of-rights_n_1595063.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_%28theologian%29

Left Side of the Aisle #62 - Part 1

Good news: Pro-same-sex marriage leads in WA poll

I've been talking recently about, well, not a continuing stream but at least a continuing trickle of good news on the issue of same-sex marriage. One part of that was that the state of Washington had passed a law allowing for same-sex marriage. However, implementation of the law has been delayed because opponents got enough signatures to put the measure on the November ballot. The record on such ballot measures is not good, as a combination of bigotry, fear-mongering, and often outright lies by opponents about the effects of such laws has carried the day for the reactionaries.

So it's a bit of good news to learn that according to the most recent poll by Public Policy Polling, 51% of Washington voters believe same-sex marriage should be legal, compared with 42% who believe it should be illegal. While that's not an overwhelming lead, it is a hopeful one.

Here's something even more significant for the longer term: The same poll showed that a whopping 77% of voters said same-sex couples should have legal recognition: 47% say they should be allowed to marry and an additional 30% say they should be able to form civil unions. Only 21% opposed any form of legal recognition.

A few years ago, the bigots were sneering that same-sex marriage had only been "imposed" by "unelected judges" and no legislature had ever approved it. Well, now several have and so they've fallen back to the position that same-sex marriage has never been approved in a referendum. But this year Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and of course Washington are poised to do precisely that, as all four states have referendums about same-sex marriage and the pro-marriage side is leading in all four states, in some cases by substantial margins. I wonder what the reactionaries' fallback will be then.

Sources:
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/washington-gay-marriage-referendum-poll-mckenna-inslee.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/maine-poll-king-strong-favorite-in-senate-race
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/MarylandPollingMemo.pdf
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/minnesota-gay-marriage-amendment-poll-losing-support.php

Left Side of the Aisle #62

Left Side of the Aisle for June 21-27, 2012

This week:

Good news: Pro-same-sex marriage leads in WA poll
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/washington-gay-marriage-referendum-poll-mckenna-inslee.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/maine-poll-king-strong-favorite-in-senate-race
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/MarylandPollingMemo.pdf
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/minnesota-gay-marriage-amendment-poll-losing-support.php

Good news: RI passes "Homeless Bill of Rights"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/15/rhode-island-homeless-bill-of-rights_n_1595063.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_%28theologian%29

Clarabell Award: GOPper wants an end to "sob stories" about the poor and struggling
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/18/eric-hovde-sob-stories-poor-people_n_1605343.html

Passing comment: Scott Brown is a coward
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/06/19/vicki-kennedy-rejects-scott-brown-proposed-condition-for-hosting-senate-debate/3v5TqFRQROeXuzzSMdlHyL/story.html
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/kennedy-institute-rejects-browns-unprecedented-demand-on-vicki-kennedy-for-debate.php

Outrage of the Week: NY Times attacked for informing citizens what is being done in their name
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/jill-abramson-new-york-times-leaks-white-house_n_1608357.html

Attacking public employee unions by attacking their pensions
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/06/07/3647603/public-employees-under-scrutiny.html
http://www.epi.org/publication/debunking_the_myth_of_the_overcompensated_public_employee/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_Is_Falling_%28fable%29

Should Obama be defeated?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/roberto-unger-obama_n_1602812.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Gnf4k8EaL7M
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_02_15.html#002587
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6074121&postID=8380306191896766754
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/03/make_it_count.php#more?ref=fpblg

Outrage of the Week: your job or your vote

You probably recall all the arguments about the federal deficit and the deficit commission and how it couldn't come to an agreement even though the media are acting like it did, repeatedly referring to “the report of the Simpson-Bowles Commission” even though that “report” came just from the co-chairs, not the whole commission.

Well, part of the deal establishing that commission was that if it could not come up with an agreement, there would be automatic cuts in spending of $1.2 trillion over the next ten years, split equally between military spending and domestic spending.

The clock is ticking on those automatic cuts, which are supposed to go into effect on January 1. Now, some in - and some out - of Congress are pounding the drums ever louder that we must not cut military spending. Everything else? Fine. Well, except our salaries and perks. But everything else, okay. You want to cut food stamps? Fine. You want to cut housing assistance? Fine. You want to cut school lunches, WIC, education programs, environmental programs, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment compensation? Fine, fine, all fine. But we must not cut military spending. In fact, in May the House voted to shift all the first year cuts in the military to domestic programs.

The move is likely to go nowhere in the Senate, leaving the fear merchants of the Pentagon still facing a 10-year, $600 billion, across-the-board spending cut, about 8% of its current budget. Note that is, again, a cut of 8% over 10 years, or about 0.8% per year.

That prospect of a less-than-one-percent cut per year has lead to a campaign using terms like “a heavy blow,” "gutted,” “devastated,” a “hollow force,” and "debilitating." Lindsay Graham actually stood on the Senate floor and said

The debate on the debt is an opportunity to send the world a signal that we are going to remain the strongest military force in the world. We’re saying, "We’re going to keep it, and we’re going to make it the No. 1 priority of a broke nation."

We can’t produce jobs for the unemployed, we can’t provide care for our sick, we can’t feed our hungry, we can’t afford housing for our homeless, we can’t aid our poor, but dammit it all, we will feed the hogs at the Pentagon!

While that's outrageous in its deceit, its lies, and its indifference to the effects on the millions of people who are of no concern to the elites, the real reason this is under the Outrage of the Week is how Pentagon contractors are doing their part in the effort.

Claiming they are facing economic uncertainty, those contractors are plotting to get Congress to block the cuts in the Death Machine by threatening to send out hundreds of thousands of layoff notices right before Election Day.

Todd Harrison, at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, notes that

You could do a layoff notice that just informs people they might be laid off, and you could do that very broadly. Do companies make the notices go to all of their employees, half of their employees or just the 10 percent of their employees who are likely to be affected?

The answer, I expect, depends solely on what they think will be best for their bottom lines.

Threatening peoples’ jobs in order to keep the gravy train running. That is hardly unprecedented - but it's still the Outrage of the Week.

Sources:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77400.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/us/politics/budget-control-act-military-cuts-raise-concerns.html?google_editors_picks=true

Global warming: nearing a tipping point

According to new research by an international group of 18 scientists, published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature, Earth is rapidly headed toward a catastrophic breakdown, a tipping point marked by extinctions and unpredictable changes on a scale not seen in 12,000 years.

A tipping point in when increasing pressure on a system produces sudden, dramatic changes whose form can’t be exactly predicted even as the type and direction of changes can be. Think of blowing up a balloon: It will expand and expand, but at some point it will burst. In the same way, constantly putting more pressure on the environment will lead to a point of no return, producing major changes occurring in unpredictable ways.

The most recent example of one of these transitions is the end of the last ice age, about 12,000 years ago. Within about 3,000 years, the Earth went from being 30 percent covered in ice to being nearly ice-free. This also involved a wave of extinctions and ecological changes that occurred in little more than 1500 years. That may sound like a long time, but that is little more than a snap of the fingers in terms of geological time. And the changes we are causing now - including temperature increases - are both bigger and occurring more rapidly than those that ended the ice age.

Again, the results are difficult to predict; tipping points, by definition, produce results that can’t be predicted exactly. But based on past transitions, these scientists predict a major loss of species as well as changes in the makeup of species on the local level. As one of the scientists said,

You can envision these state changes as a fast period of adjustment where we get pushed through the eye of the needle. As we're going through the eye of the needle, that's when we see political strife, economic strife, war and famine.

Reflecting that sort of prospect, concern about global warming is spreading beyond the realms of climatologists and environmentalists. Public health specialists are increasingly concerned about the potential impacts on patterns of physical activity, food availability, and distribution of disease, among others. A paper published a couple of weeks ago in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS Medicine raised those issues and forecast an increase in diseases particularly affecting the poor, such as malaria and dengue fever, as well as heat stroke in drought-afflicted areas.

This is not the first time health officials have considered the potential human toll of climate change. In March, a group of doctors suggested that the incidence of asthma and other lung respiratory illnesses could increase as a result of global warming because it could lead to longer pollen seasons and to increasing the ranges of disease-causing molds and disease-carrying mosquitoes.

Meanwhile, here at home, the heat is on. According to NOAA, the average temperature for the 48 contiguous US states during May made it the second warmest May on record. Record keeping began in 1895, so that makes it the second warmest May in at least 117 years. We also had the warmest spring on that record, that is, the warmest spring in at least 117 years, the warmest year-to-date on record, and the warmest 12-month period on record. Besides the warmest spring, that 12-month period also included the second warmest summer and the fourth warmest winter. Forty-seven of the 48 contiguous states had warmer than average temperatures for the period; the only exception was Washington, which was near normal.

Now, as I often note, one event, even one year, is not proof of human-driven climate change. One hot year no more proves global warming than one cool year disproves it. The issue is the trend over time. But this is one more data point in a mountain - a growing mountain - of data points which all say the same thing: Humanity is screwing with the climate in ways harmful to our own future.

In fact, here's another interesting data point: Last July, scientists happened upon a massive phytoplankton bloom in the Arctic, one like none seen before. It covered 62 miles (100 km) and was dense enough to make the water a murky green. One scientist said it was like “finding the Amazon rainforest in the middle of the Mojave Desert." In fact, it was so much that the researchers initially thought something was wrong with their instruments.

The real shocker, though, was that the bloom was growing under thick sea ice, where sunlight is limited. A massive bloom in the dark, under the ice, was described a being a lot like a polar bear cub getting fat on a diet of nothing.

Researchers realized the bloom happened because the sea ice, instead of blocking sunlight, is melting and getting thinner, and the melt pools on the surface actually magnify sunlight. This creates conditions more favorable for algae than areas that have no ice cover. In other words, this is a visible effect of global warming that could presage a change in the ecosystem of the Arctic.

Global warming is real, it is driven by human activity, and it is having visible, measurable effects today.

So what are we doing about it? Late last year, officials from around the world met in Durban, South Africa to discuss climate change. At that meeting, the world's three biggest producers of greenhouse gases - India, China, and the United States, agreed to continue talking about possibly maybe someday limiting their carbon emissions.

Sometimes I am glad to know that I will not live long enough to see the world I see coming.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/07/earth-tipping-point-study_n_1577835.html
www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/06/05/expert-climate-change-will-increasingly-become-global-health-issue
http://www.care2.com/causes/immense-algae-bloom-signals-major-change-in-arctic.html
http://www.care2.com/causes/spring-of-2012-warmest-on-record.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120607185751.htm
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/03/15/doctors-warn-climate-change-may-lead-to-spike-in-asthma-cases