Thursday, May 17, 2018

Biased journalism

Ben Norton at TRNN introduced a segment with Gideon Levy with the following: "Today I’m joined by the award-winning journalist Gideon Levy. Gideon is a columnist for the major Israeli newspaper Haaretz, and a member of its editorial board. We’re going to be discussing the protests that have been going on in Gaza for the past six weeks, the so-called “Great March of Return,” which have been very brutally repressed violently by the Israeli military. On Monday, May 14, at least 60 Palestinians were killed, and more than 2200 were injured in a brutal crackdown. That is in addition to the dozens more killed over the past six weeks and the thousands who have been injured."

My comment:
The host of this segment made a big mistake by labeling the Great March of Return the "so-called “Great March of Return”." 
Gazans were exercise the right to protest their repression by the Israeli government. They organized and gave their social operation a name. I do not know Israel's laws regarding free speech but if Israelis have freedom to speak, Israeli's violent response to the Great March of Return was a flagrant violation of the right of Gazans to speak out against their treatment. Labeling their name 'so-called' further denigrates and invalidates their attempt to speak out. Freedom to speak and the free press is under attack in many places of the world, including the U.S. with DJT's 'fake news' moniker. As one of the first countries to codify the right to speak freely into the Constitution, all Americans should respect the right of a people to self-identify, self-organize and freely associate for the purpose of expression. As a [so-called] journalist, the host of this segment should have, at minimum, done the same.

DJT's 'negotiating style'

My comment:
In the distant possibility that DJT and KJU actually meet face to face, I predict DJT will attempt a jovial gab-fest followed by grovelling at KJU's feet for any sliver of a 'deal' that he can take to the cameras to announce as the 'best deal in the history of the world' followed by a demand for the Nobel Peace Prize. 
'Businessman' DJT didn't make money through 'deal making'; he made money by using mafia-like tactics to swindle investors, contractors and customers alike. He doesn't deal, he uses fixers like Michael Cohen to strong arm.

Thursday, May 3, 2018

A discussion at TRNN asked if a universal basic income were Progressive or Regressive?

My comment:

"What do you think of this basic income, and is it progressive or is it a regressive tool?" 
Her answer already says it's the wrong question. The right question: does basic income change the balance of power in that a few people become more powerful? The answer is yes; the people charged with the power to collect and distribute these monies become more powerful. Further concentrating power is dangerous because those in control will never give up power and eventually power corrupts their original good intentions... just look at the U.S.... many social problems intended to assist/benefit the needy/low income are under constant assault by politicians of both major parties. Instead of creating (political) solutions to inequality (collect and redistribute money), change the system so capital is distributed more equally in the first place. 
"...the idea is that, if the minimum wage were eliminated, then hiring workers would be less expensive and firms would be more likely to hire them, as opposed to investing in labor-saving technology." 
Robots do not eat food, buy shelter nor wear clothing. No-income people cannot eat food, buy shelter nor wear clothing. How do robots which don't earn money and people without money build a functioning economy which requires movement of money? Mass automation will create a class of people without access to traditional money who survive through an underground economy, likely with a lot of bartering... the implosion of capitalism.

This is a huge error in reasoning on part of the interviewer!

Friday, March 16, 2018

The Moral Crisis of Our Age

On Friday, DWT's Midnight Meme of the Day was a quote by Robert Reich. To paraphrase, he essentially said the moral crisis of our age is not social issues but capitalist driven income inequality. My comment:

The moral crisis of our [modern] age is the concentration of power. This is not a new phenomenon; in the past, the Magna Carta, the American Revolution (and Constitution) and French Revolution all attempted to redress inequity. The nuclear bomb and nuclear button epitomizes the immorality of such power - how is it moral to knowingly and voluntarily give power over life and death of humanity to one person (every leader with power to launch a nuclear weapon)? From an economic perspective, how is it moral for the few owners of Koch industries to fully control the livelihoods of 120,000 workers & their families, much less be so prevalent that it's impossible to not use their products. What is the moral justification for allowing a few bankers the power to crash the national economy and likely depress the world economy?


Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Guns don't kill people...

There was another mass school shooting yesterday. This time in Florida with 17 dead so far. Every American knows the standard NRA/Republican Party response: thoughts and prayers; too soon to talk about gun control and the incredibly hackneyed, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Let me offer an analogy...

Guns don't kill people in the same way the influenza virus doesn't kill people. Flu victims with strained immune systems succumb to secondary infections. In the same manner, the primary condition of being 'people' does not mean they automatically pick up any available instrument to kill other people. It's people with stressful secondary conditions such as mental illness, anger issues and other social pressures who succumb to the easy solution of readily available guns to 'solve' their problems.

So I suggest that all supporters of unlimited/unrestrained gun rights not get a flu shot this flu season. They can take their chances with the flu virus just as they inflict the gun virus on the entire country. Hopefully, their stupidity will earn them a Darwin Award to the benefit of humanity.

Tuesday, January 2, 2018

Universal Establishment against the Resistance

"...on the one hand, this universalization, but on the other hand, are we becoming more fragmented?... How does that go together, on the one hand the universalization and on the other hand this fragmentation?" 
The establishment, also known as the system, is unified and highly successful in fragmenting the working people of the world. They use identity and social issues to splinter voters into opposing groups so they are disinclined to organize significant resistance. For example, the Republican and Democratic Parties don't particularly care abortion; so long as individual politicians can get the medical care they seek for their families, they aren't concerned if poor women have access to abortion or reproductive care. They care about policies that their donors want. Abortion is useful because it polarizes their electorate and generates a mock conflict between the pro and anti sides (like pro-wrestling) which distracts the real policy intent of the Republican and Democratic Parties which is to always advance the concentration and transfer of power/wealth to their donors. 
The key to resist voter fragmentation is not to ignore the differences but to unify to respect these differences and advocate for each others' rights to those positions. The poor, brown, white, low wage, immigrant, women, LGBT and other groups are not outsiders; they are insiders, part of the group. In this country, they are all known as Americans but workers should not overlook the same systemic pattern of deliberate fragmentation that is also exercised abroad. The system uses competition between native and foreign workers to sow division internationally. The entire point of corporate/trade globalization is to create wage competition to force down production costs. Worker unity must also cross national borders if the establishment/system is to be contained.

Arms 'Marketing'

Short video of William Hartung at TRNN describing how the MIC profits from war and government policy. My comment:

William Hartung hit the nail right square on the head. A popular meme spouted by many pro-capitalist economists is that in free markets, market forces (consumer spending/consumption) drives what gets produced. But somehow, these same economists never examine the 'market forces' of the planned military arms economy (created by governments, especially by the U.S. government). The planned military economy creates forces of lobbyists and special interests who advocate for constant war and continuous arms race. Instead of buying food, childcare, medical care, education and intact ecosystem for our children and grandchildren, American taxpayers are buying updated nuclear weapons and other military hardware, war game exercises, ill-will from hundreds of foreign military bases and global instability from waging and fomenting war. These are economic decisions and American voters need to understand the spending priorities of their government in that light. 
Another useful tool maybe to redefine what economies are. The word 'economy' has Greek roots meaning house or home. The common definition of economy is focused on production/consumption of consumer goods for the purpose of generating profit, a far cry from house/home. A much better definition would be self-organizing and self-sustaining systems of production, distribution and consumption of goods and services that promote the well-being of all participants. This would automatically make some sectors of the modern economy 'uneconomic' because they do not promote well-being... the entire offensive arms/military industrial sector.

Name of piece: Code Pink Conference: The Arms Industry Hides Behind Euphemisms (December 29, 2017)