The very nature of capitalism, that is, the need for constant growth, is anathema to the proper function of government.

From a letter from David.

Virtually every example of government failure: the wars, the banks crisis, unemployment, health care, airline security; is a result of business interests run amok.

The cruel irony is that our government has failed us by its failure to act against private interests.

Increased regulation of some industries is necessary, while some tasks should be the exclusive domain of the government.

The very nature of capitalism, that is, the need for constant growth, is anathema to the proper function of government.

Private management of prisons demands an ever increasing prison population. Private military contracting demands ever more war.

Private health insurers have a profound incentive to deny care as a means of controlling costs and increasing revenue.

We have been hoodwinked by these very same enterprises to surrender the public interest to desires of the very few."

This describes the face of the Republican party, and increasingly, the Democratic party as well.

Charles Grodin on the Felony Murder Rule

Letter from Charles Grodin to Supreme Court Justice Kennedy on the Felony Murder Rule
February 19, 2010 by shoofoolatte

February 16, 2010

Honorable Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street
Washington, DC N.E. 20543

Dear Honorable Associate Justice Kennedy,

I was heartened to read your remarks on our Justice system in the New York Times today. Just so you don’t think the dad from the Beethoven movies is writing you, I began working on justice system issues in 1995, when I began my cable show on CNBC. In 2004 I was cited by Governor Pataki of New York for helping reform the Rockefeller Drug Laws. I have been able to gain clemency for many non violent inmates in New York.

Late last year I met with Attorney General Eric Holder to discuss the Felony Murder Rule, which is felt by many to be the most heinous piece of legislation we have in America. Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania, currently the President of the Governor’s Association is very supportive, as is Senator Orrin Hatch. Norman Reimer, the Executive Director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has recently agreed to put the constitutionality of the Felony Murder Rule on their agenda.

The most striking example of this law is the case of Ryan Holle, a young man in Florida, who is serving a life sentence with no chance of parole; even though no one disputes he was home asleep in bed at the time of the crime. He had lent his car to his roommate, who with others committed a robbery and a murder. The prosecution simply said “No car. No murder.” The Felony Murder Rule must qualify as cruel and unusual punishment. It’s certainly unusual, as we are the only country in the world to retain it. England and all civilized countries in Europe, as well as India and Canada have eliminated it. It certainly is cruel, if a boy home asleep in bed at the time of the crime can be given a life sentence
with no chance of parole.

I don’t sufficiently understand how the system works to know how you could be helpful. I would imagine a Felony Murder case would have to come before you, but perhaps you can speak out about it, as you have on other justice system issues.

Thank you on behalf of all the tens of thousands of people in prison who don’t belong there. I can’t resist ending this with something you obviously know. We represent five percent of the world’s population and twenty five percent of the world’s prison population. As Senator Webb recently said so eloquently “We are either the most evil people on earth, or there’s something wrong with our justice system.” I don’t believe we’re the most evil people on earth.

Sincerely,

Charles Grodin

What's The Matter With Kansas

The Rich vrs. the poor, and why the poor vote to keep themselves poor.

+

A book by historian Thomas Frank

+

According to his analysis, the political discourse of recent decades has dramatically shifted from the class animus of traditional leftism to one in which "explosive" cultural issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, are used to redirect anger towards "liberal elites."

Against this backdrop, Frank describes the rise of conservatism and the so-called far right in the social and political landscape of Kansas. He finds extraordinary irony in working-class Kansans' overwhelming support for Republican politicians, despite his belief that the economic policies of the Republican party are wreaking havoc on their communities and livelihoods for the benefit of the extremely wealthy. Meanwhile, he says, the party fails to deliver on the "moral" issues (such as abortion and gay rights) which brought the support of cultural conservatives in the first place -- deepening a cycle of frustration aimed at cultural liberalism.

Frank also sees the bitter divide between moderate and conservative Kansas Republicans (whom he labels "Mods" and "Cons") as an archetype for the future of politics in America, in which fiscal conservatism becomes the universal norm and political war is waged over a handful of hot-button cultural issues.

Not long ago, Kansas would have responded to the current situation by making the bastards pay. This would have been a political certainty, as predictable as what happens when you touch a match to a puddle of gasoline. When business screwed the farmers and the workers - when it implemented monopoly strategies invasive beyond the Populists' furthest imaginings -- when it ripped off shareholders and casually tossed thousands out of work -- you could be damned sure about what would follow.

Not these days. Out here the gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: to the right, to the right, further to the right. Strip today's Kansans of their job security, and they head out to become registered Republicans. Push them off their land, and next thing you know they're protesting in front of abortion clinics. Squander their life savings on manicures for the CEO, and there's a good chance they'll join the John Birch Society. But ask them about the remedies their ancestors proposed (unions, antitrust, public ownership), and you might as well be referring to the days when knighthood was in flower.

The book also details how then Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, a liberal Democrat who is a native of Ohio, was able to win in conservative Kansas. By emphasizing issues like health care and school funding, and avoiding hot-button social issues, Sebelius successfully fractured the Kansas GOP and won a clear majority.

He says that the conservative coalition is the dominant coalition in American politics. His theory is that while the two halves may not dislike each other, they have fundamentally different interests. The economic conservatives want business tax cuts and deregulation. Frank says that since the coalition formed in the late 1960s, the coalition has been "fantastically rewarding" for the economic conservatives. The policies of the Republicans in power have been exclusively economic, but the coalition has caused the social conservatives to be worse off, due to these very economic policies and because the social issues that this faction pushes never go anywhere after the election. According to Frank, "abortion is never outlawed, school prayer never returns, the culture industry is never forced to clean up its act." He attributes this partly to conservatives "waging cultural battles where victory is impossible," such as a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He also argues that the very capitalist system the economic conservatives strive to strengthen and deregulate promotes and commercially markets the perceived assault on traditional values.

Franks applies his thesis to answer the question of why these social conservatives continue to vote for Republicans, even though they are voting against their best interests. He argues that politicians and pundits stir the "Cons" to action by evoking certain issues, such as abortion, immigration, or taxation. By portraying themselves to be the champion of the conservatives on these issues, the politicians can get "Cons" to vote them into office. However, once in office, these politicians turn their attention to more mundane economic issues, such as business tax reduction or deregulation. In order to explain to the "Cons" why no progress gets made on these issues, politicians and pundits point their fingers to a "liberal elite," a straw man representing everything that conservatism is not. When reasons are given, they eschew economic reasons in favor of accusing this elite of simply hating America, or having a desire to harm "average" Americans. This theme of victimization by these "elites" is pervasive in conservative literature, despite the fact that at the time conservatives controlled all three branches of government, was being served by an extensive media devoted only to conservative ideology, and conservatives had won 6 of the previous 9 presidential elections.

According to his analysis, the political discourse of recent decades has dramatically shifted from the class animus of traditional leftism to one in which "explosive" cultural issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, are used to redirect anger towards "liberal elites."

Against this backdrop, Frank describes the rise of conservatism and the so-called far right in the social and political landscape of Kansas. He finds extraordinary irony in working-class Kansans' overwhelming support for Republican politicians, despite his belief that the economic policies of the Republican party are wreaking havoc on their communities and livelihoods for the benefit of the extremely wealthy. Meanwhile, he says, the party fails to deliver on the "moral" issues (such as abortion and gay rights) which brought the support of cultural conservatives in the first place -- deepening a cycle of frustration aimed at cultural liberalism.

Frank also sees the bitter divide between moderate and conservative Kansas Republicans (whom he labels "Mods" and "Cons") as an archetype for the future of politics in America, in which fiscal conservatism becomes the universal norm and political war is waged over a handful of hot-button cultural issues.

Not long ago, Kansas would have responded to the current situation by making the bastards pay. This would have been a political certainty, as predictable as what happens when you touch a match to a puddle of gasoline. When business screwed the farmers and the workers - when it implemented monopoly strategies invasive beyond the Populists' furthest imaginings -- when it ripped off shareholders and casually tossed thousands out of work -- you could be damned sure about what would follow.

Not these days. Out here the gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: to the right, to the right, further to the right. Strip today's Kansans of their job security, and they head out to become registered Republicans. Push them off their land, and next thing you know they're protesting in front of abortion clinics. Squander their life savings on manicures for the CEO, and there's a good chance they'll join the John Birch Society. But ask them about the remedies their ancestors proposed (unions, antitrust, public ownership), and you might as well be referring to the days when knighthood was in flower.

The book also details how then Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, a liberal Democrat who is a native of Ohio, was able to win in conservative Kansas. By emphasizing issues like health care and school funding, and avoiding hot-button social issues, Sebelius successfully fractured the Kansas GOP and won a clear majority.

He says that the conservative coalition is the dominant coalition in American politics. His theory is that while the two halves may not dislike each other, they have fundamentally different interests. The economic conservatives want business tax cuts and deregulation. Frank says that since the coalition formed in the late 1960s, the coalition has been "fantastically rewarding" for the economic conservatives. The policies of the Republicans in power have been exclusively economic, but the coalition has caused the social conservatives to be worse off, due to these very economic policies and because the social issues that this faction pushes never go anywhere after the election. According to Frank, "abortion is never outlawed, school prayer never returns, the culture industry is never forced to clean up its act." He attributes this partly to conservatives "waging cultural battles where victory is impossible," such as a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He also argues that the very capitalist system the economic conservatives strive to strengthen and deregulate promotes and commercially markets the perceived assault on traditional values.

Franks applies his thesis to answer the question of why these social conservatives continue to vote for Republicans, even though they are voting against their best interests. He argues that politicians and pundits stir the "Cons" to action by evoking certain issues, such as abortion, immigration, or taxation. By portraying themselves to be the champion of the conservatives on these issues, the politicians can get "Cons" to vote them into office. However, once in office, these politicians turn their attention to more mundane economic issues, such as business tax reduction or deregulation. In order to explain to the "Cons" why no progress gets made on these issues, politicians and pundits point their fingers to a "liberal elite," a straw man representing everything that conservatism is not. When reasons are given, they eschew economic reasons in favor of accusing this elite of simply hating America, or having a desire to harm "average" Americans. This theme of victimization by these "elites" is pervasive in conservative literature, despite the fact that at the time conservatives controlled all three branches of government, was being served by an extensive media devoted only to conservative ideology, and conservatives had won 6 of the previous 9 presidential elections.

According to his analysis, the political discourse of recent decades has dramatically shifted from the class animus of traditional leftism to one in which "explosive" cultural issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, are used to redirect anger towards "liberal elites."

Against this backdrop, Frank describes the rise of conservatism and the so-called far right in the social and political landscape of Kansas. He finds extraordinary irony in working-class Kansans' overwhelming support for Republican politicians, despite his belief that the economic policies of the Republican party are wreaking havoc on their communities and livelihoods for the benefit of the extremely wealthy. Meanwhile, he says, the party fails to deliver on the "moral" issues (such as abortion and gay rights) which brought the support of cultural conservatives in the first place -- deepening a cycle of frustration aimed at cultural liberalism.

Frank also sees the bitter divide between moderate and conservative Kansas Republicans (whom he labels "Mods" and "Cons") as an archetype for the future of politics in America, in which fiscal conservatism becomes the universal norm and political war is waged over a handful of hot-button cultural issues.

Not long ago, Kansas would have responded to the current situation by making the bastards pay. This would have been a political certainty, as predictable as what happens when you touch a match to a puddle of gasoline. When business screwed the farmers and the workers - when it implemented monopoly strategies invasive beyond the Populists' furthest imaginings -- when it ripped off shareholders and casually tossed thousands out of work -- you could be damned sure about what would follow.

Not these days. Out here the gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: to the right, to the right, further to the right. Strip today's Kansans of their job security, and they head out to become registered Republicans. Push them off their land, and next thing you know they're protesting in front of abortion clinics. Squander their life savings on manicures for the CEO, and there's a good chance they'll join the John Birch Society. But ask them about the remedies their ancestors proposed (unions, antitrust, public ownership), and you might as well be referring to the days when knighthood was in flower.

The book also details how then Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, a liberal Democrat who is a native of Ohio, was able to win in conservative Kansas. By emphasizing issues like health care and school funding, and avoiding hot-button social issues, Sebelius successfully fractured the Kansas GOP and won a clear majority.

He says that the conservative coalition is the dominant coalition in American politics. His theory is that while the two halves may not dislike each other, they have fundamentally different interests. The economic conservatives want business tax cuts and deregulation. Frank says that since the coalition formed in the late 1960s, the coalition has been "fantastically rewarding" for the economic conservatives. The policies of the Republicans in power have been exclusively economic, but the coalition has caused the social conservatives to be worse off, due to these very economic policies and because the social issues that this faction pushes never go anywhere after the election. According to Frank, "abortion is never outlawed, school prayer never returns, the culture industry is never forced to clean up its act." He attributes this partly to conservatives "waging cultural battles where victory is impossible," such as a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He also argues that the very capitalist system the economic conservatives strive to strengthen and deregulate promotes and commercially markets the perceived assault on traditional values.

Franks applies his thesis to answer the question of why these social conservatives continue to vote for Republicans, even though they are voting against their best interests. He argues that politicians and pundits stir the "Cons" to action by evoking certain issues, such as abortion, immigration, or taxation. By portraying themselves to be the champion of the conservatives on these issues, the politicians can get "Cons" to vote them into office. However, once in office, these politicians turn their attention to more mundane economic issues, such as business tax reduction or deregulation. In order to explain to the "Cons" why no progress gets made on these issues, politicians and pundits point their fingers to a "liberal elite," a straw man representing everything that conservatism is not. When reasons are given, they eschew economic reasons in favor of accusing this elite of simply hating America, or having a desire to harm "average" Americans. This theme of victimization by these "elites" is pervasive in conservative literature, despite the fact that at the time conservatives controlled all three branches of government, was being served by an extensive media devoted only to conservative ideology, and conservatives had won 6 of the previous 9 presidential elections.

how to get the lower classes to stupidly vote against their own interests

Hi,

The bifurcation of our society into the poor and the rich, and the over-concentration of our wealth, has to do with LOWERING the expectations of the lower class, and RAISING the entitlements of the upper class.

It's nothing new.

The "new ideas" of neo-cons are not new at all. They go back to the times of 16-hour days, 6.5 days per week.

Before unions, workers were degraded and wages lowered by importing ever more desperate immigrants.

"...1847-48 first migration of Irish immigrants into the coal towns, due to potato famine and land seizures...operators actively recruited in Ireland to maintain a supply of 'greenhorns'-created riots among the Welsh and English miners...566 miners were killed, 1,655 in Schuylkill County 1/4 of the work force-- were children ages 7-16, working first as breaker boys and then as miners..,"
http://student.ccbcmd.edu/~wbarry/Mollytimeline.doc

Instead of importing desperate immigrants, the rich now can export the work to overseas sweat shops, putting American workers on the street.

So it's just the problem of how to get the lower classes to stupidly vote against their own interests. That's how the "tea party" revival of Republican neo-cons was born.

Now that the upper class has its way, the lower classes, befuddled by Foxnoise, will be pushed into extreme poverty; ironically, the same amount of money changes hands, but instead of 10,000 folks spending $100 each, it's 10 rich folks spending $100,000 each.

Poor folks can go into the army, security, or work as servitors for the rich.

Dumbed-down by failed educational theories and "babysitting" schools, the intellectually impoverished don't even know what's happening to them, as their pockets are picked and then their pants ripped off.

Logical solutions to big problems such as getting rid of dirty coal and dirty oil are ignored, because they're too complex for a twittering, facile world hooked on bubble-headed ditto-think.

With oil, for example, the entire farce of fighting for, drilling for, refining and mining oil is merely a psychodramatic exercise in futility, simply for the purpose of keeping money flow in the hands of the very rich. Never mind that the energy used to refine oil, alone, would, if rationally used, more than supply our transportation needs if we used plug-in cars.

Never mind that solar power is cheaper than coal, and that our coal mines, if covered with solar panels instead of bulldozed into toxic open pit scars, would produce more energy than the coal!

Rational solutions are lost in the haze, and the lower classes are pushed ever closer to extreme poverty. How long will the upper class continue to befuddle the American people? An open question.

Doug

You Didn'rt Get Mad

We had eight years of Bush and Cheney, Now you get mad!?

You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and
appointed a President.

You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate
energy policy.

You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.

You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.
You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.

You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.

You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.

You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.

You didn't get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans, drown.
You didn't get mad when we gave a 900 billion tax break to the rich.

You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.

You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all okay with you, but helping other Americans...oh hell no.

April 25, 2010 (A) Trade Winds Arms And The Man

Click to Play

April 25, 2010 (A) Trade Winds Arms And The Man

March 28, 2010 (M) Libertarians

Click to Play

March 28, 2010 (M) Libertarians

March 28, 2010 (L) Someone Might Be Listening

Click to Play

March 28, 2010 (L) Someone Might Be Listening

March 28, 2010 (K) School Scam

Click to Play

March 28, 2010 (K) School Scam