Yelling at the Dogs

I yelled at my dogs this morning. I was so angry and they were the only people around to yell at. It was because I was listening to Air America Radio which was talking about an article in Mother Jones called The Highwaymen.

American roads, roads paid for with our taxes, are being sold to private, usually foreign interests, as toll roads.

It made me furious. It made me feel like I did when I was burglarized. Stuff it took me years to work and save for was stolen. This is the same thing. Infrastructure the American people worked and paid for over the course of decades is being stolen. We are being robbed. And there is nothing we can do about it. Our national resources are being taken, our national infrastructure sold off, usually at less than cost. Probably the people doing the selling are bribed, paid off in some way.

There is no end to the harm this Republican Administration has done, no end to the harm the plutocracy is doing to our nation. Because there is no end to their greed. Anyway, just hearing about it made me furious. So I yelled at my dogs.

Come the revolution, we must nationalize our natural resources and renationalize our infrastructure. We must also prosecute as traitors those officials complicit in this sellout. We must also be willing to fight any foreign country that tries to stop us from recovering what is ours, what was stolen from us, just as we had to in 1776.

~~~~~~~~~

© alllie 2007

Distribution: This article is copyrighted by alllie, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web media so long as you tell me where and this credit is attached as well as a link back to this page, http://www.alllie.com/alllieblog/.

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise: Was Bush Surprised on 911?

Was George Bush surprised by the terrorist attacks on 911. That day, at the Emma E. Booker Elementary School, he was informed by Andy Card that America was under attack.
Let’s look at the pictures. Never before has a president been being filmed, and from so many different angles, while he is being informed of an attack on our nation.


Andy Card approaches Bush.



Does he look surprised to you?

Surprise is a fleeting emotion and expression. Surprise is involuntary. If you are surprised your face does certain things automatically without you thinking about it or being able to stop it. The eyes widen. The wider the eyes, the more surprised a person looks. The widening of the eyes is helped by the eyebrows lifting. Either the mouth falls open with none of the surrounding muscles contracted or the lips are pursed together in a small O.

According to Darwin (in The Expression Of The Emotions In Man And Animals), surprise is accompanied by a desire to see what has surprised us, thus the eyes widen, and by preparation for possible swift activity, which requires a deep breath through an opened mouth.

This is surprise*:


And this:


And this:



This expression – I remember it. When I turned on my TV the morning of 911 I remember my mouth falling open, my eyes widening. I remember my surprise.

Does George Bush look surprised to you?


His mouth doesn’t fall open even briefly. His eyebrows are not raised. He doesn’t even widen his eyes, which should be an involuntary response to surprise.

I think there is a good reason his face never showed surprise: Because he wasn’t surprised and he wasn’t surprised because he knew what was going to happen.

Even this prehistoric mask shows more surprise than Bush did on 911:


Isn’t it time 911 was really investigated?

*All drawings from The Artist’s Complete Guide to Facial Expressions by Gary Faigin

~~~~~~~~~

© alllie 2006

Distribution: This article is copyrighted by alllie, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web media so long as you tell me where and this credit is attached as well as a link back to this page, http://www.alllie.com/alllieblog/.

Come the Revolution

Yes, I know. A hopeless hope.
But maybe not.

A Caligula…can rule a long time while the best men hesitate to do what is necessary to stop him and the worst ones take advantage. Lois McMaster Bujold, Shards of Honor

The day came when the French military would not protect Louis XVI. The day came when the Russian military would not protect the czar. The day came when the Italian military would not protect Mussolini. The day may come when the US military will not protect Bush. The military seems increasingly aware that Bush and Cheney have used them to betray the American people and used them to subvert the constitution they have sworn to protect. They seem increasingly tired of being used, tired of being the torturers, of being the bad guys, of being set up for torture themselves. And all they would have to do is… nothing. Just a couple of days of…nothing. Of looking outward, guarding the nation, and not the monster.

The Bush Junta knows this. They have spent more time and effort courting the military than they have even in manipulating the American people, though this courtship has evolved into capture when it comes to the Air Force. The plutocracy has looked across the world and seen how severe fundamentalist creeds have been used, are used to keep a small number of corrupt individuals, a small number of greedy families in power through the decades, through the centuries. They have seen it and envied it. Now they wish to do the same thing here. You need the Army to hold a country, the Marines and Navy to take it, but you only need the Air Force to destroy it. Thus the Air Force Academy is riddled with fundies and Christian Nationalists trying to convert young officers into warriors for this creed. They expect when these young soldiers swear to defend and protect the constitution, which will not be meaningless words for most of them, being young and full of concepts like “honor” and “patriotism”, that even then they will allow their religious beliefs to trump their oath to defend the constitution.

But… come the revolution…

There is thought and there is action. Do not confuse the two. When the time comes to act, your thought must already be complete. There will be no room for it when the action begins.
Quellcrist in Richard K. Morgan’s Woken Furies

So as we wait/work/hope for that day we must think. A movement without goals, a movement without an ideology, is like a car without steering. It can only crash into things. It can only produce destruction, not progress. We need to develop our goals now, develop our ideology now. We must think how to stop this from ever happening again.

First, come the revolution, we must keep the constitution both because we love it, have been taught to love it and because it has served us well until the present dictatorship learned how to subvert it. We will keep our oaths to defend it.

But we will need to amend it.
Here are some of the amendments I would like to propose:

Presidential Power: We need a clear amendment stating that it is the Congress, not the president, that makes all laws and that Congress has the ultimate power. It must be clear that the president is never above the law, that he is not the law’s master, he is its servant. His job, his only job, is to execute the laws passed by Congress. Not shape them. Not ignore them.

For a start presidential signing statements will be forbidden. Executive orders will be limited. The United States must have rule of law and not rule by decree. It is by transferring power to the executive that we have lost much of our representative government. We must debate how we can further weaken the office of the presidency so it cannot be exploited and its power abused.

Recess Appointments: Limitations should be place on recess appointments since Bush has used them to appoint unqualified political cronies to office. Occasionally the executive will need to fill offices while Congress is not in session so recess appointments will be allowed but such appointments should last only one month after congress returns to session, not the up to two years they might at present. For instance, if the president made a recess appointment on December 20th while Congress is adjourned and Congress returns to session on January 20th of the next year, then unless the appointment is confirmed by Febuary 20th of that year, the appointee will be removed from office and the next person in the chain of command will be temporarily appointed.

Qualifications for High Office: All but a very few federal offices must be filled based on exams and merit, not based on cronyism. The Department of Homeland Security especially must be brought under Civil Service. Even political appointees will have to prove they have training and experience in their area. No more Michael Browns. No more political appointees over departments that are scientifically oriented like the Food and Drug Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency. The heads of those departments must be civil service appointees from within those agencies and must have training and experience. No dual citizens will be allowed to be appointed to any office. A dual citizens would have dual loyalty. Since we cannot read minds we cannot know where their primary loyalty lies therefore those with dual citizenship should not be appointed to any high or strategic office.

Voting:

    ·The constitution should be amended to mandate that all elections will be held using paper ballots counted by hand and that the first counts will be at local precincts. Such counts must be done with people watching, not just pollwatchers but also citizens. No mechanism will be used.

    · Totals for each precinct will be posted on the precinct door, on the internet and published in government records. This will allow the people of each precinct to evaluate if the totals for their neighborhood are credible. They may challenge them if they are not or if there is any significant discrepancy in the vote totals.

    · All counts must be taped, filmed, or recorded in some way (technology changes). Ballots and count records must be secured and be available in case of challenges. Any credible challenge will result in a new election for that precinct within 10 days.

    · Elections will not be run by private entities.

    · The penalty for trying or succeeding in fixing a national election will be 10 years minimum up to 100 years, without parole.

    · All state Secretaries of State and other election officials must nonpartisan. They must never be part of any campaign apparatus. How this can be done must be debated. Honest elections are the most important part of any democracy. We have lost that. Perhaps state Secretaries of State could be chosen by sortation (chosen by lots) from among a group of qualified candidates nominated by different groups. Citizens could challenge any nominee if they can show that he/she has a history of partisan activities. All election officials should be watched closely. Election officials should be legally and financially liable for any partisan behavior, personally liable and criminally liable.

The Election of Senators: The election of Senators would be changed so that states with small populations will not have disproportionate power. It was by gaining control of such states that the present administration was able to gain power disproportionate to their popular support. Each Senator would represent an approximately equal number of people. The citizens of small states might chaff at losing a perceived power but that power was only transferred to the wealthy and powerful and was not used to serve the interest of the average citizen. These areas could be called “Senatorial Districts.” Since they would change with each new census, they would not replace states as governmental entities.

Proportional Representation: Proportional representation must be considered. This would mean if the democrats received 49% of the popular vote, the republicans received 40% of the vote, the Greens received 8% and the libertarians received 3%, each party would get that proportion of representatives in the House. (The Senate would remain Winner-Takes-All.) At present we have a winner-takes-all system. There is good and bad about each system. The winner-takes-all system keeps third parties from developing and limits progressive change. A proportional representation system can sometimes mean that small extremist parties get disproportional power, like the religious extremist parties in Israel. This should be debated. We do need to open up power to additional parties. I am not sure how this can be done.

Torture: The constitution must be amended to state that all torture and abuse is illegal, period. Torture shall be illegal for any employee of the government, for any contractor hired by the government and any entity to which the government renders any prisoner. Any attempt to deliberately cause pain, suffering or humiliation is defined as torture. No prisoner could be extradited or rendered to any country that is seen, known or suspected to engage in torture.

The Elimination of the Plutocracy: Past a certain point money ceases to be money and becomes power. People with great wealth have power over the American people, power they hold without being elected by the people, power that does not end with their term of office, power that cannot be stripped from them for bad behavior. No one can be allowed to have that much unelected power. We can use progressive income taxes and estate taxes to strip power, a.k.a., money from such individuals and families. This will be done to keep the superwealthy from using unelected power for greedy or evil purposes. We need an amendment that mandates progressive income taxes with a top rate of 90%. (The top rate in our most prosperous progressive period, which was during the 40s and 50s, was 91-94%) Very few people would be subject to this rate.

Any money made in the United States, even by a foreign corporation, would be subject to such taxes. Any entity or individual that wished to make money in our nation they would have to accept paying such taxes.

There are few things better for a nation or a group of nations than the elimination of an entrenched plutocracy. The plagues of the middle ages with their equal opportunity death opened up social and economic opportunities all across Europe and there was a surge in innovation, invention and scholarship by those able to move up from the lower classes. This produced the Renaissance.

After the French Revolution they attempted to bring to justice those who had exploited and abused those weaker than themselves. This wiped out most of the hereditary classes and the result energized the entire nation. Within a dozen years France had conquered most of Europe.

Russia did much the same and became powerful despite having an incompetent and brutal leader and despite suffering terrible losses during WWII. Before that Russia had only been an unimportant backwater nation. After that it was one of the two most important nations on earth.

The American Revolution and the huge amount of land left vacant after the plagues that devastated the native American population made it possible for people (usually white men, it is true, since women and blacks were still subjugated) of ability to achieve their potential and to enrich the nation and make most people’s lives of better.

After the civil war the entrenched plutocracy of the north grew in power until the depression. In the 1930’s when progressive income and estate taxes were enacted (instead of the guillotine), the power of this plutocracy was brought under control, leading to a surge of innovation and inventions that still continues. Sadly, this movement is slowing as such taxes have all but been eliminated. Innovations are now likely to come from outside the US as the plutocracy tightens its grip on the American population and makes it harder to get a good education or to profit from your own training or inventions. The plutocracy understands that change frequently displaces them and they meant to stop change by limiting education and innovation. Progressive income and estate taxes can reduce their wealth and therefore their power and energize the rest of the American public.

Women: Equal rights, education and employment for women including the right to control their own bodies.

Equal Rights: Equal rights, education and employment for those of all ethnic, racial and sexual orientation. (This will have to be carefully phrased so it cannot be interpreted to include rights for those whose sexual orientation includes a desire for children or to harm others in sexual activities. Giving equal rights to those who are not traditional heterosexuals must not be used to grant a small number of malevolent people the right to harm others.)

Funding of Religion: The state shall not establish or fund any religious institution directly or indirectly. This means no grants, loans or vouchers to attend any religious school or college. Grants to religious social or proselytizing groups will also be forbidden even if such groups claim to be trying to help people. Their idea of help is to often force desperate people to espouse their religion. They also have a history of discrimination based on religion and the state shall not fund such discrimination and cannot trust religious organizations to not discriminate in hiring or services so they will ineligible for government funds.

What else?
What would you include?
~~~~~~~~~

© alllie 2006

Distribution: This article is copyrighted by alllie, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web media so long as you tell me where and this credit is attached as well as a link back to this page, http://www.alllie.com/alllieblog/.

Worrying About Our Enemies, Part II

In one of my first blogs I worried about the 7 and 9 year old sons of Khalid Sheik Mohammed. They had been kidnapped by the United States and threats against them were used to try to get their father to talk. Some people denied the US would do such a thing but it has been confirmed in Ron Suskind’s book, The One Percent Doctrine.

One of the dark moments in the so-called war on terror, as I disclosed in the book, along with all the other stuff, is that we threatened Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s children to get him to talk. According to those involved in that incident, he pretty much looked them straight in the eye and said, “Fine, they’ll be in a better place with Allah.” Once you threaten someone’s children there’s pretty much nowhere else to go in terms of building the kind of relationship where they at some point tell you things that you really need to hear.
We Tortured an Insane Man

Bush advisor John Yoo has publicly argued that the president can legally order the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including crushing that child’s testicles. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11488.htm So I guess it was okay, according to him, to have those little children kidnapped and threatened. I pray it stopped at threats.

All these people, from Bush on down, need to be put in jail forever.

Bush makes me ashamed to be an American. So many things he has ordered I would have never thought America would do. I hope to see the day when he is tried and convicted for war crimes.

And I still worry about those children. Where are they now? Are they okay? Or are they still being held hostage.

~~~~~~~~~

© alllie 2006

Distribution: This article is copyrighted by alllie, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web media so long as you tell me where and this credit is attached as well as a link back to this page, http://www.alllie.com/alllieblog/.

Dear Hillary

Dear Hillary:

I would send you a real letter but I doubt it would ever get to you. You’re a busy woman, you don’t have time for letters from disgruntled non-constituents.

I read that you were considering not running for president. I had a momentary twinge because there was time I looked forward to your running, looked forward to fighting for your candidacy, and looked forward to your wining and you and President Clinton being back in the White House, this time with him as your primary advisor, instead of vice versa. But you and Bill blew it. Now when I see you or President Clinton with the Bushes, being all lovey-dovey, I scream at the TV screen, at the computer monitor, “Quisling!!”

Considering your former political acumen it’s surprising how ham-handed you and President Clinton have become, how you trashed your own hopes by aligning yourselves with the most evil people in the country. You must live in a bubble not to know how much most Democrats hate Bush and his family. When you read the polls saying that almost half the people in the US believe that the government was involved in 911, what do you think they mean by “government”? Well, the odds are they don’t mean the Social Security Administration. What they mean is Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. With their knowledge and at their command. By allying yourself with the Bushes, being part of their family, you have made it impossible for the Democratic Party to nominate you for president.

What could you have been thinking of? Can’t you recognize evil when it sits down at the dinner table with you?

I know, I know, you were trying to make it more likely that Republicans could bring themselves to vote for you (like that would happen). You also proved you had no moral center. I wasn’t surprised by President Clinton. I know what would be the moral center in most people in him is occupied by the desire to be loved…by everyone, to be at the center of the world, no matter the cost. But I thought you had a moral center, that that was why the Republicans hated you so much. But your easy slide into the arms of the Republicans, to Newt Gringich, to the Satanic Bush family, made me change my mind.

I remember when you first began to lose it: When you allied yourself with Newt Gringrich. I bet you thought the message was “this is how we get health care for everyone” and Gringrich thought the message was “this is how we fix it so corporations don’t have to provide health insurance for their employees”. But the real message was just you and Newt Gingrich standing together, allies, supporting the same thing. Everyone on our side knew Gringrich was evil. We remembered everything bad he did. Had you forgotten? We remembered that anything he was for we should be against. So the message was: Hillary sold out. I tried to chalk it up to you trying to get Republican support. But the real message was the picture of you two together. That was sickening.

Then more pictures and words starting coming out. You and President Clinton with the Bushes, praising them in the most sycophantic way possible.

How funny it must have been to the Bushes. Dubya even commented on it. You thought you were playing them, that the association would help you get elected. But they were playing you, making it impossible for you to get nominated.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President George W. Bush says Bill Clinton has become so close to his father that the Democratic former president is like a member of the family.

Asked about his father and Clinton, Bush quipped, “Yes, he and my new brother.”

“That’s a good relationship. It’s a fun relationship to watch,” Bush said in an interview with CBS News broadcast on Sunday.

While attending Pope John Paul’s funeral, Bush said, “It was fun to see the interplay between dad and Clinton. One of these days, I’ll be a member of the ex-president’s club. … I’ll be looking for something to do.” http://www.floppingaces.net/2006/01/29/bush-clinton-bush-clinton/

Yeah, it must have been funny to him.

Bush41 is the most evil America has ever produced. He’s linked to everything from the Bay of Pigs, the assassination of JFK, Watergate, the attempted assassination of Reagan, and Iran-contra. He’s at the center of so many webs that you finally realize he must be a spider. http://newsgarden.org/columns/bush&jfk.shtml

Evil incarnate and Clinton chooses him as a surrogate father.

The Clintons and the Bushes have been known to vacation together in more recent times. Earlier this year on CBS, Clinton revealed that he looks upon the Bushes as a surrogate family, and how Barbara Bush refers to him as “her son”.

… Bush Snr and former President Bill Clinton joined forces for Tsunami Relief. They appeared at this year’s Super Bowl and seemed to be having a blast together. They declared their friendship; we learn they talk on the phone often, play golf together and are just plain ‘pals.’

Whilst her husband has been hanging around with the Bushes, she [Hillary Clinton] has been living it up with the likes of Newt Gingrich, Bill Frist, John McCain and Rick Santorum. http://prisonplanet.com/Pages/Sept05/220905Clintons_Bushes.htm

Yeah, you’ve sold out, sold so far out that I doubt you have many supporters left.

Yes, there was a time, I looked forward to supporting you, but that is over. You and former President Clinton seem to know that. You’re making noises about not running. He’s talking about concentrating on poverty. Maybe you both read the polls and see your time is past. I wonder if you understand why.

Sincerely,
A former supporter

~~~~~~~~~

© alllie 2006

Distribution: This article is copyrighted by alllie, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web media so long as you tell me where and this credit is attached as well as a link back to this page, http://www.alllie.com/alllieblog/.

What good is terrorism?

What good is terrorism? What is its purpose?

Terrorism is defined by the US Department of Defense as “the unlawful use of — or threatened use of — force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.”

This brings two questions to my mind: What makes some violence lawful and some unlawful? and when has terrorism been successfully used to achieve political, religious or ideological goals?

Were the Jewish attacks on the British in Palestine unlawful? Are the attacks on US troops in Iraq unlawful? Are Palestinian attacks on their Israeli conquerors unlawful? Who says? Who makes these “laws”? For Bush and the Israelis anyone who fights them back is considered to be engaging in unlawful violence. It’s not lawful to fight your masters or your country’s invaders. Or so they claim.

What are some examples any group achieving their goals through terrorism?

I can only think of a few. Maybe I just don’t know enough history, especially the history of terrorism. If we consider the actions of the colonists in the Revolutionary War as terrorism then those attacks accomplished something. Certainly the British considered our resistance to our legitimate king as unlawful. It was only our winning that kept them from treating us as Bush or Israel treats those who resist them.

Some definitions of terrorism include assassinations, even assassinations targeted at tyrants and torturers. The anarchists of a hundred years ago engaged in a program of tyrannicide. They targeted the bad guys all across Europe. They seemed to have been less interested in intimidating governments, achieving some political goal or even rallying the people than just taking vengeance on powerful murderers. The anarchist assassins are one reason there are no absolute monarchs in Europe today. They made that role so unhealthy that now Europe’s Kings and Queens are constitutional symbols who rule nothing and spend their lives pretending to be sweetie pies. That is progress. And for that we can thank the anarchists.
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=03/12/03/6357622&query=Mike%2BDavis

I wouldn’t call the anarchist assassins terrorists. They went straight for the powerful. They tried to avoid collateral damage. Because we, we the people, we are always the collateral damage. The upper classes don’t count us but the anarchists did. They understood that the people were their constituency, not their enemy.

Even in the US the anarchists did some good. When McKinley was taken out we got Theodore Roosevelt, a progressive who made America a better place. The plutocracy would never have allowed Teddy Roosevelt to be president. He was only appointed the vice-presidential nominee to get him out of New York politics and into a powerless position. I’m not aware of any evidence that when the anarchist Czolgoscz killed McKinley that he was seeking anything more than revenge for the massacre of nineteen Slavic miners, no evidence he meant to put a better man in office. But the outcome was good for the nation or at least for most people in it.

At what point did the attacks on power become attacks on the innocent and powerless. That makes no sense. Such attacks could never rally the innocent to any cause. In fact it tends to make them support their oppressors..which may be the point. If those that claimed to be fighting for the people attacked those in power, perhaps those in power responded by blind attacks on the people, attacks that served the additional function of turning the people against those who fought for them. Perhaps those in power used fake terrorist attacks to wage secret war on their own people.

I believe terrorism became widespread in World War II when civilian populations were bombed in an attempt to break their will and turn them against the war or their leaders. The purpose of civilian bombings was to “coerce or intimidate governments or societies.” Their goal was primarily psychological. Surely such bombing is both terrorism and a war crime. And it didn’t work. Bombing a civilian population only convinces them that the enemy they are fighting is even worse than the tyrant at home.

Now terrorists bomb civilians. Or so we are told. But who are these bombers? They usually seem to end up dead so can never be questioned about their purposes. They lack any obvious political goal which makes it possible for someone like Bush to claim “They hate our freedom.”

The Palestinians bombers seem to be after vengeance for Israel’s tyranny. At least there is a de facto state of war between Israel and the Palestinians. That gives those bombings some rationale, at least as much as the civilian bombings of WWII. In Iraq invasion by a foreign power justifies resistance to the invaders and their collaborators.

But why did Timothy McVeigh bomb the Murrah Building? What was the purpose of the hijackers on 911 (If you believe the government account of that day)? How did killing innocents accomplish anything but stirring up the US to attack the hijacker’s putative supporters? Could that have been their real purpose of the attacks?

Let’s examine an two sides of the same coin.

Agent provocateur: An agent provocateur is an agent whose duty is to make sure suspected individual(s) carry out a crime to guarantee their punishment; or who suggests the commission of a crime to another, in hopes they will go along with the suggestion, so they may be convicted of the crime the provocateur suggested.

The Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group, (P2OG), brings together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception. Among other things, this body launches secret operations aimed at “stimulating reactions” among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction — that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to “quick-response” attacks by U.S. forces.
This was from a Los Angeles Times articles reprinted at http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1028-11.htm

So the US government has a “group” whose main purpose is to get terrorists and states to attack innocents, so they can be attacked by US forces. That makes me wonder if any “terrorist attack” is legitimate.

I am reminded of the leftist bombings of the 1960s. There weren’t very many of them and the bombers tried to avoid any casualties but they did happen. Those bombings, according to their perpetrators, had two purposes: 1) To pressure weapons manufacturers and researchers to get out of the business and 2) To stimulate the government to institute police state measures that would turn the populace against them and cause the people to, eventually, rise in revolution.

Hmmm.

Well, the attacks of 911 have been used to justify turning the US into a police state. The only group they benefited is the Bush administration. The attacks allowed the Bush Junta to justify the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the theft of their resources, which, according to the Project for a New American Century, is exactly what the Neo-Cons wanted, a new Pearl Harbor to rally the people behind wars of conquest.

I don’t define terrorism as broadly as does Mike Davis. I would exclude the anarchist assassins and define terrorism as “the use of force or violence against innocent individuals or their property to coerce or intimidate them in order to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives though these objectives my be hidden and the attacks falsely attributed.” I think terrorism only has two purposes. Vengeance/Justice (in the case of real terrorism) and to rally support for those who “appear” to fight against it (in the case of false flag terrorism).

Vengeance is not to be sniffed at. When the Allied Powers bombed civilians in WWII they were taking vengeance for their own casualties. When the anarchists went after tyrants vengeance was sometimes their only goal. When the anarchists took out the czar nothing changed because the whole system was so corrupt that eliminating one man, or a thousand, could not change it. Only revolution could reform it. So the assassins aimed at vengeance, that being all they could accomplish. Vengeance. Vendetta. Vigilante. They were seeking justice in a system that was unjust to the core. Since they could not bring the tyrants before a court of law, try them for their crimes before a judge and jury, they sentenced and executed them ex judicia just as Bush often sentences to death those who oppose him. However, when the innocent are targeted, that is either mindless, counterproductive vengeance, something provoked by those in power or done by them under a false flag.

I don’t think any progressive movement can realize its goals through terrorism. Just the opposite. Terrorism strengthens the hands of those in power. Terrorism, real or feigned, allows tyrants like Hitler and George W. Bush to justify greater repression in the name of security. That’s not to say that when progressives, those struggling for positive change, are met with violence by those in power, that they have no right to fight back. They do. But never to kill innocents in that struggle. Leave the killing of innocents to tyrants and the mad.

~~~~~~~~~

© alllie 2006

Distribution: This article is copyrighted by alllie, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web media so long as you tell me where and this credit is attached as well as a link back to this page, http://www.alllie.com/alllieblog/.

Luring the Immigrant

We always speak of immigration as if one day a person in a foreign country woke up and decided to come to America, inspired only by a love for our freedom and democracy. Usually, it isn’t/wasn’t like that. In the early days of America most immigrants were compelled or coerced into coming here. By the rich. The rich do no labor. They produce no wealth. They never have. They can maintain and increase their wealth only by exploiting the labor of others. When some English parasite was given a land grant in the colonies it was pretty useless without people to work the land, to turn the land into money. First the wealthy had slaves and indentured servants brought here to use and exploit. Then there was convict labor. Starting in 1718 when the British Parliament passed the Transportation Act, England sent up to 60,000 convicts to the American colonies to be sold as indentured servants. For decades they provided a ready and cheap source of coerced labor for planters and merchants.

But not all immigrants were coerced. Some were persuaded.

…. in England… peasants had enjoyed secure land tenure for centuries. But in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, landlords and improving farmers (agrarian capitalists) threw peasants off the land, leaving them and their descendants with a great yearning for land. The same men who evicted peasants financed colonial ventures that promised land to former peasants. Persuaded by labor recruiters, family, or friends, hundreds of thousands of English, Scot, Irish, and German immigrants came to America. http://uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/kulikoff_from.html

Thus it began. In the early colonial period the rich did their own recruiting but as time passed a new breed, now called labor agents, developed. But there was never enough cheap labor to satisfy the rich since those brought to this broad land could easily escape their exploitation. They could walk away and make their own living, find their own land. This necessitated the importation of a continual supply of new immigrant labor. This supply was often provided by labor agents, who painted a picture of America as having “streets paved with gold” to the poor and oppressed of Europe. Now they paint that same story in the slums of Central and South America, convincing the poor that Americans live like the people on Dynasty or BayWatch.

Immigrant recruiters included several types. Some were paid by the shipping companies to stir up trade, very much like those ads by the cruise companies or airlines today, trying to convince people that paradise lies at the end of their trip. If they could convince people to spend what little money they had to book passage on their ships, they would make money. Some recruiters were paid by speculators who owned land in America, land that they wanted to sell. Very much like the railroad companies of the 19th Century recruited people to come and buy western land owned by the railroads and to settle on it. The railroads made money from selling land the federal government had granted them for building the railroads and made money from the fares settlers paid to travel west then made money from delivering goods to the the towns that they founded along the way. If the Indians were robbed in the process or the settlers ended up with land that would not support them, that was not a concern of the railroad companies. Then there were the pure labor recruiters. They recruited cheap labor for the factories and fields.

As Upton Sinclair wrote in The Jungle:

“The first family had been Germans. The families had all been of different nationalities–there had been a representative of several races that had displaced each other in the stockyards. Grandmother Majauszkiene had come to America with her son at a time when so far as she knew there was only one other Lithuanian family in the district; the workers had all been Germans then–skilled cattle butchers that the packers had brought from abroad to start the business. Afterward, as cheaper labor had come, these Germans had moved away. The next were the Irish–there had been six or eight years when Packingtown had been a regular Irish city. There were a few colonies of them still here, enough to run all the unions and the police force and get all the graft; but most of those who were working in the packing houses had gone away at the next drop in wages–after the big strike. The Bohemians had come then, and after them the Poles. People said that old man Durham himself was responsible for these immigrations; he had sworn that he would fix the people of Packingtown so that they would never again call a strike on him, and so he had sent his agents into every city and village in Europe to spread the tale of the chances of work and high wages at the stockyards. The people had come in hordes; and old Durham had squeezed them tighter and tighter, speeding them up and grinding them to pieces and sending for new ones.

Labor recruiters roamed Europe and, upon occasion, Asia. Whole counties in Slovakia were emptied to supply workers for the steel plants and coal mines of Pennsylvania; Poles and Lithuanians supplied the labor force for Buffalo, Cleveland, and Chicago; Jews came from Eastern Europe to the garment and fur industries of New York. All the while American blacks were kept on the margin. http://128.103.142.209/issues/ma00/02138.html

More diversity was added as Albion Malleable Iron Company, maker of steel parts for boilers, engines, motors, trucks and tractors, sent labor agents/recruiters to different parts of the country to find factory workers. In 1907, 40 Russians, unable to speak English, arrived from the slums of Manhattan and the Bronx… http://www.indiana.edu/~arch/saa/matrix/aea/aea_14.html

Labor recruiters didn’t always recruit from the poor of other countries. Sometimes they recruited within our borders. Much of the black exodus from the south was due to labor recruiters enlisting southern blacks to come to the factories of the north and to undercut the union labor force that had been developing there, thus sowing seeds of enmity between the poor of each race.

In Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath “the Joads plan to go to California based on flyers they found advertising work in the fields there. These flyers, as Steinbeck will soon reveal, are fraudulent advertisements meant to draw more workers than necessary and drive down wages.”

Driving down wages is always a primary goal of those who hire labor recruiters and sometimes all it took was a few thousand flyers full of lies.

One of the saddest things about the present wave of labor recruiters is how it was started by the same industry that was the focus of Sinclair’s The Jungle: The meatpacking business. Not too many years ago the meatpackers were union shops full of good paying jobs but through aggressive labor recruiting the unions were broken sending the meatpacking industry back to the horror days before the muckrackers of a hundred years ago.

To sustain the flow of new workers into IBP slaughterhouses, the company has for years dispatched recruiting teams to poor communities throughout the United States. It has recruited refugees and asylum-seekers from Laos and Bosnia. It has recruited homeless people living at shelters in New York, New Jersey, California, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. It has hired buses to import these workers from thousands of miles away. IBP now maintains a labor office in Mexico City, runs ads on Mexican radio stations offering jobs in the United States, and operates a bus service from rural Mexico to the heartland of America.

So this industry aggressively recruited illegal aliens, luring them to the US to break unions and lower wages. The minimum wage in Mexico is $4.65 a day so it was easy for IBP to lure the poor of Mexico here to hurt American labor.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that about one-quarter of all meatpacking workers in Iowa and Nebraska are illegal immigrants. The proportion at some slaughterhouses can be much higher…Nevertheless, the recruiting efforts of the American meatpacking industry now target some of the most impoverished and most vulnerable groups in the Western Hemisphere. “If they’ve got a pulse,” one meatpacking executive joked to the Omaha World-Herald in 1998, “we’ll take an application.”
Fast Food Nation

As the meatpacking industry started it, so other industries have followed, recruiting illegal aliens in the millions. There are not people who woke up one day and decided they wanted to come to the United States. They were poor and desperate people recruited so they could be exploited and be used as a weapon against American citizens who wanted jobs with decent wages.

Schlosser writes. “If the meatpacking industry is allowed to continue its recruitment of poor, illiterate, often illegal immigrants, many other industries will soon follow its example. The rise of a migrant industrial workforce poses a grave threat to democracy.” http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/12/banerji-c.html

From 2001 to 2004 for those under 35 income fell 8 percent, adjusted for inflation, and for those 35 to 44 it fell 9%. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0227/p01s04-usec.html Younger workers are earning well below what they did in 1970 but in 1970 unions were strong and that kept everyone’s wages high. Falling wages are generally blamed on globalization, the rising cost of education and health care and more single parent families but what they never mention or consider is the effect of competition with 11 million illegal immigrants. American workers must now compete with some of the poorest people in the hemisphere and compete with them in America. The capitalists rejoice. But the working man must morn as more and more illegal immigrants are lured to a country to, first, be exploited and then to be used as a weapon against their fellow workers.

~~~~~~~~~

© Alllie 2006

Distribution: This article is copyrighted by Alllie, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web media so long as a link is attached, http://newsgarden.org/chatters/homepages/alllie/alllieblog/ .

Life Begins When?

The central philosophy of the pro-life movement is that life begins at conception.

That always makes me laugh.

Life began several billion years ago. All living things come from other living things. It’s a law. A law that was probably only broken once, in the beginning. So life does not begin at conception.

So they reply, new life begins at conception.

I laugh again.

The egg is alive. The sperm is alive. The zygote (fertilized egg) is alive. Calling a zygote new life is like pouring water from two different glasses into a third glass and claiming you have “new water.” Your body is composed of trillions of cells and every cell in the body is alive. Every second 50 million of those cells die. No one mourns for those cell deaths yet the pro-life movement organizes to stop the death of even one fertilized egg. They claim that each fertilized egg is a potential human life and thus would outlaw not just abortion but any form of birth control that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. That would include IUDs, morning after pills and most forms of low-dose birth control pills. To them this one cell has more rights than a fully-grown woman with a functional brain. In their minds a woman’s main purpose, one she cannot reject, is to act as a growth medium for that single cell because – it has the potential to become a human being.

I laugh again.

Every egg, every spermatozoa has the potential to become a human being. They are both living cells, just as a zygote is living. Yet the pro-life movement does not try to protect them. Yet. When will we have laws that mandate that a woman must be pregnant or lactating her entire reproductive life to prevent the formation of new eggs that might die unfertilized, thus killing a potential human being. When will we have laws that make masturbation illegal and thus preventing the 80 million spermatozoa in the average human ejaculate from dying useless deaths? Each spermatozoa had the potential to become human but when they are ejaculated during masturbation they all die!

What about all the spermatozoa that die in any act of intercourse. Surely sperm-killing condoms must be made illegal. And spermicides! Even their name indicates their lethal purpose. The purpose of a spermicide is to kill sperm and thus the potential human life that each sperm might produce. Surely spermicides must be made illegal as well. Spermatozoa also die when a woman has sex when she is not fertile. Surely that must be made illegal as well. Every woman must carry a kit so she can determine her fertile periods so she will not be a party to the deaths of the 80 million potential human beings each time she has sex!!

Even if a woman is in a fertile period and conceives during an act of sex, what about the other 79,999,999 spermatozoa that die!!! Each one is a potential human life!! So even if one spermatozoa fertilizes an egg, the rest die!!! A holocaust of potential human lives!!!

Surely the pro-life movement must demand that all conceptions take place in a laboratory and that all sperm and eggs not used to produce a new human life today, must be frozen and used to produce new human life tomorrow.

There are about 6 ½ billion people alive on earth today. There are about 75 million births a year. So each year only one man will be allowed to have one ejaculation lest other potential human lives be snuffed out during sex. Of course all other men must be forced to take drugs that suppress sperm producing lest their spermatozoa die in their bodies. All potential holocausts must be averted!!!.

And so I laugh.

~~~~~~~~~

© alllie 2006

Distribution: This article is copyrighted by alllie, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web media so long as you tell me where and this credit is attached as well as a link back to this page, http://www.alllie.com/alllieblog/.

Democrats want my money but do they want an honest vote?

Various Democratic groups keep emailing me asking for support and money.

But they keep ignoring the issue that I think is the most important:  Honest voting.

Until the Democrats make a sustained, impassioned effort to restore honest voting and to get rid of these voting machines, I’m not gonna give more them than lukewarm support. What is the point if the vote is fixed anyway? The Democrats are so blase about this issue. I think that means that they know the machines are fixed and are fine with it. I think the only reason either party even pretends the elections matter is to get money for the politicians and for the professionals that run the campaigns. Nothing matters more in a democracy than honest voting but the Democrats don’t seem to care about it any more than the Republicans do, i.e., not at all.

Everytime a Democrat is on TV for any reason why doesn’t he/she start with a rant about these machines. Everytime a Democrat talks to a reporter about anything, why doesn’t he /she start with a rant about the voting machine companies. I know the Republicans are evil but when the Democrats ignore this issue they make me think Nader was right and that the Democrats are the same as the Republicans and that elections are just for show and to fool the public that they live in a democracy – when they don’t.

I’m getting angry just writing about this. The Democrats and Republicans convince me that our votes will never count again until the day comes when we vote in the street – carrying weapons.

~~~~~~~~

© Alllie 2006

Distribution: This article is copyrighted by Alllie, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web media so long as you tell me where and this credit is attached as well as a link back to this page:  http://www.alllie.com/alllieblog/