May 6, 2017: The Art of the Steal, A Pirate Ship, Plundering The Public Domain.

How does one characterize tRUMP’s cabinet and tRUMP’s White House?  Perhaps one can turn to Winston Churchill for instruction: never have so few known so little about so much.”

                        ----from “The Quotations of Chairman Joe”

One of the great untold stories concerning the election of 2016 is the story of theft.  The story has been overshadowed by the ongoing Russian imbroglio, but it is part of the pattern of larceny of which the Russian Scandal may well be only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.  According to several sources the Scums have, through more stringent voter registration laws and intimidation kept untold thousands, perhaps millions from the polls.  Less publicized was “Operation Crosscheck”, a Rescumlican effort that purged an estimated 7.3 million voters from the rolls, 440, 000 in Michigan alone in a state tRUMP “won” by a mere 10,000.  In Wisconsin over 300,00 were purged with similar results.  Ditto, Ohio and Pennsylvania a state whose governor openly boasted of using such means to deliver a Rescumlican victory in 2016.   One could also throw Florida into the mix and North Carolina as well.  Flip those states and tRUMP is quickly cast into the dustbin of history, a minor wart on the flesh of the republic. How much help the Russians were in aiding this effort or what mischief resulted from their tampering with the rolls remains to be seen but it is doubtful that the collusion between tRUMP and the Russians was limited to mere “opposition research” through the hacking of emails.  Putin must have had more sinister reasons behind extending the hacking into the voter registration rolls, as well as several congressional campaigns.

The Scums certainly did for winning by any means including collusion with our enemies and adversaries has been a Rescumlican modus operandi for some time now.   Since 1968 when Nixon, through backchannels, conspired to thwart the Paris Peace Conference to win election, and Reagan’s campaign negotiating with the Iranians to hold the hostages until after the election, the Scums have had a history of dancing on the thin edge of sedition if not outright treason in order to win election.  They have been amply rewarded for their treachery and now with Disgustus nearly openly admit it.  So confident was tRUMP in this enterprise that, one will recall, he publicly called for the Russians to continue to hack private American citizens, and later openly took to the defense of the Russians thinking nothing of denigrating our intelligence and national security services.  After all, like the Rescumlicans, little Lord Fauntleroy had been taught by repeated experience that the rules don’t apply.

Large scale political larceny.  But to what purpose?   As tRUMP began assembling his cabinet and gathering around him his ‘advisors’ the purpose became increasingly obvious.  Certainly, this assemblage was not intended to advance sound public policy for the Scums despise public policy; certainly, the assembled were not brought together to advance public administration for they possess neither the requisite intelligence nor the experience. Rather, quipped British Comedian John Cleese, “tRUMP is gathering about him the crew of a pirate ship”.  Precisely.

A Secretary of Interior hell-bent on changing environmental regulations, leasing arrangements, and the privatization of the public lands; a Secretary of Education, who has never spent a day in a public school, hell-bent on privatizing our educational system through educational vouchers and spread of private and ‘charter’ schools; a Secretary of Energy deeply committed to fossil fuels and hostile to renewable energy. An Attorney General reversing Obama initiatives to end the privatization of federal prisons.  You get the picture.  Clearly Caesar Disgustus gathered about him a band of pirates hell-bent on nothing less than the plundering of the public domain. 

The “Art of the Deal” has become the “Art of the Steal”.  Large scale political larceny enabling in turn the wholesale plundering of the public domain by appropriating through privatization or the outright selling off the assets of the people to the capitalist pigs he represents. 

That’s the real story behind last year’s election and the rise of our very own Caesar Disgustus. 

November 10, 2015: Weeper of the House, True Believers, The Price of Power.

“There is something dangerous about orthodoxy in the hands of a true believer”

                        ----From “The Quotations of Chairman Joe”

John Boehner has resigned from the House of Representatives and in so doing relinquishing his post as ‘Weeper of the House”.  In his place the scum have elevated Congressman Paul Ryan, otherwise known as little Eddie Munster, to the position of presiding officer of the United States House of Representatives and 3^rd in line to the Presidency. 

Boehner (pronounced boner) by all accounts had a miserable time of it, trying as he did to weave a line between the forces of responsible governance and the newly-minted base of the Rescumlican party for which political responsibility and good governance are anathema.  It proved a treacherous path indeed, a Faustian bargain, reducing a once promising leader to a mere weeping caricature. 

The crazies, it would appear, are emerging from the woodwork. This is not, however, a recent phenomenon, nor should we understand it as a product of purely Republican malignancy.  The movement that has masticated into what we now refer to as the ‘teabagger’ movement began a long time ago, traceable originally to the disciples of Ayn Rand and the followers of Barry Goldwater.  But they, alas, were few and full of labor.  What gave the movement real impetus was the Supreme Court Decision in Roe v Wade

In which the court for the first time declared a zone of personal privacy extending to reproductive rights.  This mobilized the religious fundamentalists who, seeing abortion as an abomination, mobilized in large enough numbers to become the foot soldiers of an emerging political movement.

The principle culprit, the man who led them unto the national stage, was none other than Jimmy Carter.  It was Carter who, through the albeit temporary alliance of the Black and White southern Baptist conventions, found in these ‘foot soldiers’ a ready army of campaign workers ready to do the tedious and mundane tasks necessary to launch and win a national political campaign.  Winning the presidential election of 1976 with their support, Carter gave legitimacy to what was heretofore a largely marginalized and silent segment of the electorate. 

But, alas, what was to become known as the ‘Religious Right’ could find no home in the party of Ted Kennedy, Bela Abzug, and Eleanor Smeal. (1)  By 1980 American religious ‘fundamentalism’ had transformed itself from a mere adjunct in support of a single issue, and of a particular presidential candidate, into a ‘movement’.  In the hands of Jerry Falwell, and dubbing itself the ‘Moral Majority’, Christian Fundamentalism emerged as a national political ‘movement’, moving as it did beyond not only single-issue politics but to the conservative political ‘right’, embracing Ronald Reagan and the politics of unfettered capitalist exploitation.  In the hands of these practitioners it was held, with a straight face, that it was the will of the Lord that not only should the social safety net be shredded but that personal and capital gains taxes be cut in half.

Over the ensuing decades it only got worse.  As the Republican party of our forefathers transformed itself into the Rescumlican party of today it opened its doors and embraced with wholesale enthusiasm the likes of the heretofore banned John Birch Society, crypto-fascists, not a few remnants of the Ku Klux Klan and Southern racists, but more recently the corporate-sponsored Teabaggers, libertarians, and other eternal malcontents.  It has become, by degrees, a reincarnation of the old 19^th century ‘Know-Nothing’ Party, denying science and climate change, evolution, and universally observable fact.  

The problem is that, given the religious veneer over which this caldron of intolerance and ignorance is presently covered, the “Political Right” or, as I prefer, the “
Idiot Wrong” has not only gone over to the ‘dark side’, but in so doing has exhibited such a marked degree of belligerence and intolerance as to threaten the very concept of republican governance.

There is something about conducting oneself in the public square with the firm conviction that one has god on one’s side.  If one is convinced that through political action one is working god’s will then compromise becomes damn near impossible.  If one assumes that good, however ill-defined must rest in one’s own hands and must, in the end, prevail then all other centers of political power are either suspect, evil, or illegitimate.  A certain self-righteousness emerged on the political wrong manifesting itself as a continuous stream of righteous proclamations, political obstructions and, when the electorate had the temerity to turn them out of office, temper tantrums.  Consider the record in recent years of conservative behavior:

* April 2011: House Republicans threaten a government shutdown unless Democrats accept GOP demands on spending cuts.

* July 2011: Republicans create the first-ever debt-ceiling crisis, threatening to default on the nation’s debts unless Democrats accept GOP demands on spending cuts.

* September 2011: Republicans threaten another shutdown.

* April 2012: Republicans threaten another shutdown.

* December 2012: Republicans spend months refusing to negotiate in the lead up to the so-called “fiscal cliff.”

* January 2013: Republicans raise the specter of another debt-ceiling crisis.

* September 2013: Republicans threaten another shutdown.

* October 2013: Republicans actually shut down the government.

* February 2014: Republicans raise the specter of another debt-ceiling crisis.

* December 2014: Republicans threaten another shutdown.

* February 2015: Republicans threaten a Department of Homeland Security shutdown.

* September 2015: Republicans threaten another shutdown [over Planned Parenthood]. (2)

 There is something dangerous about orthodoxy, be it religious, political or economic, in the hands of a “True Believer” (3).  When they are not wreaking havoc upon the national political consensus, undoing the work of centuries, and shredding the social safety net, they are, when voted out of power, about the business of obstruction and nullification. 

Make no mistake about it.  When one is guided by the ‘light’; when one sees ones actions in the political arena to be a manifestation of the ‘will of god’, then there is small room for political debate and no tolerance for political opposition.  Accordingly, one sets about the business of restricting the franchise (voter ID, Gerrymandering, restricting access to polling places), overturning elections (Bush v. Gore, the mess in Ohio in 2004), and vilifying the political opposition (Faux News, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter et. al.)  By these means the ‘light of the world’ has been, by degrees, transformed into a political abyss, a cauldron of darkness.  Christ, it is now earnestly held, was a confirmed Capitalist, nearly two millennium before the advent of Capitalism.  Facts?  What are mere facts in the hands of a ‘true believer’?

The Faustian bargain that Boehner forged with the forces of darkness has, at last come undone.  It remains to be seen, now that he is free of the constraints of power, what his commentaries will be on the state of our union but others, former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke among them, have vented their frustration at the intolerance and ignorance boiling on the political surface of the political cauldron.  A veritable witch’s brew, balking at the elevation of little Eddie Munster, protesting that even he was not ‘conservative enough’ to lead this rabble.  Ideological purity has its limitations, and its price.

____

1.  Ted Kennedy is well known.  Bella Abzug was a renowned liberal congresswoman from New York City and avid supporter of reproductive rights.  Eleanor Smeal was chair of the National Organization of Women, also a strong supporter of Roe V. Wade.

 2.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/26/1425070/-The-Dark-Truth-Of-John-Boehner-s-Resignation?

3. See Hoffer, Eric. “The True Believer” Perennial Library, Harper and Row Publishers, New York. 1951. 160 pages.

April 13, 2015: The Once and Future Queen, Ratifying Reagan, Bastard Feudalism

Last weekend Hillary Clinton made the much anticipated announcement that she is once again a candidate for the presidency of the United States. The announcement no doubt set off much celebration through wide swaths of the Democracy for her lead in current polls over potential rivals is prohibitive.

For eight long years she sat at the right hand of King William the Fornicator, while the nation patiently awaited invitations to the Grand Ball. Presenting themselves as the modern reincarnation of Franklin and Eleanor, the Clintons went about the business not of presenting us with a "New Deal" but by and large simply ratifying the Reagan Reaction. The result was that very little was done to thwart the decades long assault on the middle class, and whatever prosperity the 90's presented was largely consumed by the already well-to-do. The 90's were the 80's and the 20's all over again with the much investigated and scandal-prone first couple emerging less like Franklin and Eleanor and more like Warren Harding and the "Dutchess".

The prospect of a ‘restoration’ in which the "Once and Future Queen" is once again ensconced in the palace is proving a difficult acquiescence among certain quarters in progressive circles. "Harper’s" magazine in its November 2014 issue featured a cover story by Doug Henwood entitled "Stop Hillary! Vote No to a Clinton Dynasty". "Hillary: Not So Fast", cried the "Nation" in its December 15/22 2014 edition featuring a front page drawing of Hillary in the foreground and Bill behind her measuring drapes for the White House. Both articles were highly critical of the Clintons questioning whether it is wise for the Democratic Party to acquiesce in what many see as the inevitability of a Hillary nomination, if not presidency.

On close inspection the case for Hillary, as it was in 2008, rests on very thin reeds. Basically, wrote Doug Henwoood in "Harpers" "It boils down to this: she has experience, she’s a woman, and her time has come." (1) Which is to say she’s tanned, she’s rested, she’s ready.

First let’s consider the question of experience. The record, such as it is, is a checkered one with little or no accomplishments. As pointed out in the "Nation" her early life was devoted to promoting the ambitions of her husband. As First Lady of the state she adopted a few causes as first ladies tend to do, but her time was mostly spent working for the Rose Law Firm whose client list included many of the major corporations who were involved with litigation with the state. In fact, much of the investigations of the Clintons financial and legal dealings in those early years, Whitewater included, involved Hillary rather than Bill. Conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest never, it seems, much concerned the First Lady. For years documents relating to these issues were not to be found, locations unknown, only to appear in the waning days of her husband’s administration tucked away in a White House closet. Noone, it will be recalled, could explain how they got there.

Then there are the questions surrounding Hillary’s years on the Board of Directors of Wal Mart Corporation, America’s largest employer, headquartered in Arkansas. For seven years she sat on the board of what was emerging as the largest corporation in America, and one of the greatest exploiters of labor, without uttering a word of protest or even concern. As Wal-Mart was expanding its operations on the backs of its workers, paying so little in wages that the company openly encouraged employees (sorry associates) to apply for public relief, Hillary for years sat silent.

As First Lady, it will be recalled, she was famously put in charge of fashioning a Health Care proposal. Instead of simply calling Ted Kennedy, who had been working on this for most of his adult life, and obtaining a preliminary bill from which to work, Hillary set about holding private meetings around the country spending precious weeks, then months, in the process. By the time the bill emerged the forces of reaction were well organized and financed and, bye and bye, the bill died an ignominious death. After this shattering rebuke she shed her role of Eleanor II and went about playing the traditional role of First Lady.

Her Senate record is equally devoid of accomplishment. Her attendance record is currently being questioned, but her time was mostly spent smoozing with political reactionaries like Jesse Helms, Orin Hatch, and Strom Thurmond. She supported a couple of bills for relief of 9/ll victims, and what Senator from New York wouldn’t, but her role in moving the bills through the Senate is negligible.

Finally there is her record as Secretary of State. Not much can be said of this time in office, Benghazi notwithstanding, for real negotiations were handled by others (George Mitchell in the Middle East as an example). On her website she features the number of miles she traveled as her signature accomplishment.

But the most damning aspect of her public record is Blackwater. Ever since it gained international prominence in 2007 by shooting up the streets in Iraq, (2) the record of ‘private security’ in war zones has been a pressing issue that has gone long unheeded by those in the corridors of power. Having more hired mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan that we have soldiers on the ground has not well served the national interests of this country, with the revolt at Fallujah in which several of these ‘contractors’ were killed, burned and hung from a bridge resulting in a military response that cost more lives and treasure and American prestige than it was worth. Clearly if the executives of Blackwater would not be brought to trial for war crimes, the contract with the company could certainly have been terminated. It was not.

What is not understood is that Blackwater is under contract not with the Department of Defense but with the Department of State. It should have been the first order of business as soon as Secretary Clinton entered her office at the State Department to void the contract with Blackwater. Here was a clear case of ‘privatization’ gone awry. Here is the poster boy for all that is wrong with the plundering of the public domain by corporate interests. I’m not talking here about the ‘no-bid’ contracts of Halliburton and others in the war zones, and the tens of billions of dollars that went unaccounted for during the Bush years in Iraq. Here, with Blackwater, is a clear example of blood in the streets, of senseless slaughter, of unprofessional behavior on the part of those charged with, among other things, protecting our diplomatic mission. Here Clinton had some discretion and, one would assume, enough of a presence to impress upon the new administration the need to rid us of this evil. Here a much needed first step toward reversing this Milton Friedman inspired headlong rush to plunder the public domain by privatizing everything; a step toward reclaiming public administration of the public’s business. Instead she remained silent and nothing changed.

Secondly, there is the argument that she’s a woman. That she is, but this alone is hardly a qualification for the highest office in the land. Perhaps it is the underlying belief that it is time for a woman to become president, ironically made possible by Clinton herself in 2008, that inspired an article in the February 23 edition of "The Nation" entitled "Waiting for Warren", referring to the newly minted Senator from Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren. Warren is, of course, demonstrably progressive, advocating and fashioning legislation that created the Consumers Protection Agency as well as much of the "Dodd-Frank" Wall Street reform law. She is also, happily for large segments of the progressive movement, female. But for Clinton to base her campaign on a nakedly sexist appeal without laying out a real rationale will leave her vulnerable come November of next year.

Lastly, she is ready. That is, she is a Clinton, and she’s there. Upon this, I suspect, rests the real foundation of her campaign. As in 2008 it boils down to the inevitability of the "Once and Future Queen" based on an emerging form of bastard feudalism that is our contemporary political culture.

_________

1. Doug Henwood., "Stop Hillary: Vote No to a Clinton Dynasty", "Harper’s Magazine", November 2014. Page 31

2. See my posting: "September 18, 2007: Blackwater Down, Mercenaries
On Main Street, The Murtha of all Congressmen"

March 11, 2015: Generation of Swine, Mendacity of the Swine, Deeply Offensive Performances

“Never underestimate the mendacity of the swine”
            ----From “The Quotations of Chairman Joe”

It has been a bit over two months since the Rescumlicans have taken control of both houses of Congress and in that brief time they have launched an assault on Social Security by making it more difficult to transfer funds from the general Social Security account to the Social Security Disability Fund threatening thereby draconian cuts in the near future.  Additionally, after promising not to threaten to shut down the government they proceeded to do just that (unsuccessfully this time) to the Homeland Security Department by using funding as a weapon in an attempt to override the President’s executive action on immigration.  The last 10 days, however, have seen political dysfunction unprecedented in our national experience.

Last week Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke before a joint session of Congress urging the United States not to reach an agreement with Iran over nuclear arms. It was the first time a foreign head of state has been invited to speak to Congress with the express purpose of sabotaging our stated national policies.  He spoke at the invitation of the Speaker of the House, one John Boner of Ohio who, seeing an opportunity to stick a thumb into the eye of this President, offered the invitation without consulting or clearing the action with either the State Department or the White House.   This set off a firestorm in this country as many rightly perceived this action to be an act of political and diplomatic mendacity the likes of which we have heretofore never witnessed.  Many in congress, including Senator Al Franken (himself a Jew) refused to attend, so deeply offensive was this performance.

Every time the Rescumlicans win control of the House of Representatives the newly anointed Speaker immediately begins to conduct himself as if he is Prime Minister.  When Newt “Baby Huey” Gingrich ushered in the last Republican era so arrogant was he that President Clinton had to remind the press that the President was ‘still relevant’.  The result was a long national nightmare ending in bogus impeachment proceedings, trivializing politics and poisoning the political well.  Now we are confronted with a newer form of the rabid beast this time posturing as ‘tea party’ patriots and the speaker once again conducting the business of the House as if he were head of state.  He is not.

In a Constitutional Monarchy as in Britain, the crown is head of state, in this case Queen Elizabeth.  In Britain it is unthinkable for the government to host a state visit without first clearing it with the Palace.  In France the French President is head of state and speaks for the country internationally, the Prime Minister, as in Britain, is a separate office who runs the government and is involved in foreign affairs but always with the consultation with the constitutional ‘head of state’. 

The American Presidency is a unique office.  The president is not only the head of his party, but also the Chief Executive Officer, Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and head of state.  This was made clear early in our history with the passage of the Logan Act in 1799, a law passed by the founding fathers clearly stating that it is the president who speaks for the country and he alone (or through his agents) who negotiates treaties and understandings.  The law made it illegal for any citizen to engage in foreign negotiations unless empowered by the Chief Executive to so do.  The President is not only Chief Executive officer (Prime Minister as it were) but also the head of state of the nation.  For the speaker to usurp this function is an act of unprecedented arrogance, violating not only the Logan Act and long-standing historical precedent, but the spirit and letter of the Constitution.

Following Netanyahu’s performance 47 Rescumlican Senators, in yet another act of unprecedented political mendacity, signed an open letter to the Iranian government purporting to ‘instruct’ the Iranians on American Constitutional and International Law.  Stating that any subsequent President could nullify the agreement ‘with a stroke of the pen’ the group suggested that bargaining with this President would result in, at best, a transient agreement that will be quickly nullified by the succeeding Administration further stating that executive agreements are not binding in international law and all such understandings must be ratified by the United States Senate in order to take effect.  So here you have it: nearly half the United States Senate sending an open message to the hard-liners of an international adversary saying that their country cannot put stock into any agreement reached with this administration. 

The letter was drawn up by newly minted Senator Cotton of Arkansass who, having served less than 70 days in office and still wet in his Senate seat purports to treat this as if the administration is first, negotiating bi-laterally that is one-on-one with Iran and, secondly, that the President is negotiating a treaty.  Both assumptions are wrong.  The negotiations include the United States, Iran, 5 member nations of the Security Council of the United Nations and Germany.  To attempt to sabotage these proceedings undercuts the stature and standing not only with the Iranians but with the world diplomatic community.  Secondly, this is not a treaty negotiation but an attempt to reach agreements on nuclear developments involving pledges by the Iranians concerning their ongoing programs as well as some kind of inspection and verification regime.  In any case the Rescumicans are flat wrong on the issue.  Executive agreements carry the weight and importance of formal treaties in International Law and are just as binding. 

The Iranian Foreign Minister Dr. Javad Zarif issued a blistering response to the cretins on Capitol Hill:

"In our view,” he responded, “this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.

Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.
Foreign Minister Zarif added that "I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fullfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.

The Iranian Foreign Minister added that "Change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Iran`s peaceful nuclear program." He continued "I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.

He emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.

Zarif expressed the hope that his comments "may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement at any time as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.

The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as "mere executive agreements" and not treaties ratified by the Senate.

He reminded them that "their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such mere executive agreements that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.

Zarif concluded by stating that "the Islamic Republic of Iran has entered these negotiations in good faith and with the political will to reach an agreement, and it is imperative for our counterparts to prove similar good faith and political will in order to make an agreement possible.” (1)

The national reaction was far less reserved and pedantic.  Former Chairman of the Democratic Party and Vermont Governor Howard Dean has called these action ‘borderline treason’ and the New York Daily News has this front page header:



If the Rescumlicans think they can further the cause of Israel, middle east peace, or increase the standing of this country internationally by the use of these cheap-jack tactics they are quite mistaken.  But these are not their real interests. These actions are simply crass appeals to a cretinous political base which has become so extreme that even some Faux News hosts have openly criticized along with Congressman Steven King and the New York Daily News.  As LBJ one said about Viet Nam “If we’ve lost Cronkite, we’ve lost the country” so the Grand Ole Prostitute, having now lost the New York Daily News, may now be in peril of perhaps having cast one too many false pearls before altogether too many real swine.
_______________________
1.  The Daily Kos, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/09/1369700/-BREAKING-Iran-s-Foreign-Minister-responds-to-the-letter-from-47-Republican-Senators

March 3, 2014: Assault on the Middle Class, State-Sanctioned Greed, Don't Agonize...Organize

Senator Corker is not alone in this headlong assault on the middle class.  Everywhere, across the country, diligent Rescumlicans are about the business of conducting a headlong assault on both the New Deal and organized labor rolling back a century of progress.  There’s Scott Walker in Wisconsin waging war on the public employee unions, Rick Snyder, a former hedge fund tycoon, turning Michigan into a ‘right to starve’ state further solidifying it’s position as the Alabama of the Midwest.  Then there’s John Kasich of Ohio, previous congressman best known for leading the impeachment crusade against Bill Clinton while in the House, now as governor of Ohio he first led a battle to savage public employee unions and, after the voters overturned the law by public referendum we now find him leading the fight to keep as many voters away from the polls as indeceny will allow.  Across America we see a concerted effort to wage war on the workers of this country, first by seeking to limit the ability of workers to organize, second by seeking to roll back worker’s hard earned gaines by , as Corker demonstrated, using real or imagined crises to wring draconian concessions from the working class, and lastly by seeking to protect their political backsides from an associated political cost by restricting access to the ballot box.  The result is that, as the aforementioned graph demonstrates, the percentage of the national wealth held by the middle class of this country is on the decline.

Bill Moyers featured as a guest on his PBS program last season former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich.  Reich, now economics professor at Berkley, has recently published a book dealing with the state of the economy in the post-Bush era.  It transpires that the top 1% made off with 95% of the economic gains made since the crash of ’07.  Below is a graph illustrating the relative gains by each of the 5 economic groupings in recent years. 

If one were to further break down this income distribution, one would find that most of the gains within the top 5% went to the highest 1%, with the lion’s share going to the top one half of one per cent.  Meanwhile, as this graph so aptly demonstrates, the bottom 80% are falling behind. 

To see the impact of the state-sanctioned greed let’s look at what has happened to median income in recent years, but first a word of explanation for those unfamiliar with the arcane ways of the statistician.  Conservatives gloss over what is happening to the middle class by using income averages.  The average household income and the mean household income are not the same standards of measure because averages can, in this case, be misleading.  For instance you could put Bill Gates in a room with 40 homeless people and the average wealth of everyone in the room would be well over a Billion dollars. But if you measure by Median wealth and you would get a quite different and quite startling answer, for Median wealth would approach, in this example, near zero. For such measurements real wealth or yearly household incomes are measured by the median and by deviations from the median known to the statistically obtuse as “standard deviations”.  Think of the median as the true middle, like the median on the road.  Here, in this statistic, one can measure the relative position, success or the struggles of the ‘average’ american—that is the American Middle Class. 

As you can see, since 2007 the “average” or median household income has gone down by roughly $4,000.00 per year. The Middle Class has lost, in the wake of the recession, 7.8 or roughly 8% of its purchasing power.  So while the top one percent has made off with 95% of the economic gains since the last recession the middle class has lost nearly 8% of it’s income. Only belatedly has this administration begun to address this problem.

The consequences of allowing these trends to continue unabated is amply illustrated in the graph below.

The graph clearly shows that the percentage of the national wealth held by the middle class, adjusted for inflation to 2012 dollars, reached its peak in 1968. A whole host of problems and issues arose in the 1970s from the election of Richard Outhouse Nixon to the Arab Oil Boycott, to the introduction into the labor force of the Baby Boomers (otherwise known as the ‘generation of swine’), which set the stage for the downward decent of the purchasing power of Main Street America.  What has been so troubling has been the governmental response, or rather lack of response to this trend.  In fact governance has mostly involved creating new and novel means to accelerate the trend either by nearly eliminating any semblance of ‘progressivism’ in the tax code, shifting taxation so that work is now taxed at a much higher rate than wealth, and by turning a blind eye when we are not turning back the clock on regulations (principally financial regulations) and anti-trust.  Here we see that administrations, be they Democratic or Republican have not altered the general shape of the curve, giving damning testament to the growing dominance to the now near dictatorship of Capital. 

 There is a solution to this, one that is best expressed by an old adage “don’t agonize…organize”

If you're part of the middle class, thank a union.

March 2, 2014: Mantra of the Swine, Quite Beneath Them, Genuflecting before the Angry Gods of Greed

In the summer of 2011 I was doing some work for a client in Athens, Georgia, a property management company specializing in rental properties in this university town.  Jim and I got into a discussion about the auto bail-outs.  I made the point that the Obama Administration should have met with the corporate boards of GM and Chrysler and made it clear that as a condition of providing the required financial aid that not only would the top executives have to go, without a golden parachute, and that the production facilities built overseas and the jobs that went with them would have to return to the territorial United States.  Jim heartily agreed with that.  Then I said that these jobs would, as a requirement for Federal assistance, be unionized.  That’s where we parted company.  “Oh no” was the response, “we don’t need unions”. 

 This has been, by and large, the mantra of the generation of swine.  I cannot relate how many times I’ve engaged in similar conversations with my peers over the years and elicited the same response.  For reasons having to do with the prosperity into which we were born, the shameless education we received, and the collective greed and ignorance we have brought to bear, the Swine have, almost to a man, repeated the mantra of their collective corporate paymasters when it comes to issues surrounding the work place.  My response to Jim was, as it has always been, a polite variant of the question “What have you got against the middle class”? 

 It is not often taught in the schools anymore, in this sanitized version of our collective history organized as it is around performance testing; but today’s post-industrial middle class is a product of a combination of political will and organizing the labor force in the work place.  As the old middle class, founded on the family farm, was fading into history, the New Deal consciously replaced it with a new industrial middle class by not only instituting a far more progressive tax code, establishing the 40 hour work week, creating unemployment insurance but by also making it easier, with the Fair Labor Standards Act, to organize the work place.  Granted the power, instead of facing the opposition of government to bargain Americans by the millions joined unions creating higher wages, safer working conditions, vacations, pension programs and a relatively secure purchase on the growing American Middle Class.   

 No more.  In the last 40 years union membership has continued to decline as a percentage of the workforce.  Boomers, bidding a farewell to the stigmata of the “blue collar”, thinking that such collective associations too “working class” and quite beneath them, shunned the very idea of walking into a union hall.  This is America, they declaimed, where the individual stands alone.  Here one makes it with one’s own grit, determination, and character, it was proclaimed.  Here we stand or fall on our own merits.  And so, by the end of the century, the great American Middle Class, shorn of its collective voice and standing naked and alone before the angry gods of greed, finds itself under assault and driven to the point of looming extinction.

 Here is a graph, compliments of MSNBC’s “The Ed Show”, and published by the center for American Progress, showing the relationship between the decline of Union membership and the decline in the share of the national wealth held by the Middle Class:  Corker knew what he was doing when he stood on the Senate floor and demanded the diminution of the benefits of organizing the workplace.  He was simply genuflecting to his corporate paymasters, the angry gods of greed.

January 12, 2014: Chat with My Shoes, Spanning Generations, Grow to Understand

Our daughter, who is now a mature young lady, has moved to Europe wherein she is pursuing her studies.  Referred to herein as “Shoes”, she obtained that moniker as an infant which began by my calling her, innocently enough, ‘my little two-shoes’, quickly shortened to simply ‘shoes’.  She hated the nick-name when she was young asking plaintively why I called her that.  “You are as comfortable to me as wearing a pair of old shoes” I recall telling her.  I knew that as she got older she would grow to understand.  What follows is a short chat I had with her this morning via Skype over the internet.  The conversation spans continents, oceans and generations. It is done in a bit of short-hand as any communication with souls who have long since got to know each other will be and begins by an exchange of photographs via the net and moves on to more serious subjects.  I include it here because it represents yet another furtive attempt to hammer out a collective understanding of where we have been, where we are, and where we may be heading.

 

[8:57:34 AM] Joe Camfield: hi shoes

[8:57:47 AM] Shoes: hey dad

[8:57:49 AM] Shoes: how are you?

[8:58:33 AM] Joe Camfield: I’m doing alright, fixin to go back to work over at Ducey

[8:59:03 AM] Joe Camfield: i got your message that you are back safe and sound

[8:59:35 AM] Shoes: that I am

[8:59:40 AM] Shoes: still on American time though

[8:59:50 AM] Joe Camfield: that’s got to be awful

[9:00:07 AM] Joe Camfield: especially when you’re trying to get back in the harness

[9:00:38 AM] Joe Camfield: oh for the days when the world moved much more slowly

[9:00:48 AM] Joe Camfield: the body and the mind could adjust

[9:01:00 AM] Joe Camfield: there was no jet lag when there were no jets

[9:02:23 AM] Shoes: lol

[9:02:24 AM] Shoes: yes

[9:02:30 AM] Shoes: we only hit icebergs and froze to death.

[9:02:34 AM] Shoes: I'm sending you the picture of Holly [Pictures of our dog, taken while visiting over Christmas]

[9:02:39 AM] Shoes: Kate was asking for

[9:03:06 AM] Joe Camfield: oh yes I’ve got some pictures we scanned i need to send you

[9:03:12 AM] Joe Camfield: how do you do it on this thing? [Request for intergenerational assistance]

[9:04:29 AM] Shoes: you can open the folder and drag the file into the conversation

[9:05:01 AM] Shoes: or in Skype, hit the little "plus" sign at the top of the screen, next to the "video call" and "call" buttons [Intergenerational response saves the day]

[9:07:27 AM] *** Joe Camfield sent eldred.jpg eldred.jpg ***  [Image of a flyer for an event celebrating the life of my cousin who passed away last August]

[9:07:49 AM] Joe Camfield: this is the Eldred flyer see if this works

[9:07:59 AM] Shoes: got it

[9:08:20 AM] Shoes: he was sweet

[9:08:26 AM] *** Joe Camfield sent 013.jpg 013.jpg *** [Image of Shoes and I riding an elephant at the Ionia Free Fair]

[9:08:45 AM] Joe Camfield: us dominating the Republican Party

[9:09:01 AM] *** Joe Camfield sent 014.jpg 014.jpg ***

[9:09:09 AM] Joe Camfield: me and my shoes

[9:09:15 AM] Shoes: lol

[9:09:29 AM] Shoes: sweet :)

[9:09:36 AM] Joe Camfield: i love riding the Rescumlican

[9:09:57 AM] Joe Camfield: not so majestic when you’re sitting on his head

[9:10:32 AM] Shoes: lol

[9:10:40 AM] Shoes: poor party

[9:10:58 AM] Shoes: I am curious to see how they will change as the number of minorities in America grows

[9:11:24 AM] *** Joe Camfield sent a01_vista_1950s_grpl.jpg a01_vista_1950s_grpl.jpg ***

[9:11:38 AM] *** Joe Camfield sent A1_VISTA_AERIAL_1950s.jpg A1_VISTA_AERIAL_1950s.jpg ***

[9:11:57 AM] *** Joe Camfield sent a02_vista_1950s_grpl.jpg a02_vista_1950s_grpl.jpg ***

[9:12:27 AM] Joe Camfield: here are some pictures of the Vista when she was built. [A Drive-In Theatre, now gone, located in Grand Rapids Michigan.  I managed the theatre between 1974-76]

[9:12:41 AM] Joe Camfield: i need to post them on that theatre website.

[9:12:56 AM] Shoes: you should

[9:13:02 AM] Joe Camfield: only pictures of her online at those sites are when she was rotting away

[9:13:14 AM] Joe Camfield: it was a magnificent facility in her day

[9:13:38 AM] Joe Camfield: had two marquees

[9:13:52 AM] Joe Camfield: capacity for over 1,000 autos

[9:14:13 AM] Joe Camfield: i actually filled the place a couple of times

[9:14:25 AM] Joe Camfield: hadn't been done in over a decade before i got there

[9:15:02 AM] Joe Camfield: my office was just to the right of the box offices

[9:15:11 AM] Joe Camfield: second floor overlooking the place

[9:15:23 AM] Joe Camfield: that’s where the pictures of matt sitting at my desk were taken

[9:15:28 AM] Shoes: awwww

[9:15:34 AM] Shoes: damn

[9:15:37 AM] Shoes: that's a lot of cars

[9:16:18 AM] Joe Camfield: yeah it was. Imagine cars lined up down that 440 foot driveway, out into the adjoining streets both ways and down the sides of the road waiting to get in.

[9:17:19 AM] Joe Camfield: you can see on the aerial view the size of the driveways and the two marquee locations.

[9:18:01 AM] Joe Camfield: I was 25 when they put me in charge of the place in a desperate effort to do something about declining business

[9:18:29 AM] Joe Camfield: hadn't filled more than a third of the place any more than twice in the last three years

[9:19:05 AM] Joe Camfield: it was 85 percent empty on average during weekends over the last three summers, during the peak of the season

[9:19:09 AM] Joe Camfield: and losing money

[9:19:20 AM] Joe Camfield: so they decided they would take a chance

[9:19:27 AM] Joe Camfield: not easy for a company like Butterfield

[9:19:34 AM] Shoes: indeed

[9:19:53 AM] Joe Camfield: I met with he vice president about a week after i took over

[9:20:24 AM] Joe Camfield: and basically he said told me that they didn't understand drive-ins and were at wits end....so here I was

[9:20:41 AM] Joe Camfield: it was a challenge but a lot of fun and very rewarding experience

[9:21:18 AM] Joe Camfield: especially since the place wasn't run down and falling down around my ears like what it was like at the Lansing Drive In later in my experiences

[9:21:38 AM] Joe Camfield: i left the place and the comany in 1976 to attend Boston University

[9:21:43 AM] Shoes: challenges are always a fun experience

[9:21:53 AM] Joe Camfield: yes they are

[9:22:35 AM] Joe Camfield: anyway how’s the job going?

[9:22:47 AM] Shoes: good, they're going to send me the whole package to work on next week

[9:23:04 AM] Joe Camfield: that'll get you up to your eyebrows

[9:23:52 AM] Shoes: yes

[9:24:01 AM] Shoes: schedules rarely work out the way they should

[9:24:18 AM] Joe Camfield: yes i know

[9:24:35 AM] Joe Camfield: I’ll save those materials on project management if you like

[9:25:08 AM] Joe Camfield: you doing any work on six sigma in relation to that?

[9:26:11 AM] Shoes: no

[9:26:14 AM] Shoes: but please do save them

[9:26:24 AM] Shoes: I just had way too many things to bring back more books

[9:26:37 AM] Shoes: nearly broke my back carrying the books in my backpack because my suitcase was too full

[9:26:43 AM] Joe Camfield: i remember Kate had to work on six sigma when she was doing the researches on project management

[9:26:59 AM] Joe Camfield: i helped by teaching her some statistics

[9:27:15 AM] Joe Camfield: yes i know

[9:27:21 AM] Joe Camfield: there are limits to travel

[9:27:45 AM] Joe Camfield: get a chance to review forrester's book? [Reference here is to a report issued by the “Club of Rome” in 1971 under the title “World Dynamics”.  It was the first full-scale computer simulation of pollution and resource and population variables projected out into the 21st century according to several world-wide response scenario’s, including what would happen if mankind did nothing]

[9:27:50 AM] Shoes: not yet

[9:27:54 AM] Shoes: I've been working on a paper

[9:28:16 AM] Joe Camfield: I don't recall how much they got into climate change

[9:28:40 AM] Joe Camfield: but the discoveries since the report came out have not made the prospects any better

[9:28:49 AM] Joe Camfield: most of the feedback loops are negative

[9:28:59 AM] Joe Camfield: such as the melting of the polar ice caps

[9:29:15 AM] Joe Camfield: release of methane from the permafrost

[9:29:16 AM] Joe Camfield: etc.

[9:30:11 AM] Joe Camfield: what i wanted to bring to your attention is that the climate issues are part of a larger set of interrelated disasters awaiting us until we come to terms with who we are in the greater scheme of things

[9:30:27 AM] Joe Camfield: and we've known this for some time now

[9:30:45 AM] Joe Camfield: in any case it could serve as a benchmark for the work you are doing

[9:31:07 AM] Shoes: indeed

[9:31:16 AM] Shoes: it will be interesting to see what the next IPCC reports say

[9:31:26 AM] Joe Camfield: wherein your study of eastern religions becomes increasingly relevant

[9:31:27 AM] Shoes: I'm currently writing a short paper on the relation between climate change and public health

[9:31:29 AM] Shoes: specifically public perception

[9:31:41 AM]  Shoes: I wanted to write about another topic but there's so little information available

[9:32:01 AM] Joe Camfield: it has always seemed to me

[9:32:13 AM] Joe Camfield: that the way to deal directly with the american male

[9:32:23 AM] Joe Camfield: in relation to climate change and public health

[9:32:56 AM] Joe Camfield: is to cite statistics on damaged sperm cells and the ability of the beer guzzling couch potato to reproduce if he doesn't get his act together

[9:33:09 AM] Joe Camfield: hit him in the nuts

[9:33:17 AM] Joe Camfield: or you won't get his attention

[9:33:38 AM] Joe Camfield: that's your politician father speaking

[9:33:44 AM] Shoes: lol

[9:33:49 AM] Shoes: yes

[9:34:01 AM] Joe Camfield: it will be laughed off otherwise

[9:34:18 AM] Joe Camfield: as some kind of left wing conspiracy

[9:34:24 AM] Shoes: same thing as changing reproductive rights to men's rights

[9:34:26 AM] Shoes: vasectomies or not

[9:34:27 AM] Shoes: etc

[9:34:29 AM] Joe Camfield: dedicated to sacrifice ourselves to the spotted owl

[9:34:40 AM] Joe Camfield: yes

[9:35:52 AM] Joe Camfield: unless you can convince them that the current practices threaten their ability to wantonly reproduce their inspired ignorance, they will see it as someone else’s problem at best, if they see it as a problem at all.

[9:37:14 AM] Joe Camfield: anyway it sounds like you are going to have some fu

[9:38:38 AM] Shoes: but it's interesting to see these things in the context of development, where technological innovation isn't such a priority

[9:39:15 AM] Joe Camfield: technology isn't an end in itself

[9:39:44 AM] Joe Camfield: which is one of the issues that is driving this thing

[9:40:50 AM] Joe Camfield: I think we need to dig up Marx's old delineation between market value and use value.  Simply because it has market value doesn't mean it needs to be produced, if the damages outweigh the benefits

[9:41:10 AM] Joe Camfield: Use value is the more important determining value

[9:41:20 AM] Joe Camfield: likewise with regard to technological research

[9:41:43 AM] Joe Camfield: simply because we can do it doesn't mean that there exists an imperative to do it

[9:42:12 AM] Joe Camfield: I’m reminded of Edward Teller's imperative to develop the hydrogen bomb simply because it could theoretically be done

[9:42:26 AM] Joe Camfield: it wasn't needed

[9:44:00 AM] Shoes: well, technology helps to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and cleaner technology would be the key... it can also be used for research and analysis, helping to determine whether or not a city could benefit from utilizing green rooftops and whatnot

[9:44:11 AM] Shoes: but that's basically what developed countries can do

[9:44:44 AM] Shoes: what's needed in developing countries are easy and cheap ways to deal with climate change, but also to help them develop strategies and to be able to gain access to electricity in a green and efficient manner

[9:44:51 AM] Shoes: but also in a sustainable manner

[9:45:06 AM] Shoes: so if you're in a typhoon zone, no wind power, that kind of thing

[9:45:32 AM] Shoes: but the developing world uses mostly biofuels which are awful for the environment and only contribute to the problem

 

[9:47:05 AM] Joe Camfield: yes i quite agree.  Technological problems, and climate change, world population growth, pollution and resource depletion are all the result of technological changes, demand technological solutions. I wrote about that in my piece on Thoreau's "Walden" which I consider to be one the greatest pieces of literary pornography ever written [See my post on Walden in March of 2008]

[9:47:50 AM] Joe Camfield: there are no non-technological solutions to technological problems

[9:48:00 AM] Joe Camfield: the population is too large for that

[9:48:25 AM] Joe Camfield: consider water resources, food production and delivery as simple examples

[9:49:33 AM] Shoes: and where it's feasible, technology can help boost an economy as well

[9:49:45 AM] Joe Camfield: yes that's right

[9:49:51 AM] Joe Camfield: solar panels

[9:49:53 AM] Joe Camfield: etc.

[9:50:58 AM] Joe Camfield: the problem with a lot of "back to earthers" is that the solution is seen as a series of singular steps overlooking the larger impact.  It is mistaking the tree for the forest as it were

[9:51:46 AM] Joe Camfield: imagine putting, if you could, 6 billion persons, each family with its own 10 acres and a mule, burning wood for fuel.

[9:51:53 AM] Joe Camfield: the carbon output would choke us

[9:52:10 AM] Joe Camfield: i give you 19th century Birmingham England as a textbook case

[9:52:45 AM] Joe Camfield: to put it another way, many in my generation think, for instance, that wood fuel is clean

[9:53:07 AM] Joe Camfield: in fact it is no cleaner than coal inasmuch as both are carbon

[9:53:28 AM] Joe Camfield: the major difference is one is older and more compressed.

[9:55:15 AM] Joe Camfield: anyway i'm trying to get a handle on all this to do a follow up on my last blog post

[9:55:21 AM] Joe Camfield: it's so simple and yet so complicated

[9:55:39 AM] Joe Camfield: and i thank you for your forbearance

[9:57:10 AM] Shoes: it is complicated

[9:57:23 AM] Shoes: even more complicated is fracking

[9:57:34 AM] Joe Camfield: yes i know

[9:57:47 AM] Joe Camfield: dick Cheney was a great advocate of it

[9:58:01 AM] Joe Camfield: This should be an indicator of what a bad idea it is

[9:58:11 AM] Shoes: lol

[9:58:28 AM] Joe Camfield: in that sense it isn't so complicated

[9:58:36 AM] Joe Camfield: but technologically, i understand, it is

[9:58:56 AM] Joe Camfield: but you have a textbook case here

[9:59:00 AM] Shoes: well yes because opposition to fracking is theoretical

[9:59:24 AM] Joe Camfield: of what happens when simple minds confront technologies

[9:59:38 AM] Shoes: it has its flaws but those have largely emerged due to the lack of regulation, which is the case with anything, but it hasn't been proven to be environmentally harmful in itself

[9:59:46 AM] Shoes: and it is cleaner than convention method

[9:59:53 AM] Joe Camfield: yes

[10:00:00 AM] Joe Camfield: but you hit it on the head

[10:00:09 AM] Shoes: the problem, aside from the environment, is that nobody can be 100% certain how much we have in reserves

[10:00:15 AM] Joe Camfield: no technology is without unforeseen consequences

[10:00:16 AM] Shoes: which makes it unreliable

[10:00:37 AM] Joe Camfield: i give you the automobile, the drive-in theatre, and the rise in illegitimate birth rates for instance

[10:00:44 AM] Joe Camfield: the question is social controls

[10:00:47 AM] Shoes: lol

[10:00:58 AM] Joe Camfield: mores, laws, customs, acceptable behaviors

[10:01:38 AM] Joe Camfield: adopting new technologies, which includes uses of drugs and chemicals, is a bit like going to war

[10:01:45 AM] Joe Camfield: you hope for the best

[10:02:19 AM] Joe Camfield: but you rarely, if at all, ever end up where you thought you would be once it gets underway

[10:02:39 AM] Joe Camfield: there are too many imponderables

[10:02:46 AM] Joe Camfield: too much room for variance

[10:02:57 AM] Joe Camfield: it takes eternal vigilance

[10:03:16 AM] Joe Camfield: which is one of the big reasons we create governments

[10:03:20 AM] Joe Camfield: it's what the word means

[10:04:20 AM] Joe Camfield: another collective misunderstanding of the Teabaggers

[10:04:36 AM] Joe Camfield: freedom only has meaning within the context of restraints

[10:04:45 AM] Joe Camfield: unlimited freedom is anarchy, rapine and plunder

[10:04:57 AM] Joe Camfield: Hobbes’ "State of Nature"

[10:05:50 AM] Joe Camfield: and so, as the founders said in the Declaration of Independence "That in order to secure these rights governments are instituted among men..."

[10:05:57 AM] Joe Camfield: so regulation is right and proper

[10:06:21 AM] Joe Camfield: and, as the constitution says "by all means necessary and proper"

[10:06:30 AM] Shoes: it shocks me that people oppose the EPA, no understanding of what companies were doing to our water before regulations were passed

[10:07:31 AM] Joe Camfield: yes and as soon as the next scandal appears great wailings and lamentations will be heard throughout the land wherefore a cry will go up "where in hell was the government?"

[10:08:06 AM] Joe Camfield: great conspiracy theories will emerge about how the government was hijacked by a cartel of villains....

[10:08:29 AM] Joe Camfield: bent on the exercise of evil for its own sake

[10:08:57 AM] Joe Camfield: only to discover that a group of lazy incompetent jackals had been put in charge and had been asleep at the helm

[10:09:15 AM] Joe Camfield: eternal vigilance had taken a vacation

[10:10:08 AM] Joe Camfield: which reminds me: Where in hell has the justice Department been?

[10:10:20 AM] Joe Camfield: Why no anti-trust actions since Clinton?

[10:10:34 AM] Joe Camfield: anyway that's another story

[Deleted here was a short discussion about posting this chat on this blog]

[10:13:21 AM] Shoesw: actually the paper I'm writing about talks about different perceptions across generations

[10:13:38 AM] Joe Camfield: yes and i hope you have good news to report

[10:14:07 AM] Shoes: well it's different from America, most of the people in these studies understand linkages because they can't flee to air conditioned palaces

[10:14:10 AM] Joe Camfield: for the generation of swine are not known to possess enlightened self-interest

[10:14:28 AM] Shoes: though I read a study about Malta, a highly-developed EU country, and like 15% of people have no idea what climate change is

[10:14:30 AM] Shoes: an embarrassment

[10:14:54 AM] Joe Camfield: actually I’m encouraged by those numbers

[10:15:36 AM] Joe Camfield: Robert Kennedy used to say that 25% of the populations were dependably against anything at any given point in time

[10:15:44 AM] Shoes: lol

[10:15:45 AM] Shoes: well but it's the EU

[10:15:54 AM] Shoes: and the EU is going on and on and on about climate change all the time

[10:15:57 AM] Shoes: that's what's so embarrassing

[10:16:03 AM] Shoes: anyhow

[10:16:06 AM] Shoes: I do have to write this paper...

[10:16:10 AM] Shoes: it's why I've been kind of quiet

[10:16:15 AM] Shoes: trying to find sources before I get started

[10:16:20 AM] Shoes: it's a short paper but I had to change my topic a few times

[10:16:24 AM] Shoes: now it's time to get down to business

[10:16:40 AM] Joe Camfield: Well it's time to get cracking

[10:16:44 AM] Joe Camfield: I'll let you go

[10:16:47 AM] Joe Camfield: miss you

[10:16:58 AM] Shoes: we can talk anytime this week, except Wednesday

[10:17:04 AM] Joe Camfield: cool

[10:17:04 AM] Shoes: I won't have a paper due :)

[10:17:16 AM] Shoes: I miss you too

[10:17:21 AM] Joe Camfield: it's nice to be in that position

[10:17:23 AM] Shoes: I'm more homesick this time than I've been before

[10:17:31 AM] Joe Camfield: i miss my bunny

[10:17:37 AM] Shoes: I miss you too

[10:18:13 AM] Shoes: imagine a bone-crushing hug now ;)

[10:18:18 AM] Joe Camfield: yes

[10:18:23 AM] Joe Camfield: loves you

[10:18:25 AM] Shoes: loves you too

[10:18:30 AM] Joe Camfield: bye now

[10:18:32 AM] Shoes: bye bye