The White House Correspondents' Dinner: A Big Neoliberal Schmooze Fest

Last night featured one of the most revolting events of the year for true citizens and lovers of democracy: the spectacle of supposedly independent and influential journalists of the press corps schmoozing and joking with the most powerful members of the government, i.e. the Neoliberal bastion and its insiders and players. Anyone, I mean anyone, who has read Robert McChesney's book, The Problem of the Media - would have come away barfing nonstop having merely been exposed to clips of this farce.

As McChesney noted (op. cit.) the most pervasive problem of the media today is precisely being in bed with the power mongers to the point it allows them to get away with almost everything and never hold them to account. This could be on the economic-financial front (large bailouts of banks, GM etc, without adequate accountability), on the international front (think of stirring up trouble in the Ukraine) or the national security front (think of the press' shameless giving a pass to NSA mass surveillance while excoriating Edward Snowden).

So, the spectacle we witnessed was one of the supposedly independent Fourth Estate knob polishing the Neoliberal elites. Well, this is why we call them the "Neoliberal media".  Their odious mingling with those they are supposed to hold to account and criticize (that now mainly left to bloggers and the indie press) has left this nation's citizens  mainly derelict and deprived of information about what's really going on in their midst.

McChesney and others (e.g. Michael Parenti, Douglas Rushkoff etc.) have pointed out there is NO room, zero, nada for "friendliness" between the press and the powerful.  The reason is simple, so much so that anyone can grasp it: If you are charged with reporting on the powerful, particularly their violations of the constitution and other transgressions, then you cannot also be their 'pal'.  If you are a pal then you cannot be objective nor can you do objective reporting on their misdeeds.

This means that you are obliged, if you are a serious reporter, to keep your distance. You cannot be an "insider" and if you are, you are not a reporter or journalist, but a craven propagandist.

This point of being an "insider" as opposed to "outsider" was interestingly brought up by Sen. Elizabeth Warren two nights ago on Chris Hayes' ALL In.  She related to Hayes how Lawrence Summers had told here that "insiders don't criticize the powers that be" - and that was what "outsiders" did. And "outsiders" would never have the ear of the powerful. Warren had a choice at that point to not make waves with her Consumer Protection Bureau or go all in, and she chose the   latter, By doing do, she made herself an "outsider", but at the same time a real person to speak truth to power as opposed to being exploited by power to dispense propaganda.

Incredibly, the White House Correspondents' Association (WHCA) was actually founded to protect the independence of the press corps from encroachment and interference by the (Woodrow) Wilson administration.   This alone ought to inspire cognitive dissonance, given you don't form an association with the power center of the nation in order to preserve independence from it. The more rational choice would be to form your own media-press association.  Ah, but then you'd likely have to forgo access to those in power.

So what?  You don't need 'insider' access to report on their actions, decisions- which effects can be visibly manifest. Insider access merely grants you personal time, possibly for interviews, in which they will merely dispense more bromides and PR in any case.

In fact, the only funny part of last night's event was when Obama mentioned that his call for "Yes, we can!" had since turned into his reaching for Control-Alt-Delete, and the joke that the "47 percent" phoned Mitt Romney and apologized (well, not quite). Basically then he could at least laugh at the truth and facts of his plummeting poll numbers.  But whether he really understood why his poll numbers have tanked (including in 93 other nations across the world, see e.g. http://www.salon.com/2014/05/03/93_countries_that_have_flip_flopped_on_obama_partner/) is another matter.  Even he kidded that the press corps "wasn't doing its job" (in keeping him humble - though the polls ought to).

The most important aspect of the White House Correspondents' Dinner? How we have no real free and independent press which means, of course, we cannot trust the information coming from our media.

Pals of the power mongers cannot be pals to us, in terms of giving us what we need to know. And thus, if the press corps can't or won't do its job we have to do it for them - hence the reason for "outsider" political blogs, or blogs that (part time) feature  attention to political issues, such as Brane Space. People then at least have a choice, of getting some kernels of truth as to what is happening, or going to the PR pit of the mainstream media.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-boardman/55716/msnbc-can-be-trusted-by-the-established-order-thats-a-problem

‘Hope’ Is for Dummies and Sissies – What We Need Is Courage

Let’s get real: hope is like a drug that turns the critical centers of most human brains off and dispatches them to ‘La-la’ land. But this is precisely why shameless politicos will go on using it, dragging it out from their duffel bags of political detritus whenever they suspect it might be useful.

 

We already know how Obama played the ‘Hope’ card back in 2008, and by deftly using it brought into play an unlikely coalition of youthful idealists, hard core union guys, tree huggers, anti-War advocates, religiously conservative blacks and Catholics, and far left anti-capitalists (like moi.)  The result was a resounding victory with one of the biggest election margins a Democrat ever mustered.

 

The problem is that despite the Hope card, our hopes were mainly dashed. Guantanamo remained open (still is),  Iraq wound down – but Afghanistan was ramped up – and Obama wants us to remain until 2024, the middle class is still drowning in debt – especially college students and the wealthier are richer than ever. Worse, Obama even dared to put the most sacrosanct Middle class benefit – in Social Security – on the table for a cut (though he didn’t call it that – but realists know it was.)  Meanwhile, the guy instead of being the epitome of hope and change also professed steadfast opposition to all whistle blowers and endorsed NSA mass surveillance.

 

In this historical setting,  Obama’s words from the keynote speech of the 2004 Democratic Convention certainly ring hollow:

 

“The audacity of hope echoes the best of the American spirit. – the audacity to believe despite all evidence to the contrary.”

 

Well, I can tell you one thing, given all the “evidence to the contrary” – let me say I am not about to believe that: Obama will pull out of Afghanistan before his 2^nd term ends, shutter Guantanamo, repeal NSA mass surveillance, or stop his drone kills and siege of whistle blowers. I’m not even prepared to believe he won’t approve the Keystone pipeline – after the November elections, of course, when it no longer matters to him politically.

 

To invoke the words of Professor of Philosophy, Simon Critchley (NY Times, April 20):

 

“It is precisely this type of hope that I think we should try to give up. It is not audacious, but mendacious.”

 

He goes on to observe that it is exactly this type of baseless hope that permeates the national psyche, and as it does – blinds us to the reality of the world we inhabit. This then gives rise to a stupor or paralysis of action, fueled by a sentimental complacency that prevents us from seeing things aright and "protesting against this administration’s moral and political lapses and those of other administrations.”

 

Thus, the  center Left (mainly) doesn’t want to criticize Obama (despite the fact he’s earned it on multiple fronts as I noted above),  if the Repukes are already doing it. The meme seems to be: “Look,  okay he’s not doing everything right but we don’t want to pile onto the guy!” And so the way is prepped for the forlorn Obamabot to “hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil”.

 

The same sick apathy prevents Dems from ferociously going after LBJ, who not only launched a massive war on a pretext, but also likely masterminded JFK’s assassination. But oh no, we don’t wanna go there because-  after all - the guy signed into law the Civil Rights Bill, the Voting Rights Act and blah, blah, blah.  And people wonder why our political system doesn’t change for the better?  How can it when most of us are prepared to give a pass to constitutional violations as well as outright treachery (assisting in the assassination of one’s President)?

 

No surprise then I side with Prof. Critchley when he declares that what we need in the face of what Nietzsche called “a strict, had factuality” isn't  hope but “courage in the face of reality.” Hope then is merely a form of moral cowardice that “allows us to escape from reality and prolong human suffering.”

 

When democracy goes astray, say under pressure from the national security state, or my state of Colorado turns totally into a fracking nightmare, “hope” will not save the day. Hope will not cause the NSA’s PRISM or MUSCULAR programs to be disbanded, nor will it halt the NSA’s grabbing up of emails, texts and phone lists. However, if states acted on their own to pass legislation to deny NSA centers the resources they need, say water to cool their giant computers, then real change could be brought to bear. But that takes courage for the states to act in that bold capacity – without caving in to the screams of the security fetishists, e.g. “Traitors!”.

 

In like manner, hope will not save Colorado homeowners from the wrath of the frackers after the next election. (Many of these homeowners looking out from the north side of Denver can see frack derricks for as far as the eye can see).  But courageous action in helping Colorado Dem Jared Polis get a law passed to turn control of fracking – including its regulation or banning – over to local communities, will.

 

Aeschylus in  “Prometheus Bound” describes the agony of the chained super hero who is interrogated by the chorus and asked whether Prometheus gave humans anything else but fire. His response?

 

“I sowed in them blind hopes.”

 See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-boardman/55716/msnbc-can-be-trusted-by-the-established-order-thats-a-problem

and:
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/03/93_countries_that_have_flip_flopped_on_obama_partner/

Benghazi Derangement Syndrome Strikes Again!

This question must be asked: Is there some Benghazi bot embedded in Republican brains that recycles every few months, triggering a monstrous electrical cascade in their amygdalas,  inducing screams of "BENGHAZI!!"    This occurred to me after the news came out yesterday that Darryl Issa plans to form a "special select committee" to further investigate....Benghazi!

According to one Issa tweet released yesterday, likely after the Benghazi bot seized control of his brain:

Today I announced a subpoena requiring Secretary Kerry to testify at a public @GOPoversight hearing on May 21. #Benghazi

Then later in the day, we were treated on the CBS Evening news to a South Carolina imp named Gomer Gowdy, yelping that the truth will out! Yessiree! "We will get to the bottom of Benghazi!" 

Issa’s subpoena is in response to the revelation of new emails sent by Obama administration officials in the hours following the attack in 2012. This, development is described by goofy Republicans as a “smoking gun” that proves the White House was misleading in its description of the causes of incident that led to four American deaths. The emails referred to 'talking points' for Susan Rice and implicated a vile video that was released days earlier, as being the real trigger.

During several cycles of "Benghazi madness" likely induced by the bots, the GOOPrs went ape shit and demanded answers. Well they finally arrived at the end of December last year when The New York Times released the results of its own extensive investigation. The Times report ('Deadly Mix In Benghazi, False Allies, Rude Video', December 29) based on multiple reliable sources, concluded the video WAS responsible, and incited anti-American rage but it wasn't Al Qaeda involved.

Rather, it was one of the militias with which the U.S. had made common cause to oust Libyan dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi.  In retrospect, this also shows the wisdom of the U.S. not compounding previous errors by making alliances with the Syrian rebels to take down Assad, see e.g.  http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/if-youre-agaist-radical-jihadists-you.html  I would also add that it discloses the wisdom of not making alliances with fascists and nationalists in the Ukraine - though it looks like that cow has already escaped the barn.

Anyway, as the Times piece stated:

"Months of investigation centered on extensive  interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.

The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefitted directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in part by anger at an American -made video denigrating Islam."

The piece went on to delve into the basis in much more detail while also noting the (usually) garrulous Issa "had no comment" and that the incident "shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies in convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-American sentiment."

Meanwhile, in the wake of the report, Benghazi bots evidently triggered rage in the brain of Peter King (R- NY) who flipped out at the NY Times editorial board,  calling them "apologists for terrorists".    It didn't matter that an exhaustive investigation had proven the video was responsible, /something I already concluded in an earlier (Sept. 14, 2012)  blog post ('Getting a Grip on Reality - The Fake Film And Muslim Outrage') Therein I noted:

"Now, as 11 Muslim nations – from the Sudan, to Egypt to Yemen, Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia go up in flames and riots, and 4 Americans have been left dead in Libya (Btw, NO Marines! There were two former Navy Seals killed and a civilian USAID worker apart from Ambassador Stevens). Questions are being asked as to: Who started it?, and What was this film? – what was the nature of it?

Some deluded nabobs have posed the issue as “free speech”, and that the film maker – who until recently remained hidden – had the right to portray what he wanted, without fear of distant uprisings, bloodshed or reprisals. But that specious speech cover does not apply to a film 'maker' who lies about his identity and especially the film title itself (in misrepresenting it and the film's featured characters to the actors), as well as the origins of the financial backers.

In the wake of the investigation by Brian Ross of ABC News, e.g.http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/anti-islam-film-producer-guilty-drug-fraud-charges-17231542

we now know this "movie" and its dubious maker were the ones that triggered Benghazi.

Did the Repukes ever accept this? No, they did not. They didn't accept it for the same reason most of them don't accept human caused global warming. Facts and reality are too painful for them, so they have to invent their own reasons.

With reality the casualty on Benghazi too, look for these goofballs to have no problem squandering tens of millions of your tax dollars on  a lengthy investigation that will go nowhere. Given it's all about politics, in this case trying to diminish Hillary's chances, they will likely stretch it all out until 2016.

Do the Repukes ever feel any shame regarding their insane actions and costly paranoia, as on Benghazi? How can they when bots are running their brains? Let us also recall Einstein's famous words defining insanity:

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/55721/benghazi-wtf

How Capital Really Came to Control the Human Populace in the 21st Century- Part II

The evolution of central banking and currencies to the system of globalized Neoliberal capital is predicated on what came before in terms of eliminating multiple local currencies to induce scarcity (See Pt. I). The worth and fluctuation of the selected central currency could then be determined by assorted manipulations, e.g. such as in the present Federal Reserve era in the U.S. with the Fed’s quantitative easing program that has ‘juiced’ the stock market to unheard of highs – while depriving savers of income. In this way the Fed deliberately super-charged the financial landscape in favor of speculation over safe saving.

 Conversely, the Fed has been able to create scarcity when it wants to – say by implementation of deflationary policies. Much of the Fed’s basis and purpose has been discussed at length by James Livingstone in his monograph 'Origins of the Federal Reserve System- Money, Class and Corporate Capitalism’, 1890-1913. As he observes on, p. 233:

 

"...the creation of the Federal Reserve is an episode in, or evidence for, the emergence of a modern ruling class.. "

 

How so? Because all money created - on average $30-40 billion a year- is *brokered* into the system. That is, made available by escalating debt. This is achieved by the Fed using the money created to purchase government bonds, thereby making this (debt-burdened) product available to private banks at greater cost, so they must charge much higher interest than the bonds to secure what they regard as a 'reasonable return'.   This is also why JFK's injection of "U.S. Notes" (created by the Treasury not the Federal Reserve) couldn't be tolerated, because it introduced a non-debt burdened currency that would gradually move the financial edifice away from scarcity and hoarding  - for more on this, see:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/07/yes-those-us-notes-were-real.html

 

And so while nascent Americans, in their revolutionary fervor, had thrown off the shackles of one monarchy, within 137 years they came under the boots of another. This one devoted to the business and banking classes, who demanded ever more favored treatment vis-a-vis 'ordinary' citizens.

 As Rushkoff points out (op. cit., p. 171):

“To this day, the bias of centralized currency is toward scarcity and hoarding. This slows down the rate at which money circulates, while concentrating wealth at the top.”

 

This is not difficult to figure out. If only a certain species of coinage or currency is accepted as ‘real’ then there will be a natural tendency to hoard it. If it is hoarded then there will be scarcity, so aggregate demand will seize up and de facto fiat money will have to be printed to compensate. In the case of the past six years or so this fiat money has been engendered by the Fed holding down interest rates to absurd levels while doing monthly bond buying to the tune of $85 billion. The hoarding is now all in terms of Wall Street and Banks (as well as billionaires) who are able to exploit the cheap money environment in assorted nefarious ways. These include: inside information, flash trading, hedge fund gaming, credit default swaps and enticing ordinary investors to unwisely buy into the raging market – then collecting the spoils when it collapses – as all Bull markets do.

 

The game, obviously, is rigged so that the rich can get richer and everyone else gets poorer.  In other words, contrary to Neolib propaganda it is zero sum: each extra dollar the wealthy rats get is one less for you. Worse, the Neoliberal imperative dictates that those on the lower rungs be disallowed any economic security, especially via government social insurance programs. In this way it feeds economic inequality while it rewards the speculator and banker class - namely those who benefit from the rigged Neolib capitalist system. It also helps to corrupt the political class via unregulated campaign contributions – which, instead of being equitably distributed to all contenders – is now hoarded by only a few top candidates. When the majority of candidates lose – as they must -  all the donations contributed are lost.

 

Five years after the New World Order dawned,  Jay Bookman aptly noted('The New World Disorder Evident Here, Abroad', in The Baltimore Sun, December 15, 1997):

"The global economy has been constructed on the premise that government guarantees of security and protection must be avoided at all costs, because they discourage personal initiative. In times of crisis, however, that premise cannot be sustained politically. In times of trouble it is human nature to seek security and protection and to be drawn toward those who promise to provide it. That is how men such as Adolf Hitler, and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin came to power, with disastrous consequences."

 

This aspect also has to do with what economists call “Pareto optimality” – which is another reason the rich keep getting richer and well known even before Piketty’s book arrived. This is based on the Pareto distribution, which confers much greater value (in what are called ‘utils’) to the money of the rich, than the money of the non-rich.  See e,g,


Since this difference exists, Vilfredo Pareto argued more power must be given to those higher util dollars. Today this would mean dispensing with government subsidies like food stamps, unemployment insurance or welfare. It also would also mean cuts to Social Security since by Pareto Optimality it wasn’t right for old codgers to simply collect money for breathing every day – as opposed to investing or working for it.

 

One hidden, ugly side of the Neoliberal imperative is that when nations come under its yolk – as at least one part (western) of the Ukraine is likely to do – then all its government  economic and social supports must also be cut. The people are then tossed into the über market just like all others haplessly trapped in the Neolib matrix. This means the same thing that happened to the Russians in the 1990s must befall them: all pensions cut, no more government food or energy subsidies, and wage cuts of 40 to 50 percent (as recently happened with Greece). Oh, and rents increased by 50-70 percent too!

 

An even more ugly side, as noted by Rushkoff  (Ch. 7, ‘From Ecology to Economy’) is that all remaining wealth on the planet must be hoarded and rendered scarce. This means millions of hectares of forest must be removed each year to make palm oil for assorted commercial products, even as millions of acre-feet of water must be wasted and despoiled each year to reap fracking profits. Whether ordinary people have any trees, or clean water left is not an issue that concerns the Neoliberal, only ensuring that they are faced with water scarcity, as well as that of other resources (clean air).

 

If you need some insight into what the Neoliberal global order will look like in the year 2050, check out the first five minutes of the scifi film ‘Elysium’.  Look carefully at the landscape of wasted, rotted out buildings, scruffy people in rags eking out an existence and then look around now – and see the emergence of a similar landscape if the global frackers get their way.

 

Again, Pareto optimality and its perverted economics dictate this: to amass and hoard ever more wealth (in money) so that natural wealth must be destroyed. If ordinary people die by the millions because of the effects of climate change or polluted water, e.g. from cholera or amoebic dysentery, it matters not because those people control less wealth anyway – so in terms of Pareto optimality – aren’t worth that much. This is also why the Neoliberal sees more sense in dispensing massive tons of toxic garbage to the less developed world: the inhabitants of those locales already are facing serious health issues so more toxic waste doesn’t matter in the scheme of things. For the time  being it’s more economically useful than letting it pile up here in the U.S., where it might generate ten times more cancers, and having millions consume Medicare funds to get them treated.

Of course, once the Neolibs can get rid of all “entitlements” that all might be changed.  These so-called entitlements are the main bulwark now standing between a barely surviving Middle Class in the U.S. (which has already been overtaken by Canada's Middle Class, not surprisingly) and one that goes under. In that future all seniors will only receive a "welfare" pittance, and will have to work in some manner if they want to live at a decent level.

 The bottom line is that the Neoliberal imperative as I’ve described it is what’s responsible for generating massive income inequality. While Thomas Piketty’s factors (i.e. inherited wealth)  do enter, they are not as historically cogent as the ones Douglas Rushkoff points out that preceded them – especially the original move to centralized currencies and banking.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/gaius-publius/54836/neoliberalism-just-deserts-and-the-post-climate-crisis-economy

 

How Capital Really Came to Control the Human Populace in the 21st Century (1)

Engraved ironwork near town center in Oberammergau, beseeching deliverance from the Black Death. Evidence now indicates changed economics - by way of a controlled central currency-   led to the Black Plague.

"Whenever surplus wealth accumulates in any society, whenever people emerge from a cooperative subsistence economy, some portion of the population will do everything it can to exploit the labor of the rest of the people in as pitiless a manner as possible. This is true whether it be the slaveholders of ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, and the antebellum American South; or the feudal aristocracy of medieval Europe; or the financial moguls of modern capitalist society."  - Michael Parenti

French economist Thomas Piketty ‘s  book “Capital in the 21st Century,”  is now selling out at amazon so fast  that used copies are being sold for $70 or more each. In addition,  the book continues to set off a firestorm of media commentary in places as disparate as the New York Times Review of Books to the National Review.. In the book, Piketty painstakingly reconstructs the last couple of centuries of wealth and income inequality in the world and provides cogent theories to explain the origin and dynamics. He uses those theories and projections about future growth to predict what the next century of inequality will look like, and it’s not a pretty picture. Among other things, we will see the  further rise of inheritance (for do nothing rich  scions)  as a major player in economic fortunes.

 Worse, inheritance delivers a powerful head start for the rich who merely have to become rentiers – parking their loot in some family friendly fund – to have it grow and grow. They can then use it to leverage business deals or even start businesses – and mostly automate them so they don’t have to hire flesh and blood workers and pay benefits.

Is all of this really new? Not really!  Though Piketty makes the excessive accumulation of wealth to be some newfangled phenomenon, it really isnt’. As Douglas Rushkoff observes in his earlier book, LIFE, INC- How Corporations Conquered the World, economies of scarcity were engineered into Western European societies from the Middle Ages.  Nearly all the nasty events, including the bubonic plague which wiped out a third of Europe’s populace, could be traced to rigging the game for the elites.

 How did this occur? Rushkoff is detailed in his explanations, but it basically can be reduced to the deliberate elimination of local currencies. The first destabilization transpired in the 1290s when “England exercised its own changes in the monetary system – outlawing all local currencies in favor of one single scarce coin issued by central authorities.”

The step (toward central banking) was a major coup by the elites. In one fell swoop it meant ordinary villagers' money was rendered worthless, and hence their markets and barter systems too. By dictating a single rate coin as the only valid exchange medium, the destiny of the average person became hitched to the desires of the  elites.  The monarchs then could extract wealth through constant debasement, i.e. allowing the value of the single rare coin to become less and less – even as local currencies vanished like the Dodo.

The effect was nasty and brutish, as within ten years the population had reversed to a decline as standards of living fell. With those lowered standards of living the quality of living conditions themselves deteriorated with cleanliness and waste disposal the first casualty. No surprise that by the time the plague hit, a dramatic decline in population was already under way – and conditions deteriorated to the basest.

Rushkoff writes (p. 170):

“Unable to earn a living on their farms or in towns, people migrated to cities for jobs as unskilled day laborers in dirty and dangerous workshops. With less money to spare, towns made fewer investments in basic sanitation. The increase in forced loyalty to central patriarchal authorities ,,,,led to the repression of folk remedies and women’s access to work. As a result people’s access to health care diminished as well. Superstition rose, witches and other suspicious characters burned and communities turned against themselves.

Famines and epidemics – which has previously been highly local, limited events – became widespread phenomena.”

In the meantime, the central monetary authorities raked in the wealth, often from confiscated properties of all those forced to live outside the privileged system. Many of these had died in penury. Indeed,  Rushkoff notes that “ten percent of Europe’s population died eating cats, dogs rats and in some cases children, before the plague even it.”

 In other words, the centralized currency system cast the population into destitution and “Europe’s currency driven economic collapse led to the plague.”  None of this is difficult to fathom when one considers how inextricably tied  waste disposal is to economics. Simply look at Haiti in our own hemisphere, and how the spread of cholera there has continued with tens of thousands more cases reported the past three years. Why? Primarily  because the money isn't available to repair or implement the sewage disposal infrastructure needed or to clean up the contaminated water supply. People continue to use the same river where the original contamination occurred (now traced to Nepalese UN workers, with the cholera bacteria traced to a strain peculiar to Nepal,)

In a similar vein, plague towns such as Oberammergau in Germany would have been among the first to suffer from lack of even primitive waste disposal resources once its local currency was eliminated, and poverty arrived.

Still, the elites weren’t satisfied because in their minds they merely had produced an aberration: culling the population of too many of the lesser classes by means of their manipulations. What they wanted was a means to lock their gains into place and ensure the lesser groups would never rise to challenged them.  To do this, they had to implement a system which demanded wage slaves (to replace the earlier actual slaves) and also that these wage slaves would never earn enough from labor to rival their criminally acquired capital. They also realized they needed to design rigged markets, just in case any of the hoi polloi did amass enough wealth on their own. The rigged markets then were designed to empty their pockets and accounts before they could consolidate wealth.

Rushkoff explains (p. 171) that what we call the “Renaissance” wasn’t a true Renaissance at all but a false one that just marked the end of the plague whereby “a small group exploited monetary policy to accumulate massive wealth.” This wealth would then allow them to hire labor at any wage they wished, but usually payable just above survival level.


The real Renaissance, meanwhile, was “a period of bottom up prosperity and abundance facilitated by the co-existence of multiple currencies.”

Why eliminate them? Because by doing so the nefarious path was paved to scarcity and hoarding, both of which benefited the wealthiest - who were simultaneously able to generate the most scarcity (by monopolizing job choices, pay, resources) as well as hoarding - whether currency or resources. More discussion of this to follow in Part II.

IDIOTS R US: The Lamo Right Compares Cliven Bundy to Occupy Wall Street

An Occupy Wall Street protestor  from November, 2011 (top) and Cliven Bundy. Is she the same as Bundy? Only a moron would believe so!

 

After the recent Right Wing media debacle of supporting nutso racist Cliven Bundy and his merry band of militia losers, one can't imagine how the mental deterioration could get worse. But evidently it can, because they're now trying to compare Cliven Bundy's Nevada stand - the egregious claim he "owns" the land his cattle are grazing on - to the Occupy Wall Street protestors of 2011. 

 

According to one idiot Denver Post letter writer (who clearly got this nonsense from FOX or some other lamo news site):

 

"A previous letter writer said the Republican Party is 'saddled with' Cliven Bundy forever. Is the Democratic Party saddled with the anti-government Occupy Wall Street people? Probably not! The Democratic Party jumped into bed with that ridiculous group the same way the Republicans did with the ill-spoken Bundy"

 

Not so fast there, Sparky! False equivalence is widespread but you gain nothing by attempting to invoke it against the Dems.

 

Let's try to clear the air for this numbskull:

 

1) Occupy Wall Street was not a unilateral "anti-government" group as this fool claims. They were protesting against ONE facet of government:  the privileged banking -financial sector (mainly based in Federal Reserve- though technically it isn't even a part of the federal gov't) which had been responsible for expediting the nation's plunge into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression (in 2008).  Conversely, Bundy declared opposition to ALL branches of the federal government, to the extent he wouldn't even recognize it!

 

 

2) Bundy and his band of nuts were REAL anti-government tools, who actually took arms against Bureau of Land Management staff in NV - with militia snipers hiding in the covers aiming their rifles. By contrast, Occupy Wall Street protestors had been placed in the sniper sights of security forces, for example in Houston TX, see e.g.

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/1494

 

3) Occupy Wall Street protestors made no remarks or statements that could be construed as racist, or endorsing the horrific slave system, unlike Bundy who blustered:

 

"I wanna tell yuh one more thing I know about the Nigras! Weren't they better off as slaves, pickin'  cotton  and havin' a family life  ..."

 

 

4)  OWS actually protested on allocated areas permitted for those purposes, in assorted cities, e.g. NYC. Even the odd protestors (as in LA) who took over an area,  didn't lay permanent claim to it or graze cattle on it like Bundy did. They did not appropriate land for which federal FEES are assessed - remain there for YEARS (with the fees and penalties piling up) then refuse to pay them.

 

5) OWS protestors didn't have "militias" arrive, armed to the teeth,  from all over the country and point their rifles at the police who faced off against them.

 

6) Occupy protestors were fighting against the rampant inequality of income distribution (enshrined in the Neoliberal capitalist system)  that has allowed the wealthy and their scions get wealthier  while the ordinary middle class has descended further into the morass of debt and economic despair. Even seeing their offspring saddled with monstrous college debt that now totals $1.2 trillion.

 

Bundy - already a millionaire rancher- has demanded special privileges for himself in grazing his cattle free off federal land, that no other NV ranchers have. In this he has put himself firmly in the class of the privileged elites (1 percent)  that OWS inveighed against.

 

Mixing Occupy Wall Street with Cliven Bundy is the typical false equivalence tactic I'd expect from a Reepo moron, thereby attempting to tar both parties- but it won't work.   We already know which party is racist and also know which party wants to keep most workers in the country poor ....and on food stamps.

 

For that look no further than the Repukes' blocking any hike in the national minimum wage yesterday. They'd rather have and support those like Cliven Bundy than the typical OWS protestor who still owes $30,000 in college debt. The Repukes want millionaire  "socialists" who want to feed off government's teats (e.g. land)  for free - not indebted and impecunious young people!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/55682/cliven-bundys-friends-have-become-the-koch-brothers-useful-idiots

A Dental Visit And Oral Cancer Scare - What You Need to Know

Most of us are concerned with a constellation of other cancers, including prostate, lungs, breast, skin and the liver and kidney cancers John Phillips has linked to consuming GMO foods. But off the radar is oral cancer, which kills one American every hour.  A fact I learned yesterday at the regular 6 month dental cleaning and periodontal exam.

The dentist strongly suggested getting the Visilite test at the end of the cleaning and exam, given the incidence has been increasing - especially among males. I agreed, and probably also learned more about oral cancer, its emergence and treatment then I ever wanted to know. (And here I am still dealing with getting psa tests after radiation treatment nearly a year and a half ago. But good news there - at least the psa went down for once - from 2.8 to 2.5).

The Visilite test begins with filling one's mouth with one half of a small bottle of liquid tasting only somewhat less vile than the stuff they prescribe drinking before a colonoscopy. The taste was roughly similar to a strong raspberry vinaigrette that's gone off. You hold it for a minute, swish and gargle at the end- then it's time to take the other half bottle. The same procedure is followed, after which you are left waiting five minutes for the concoction to do its work and stain the tissues that need to be examined using the Visilite.

The dentist then begins probing  all around the mouth with the Visilite, from left to right side, while also pushing on the gum tissue, then peering down the throat (which is why you're asked to gargle too.)  In attendance too is the dental hygienist taking notes. About halfway through I heard the ominous words:

"Lesion on soft palate on left side."

When the exam concluded, she obviously had my attention and I asked about the lesion discovered. She said it was "unremarkable" and described it as keratotic tissue. This basically refers to any kind of tissue that increases the thickness of the epithelium and causes it to appear white. Generally it arises from a (genetic ) condition called hyper-keratosis where any excess keratin becomes drenched with saliva and appears white. It can also happen with cheek biting or use of tobacco products, either from chewing tobacco (smokeless tobacco induced keratosis) or nicotine stomatitis.

When I asked regarding the cancer risk on a 1-10 scale she replied: "I give a '3'."

She didn't appear to worry too much - she was more concerned with a periodontal (gum loss)  measurement of 6mm at one rear molar. (For which a "deep cleaning and scaling" was prescribed at a later date.)  In any case she said oral cancer was far more prevalent among younger males in the 18-34 age group, particularly those who have regularly engaged in oral sex.

The culprit for the younger set? HPV or human papilloma virus which can reside in the cervix and is taken in during oral sex. Unless the female has had the HPV vaccine, she is likely to spread it to unsuspecting males. It may linger for years with the guy unaware of the cancer that has been triggered until finally some disconcerting event, perhaps a difficulty in swallowing, leads to a medical intervention.

I asked what the treatment would be if the lesion discovered in my mouth becomes cancerous and the dentist said: "We'd have to surgically excise it."

I was also interested in the fact that most people who get oral cancer have no adverse life style indicators: they don't smoke, they don't chew tobacco, they don't use alcohol to excess and they rarely ever perform oral sex. In this case, I asked whether external factors like chemical agents or even GMO foods could be responsible for the onset, and she said "It's possible, but we don't have enough information.".

Other stats show the high incidence for oral cancer has been around at least the past 40 years. Whatever is causing it, and if it exists in the environment, must be widespread  - and I suspect, chemical. Perhaps a pesticide or weedicide - left on foods that aren't organic - but consumed by many people? Maybe.

The search goes on but in the meantime getting the Visilite oral cancer check may be in your best interest!