Regressives: Get the Hell Out of My Country!

A Must Read Article of the Day...   by David Michael Green

America is, in fact, exceptionally bad when it comes to any of a whole host of measures, such as health, longevity, economic equality, crime, pollution, etc. 

Over there in Sweden, on the other hand, the application of socialist ideas has turned out slightly differently than what those nice conservatives in America would have you believe.  The ‘disaster’ of European socialism has led Europeans, especially Swedes, to kick America’s ass on basically any measure of quality of life one can imagine.

Uh-oh.
That whole fact thing that we in “the reality-based community” rely upon for intelligent analysis and policy prescription is almost always a disaster for regressives.  You know, sorta like, “Iraq has WMD, therefore we should invade, and it will be a great war, fast, easy, cheap, and it will bring democracy to the Middle East (even though all our other policies there are about preventing it at all costs, but pay no attention to that)”.  That kinda thing.  When that little riff smacked up against the ugly reality-based community known as the real world, it, uh – how shall we say it? – didn’t fare so very well. 

Nor did the insistence that radical tax cuts for the rich would boom the economy and simultaneously actually increase revenues to the federal treasury.  Oops. 

Now the very same people who made that promise are screaming about how we have to slash spending on health and education to make up for the massive debt that was produced when their fantasies met reality. 

Then there’s global warming...

I could go on and on here.  There is a very real pattern, which twenty minutes of watching Glenn Beck would immediately reveal to anyone who didn’t already know better. 

Regressives hide from reality.  It’s that simple. 

Nor is it a mystery why.  Facts don’t support the policies they’ve already ferociously embraced before – not after – they’ve done their ‘analysis’, policies they cling to so strongly because they either benefit them personally or assuage their rampant fears. 

That’s how it works, and that’s why this country is in the disastrous state that it’s in. 

We’ve been following so-called conservative policies for thirty years now (yes, very much including those periods in which Democrats were in the White House and ruled Congress). 

These policies are astonishingly destructive, which is why regressives have to pretend when it comes to reality, and which is why they almost always do, more so in this current era of Bachmann-Palin overdrive than ever.

I mention all this because a couple of folks reacted to the blizzard of comparative facts in my last piece in the usual regressive way:  through obfuscation, distortion and deceit.  No surprise there.  One particular response caught my eye, however, and nearly knocked me off my chair.  A couple of folks noted that, yes, America does poorly on all these statistics compared to other countries, but only if you count minorities.  If you compare American whites only, they argue, then the US does much better.

Excuse me?!?!  What’s that?!?!  Did you really just say that?!?!

It’s hard to imagine all the ways in which this is nonsensical.  More to the point, it’s difficult to determine whether at the end of the day it is characterized more by its unmitigated stupidity or its sheer offensiveness.

Why?  Let’s start with the most benign criticism we might imagine, which is that – Hello! – other countries have minorities too.  There are lots of folks who could be dropped from Sweden’s or France’s or Germany’s population if we are in the business of cherry-picking statistics. 

Of course, if on the other hand you’re just desperately trying to win a debate that otherwise makes you look stupid, then you would only cherry-pick on one side of the comparison.

Second, where in the world do nice, shiny white folks get off making a point like this, anyhow?  Have they forgotten that there’s the small matter of how American minorities wound up in the condition they’re in to consider?  You don’t suppose that, say, four centuries of white-imposed slavery and Jim Crow might have had anything to do with that, do you?  I mean, I’m just thinking out loud here, and I know it might just be a really big coincidence and all, but just the same...

Third, what does race have to do with statistics that compare the health care systems, or the degree of government corruption, or the percentage of women in parliament, or the propensity to go to war, or carbon emissions, or the number of hours worked per week, or worker safety, or any number of other measures? 

The answer, of course, is nothing.  At all.  None of those factors would be changed by omitting one portion of American society from the comparison, and all of them reveal how exceptional the US is – exceptionally backward, that is.

But, finally, and most egregiously, what the hell is up with this concept of comparing only part of a country, anyhow?  Are blacks and Hispanics somehow less American in the eyes of regressives?  Do they somehow not count for as much?  I think we all pretty much know the real answers to those questions, right-wing protestations that conservatives aren’t racist notwithstanding.

But let’s just go with their concept, shall we?  Just for fun.  What if there was one part of America that was dragging down the rest of us?  Shouldn’t we exclude them from the country, or at the very least treat them with the contempt they so fully deserve for polluting the otherwise unblemished exceptionalism of our nation?  Aren’t regressives really right about this?  Shouldn’t we ditch these losers, so the rest of us can shine like we deserve to?

For example, let’s talk about health.  What if I told you that a 21-factor health index statistic revealed that the following states are the ten most healthy in America, in order:  Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Maine, Iowa, Utah, Hawaii, Nebraska and Connecticut?  Now what if I told you that the following states are the ten least healthy on that same ranked list:  Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Nevada, New Mexico, Mississippi, and worst of all, Louisiana?

Might you notice anything interesting in that pattern?  For instance, that almost all of the most healthy states are blue states – including Vermont, Massachusetts, Hawaii and Connecticut, four of the bluest states in the union?  Or that Vermont and Massachusetts, the healthiest and third healthiest states in America, respectively, have the most socialized health care systems in the country?  Or perhaps you’d find it remarkable that among the ten least healthy states in the country there are no blue states and just two purple ones.  Indeed, with the exception of Utah, that list includes all our most conservative states, places like Texas and Mississippi and South Carolina.  They’re as red as they come.

So, how about it, my regressive friends?  Are you still on board for the idea of dropping the national detritus off the list in order to boost America’s statistics and restore its rightful comparative place?  Think how much better we’d look compared to the Europeans if we just ditched the Terrible Ten listed above!  What do you say?

Sorry, could you speak a bit louder?  I’m not quite hearing your response...

Oh well, no worries.  You’ll have plenty of other opportunities.  We’re just getting started.

Let’s look at some other measures of heath, for example.  How about obesity?  Here are the ten fattest states, in order:  Mississippi, West Virginia, Texas, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee and Missouri.  Not exactly paragons of liberalism, are they?  No, for that you’d have to look to the list of the least obese states, which are:  Hawaii, Utah, Florida, Montana, Arizona, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Massachusetts, and best of all, Colorado.  Most of these are, of course, blue states.

Well, maybe we should look at infant mortality rates, that key indicator in measuring the quality of health in any given polity.  Those American states with the worst scores are:  Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, West Virginia, Delaware, Missouri and Arkansas.  On the other hand, those states who do best on this measure are:  Utah, Alaska, California, Minnesota, Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine and New York.  Louisiana’s infant mortality rate is 10.3 per 1000 live births.  New York’s is less than half that, at 4.0.

Is anyone beginning to see a pattern here?

How about crime?  These ten states had the highest per capita incidence of violent crime in 2006:  South Carolina, Tennessee, Nevada, Florida, Louisiana, Alaska, Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico and Michigan.  On the other hand, the safest states were:  Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Utah, South Dakota, New Hampshire, Vermont, North Dakota, and best of all, Maine.  These lists are a bit more mixed than others we’ve seen, but there is still a clear tendency for the red states to be more violent.  Should we drop them from America?

But surely the conservative parts of America do better economically, right?  No doubt fiscal conservatism has raised the standard of living in red states, while the blue states are dragging down the US average, eh?  Here are the ten states in America with the highest median family income:  New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Alaska, Hawaii, Minnesota, Virginia and Illinois.  With the exception of purple Maryland and Virginia and red Alaska, they are all blue states.  And, since Alaska gets such a huge chunk of its income from federal government and oil giveaways, it shouldn’t even be on the list.  On the other hand, here are the ten poorest states in America:  North Carolina, Idaho, Alabama, Montana, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Mexico, West Virginia, Arkansas and bottom-feeder Mississippi.  See a pattern, anyone?  There’s not a single liberal state on that list.  Mississippi, with a median family income of $39,319, is only slightly better than half as rich as New Jersey, at $73,973

.

Same is true of bankruptcies.  Those states with the highest per capita number of filings include:  Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Michigan, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio.  Those with the lowest are:  Wyoming, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, California, Maine, Alaska and best of all Hawaii.  Once again, it is mainly Regressiveland that is dragging down the United States.

These figures are even clearer if we look at poverty.  If you want to go somewhere in America where the poverty rate is really high, here are your choices:  Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Texas, Alabama, South Carolina and Oklahoma.  On the other hand, those states sporting the lowest poverty rates are:  Delaware, Iowa, Virginia, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maryland, New Jersey, Minnesota, Alaska, Connecticut, and best of all, New Hampshire. 

It’s an extremely clear pattern.  The conservative states are the poorest.  In Mississippi, 21.6 percent of people are living below the poverty line (no wonder Governor Haley Barbour is running for president with that proud record), while in New Hampshire it’s about a third of that amount, at 7.6 percent.

Education is no different.  Here are the ten states in America with lowest percentage of folks having a high school diploma or better:  Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, California, Rhode Island, North Carolina, West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, and least educated of all, Texas.  On the other hand, these states do best on that same measure:  Minnesota, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Utah, New Hampshire, Vermont, Alaska, Iowa and Washington.

How about per capita occupational fatalities?  Wyoming has the worst record, followed by Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, Kentucky, West Virginia, South Dakota, Mississippi, New Mexico and Alabama.  The safest ten states for workers are:  Maryland, Arizona, New York, California, Michigan, Maine, Delaware, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, and on top, Rhode Island.

Or divorce rates?  They are highest in Nevada, Arkansas, Alabama, Wyoming, Idaho, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida and Mississippi.  On the other hand, those states with the lowest rates are:  Connecticut, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Illinois, Massachusetts and Georgia.

The pattern repeats itself over and over, with respect to almost any indicator of social welfare or standard of living one cares to examine. 

The upshot is simple:  You do not want to live in red states.  You will be poorer, fatter, less safe, less healthy, less married and less educated if you do.

In fact, about the only thing red states are better at is going to church.  The ten states with the highest percentage of children attending religious services each week are:  Mississippi, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, North Carolina and Nebraska. 

On the other hand, these states have the lowest rates on that same measure:  Connecticut, Montana, Colorado, Oregon, Alaska, Nevada, Washington, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, and lowest of all, Vermont.

Hmmm.  That’s interesting.  It would almost appear that god doesn’t love conservatives very much.  And imagine how badly she’d treat them if they weren’t so busy praying to her every week!

Oh well, that’s a subject for another essay.

But what we can say to our conservative friends right now is that, for once, they were correct (in addition to being right) about something.  Well, sorta, anyhow.  Yes, they were spot on in noting that there is a segment of America dragging the country down, and ruining its otherwise exemplary exceptionalism.

So, okay, fair enough.  Credit where credit is due.  Perhaps we can all agree with the folks on the right that America would be better off without these deadbeats diluting our national greatness, even though some of us used to think we’re all one country in it together and we should support each other.

Okay, okay, I concur.  Let’s get rid of them.  Let’s cut bait.  Let’s restore America’s greatness by ditching he precise group of people dragging the rest of us down.

Regressives, get the hell out of my country!

David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York.   More of his work can be found at his website, http://www.regressiveantidote.net/

Then They Came For the trade Unionists

A Must-Read Article of the Day...by      William Rivers Pitt 

Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wisconsin) is under fire for his budget proposal that eliminates collective bargaining rights for public sector union workers.

On this day, it behooves us to remember the words of Martin Niemoller.

"First they came for the communists," he wrote, "and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."

I am a trade unionist, and yesterday in Wisconsin, they came for me. They came for you. They came for every working person in America, and their intent could not be more clear. Governor Scott Walker, along with the Koch Brothers and the right-wing radicals of the Republican Party, moved in darkness and with shameless deceit to gut the ability of dedicated laborers to bargain on an equal footing for the right to earn a living wage and to have access to decent health care.

Among other things, the bill as passed allows the state to fire anyone who participates in a strike. The story of the 20th century was written by workers who dared to face the truncheon in order to fight for their basic rights, and the strike was integral to that struggle. Any Wisconsin worker who dares to stand in defiance of The Bosses now faces personal annihilation, not just for themselves, but for their family. America was made in the struggle of union workers standing shoulder to shoulder in defiance of the idea that being rich means being right. That struggle is now in mortal peril, and the outcome affects all of us.

Fairness and the rule of law had no place in Wednesday's filthy action. This move was done in secret, without notice or announcement as required by Wisconsin law, and bears the stamp of the cowards and cretins who are responsible. Similar anti-worker legislation has been unfolding in Ohio, Indiana, Florida and more than a dozen other states. Those responsible claim such actions are necessary because of economic concerns, but the Wisconsin perpetrators tipped their hand. They stripped the bill in question of anything having to do with the state budget, so as to give them the chance to vote without a quorum...but the entire premise of their anti-union attack was that the destruction of collective bargaining was needed to salvage the state's financial situation. By gutting the bill of any semblance of budgetary issues, all they were left with is what they were after in the first place: the end of collective bargaining, the end of unions altogether, and by proxy, the end of the Democratic Party.

Eric Kleefeld, the excellent reporter for TalkingPointsMemo, and a Wisconsin native, exposed the endgame thusly:

The Democratic Party in Wisconsin is, to an extent that is not true in most other states, a genuine labor party -- a party that is intertwined with unions at the institutional level, with many politicians who have also been union officials or done legal work with unions, and which speaks for organized labor in key debates. They in turn compete with the Republican Party, which represents business interests as embodied by the state's Chamber group, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, in what has until now been a sometimes uneasy but nevertheless predictable political system.

In short, unions in Wisconsin are not just economic organizations made up of their respective workers - they are political institutions that are a major part of the state. As such, a change to the state's union laws that would threaten the existence of organized labor would in turn threaten the existence of the Democratic Party itself in Wisconsin, as people have known it for over half a century -- something that state Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R) may have accidentally alluded to earlier today.

On top of that, the class consciousness was especially ignited by Walker's phone call two weeks ago with blogger Ian Murphy, who was posing as Republican financier David Koch. During that call, Walker discussed his ideas for tricking the Democrats into coming back by pretending to negotiate, his ambition to bust the public employee unions in the mold of President Reagan firing the air traffic controllers, and that he had considered (but ruled out) planting troublemakers in the crowds of protesters. But beyond the specifics, the optics alone were amazing: The state's governor was seen buddying up to someone he believed to be a mega-rich donor from out of state.

Say what you will about the Democratic Party. For my part, I can say plenty, especially about President Obama's total absence during the three weeks this struggle has been going on, and about the White House's angry insistence that the fight in Wisconsin is merely "a distraction."

All Party nonsense aside, this is about a governor attacking people who work for a living, because they have the gall to believe standing together to fight for simple things like fair wages and basic health care is more important than a failing governor's ego or political aspirations.

The fact of the matter is that Governor Walker has unleashed a frontal assault on working people in his state because wealthy corporatists believe "Because I Say So" is enough. Make no mistake, friends. This is class warfare. It is brazen, unmistakable, and now out in the open. They have so much, but they want more. It has been made all too clear that they will gut your life, your rights, your everything, in order to get what they want, and what they want is absolute and total control.

Mr. Niemoller wrote his poem decades ago. It might read like this today:

First they declared corporations were "people," and I didn't complain because I'm already a person.

Then they made unlimited money "speech," and I didn't complain because the American Dream says I'll be rich someday, too.

Then they commandeered the means of production by shipping our greatest strength - manufacturing - overseas, because they don't have bothersome unions over there, and I didn't complain because WalMart has cheap stuff.

Then they bought Congress so they could write the laws, and I didn't complain because I can’t be bothered to vote.

Then they bought the Supreme Court so they could cement their rule, and I didn't complain because I don't have time to pay attention.

Then they bought the news so they could convince everyone it's always been this way, and I didn't complain because it's always been this way.

Then they manhandled an election and I didn't complain because I'm not from Florida.

Then they lied us into wars and I didn't complain because I'm not a soldier, or an Iraqi, or an Afghani.

Then millions died for profit and I didn't complain because the graphics on the news were totally awesome.

Then they started locking people up because they said they could and I didn't complain because nobody locked me up.

Then they started spying on everyone because they said they could and I didn't complain because I'm a real American.

Then they came for the worker, but thanks to supply-side trickle-down economics, I don't have a job.

This truth is self-evident.

They are coming for you, and they are relentless.

Stand up.

For your country, for your family, for yourself.

Stand up.

Be heard.

Strike!

Go.
--/////--
This article was written by William Rivers Pitt, and pubished on March 10, 2011 at http://www.truth-out.org/then-they-came-trade-unionists68363

A Carrot, An Egg, and Some Coffee

A friend sent me this story this morning.  I liked it so much, I am making it A Must-Read Article of the Day...by Anonymous


A young woman went to her mother and told her about her life and how things were so hard for her. She did not know how she was going to make it and wanted to give up.  She was tired of fighting and struggling. It seemed as one problem was solved, a new one arose.

Her mother took her to the kitchen. She filled three pots with water and placed each on a high fire. Soon the pots came to boil. In the first she placed carrots, in the second she placed eggs, and in the last she placed ground coffee beans. She let them sit and boil; without saying A word.

In about twenty minutes she turned off the burners. She fished the carrots out and placed them in a bowl. She pulled the eggs out and placed them in a bowl.

Then she ladled the coffee out and placed it in a bowl. Turning to her daughter, she asked, "Tell me what you see."  "Carrots, eggs, and coffee," she replied.

Her mother brought her closer and asked her to feel the carrots. She did and noted that they were soft. The mother then asked the daughter to take an egg and break it. After pulling off the shell, she observed the hard-boiled egg.

Finally, the mother asked the daughter to sip the coffee. The daughter smiled, as she tasted its rich aroma the daughter then asked, "What does it mean, mother?"

Her mother explained that each of these objects had faced the same adversity: boiling water.


Each reacted differently.


The carrot went in strong, hard, and unrelenting. However, after being subjected to the boiling water, it softened and became weak.


The egg had been fragile. Its thin outer shell had protected its liquid interior, but after sitting through the boiling water, its insides became hardened.


The ground coffee beans were unique, however. After they were in the boiling water, they had changed the water.

"Which are you?" she asked her daughter. "When adversity knocks on your door, how do you respond? Are you a carrot, an egg or a coffee bean?

Think of this: Which am I? Am I the carrot that seems strong, but with pain and adversity do I wilt and become soft and lose my strength?

Am I the egg that starts with a malleable heart, but changes with the heat? Did I have a fluid spirit, but after a death, a breakup, a financial hardship or some other trial, have I become hardened and stiff? Does my shell look the same, but on the inside am I bitter and tough with a stiff spirit and hardened heart?

Or am I like the coffee bean? The bean actually changes the hot water, the very circumstance that brings the pain. When the water gets hot, it releases the fragrance and flavor. If you are like the bean, when things are at their worst, you get better and change the situation around you. When the hour is the darkest and trials are their greatest, do you elevate yourself to another level? How do you handle adversity? Are you a carrot, an egg or a coffee bean?

May you have enough happiness to make you sweet, enough trials to make you strong, enough sorrow to keep you human and enough hope to make you happy.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything; they just make the most of everything that comes along their way. The brightest future will always be based on a forgotten past; you can't go forward in life until you let go of your past failures and heartaches.

When you were born, you were crying and everyone around you was smiling.

Live your life so at the end, you're the one who is smiling and everyone around you is crying."
-- ///// --

Nice, huh?  Well, I like it.
 

Judge For Yourself...But Hillary Clinton Admitted the Truth

Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly stated that America is losing the messaging war in the world and Aljazeera, the Arabic-language news network available just about everywhere except in American television media, is winning overwhelmingly.  She went on to admonish American television news services as too opiniated and pundit-laden.

Well, the English version of Aljazeera is available 24-7 on the internet:

 http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/

It only takes watching the broadcast a short time to see why American television does not now, or plan to anytime soon, to air the feed.   You be the judge.

Movie Review: Matewan

 A Must-read Article of the Day...by Heather  

If nothing else, watch the two clips from it.  See a riveting performance by James Earl Jones at his best   


Matewan

For anyone who might need a little reminder of what types of battles unions fought to bring us things like a 40-hour work week, no child labor, vacation days, decent wages, and not basically being slaves living in company housing owned by the corporations that employed them -- watch this movie if you get a chance. I watched this film years ago and sadly this history is not taught in our classrooms in the United States of America.

It's a fictional depiction of what went on during the labor unrest in West Virginia in the 1920s, but it's based on a real events and a reminder of just how violent things ended up being in West Virginia and across the country before working people in the United States finally were able to gain a lot of the rights that way too many of us take for granted right now.


When you forget what it took to get so many of the rights we have in the first place, sadly it's way too easy to give them back again without a fight.


That's what the politicians, Fox "News" and these astroturf teabaggers who are attacking unions as evil, greedy thugs are all counting on.


From IMDb: Matewan (1987):

Mingo County, West Virginia, 1920. Coal miners, struggling to form a union, are up against company operators and gun thugs; Black and Italian miners, brought in by the company to break the strike, are caught between the two forces. Union activist and ex-Wobbly Joe Kenehan, sent to help organize the union, determines to bring the local, Black, and Italian groups together.

Matewan (1987) - The Union

Shootout in Matewan, West Virginia, May 19, 1920

And here's more from one of Amazon's reviews on the film:

A little-known chapter of American labor history is brought vividly to life in this period drama from writer-director John Sayles.

         It's a fictional story about labor wars among West Virginia coal miners
         during the 1920's, but every detail is so right that the film has the unmistakable
         ring of truth.
 
         The tension begins when the Stone Mountain Coal Company of Matewan,
         West Virginia, announces a lower pay rate for miners, who respond by
         calling a strike under the leadership of a United Mine Workers representative (Chris Cooper).


         Proving strength in numbers, the miners are joined by black and Italian
         miners who initially resist the strike, and a fateful battle ensues when detectives
         hired by the coal company attempt to evict miners from company housing.


         Violence erupts in a sequence of astonishing, cathartic intensity, and Matewan
          achieves a rare degree of moral complexity combined with gut-wrenching tragedy.


        The film salutes a pacifist ideal while recognizing that personal and political
        convictions often must be defended with violence.


       To illustrate this point, Sayles enlisted master cinematographer Haskell Wexler,
       who creates the film's authentic visual texture--a triumph of artistry over limited
       resources. The result is a milestone of independent filmmaking, and Matewan
       remains one of Sayles's finest achievements.
                                                                                 -- Jeff Shannon


------
This article was written by a writer named Heather and was published on March 5, 2011 at
 http://crooksandliars.com/