Kissinger, Pinochet, and America's unwillingness to learn.

[Sibling Chatty]

Kanaloa, the 'being related to ex-cons' refers to the voter-roll purging that has been a constant in Florida and several other states that could possibly have put the Republican Party in the LOSE column.

http://www.afn.org/~iguana/archives/2001_09/20010909.html
http://www.afn.org/~iguana/archives/2004_05/20040508.html

That's Florida. Ohio had a HUGE scandal that suddenly vanished this year. It was address related, not name related, so it purged college students.

The name related thing in Florida took out people with the same last name. Last and first names BOTH the same as a convicted felon meant NOBODY would even look at getting your rights back. Now, as to convicted felons, they specifically focused on names like Jackson, Johnson, Washington...and others that regionally  ar considered "black" last names. If your first name or initial was the same as any convicted felon with that last name, Florida purged you from the rolls. That'll catch a LOT of relatives, right?? That it specifically excludes, and requires an involved and expensive process of proving you AREN'T someone (instead of them proving you are, as the burden of proof should be on the accuser), fes, it sure as shootin' disenfranchised a HUGE number of relatives of ex-cons. That you Dad and your uncle may have both named a child after your grandparent can and DID remove voting privileges for one peson for what a cousin did.

They removed a Josephine Jackson from the rolls in Florida. Why? A disenfranchized convict named Joseph Jackson with a similar YEAR of birth. Not the same day,  or even the same year, a SIMILAR year and similar name. Ms. Jackson happened to be an Assistant District Attorney, and got a bit annoyed about it...

OK, let's move out of the "well, it's the South..." area.

Ohio.

Botom line-- Ohio is generally recognized as one of most at-risk states in the nation, in terms of vote theft, manipulation and voter disenfranchisement. Now is the time to be vigilant, to turn over every rock, to scrutinize every potential whiff of possible vote integrity threat.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_rob_kall_061020_fitrakis_ohio_voter_.htm

Lots of implication of the state Attorney General and of Diebold. Further investigations show some of the mess being nimilar to Florida's, with similar names going on the purges as well.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/

Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.

SNIP

But despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote(4) -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,( malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)

This, after they realized in the 2000 elections that disenfranchizement and screaming loudly could 'win' them elections.

Then, there's this.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_462.pdf

Listing an incorrect day for voting, AND a warning that all tickets and past-due rents should be paid before voting, then distributing that only in low-income and minority areas might just have had the effect of suppressing the vote as well.

===============

Let's talk about educational opportunities.

You can have all the "programs" in the world. If they're not known and implemented they have no effect.

You're expecting people to climb a thin, tenuous made-of-twine rope ladder out when they've never even seen a ladder of any kind.

Ever been to a 'ghetto' school? Seen the LACK of resources? Yes, even now. OK, go back a generation, and one before that. Poverty is institutionalized in the US, because there MUST be a permanent underclass for capitalism to work. That's a basic tenet of the process. There MUST be a permanent underclass. To treat them as humans wouldn't be THAT much expense, but it sure as hell might take a few bucks from the very wealthy, so we don't do that.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Bob- Feel free to do so.
Explain what prevents the middle class for moving on, please.
I disagree with you that it's a false idea. I personally think that your example of Katrina was because the governement was preventing true capitalism from happen. But hey, that's my opinion. I agree that banks sometimes do that, and I'm looking forward to someone filling the open niche of catering finacially to the poor with microloans. I hope it scares the 'haves,' because that's what captialism is about.

I did not specifically generalize to include all the middle-class.

I said that many times, a person in the middle class, who's business fails, is left much closer to the lower-class or poor.

And THAT is one of the barriers I was referring to.

Another problem with ANY class, (but much less a problem for people of wealth, who are much more mobile) is family ties.

A middle-class, even an upper-middle-class person, who's capital venture has failed, may not be ABLE to "move on" because of family obligations right where he is, currently.

This severely limits his options.  I know this is a common problem, and I have personally experienced it.

When my dad retired, I continued to live in Tulsa, to be near my parents.  They gave ME 20+ years, the LEAST I could do was stick around, to be near.

My brother and sister have moved away, very far away in my sister's case.

So, familial obligation kept me in Tulsa, even though Tulsa's economy collapsed (in the computer field) just as I was re-entering the job market.

This caused me to tighten my belt many times, and eventually caused me to loose my owned home (I rent, these days).

Sure, I could have sold the house, and moved far away, where the job opportunities were better - but I didn't.  (I never went on any assistance program, either.  But, now upon reflection, that was stupid - I should have made a better attempt at saving my house, but hindsight is 20-20).

I'm doing quite well, these days, and I'm still in Tulsa.  My folks are still alive, but my dad's health is pretty poor - so I do not regret ANY of my choices.

A house is just a house.  A family - now that is important!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So, here are TWO barriers to a middle-class person being unable to "move on".

And, they are VERY COMMON ones. Very common, indeed.

Moreover, once a MIDDLE-CLASS person has a failed venture behind him, his chances for MORE loans/investments drop to virtually nil.

So, unless he has a wealthy relative ... *

__________________________________

<sub>* Bill Gates is often used as a "supreme" example of "making it on his own".

It is a false example: Gates was never middle-class.  His initial start-up came from a substantial loan from his well-to-do father, and had zero basis in any ability of Gate's. 

That Gates leveraged that investment into the largest fortune in the world, I do not dispute, at all. Gates is VERY talented, and driven.

But, Gates, was NOT from the middle class OR the lower class.  At worst, upper-middle class, and closer to privileged class.</sub>

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Regarding socialist success, I would like to point out that social democracies, specially those in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland) have had a good success controlling poverty, and providing a good number of social services. There might be a price in immediate economic growth but in the long term it is (in my eyes) a good investment (crime statistics or the economic impact of health care just to mention two).

Personally I like the idea of voluntary cooperatives (like kibbutz) and I do believe that extreme capitalism is inherently flawed (some times people forget that the riches of the first world may be partially related with the transfer of wealth from the third).

Heck, nobody I know likes paying taxes but what applies to individuals applies to societies: you get what you pay for.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Wow, away for a couple of days and umpteen things to respond to.

Chatty: I think I see the link you're making between the voting rates of the poor and the rich, but if my interpretation of what you're saying is correct, then you're requiring that all or most rich are Republican. I'm not totally sure of the distrubtion, but I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of poor republicans as well.
The educational oppertunities are up to the folks involved to publicize and for the individuals they benefit to find. I know ghetto schools have nothing, my mother teaches in one, and I've volunteered there before. But I've also seen kids who went to crappy, crappy, POOR schools move on the UC Berkley, Dartmouth, UCLA, Harvard and Standford.

Bob: I understand that sort of thing. I rather suspect one of us, either me or my sibs will have to do the same thing.
Anyway, then the option is to move into a different field. I know there are obstacles there, too.

Anon: I sort of object to the other forms of economics, myself, and I realize capitalism is heartless, but it's the lesser of the evils in my opinon.

Swato: I would object to that on the basis that is prevents the parents from doing what they wish with the money that they've earned, though I sort of see your point.
I have no idea how many are the toadies of extra-continental governments. African politics never interested me, so I've never paid any attention.

[Swatopluk]

Of course I know that in a free society an inheritance law limited by personal success is not an option (although I have heard that there are parents that use a similar scheme privately and voluntarily). Even with something like that in place the pulling of strings would remain an unfair advantage.
In more community-oriented societies like Scandinavia the problem is negligible because the society is far less stratified and the idea to behave like e.g. a US CEO is considered unacceptable. There is no need for a legal enforcement because there is a consent. In a society with the mindset of the US even force wouldn't work. The only thing possible are attempts to reduce the further tilting in favour of the have-mores* (or it will end like in ancient Russia where above a certain income the tax rate was zero). A lot of the loudest "flat taxers" actually want to keep the loopholes in place and see it as the opportunity to legally not to pay taxes at all [not to mention those that want to abolish any form of taxation or feeing while still using public infrastructure].

The problem is not the wealth itself but the rectal openings controlling far too much of it in some parts of the world.

Africa was for Europe what South America was for the US, a place to meddle with politically (with open and hidden force). Especially Belgium and France didn't shy away from fostering civil wars and assassinations (Kongo being the best-known example). But I am no expert on details for the continent as a whole.

* i.e. those that are not content to have but "need" to have more than the other "haves" and can't do without the envy of the have-less.
We have effectively returned to the Medieval "show meals" with nobility feasting in public with obscene effort and amounts of extravagant food with the sole purpose of the poor watching but making sure that nothing remains for them (if necessary spoiling the leftovers).

[goat starer]

Chatty: I think I see the link you're making between the voting rates of the poor and the rich, but if my interpretation of what you're saying is correct, then you're requiring that all or most rich are Republican. I'm not totally sure of the distrubtion, but I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of poor republicans as well.

Kanaloa. There are certainly plenty of poor republicans (just as there are many rich democrats). The same is true in Britain but here the phenomena of the poor right wing voter is relatively recent. It was created by thatcher and a massive drive by the media to convinvince people that Friedman trickle down economics was ultimatelt good for everyone in society. This was backed up by selling off state assets at bargain basement prices including social housing, gas, electricity, water and was continued under Labour with the sale of the railways. The problem with this is that it convinced millions of poor people that their vested interests lay with the property owning middle classes (therefore conservative / New Labour) rather than with the people who were actually their socio economic peers. Effectively it saved up a problem for future generations by using all the assets of the state to give a one off windfall to millions of people that was unsustainable.

This has created a genetration of right wing voters who have been convinced that it is in their interests to vote for capitalist ideas but who derive no direct benefit from the system. Tax cuts do not benefit the poor and tend to be targetted at higher tax brackets (they actually disadvantage everyone in the lower half of society since taxation in a social democract is effectively wealth redistreibution). The houses they now own (as opposed to renting from the state) have put them on a property ladder where the next rung is out of reach. The house price boom created its own gap in the market where the gap between house prices on council estates and elsewhere grew. On Scholemoor Estate in Bradford the sovcial housing sold to tennants used to be the ones with new double glazing (brought with the windfall from shares these people no longer own in public utilities). They are now the once falling into disrepair beside the well maintained Council houses.

The trouble with all of this is that Trickle Down capitalist economics is fundamentally flawed. It is predicated on the idea that wealth creation by a few will ultimately benefit all but ignores the fact that wealth and poverty are relative concepts. In determining how well off people are ir is the gap between rich and poor that is important and in the US and UK that gap has been growing at an alarming rate.

Effectively what I am saying here is that there are millions of voters conned by the 'American Dream' and moneterist economics, Thatcher, illusions of the trappings of wealth and a media that benefits from unequal wealth distribution into voting against their interets.

If state education educated properly this might not be such a problem but it does not. I am one of those people who went to a crappy state comprehensive and managed to go on to a top 6 university but I had affluent, academic parents who could support me to do this. Many kids in lower socio economic groups are raised by the television and have none of these advantages.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Goat:
How would having state-funded change life for those kids who were raised by TV? If they've got drive, then they could do just as well if they found these things on their own. If they haven't, free state education won't matter.

They need to do some of that to move up, but I sort of see your point. Protect the interests of the poor, while trying to move up. Personally, I think unions and such can take the place of the government to protect the poor just fine.
I'd also like to see market forces help with that, but that requires people to actively examine the corperations and companies that they work for and buy from.

[beagle]

Goat,

What do you say to the argument that the UK tried a socialist style model for 25 years after WWII and its population fell further and further behind the U.S. standard of living, until it rediscovered traditional British liberal free market economics?

On the Africa issue I'd say we are long past the European meddling stage. We have been in the "ex-freedom fighters gone bad stage" for a couple of decades at least.  Maybe there's some residual blame for forcing tribal societies into centralised states, but we don't blame the Romans for doing that to the Brits; we regard it as progress. With the EU and CAP there's plenty of blame for not allowing Africa to be bootstrapped economically by the normal trade processes.

[goat starer]

Goat,

What do you say to the argument that the UK tried a socialist style model for 25 years after WWII and its population fell further and further behind the U.S. standard of living, until it rediscovered traditional British liberal free market economics?

I dont know where you get the idea that there has been much socialism in Britain but assuming you are correct I would argue that the only measure I can find on which your argument stands up at all is GDP per capita. On almost every other measure that actually affects peoples lives (to give a few examples - health care, infant mortality, crime rates) the US has a much lower standard of living than Western Rurope generally including the UK. It is a question of measures. If you believe that money can be used to measure standard of living I would dispute this utterly. I go back to the gap argument. Capirtalism widens the gap. the gap causes crime and social ills which affect everybodies quality of life. Money is a very poor measure of happiness (there are plently of countries with much lower GDP that have perfectly happy people). Happiness is what makes quality of life not GDP.

PS US unemployment is curretly 4.5 percent A quick look at the grapgh on page 24 of this document shows that from 1945 untill the late 70s the 'socialist' economy never broke 5% unemployment. Since that date and in other countries with laissez faire capitalist state apparatus unemployment of 5% is considered normal. In Cuba it is 2.5%.

[ivor]

I like the new slogan of the communist party in China, "To get rich is glorious!"

Interviewing a couple owning a farm in Long Shen they said, "Things are so much better since the land was privatized."  They went on to say, "Now we have a TV and a fridge."

Apparently the economy is booming and China is consuming resources at a furious pace.  In twenty years China will have the largest economy in the world and will require the raw resources of a second Earth.

Sounds like the revolution is over in China, or is it just starting?

MB

[Sibling Chatty]

Kanaloa, read the book "What's the Matter With Kansas?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansas

The US political system is now diffused to the point that poor and middle class voters are going heavily against their own personal interests by voting Republican. They are doing this based on the  false issue of "family values". Poor and middle class issues USED to be fiscal in nature. The Republican Party has useh scare tactics to convince poor and middle class voters that Democrats want to grab their children and infect them with The gay, and to force people to marry same-sex partners and abort all those babies they'd have with their same-sex partners. (Yes, that's how intense and ignorant the selling of "family values" gets.)

As to unions, you've got a totally skewed concept of the power of unions, given that so many of the jobs available to the less-educated are NOT in unionizable fields. There's no way to unionize small business workers effectively if they don't fit into a niche. Domestic household help, manual labor, etc. cannot be unionized, and the Republican Party isn't going to stand for much unionization, anyway.

There are exceptions to every rule. To have a real effect on the situation, the children of the very poor would need to progress in numbers unacceptable to the eztablishment. Although the issue of "affirmative action" is a real hot button, consider the effect on the social fabric of a 15% upward push by the children of the poor into the 'upper level' post secondary market.

Let's take Yale. We have applying to Yale 300% of the acceptable number of freshmen. Obviously, only one of three will be accepted. Their "quota" sets apart a certain percentage of minority spaces. Is this wrong? That's highly debatable, BECAUSE from the other end, there are an almost unlimited number of "legacy" spaces. (How Duh Preznit got an Ivy League degree.) We shall presume that there are about 6% of the spaces that are mandated minority placement, and they will be filled by minorities that are granted extra points, even if they're the children of well-to-do minorities. (Bill Cosby's kid would be considered an AA placement, for instance.)

Legacy placements? How many apply? Parent(s) as grads, if they've donated at all, give their kids extra points toward acceptance. Addpoints for grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and siblings, and a C- student can legacy in easily, especially if Grandad has put up a couple buildings.

Now, let us assume that we've got a group of really bright minority students. They want to go to Yale. They've got the GPA, the SAT, the NMSQ finalist and the social service points to go in unaided by any AA points. Let's assume that, given an othewise colorblind selection system, these kids would rank high enough to mix in with the legacies and top achievers.

Is Yale going to admit our group of motivated bootstrappers? Say they're 15, even 10% of the available slots. OH, HELL, no, they're not. That's not going to happen. They'll find a way. "The student experessed an inability to attend a weekend campus previev. Had she REALLY been interested, she would have attempted at least one of the weekends available." That she wasn't able to get there, because of finances, isn't discussed. And BOOM, out she goes.

Furthermore, the Republican, and especially the libertarian concept is to tighten up the available money for student aid, across the board. Loans, grants, etc. are considered a BAD investment. Republicans don't want too many educated people, because they'll educate the proles to the point they need them educated. Libertarians don't want "their money" going to help educate anybody else's children. There are some that would end ANY financial support for education at all, at which point you lose not only upper level, but all public education.
==============================

One last comment on poor Republicans. Anybody that's on any type of disability due to illness or extreme damage from an accident will suddenly become as anti-Republican as can be. The social fabric of the US is tattered enough that the concept of helping out those who are have-nots, for whatever reason, has become anathema to those who listen to the rhetoric put out by the media talking heads.

The Libertarian Party and the Republican Party both have, as publically stated principles, the murder by neglect and deprivation of me and a good number of my friends. I live on the charity of someone that has a SS retirement income of about $950 a month. My SS disability is less than that, by about a third. The causes you espouse would like to deny me that small amount I get, based on the fact that i've "used up" alll I put in. I will never take seriously the concept that either the Libertarian Party or the Republican Party has any moral authority to even pretend to claim a moral ground for anything until they change these positions.

Liibertarians and the Objectivist philosophy have a lot of 'noble thoughts', and a total disconnect fro ;Dm any reality other than their own limited experience. Republicans suffer greatly from schitzoid greed. Half of them want all the money, the other half want to control the thoughts and beliefs of the entire country. And I say the hell with the lot of them.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I want to add two quick things:

The 'right' (or should I say wrong... ) paradigm that suggests that public = corrupt and private = efficient. What really defines corruption is oversight (or the lack of there of) as proven by all the corporate scandals in the past few years. What really defines efficiency is a mixture of competition and necessity.

The second thing is the 'right' stated desire to abolish regulation and drastically limit or stop any kind of civil litigation. You can't have it both ways, either you regulate or you allow to sue,  without both corporations can do whatever they want without fear of consequences.

The reason I mention them is because those are part of the laissez faire ideology as stated by their talking heads (to be fair, some libertarians believe in a strong civil system and the right to sue but apparently those are a minority now).

I do understand the principles of the self-regulated world that some advocate and it would seem that the arguments are sound, but what is rarely told is how long does it take to work and what happens in the mean time? The effects of 'self regulation' are evident in the environment or -in the case of the US- in healthcare coverage of the population to mention just two.

I don't believe that moderated capitalism is evil,  same thing with a moderated socialism. The extremes OTOH are -in my view- clearly so.

[beagle]

I dont know where you get the idea that there has been much socialism in Britain but assuming you are correct I would argue that the only measure I can find on which your argument stands up at all is GDP per capita. On almost every other measure that actually affects peoples lives (to give a few examples - health care, infant mortality, crime rates) the US has a much lower standard of living than Western Rurope generally including the UK. It is a question of measures.

Are you saying Labour policies have never been socialist? Not even under Attlee? Your friend Mr Bragg wouldn't distinguish between Attlee or Blair?

On the standards of living, you are overlooking the consumer goodies. Whether cars, washing machines, dishwashers, televisions or whatever. My mother had to hold down a full time job while catching buses, carrying shopping every day etc. Not life threatening, but a significantly lower standard of living than was already standard in suburban America in the sixties. If it's any consolation ignoring that sort of thing is the mistake the Eastern European communists made too (if I remember correctly the ambassador even mentions it in Dr Strangelove ). 

MB, I visited a technology firm the other day that is almost exclusively interested in promoting to the industrial technology universities of China. These places can turn out 50,000 new engineers a year, so getting your products used by the students there has a huge future payback.

Anonimat0, I agree that public isn't necessarily more efficient than private, but our Labour chancellor seems to be relying on it. He's avoided recession by systematically expanding the public sector to provide jobs when necessary. Seeing as they almost all come with guaranteed pensions worth 5 to 10 times the non-guaranteed private sector average, he's relying on the private sector being more efficient to pay for it all. Agree with you entirely on the moderated bit.

[goat starer]

Are you saying Labour policies have never been socialist? Not even under Attlee? Your friend Mr Bragg wouldn't distinguish between Attlee or Blair?

Labour were at best a paternalistic state even under Atlee. There was never a real attempt to remove competition, privilage etc. Sure they were more left wing but still not really socialist. That is why the post war consensus was possible. Essentially the type of behaviour exhibited by successive lab and con governments post was centerist and what you have now is two parties, as in the States, that are unashamedly on the right and believe that the respoonsibilities of government are strictly limited to providing a safety net rather than developing society itself. There is a big difference between Atlee and Blair but that is a difference between centerist paternal government and right wing capitalism excess. Socialism plays little part.

On the standards of living, you are overlooking the consumer goodies. Whether cars, washing machines, dishwashers, televisions or whatever. My mother had to hold down a full time job while catching buses, carrying shopping every day etc. Not life threatening, but a significantly lower standard of living than was already standard in suburban America in the sixties. If it's any consolation ignoring that sort of thing is the mistake the Eastern European communists made too (if I remember correctly the ambassador even mentions it in Dr Strangelove ). 

Equating standards of living with fripparies and the ludicrous excess of a minority of well to do suburban americans is frankly ridiculous. Firstly this does not seem to have left much of a happiness lagacy for the world and secondly there are millions of Americans from the Sixties to today who live in Ghettos and trailer parks whilst the rich have all the trappings of capitalism.

I gave these issues a lot of thought last night and will be writing a proper post after christmas about it.

In the interim have a merry workers holiday!

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Just sort of a note, Chatty. My step-father, the other Libertarian in my family, is on disability, and is further right then I am.

I realize that unions don't have that much power right now, but if they did, they could take that place. Please explain to me why domestic labor and small business and such is not unionizable, because I can't see why not.

If it's a color blind system, then how are they to know these kids are minority?

I don't much like most Republicans either, Chatty, but I think you're demonizing them too much. I don't think they necessarily want to keep the people under their thumb, except maybe the neo-cons. Classic republicanism, and libertarians want people to be free to do as they will, essentially, and education is part of that. Scholarships are the prefered source of money, is all. I'm getting ready for college myself, and although I'll be applying for grants and such as well, I'd much rather get most of it from scholarships.

And before I go on, I think I nee to add this little bit: I dislike the government, but trust people enough to help their fellow man, and you like the government, and I don't know how you feel about people.
I must reiterate the value of charities, especially ones that are audited every year. I really do think they would be of great value and assistance if they were properly run and donated to. Libertarians don't want people to be neglected, they just don't trust the government to do it properly or efficiently.
Please don't paint the entire Libertarian party as greedy. I'm not, personally, and I give when I can, even if it's only a little. We know that the majority of our policies will never be adpoted. Welfare will continue, drugs will probably never be legalized, isolationism is not going to happen. But we think that some our policies would be of assistance, is all.

Anon1:
I mostly agree with your definitions, but would like to add that private organization want to save money as much as possible, so they find cheap and effecient ways to do things.
I haven't really made up my mind about civil ligitgation. I'm okay with sueing if its a legitimate claim, but specious or stupid claims ought to be removed from court.
I really have no idea who long it would take to get everything running properly and self-regulating. A decade, perhaps? In the mean time, it could well be a little chaotic, especially if drugs were legalized at the same time. (Ramping up the fine for DUI would take a little while), or it could be fairly smooth.