Democracy Now: Amy Goodman- Interviewing Naomi Klein: 'Anti-Union & The Budget Crisis, Bills & Shock Doctrine American Style'

Source:Democracy Now- author Naomi Klein, on Democracy Now talking about her book Shock Doctrine.

"As a wave of anti-union bills are introduced across the country in the wake of Wall Street financial crisis, many analysts are picking up on the theory that award-winning journalist and author Naomi Klein first argued in her 2007 best-selling book, "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism." In the book, she reveals how those in power use times of crisis to push through undemocratic and extreme free market economic policies. Democracy Now! interviews Naomi Klein to discuss how the shock doctrine is being used by politicians pushing drastic cuts and reforms as a response to the financial crisis.

"The Wisconsin protests are an incredible example of how to resist the shock doctrine," Klein says. 

For the video/audio podcast, transcript, to sign up for the daily news digest, and for more interviews with Naomi Klein, visit:Democracy Now." 

From Democracy Now

I'll admit, I'm not very familiar with Naomi Klein. But the few times I've heard her speak, I've disagreed on every point she's made, but found her interesting every time. Which is why I've listen to her multiple times. 

But apparently snow is falling in South Florida in July because I've found something that I agree with Naomi Klein on. Not that I've looked very hard which is why am I for worker rights. I believe this is a simple question and to be somewhat flip. Which I'll admit won't be my first time, I'll answer that with a question: imagine what America would be without workers rights, workers would literally be at the knees of management, whether its coming from the private or public sector. 

I'm not anti-management, far from it. I'm a big fan of American capitalism when it actually is American capitalism and not cowboy capitalism. But without workers rights, management could essentially do whatever they want to do to their workforce.

With no checks on management like in a corporatist state, the employees wouldn't have a way to appeal what management is doing, perhaps not even be able to complain to management about the working conditions. Without their own recourse to be able to leave their job. Which might not make any other sense, because they might need the exact job that they have. So that wouldn't be much of a choice for them. 

Labor unions are there to essentially fight for their members to give them the best benefits as possible. That is essentially their only job at all if you think about. Teacher unions the perfect example of this and they do this by keeping management in check so they don't go too far. 

It's actually in the self-interest of management to have the best pay and benefits as possible, to have the best workforce possible. So they work as hard as possible and are productive as possible to make the company or government as effective as possible. And in the private sectors case as profitable as possible.

But management doesn't always understand this and they look straight at their bottom line and look to cut costs as much as possible to save as much money as possible. Not realizing that they are actually hurting their company or agency in the long run. Because high-skill people won't want to work their because of the low pay and poor benefits. 

Another thing about labor unions and workers rights if we didn't have them, think about it: no weekend, no overtime pay, no Social Security, no Unemployment Insurance, no forty-hour workweek, no pensions, so safe working conditions. I mean you could go down the line. 

Labor Unions aren't perfect and of course they have their weakness's, but neither is management, but together when they are both doing their jobs and working together, they form a partnership for progress in America. "You give this and we'll give you that. You give up this and we'll give up that." Just because something is not working perfectly, doesn't mean you have to eliminate it. You can always try to reform as well which is another option.

Russia Today : The Alyona Show- Aloyna Minkovski: 'Massive CA Prison Hunger Strike'

Source:The Aloyna Show- Clyde Young, former California state prison inmate.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the Russian federal tax budget.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"This is the second week of a prisoner hunger strike taking place at Pelican Bay State in California that some fear may lead to deaths. The SHU in Pelican Bay Prison is one of the oldest and largest isolation units in the country, with over a thousand prisoners in isolation. Some of the prisoner demands include an end to long-term solitary confinement, and adequate and nutritious food. Clyde Young, a revolutionary communist and former prisoner discusses." 

From The Aloyna Show

On sort of a casual note: I'm glad to see these prison inmates showing some initiative and leadership and had they showed these skills when they were free in a constructive way, perhaps they wouldn't be in prison and had they behaved themselves when they got to prison, perhaps they wouldn't be in isolation today in prison. Prison isolation is for inmates that represent a threat to other inmates and prison staff, as well as gang leaders. Isolation is not for white-collar criminals who are in prison for credit card fraud.

If inmates in isolation behave themselves while they are in insolation, they can get out of it and return to general population and have more opportunities to make their prison sentences more constructive for them, the prisons, and society in general. With education and vocation so when they get out of prison, they can have skills to make themselves successfully legal in life. So they never have to come back to prison.

I'm a Liberal, but not an Anarchist, which is different so of course I'm concern with civil liberties and other liberties, but at the same time I'm also concern with public safety. Because without freedom and public safety we have neither. Because without public safety people don't have as much freedom to live their lives, because of the fear that their public safety and life are in danger. So when inmates who represent a threat to the prison as well as other inmates are sent to isolation. 

I don't have the attitude of throw them in jail, which is what isolation is in prison, another jail in prison essentially. And throw away the key and expect these inmates to learn their lesson the old fashion way with strict treatment. 

I believe these inmates should be treated with mental health experts to get their behavior and temper under control. As well as the ability to have recreation while in their isolation, reading and writing materials for example, more food, more time out of the cell lets say four hours a day. And let them spend that time with other isolation inmates. Perhaps even visits from family and other inmates thats monitored. So their friends and family can see how they are doing. Better beds and even music and TV, as long as they behave themselves while having all these privileges.

Isolation in prison yes should be to keep the dangerous inmates who represent a major threat to staff and other inmates away from general population. But isolation should be designed to make these inmates better and not worst and if it were designed this way. Isolation could become a form of prison rehabilitation for inmates, something as a society we've moved way too far away from.

The Stoner Jesus: 'We've Got To Stop Criminalizing People For Using Marijuana!'

 

Source:The Stoner Jesus- Some criminal defense attorney appearing on FOX Business, talking about marijuana decriminalization.

"We've Got To Stop Criminalizing People For Using Marijuana!"  

From The Stoner Jesus

I know I've been blogging a lot about marijuana lately the last year or so as well as the broader War on Drugs, but its been a slow news day and this is still very important issue and I'll do my best to not sound repetitive, but no promises. 

If a left-wing Democrat like Representative Barney Frank, who was the Bernie Sanders of the House before Bernie came around and a Libertarian Republican like Representative Ron Paul can agree that we should no longer criminalize the use and possession of marijuana, if they can agree on anything, then we should take their marijuana bill in the House seriously. (After we give that story to The Onion and the tabloids, because on one else will believe it) And at least take a look at it. Just for the fact that Representative Frank and Representative Paul actually agree on something and it may be the last time that they agree on anything, gives hope that poverty and starvation one day, a very long time from now can be cured. As well as world piece, perhaps the day after. 

But on a serious note: the Frank-Paul  bill doesn't legalize marijuana without any strings attached which would be irresponsible and they both know that. Their marijuana bill simply treats marijuana like alcohol, which does just as much or more damage to people in society and is just as addictive if not more. With regulation and taxation just like alcohol: 21 or over to smoke, posses or sale to use as examples. 

Right now marijuana users get off tax free and don't pay a dime for their marijuana use and have a major advantage over alcohol and tobacco users. Which again is unfair to alcohol and tobacco users and a lot of marijuana users end up using pot their entire adult lives without paying a dime in taxes. 

By the way, a lot of these marijuana users don't spend a day in jail or prison, which is good for them and society in general but thats a different post. To put in the case you weren't aware file: just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it goes away or isn't done. All you have to do to know this is to take a look at what the oldest profession in the world including America, where its currently illegal as well but thats another post as well. That profession is alive and well in America and the rest of the world. 

There's and attempt by me to not sound repetitive, but my broader appoint is that if people want to do something bad enough, they'll find a way to do it whether it's legal or not. Its just a matter at what price they as well as society pays for it. This is true with marijuana, gambling and yes prostitution and I can go down the line as well (but in the interest of time and keeping you awake I'll spare you, for now) so knowing this we would be better off financially and morally, to take that as fact and instead of prohibiting how adults live their own lives. 

Let's regulate how these activities are done instead, because since we know that these activities are done, we might as well make them as safe as possible because for the very fact that we know that they are going to be done, whether they are legal or illegal.

Russia Today: 'Tea Party Bagging Defense Spending?'

Source:Russa Today- U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) member of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the Russian federal tax budget.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"Following the November 2010 elections, several Tea Partiers went from hopeful candidates to US Senators and members of Congress. Most campaigned on a platform of cutting spending and reducing the national deficit. Now that they are in power though, will the Tea Party implement the economic austerity they promised and take on the "Sacred Cow" of US defense spending cuts? Are they serious about cutting entitlements and defense by the amounts needed for long term fiscal sanity? Of the Republicans' 47 Senators and 242 Congressional Representatives, only 5 percent (15 members) expressed support for cutting defense spending. So is it all just talk to win political points?" 

From Russia Today

What happened to the old Tea Party that was about limited government, getting the Federal Government off of our backs, that was anti-big government, anti-corporate welfare, anti-neoconservative?

The Tea Party was a movement back in 2009-10 when they came on the seen that didn't want to be associated with the Christian- Right and Neoconservatives, that was even anti-George Bush. That wasn't part of today's Republican Party thats dominated by the Christian-Right and Neoconservatives. That sort of looked like the Grand Ole Party of 20-30 years a real limited government party. 

I gotta admit that back in the summer of 2010, when I started blogging about the Tea Party movement, that I saw them as a faction of the Christian-Right with a very conservative fiscal message. As they moved along and went out-of-their-way to not be associated with social issues that moves the Christian-Right. That told me they had Conservative-Libertarians in it. That told me that they were a separate movement from the Christian-Right and were a real classical conservative movement that people had the right to live their own lives, as long as they weren't hurting anyone else with their freedom. And by in-large wasn't interested in social issues and looking to push some anti-gay or anti-porn ban. 

I'll tell you what happened with part of the Tea Party movement (in case anyone was wondering) they got in bed with the Christian-Right and combined both movements. 

Representative Michele Bachmann case in point: she's the Leader of the Christian Tea Party. This faction as I see it is different from the Tea Party or represents another movement on their own or has even replaced the Tea Party as a major political movement not only in the Republican Party, but in American politics as a whole. 

I'm sure there are still some Conservative-Libertarians left in the Tea Party movement but they are no longer in charged and won't have much of a say in who the Republican Party nominates for President in 2012. 

Anyone who believes that we can get our Federal deficit and debt under control without making overall cuts in defense spending, without making damaging cuts in entitlement programs and passing painful Ttx hikes on the middle class, as apparently these Republican Representatives believe can be done, doesn't understand the Federal budget and the debt and deficit issues it faces. 

Cathy Ferkleheimer: Countdown With Keith Olbermann- 'We Do Not Take Care Of One Another - Special Comment - 2011-07-11'

Source:Cathy Ferkleheimer- Countdown With Keith Olbermann, talking about the 10th anniversary of 9/11.

"We Do Not Take Care Of One Another - Special Comment - 2011-07-11" 

From Cathy Ferkleheimer

Just to critique Keith Olbermann's Special Comment: the American safety net is not America's greatest accomplishment. He's simply dead wrong there. (And thats the nicest way to put it) The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are our greatest accomplishments. The two documents that guarantee our freedoms. That I believe some Americans unfortunately take for granted, but perhaps thats a different piece.

I'll start this piece with a question: is the job of the safety net to take care of people? The last time I check the role of a safety net is to catch people who fall and then help them back up. The term safety net implies that, to catch people who have fallen and then help them back up and to not leave them on the ground. 

The job of government is not to take care of people who are mentally able and physically able bodied. In America if you're physically and mentally capable of working, then you are expected to. That the whole reason why we have limits on Unemployment Insurance and now for about fifteen years Welfare Insurance has time limits as well, people on Unemployment and Welfare are expected to go back to work, earn a living and be self-sufficient.

People who end up using public assistance are not expected to live off of taxpayers indefinitely and that government can help people go back to work and help them find jobs and give them assistance to go to school or go back to school to get a good job and not have to live off of taxpayers indefinitely. 

So when Keith Olbermann implies that the safety net's job is to take care of people, he's essentially implying that the people who benefit from these safety net programs no longer have the freedom and responsibility to take care of themselves. Because government will do that for them.

The job of the safety net is to catch people who fall and then help them get back up on their own two feet. Yes, with temporary financial assistance, but more importantly down the the road empower people who need these social insurance programs. And I'm not talking about Social Security and Medicare programs that people have paid into their whole lives, but the anti-poverty programs, with education and job placement. 

The best anti-poverty programs are a good education and a good job. Because then low-income people will become self-sufficient and be able to take care of themselves.

Government's job is to protect and defend its people, not take care of them indefinitely. And when people fall through the cracks, catch them with the safety net (so to speak) but then help them back up with a good education and a good job. So they can stand on their own two feet and take care of themselves.

American Film Institute: 'Michael Moore- Talks About Socialism'

Source:American Film Institute- Successful, wealthy filmmaker Michael Moore, talking about socialism.

"Michael Moore talks about socialism while speaking after a screening of his film CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY at the AFI Silver Theatre in Silver Spring, MD." 

From The American Film Institute

I find it ironic that someone who speaks out against American capitalism and perhaps capitalism in general (which is what filmmaker/comedian Michael Moore does) a man who I have lets limited respect for, speaks out against an economic system that works so well for him. Michael Moore speaking out against capitalism, would be like Michale Jordan speaking out against the National Basketball Association, a league that has done so well for him and with him: you're going after your own bread and butter, meat and potatoes (Of what have you) 

Mr. Moore is not a government filmmaker or a government or a government comedian or a government actor, he's a private citizen who's had all of his professional success in life in the private sector. And yet he claims to be either a Socialist and if America were to give up on capitalism and move to a Marxist-Socialist economy, Mr, Moore then would become a state propagandist. 

Mr. Moore would no longer be a private filmmaker (in a Marxist-Socialist system) working for himself, he would be working for the Federal Government. He's not a dumb guy and rather intelligent actually but a lot of his facts are just wrong. Like when he says that America should move our economy towards France, because their services are all free, like health care, health insurance, education, transportation, pension, etc. He's simply dead wrong: none of those services are free, because the French either pay for them in taxes from the Federal Government there, or pay for them in fees in the private sector. 

Apparently Michael Moore never saw or read Milton Friedman's lecture about there's no such thing as a free lunch: we all pay for what we get or somebody pays for it for us. Mr. Moore is also wrong about the French health insurance and their health care system in general. They don't have a single-payer health care system that he would like to see in America. They have a public-private health care system that includes both their health care and health insurance. 

I don't believe Mr. Moore is a Marxist-Socialist for selfish reasons: I don't believe he would want the Federal Government being able to censor his movies. (For example) Can't blame him for that. I see Michael Moore as a Democratic Socialist, someone who believes that government especially the Federal Government should play a big role in providing services for people in society: health care, health insurance, education, pension, transportation, housing ,etc. Meaning the welfare state, because he believes yes, it's the right thing to do, but also so he can continue to make his own private movies. 

The Young Turks: Michael Shure- 'Ban Porn! Michele Bachmann 2012 Pledge'

Source:The Young Turks- U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota) hard against porn.

"2012 Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann signed a Christian-Right pledge that slams porn, gay people and sex before marriage. Michael Shure explains." 

From The Young Turks

Normally I wouldn't hit this story twice: I blogged about it on Friday, even though that post was about Representative  Michele Bachman's broader view on social issues. But since this is Michele Bachmann and she has a hypocritical streak going (longer than Joe Dimaggio's hitting streak, if she stays at this pace) when it comes to big government and it's Saturday, the slow news day (of all slow news days) I'm going to hit this story again and go out-of-my-way not to sound repetitive on this story, but no promises. 

This is what big government, anti-constitutional conservatism at its worst, but that would be an insult to conservatism, because conservatism is about conserving constitutional rights, not abolishing them. Which apparently with Representative Bachman's views on social issues, she's trying to eliminate some of our constitutional rights and making America a less free society and no longer a liberal democracy. 

This is more like theocratic, fundamentalist, authoritarianism than conservatism: essentially using government meaning (the Central Government) and in America's case the Federal Government, to protect people from themselves as well as others, but protect us from ourselves as well. That if people have too much freedom (in an authoritarian's mind) that they won't know what to do with it and might hurt themselves with it. 

So things like pornography, certain types of movies and other forms of entertainment including fashion would be illegal. That certain forms of speech thats not political thats also protected by the U.S. Constitution with the First Amendment, would no longer have those protections if the Federal Government doesn't approve of it. 

So if the Federal Government doesn't personally like porn, let's take that first just because thats Representative Bachmann's latest public position (not because I have or don't have some special affection for pornography) instead of the FEDS just making the choice that they would have in a liberal democracy, the freedom of choice to look at or not look at porn, they simply make that illegal, punishable by jail time for everyone else. And would make that choice for the rest of the country on their own. 

Thats just one example, instead of moving America forward as a first world liberal democracy, they want to move America backwards as like a third world authoritarian republic or monarchy thats common in the Middle East. 

The next time I hear Representative Michele Bachmann claim that she's a Constitutional Conservative and anti-big government and I see her make that claim on TV or the internet, I'm going to treat those remarks as part of her daily monologue, because at the rate she's going she's turning into a first-rate comedian and a second-rate politician. Because she's doesn't know what the hell she's talking about and is a (pardon the term) a master of speaking out of her ass.