4.2.11
Governor Tom Corbett:
After having carefully read and digested your proposal for the Pennsylvania budget of 2011, after having considered the relevant facts concerning the Commonwealth’s fiscal health, the relationship of the state to its constitutional responsibilities, and particularly your proposal for cutting by 54 percent the state appropriation for the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education’s (PASSHE), we, the undersigned, can only conclude that your motives have little to do with the current recession—and everything to do with an ideologically motivated agenda that aims to privatize and corporatize institutions traditionally identified as public goods. It’s evident, moreover, that part of that agenda is to undermine Pennsylvania’s public unions by starving the institutions that employ union members. We are forced to conclude this for a number of reasons:
1. Failing to tax natural gas extraction: You claim the state is on the brink of fiscal disaster and must fill a $4 billion dollar budget shortfall, but yet you refuse to impose a severance tax (or any tax) on Marcellus Shale Drilling. You claim that the drilling companies will go elsewhere were such a tax imposed. False. Ninety-six percent of states that drill for natural gas impose a severance tax—including the largest gas drilling state, Texas. No evidence supports the claim that companies drilling in those states are threatening to leave. What discourages gas drilling, according to a respected University of Wyoming study, isn’t taxation but rather the market price of natural gas. Moreover, the Marcellus drilling fields are limited—drilling is only possible where it is possible—and this suggests that companies like Cabot and Penneco aren’t going anywhere. Indeed, their profit margins promise nothing but substantial future gains, and at a 5 percent tax (akin to West Virginia’s), a projected minimum of 200 million a year could be raised to fund essential social services and education in what some are now calling the Saudi Arabia of natural gas extraction. You claim that drilling will bring wealth and jobs to Pennsylvania, but this too is false on the evidence. In fact, profits from natural gas extraction exit the state at about the same speed at which the environment is destroyed. Even worse, as Pro Publica reports, “the state's oil and gas inspectors have been stripped of their power to issue violations to the drilling companies they regulate,” increasing profits for the drilling companies at the cost of Pennsylvania’s environment and its citizens who will no doubt shoulder the burden of restoration after the drillers have left—including the restoration of 74,000 acres of state forest land. You insist that “we need to send a powerful message to the Pennsylvania Business Community that Pennsylvania is open for business.” Indeed you have—at the cost of every citizen of the Commonwealth who works, goes to school, attends a state university, drinks Pennsylvania water, utilizes Pennsylvania social services, or has any sense for the fairness and equity embodied in the Pennsylvania Constitution.
2. Ideological motivation: Given the compelling argument for taxing natural gas extraction, we can only surmise that your opposition to it is either ideological or self-serving—or both. Fact: You received more than $800,000 in donations from drilling corporations for your gubernatorial campaign. Fact: in delegating some of the state’s most critical environmental decisions over to Alan C. Walker (appointed to head the Department of Community and Economic Development), CEO of Bradford Energy and Bradford Coal—a corporation who donated $184,000 to your campaign—you have effectively put a fox in charge of the henhouse: "Walker’s ties to the energy industry are deep. He is listed on state disclosure forms as an executive of the Pennsylvania Coal Association and he has served as chairman of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry...[L]ike many energy companies, his, too, have run into problems with the state. In 2002, three of Walker’s coal companies notified Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection that they had run out of money and were going to stop treating the 173 million gallons of polluted water they produced each year and released into tributaries of the Susquehanna River. The state eventually got a court injunction to force them to continue treating the wastewater as required by state and federal law" (www.propublica.org/article/corbett-pa-energy-exec-authority-environment). Why, Governor Corbett, should we believe that your investment in natural gas extraction has to do with anything other than an ideology that seeks to maximize private profit of a public good—all the while padding the pockets of your political and business allies? Why shouldn’t we think you endorse a new suggested slogan for Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania, Inc., only dirtier, dumber, and poorer than Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio.
3. An end to publicly funded state universities: This brings us directly to your proposal to lacerate the funding of PASSHE. In addition to your refusal to tax gas extraction—and in the same week you drastically reduced funding for health services for the poorest of Pennsylvania citizens—you offered $833 million in tax breaks to corporations who do business in a state which already taxes fewer than 30 percent of corporate enterprises: “Governor Corbett announced that Pennsylvania’s corporate tax will allow corporations to follow federal accelerated bonus depreciation rules adopted as part of the tax cut compromise in December. The rules allow companies to write off or “expense” 100% of equipment purchases made in the last quarter of 2010 and all of Tax Year 2011…Bonus depreciation goes to investment in other states not just Pennsylvania. Companies do not have to purchase equipment in the state to take advantage of the provision. Thus the bonus may lead to no new investment in the state” (Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center). In other words, we have no reason to believe that such a give-away will benefit Pennsylvanians. Nonetheless, to afford this generous gift to your corporate allies, you propose to devastate education—leaving local school districts and their taxpayers to foot the tsunami-sized bill coming their way, undermining education at the K-12 level, and insuring that students are under-prepared for college. To add insult to injury, you also propose to cut state funding to the very colleges and universities that middle working class families have depended on for generations to educate their children, the PASSHE. 90 percent of PASSHE students are from Pennsylvania. Hence, the perversity of your reasoning on this matter can hardly be overdrawn: You insist that PASSHE universities have failed to “live within their means,” and that the evidence of this is found in rising tuitions—but you fail to acknowledge that state funding for PASSHE has already been cut to less than one third of total funding. It is, moreover, flatly false to claim that PASSHE has failed to “live with its means.” In fact, three PASSHE universities, West Chester, Millersville, and Bloomsburg made Kiplinger’s prestigious list of the 100 best state universities in the United States. Their criteria: “the best education at the best price” (apscuf.wordpress.com). Facts: “In FY 2010-2011, PASSHE will receive nearly $8.3 million less in state funds than it did in FY 2001-2002.Tuition increases have been below the rate of inflation in four of the last six years…Controlled for inflation, the System will operate with 13% fewer dollars from all sources per student in FY 2010-11 than it did in FY 1999-2000. Despite fiscal challenges, PASSHE continues to offer the lowest-cost baccalaureate degree programs in the state. However, the combination of flat state funding and low tuition increases has created historic shortfalls for the universities, which, if continued, could translate into viability issues” (www.passhe.edu). Add another 54% cut in funding, and here’s what “viability issues” means in plain English:
• A 25-33% rise in tuition that will exclude many deserving Pennsylvania citizens from being able to access higher education.
• The laying-off of faculty, particularly adjunct faculty, and the resultant loss of courses and opportunities for students.
• The inability to attract high quality faculty to the state, and the resultant loss of the quality instruction PASSHE can clearly demonstrate it provides. Indeed, at least four PASSHE graduates are appointees in Governor Corbett’s government.
• The expansion of class size, and the resultant loss of high quality instruction made possible by smaller classes and access to professors.
• Brain drain from the Commonwealth as students seek educational opportunities elsewhere in the pursuit not only of their dreams, but their economic wherewithal.
• Campus closures and the resultant loss of access to students to higher education in their communities.
There simply is no argument to be made for cutting funding for university education in Pennsylvania. Indeed, there is every argument for funding education at a much higher level, especially if you mean what you say, namely, that you want to see a citizenry fully equipped to participate in the global economy. The consequences for our citizens, especially our middle class working families will be crushing—and you cannot fail to know this. Hence, again, we are compelled to wonder what are your motives; they cannot be preparing Pennsylvanians to live and thrive in a globalized world; they cannot be to encourage what is fundamental to a thriving culture—the humanities, arts, and music; they cannot be what the Pennsylvania Constitution explicitly specifies is the responsibility of the state—the education of its citizens and the provision of their basic welfare.
4. The destruction of public sector unions: This brings us to our final argument, namely, that much like your apparent aims in effectively selling off Pennsylvania’s environment and resources to natural gas interests, your aim in undermining PASSHE funding is to see the end of the state university in Pennsylvania, to see, in other words, a fully privatized, for-profit, university system. But the only way to accomplish this—much like what are perhaps your models in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Wisconsin—is to destroy the one real obstacle that stands in your way—the public sector unions. Unlike Governor Scott Walker who committed a political blunder in seeking to destroy collective bargaining rights for state workers in Wisconsin through legislation, you have in fact executed a far more insidious strategy of starving public sector unions like APSCUF (The Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties) by starving their institutions of funding. One way, in other words, to force the state universities to either privatize or close is to cut the funding that supports their central missions—a mission instantiated by their faculties who, through the power of collective bargaining, are the bedrock of the excellent education offered by the PASSHE. As you surely must know what such devastating cuts this will mean is that the dream of higher education for thousands of Pennsylvanians will come to a grinding halt next year. We can only gather that you regard this as an acceptable casualty in the drive to corporatize higher education in the state.
To sum up, this agenda is unconscionable, and it is premised on the erroneous view that the budget deficit is the product of funding for public services and goods. It is not. Rather, it’s the result of licentious gratuities to corporate entities—some from whom you directly benefit. 41% of your own Republican Party members have recently assessed your performance as “poor.” The rallies on the steps of the state house should make clear to you where the vast majority of PASSHE students stand, particularly the Lock Haven students who ran one hundred miles to get your attention. A Franklin and Marshall College poll demonstrates that two thirds of Pennsylvanians oppose the budget cuts. In fact, these same Pennsylvanians who generally oppose tax hikes made clear they support taxing Marcellus Shale drilling in the interest of funding education (www.pennlive.com). Given all of the facts, Governor Corbett, what could justify what amounts to the re-invention of the Commonwealth as Pennsylvania, Inc. other than that this is precisely your goal? The problem, of course, is that he Constitution of Pennsylvania is a charter for a state—not a business plan for a corporation.
We hope you will reconsider this ill-fated ideological agenda for the sake of your state and its citizens.
Wendy Lynne Lee, Professor
Department of Philosophy
Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania
Bloomsburg, PA 17815
wlee@bloomu.edu
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Governor Corbett's Plan to Convert Pennsylvania into PA, Inc.
It might not appear at first that these two issues are related: Corbett's education-decimating budget and gas drilling. But they are. Joined at the hip, in fact. As the article below makes clear, Corbett's first priority is not education, is not the state's welfare, is not Pennsylvania--but is in fact padding his own political war chest with dollars from virtually unregulated drilling in a fashion that smells distinctly of Michigan's own recent legislation to use "state of emergency" powers to transfer public utilities to private profit-driven corporations (www.mea.org/gov/index.html). Consider:
"Pennsylvania has come under fire lately as pollution from drilling in the Marcellus Shale threatens water resources across the state. But instead of ratcheting up oversight, Gov. Tom Corbett wants to hand authority over some of the state’s most critical environmental decisions to C. Alan Walker, a Pennsylvania energy executive with his own track record of running up against the state’s environmental regulations." Michigan. But even worse: as Corbett starves Pennsylvanians access to education, he also weakens the economic power of the educated citizen to resist what can only be called an ideologically driven power grab:
"Walker, who has contributed $184,000 to Corbett’s campaign efforts since 2004, is CEO and owner of Bradford Energy Company and Bradford Coal, which was once among Pennsylvania’s largest coal mining companies. He also owns or has an interest in 12 other companies, including a trucking business and a central Pennsylvania oil and gas company. Walker was Corbett’s first appointee—he chose him to lead the Department of Community and Economic Development in December, before taking office. Now, as Corbett stakes much of the state’s economy on Marcellus Shale gas drilling, a paragraph tucked into the 1,184-page budget gives Walker unprecedented authority to “expedite any permit or action pending in any agency where the creation of jobs may be impacted.” That includes, presumably, coal, oil, gas and trucking."
It's all in the "budget": Huge profits for gas companies--many of whom will wisk their profits right out of the Commonwealth--and a devastated environment for Pennsylvania citizens to clean up--all the while we're trying to figure out how to pay our mortgages and educate our kids.
And it's all about as democratic as Scott Walkers obliteration of collective bargaining in Wisconsin: "It’s not clear how Corbett can delegate such sweeping authority to the economic development office, which would be reorganized to focus on coordinating with corporate interests and creating job growth. It also isn’t clear how the state would address the legal conflicts that could arise if, for example, [C. Alan] Walker pushed for approval of a permit that conflicted with the Clean Water Act or other federal laws."
But here's Corbett's statement: "The budget introduced today represents a completely new way of doing business for DCED and its economic development partners,” the statement said. “In a tough economic climate, we need to send a powerful message to the Pennsylvania Business Community that Pennsylvania is open for business."
You bet. First it's our environment. When will it be our schools? Universities? Colleges?
The aims are abundantly clear. Corbett's goals are a carbon copy of Scott Walkers: Sell off Pennsylvania to corporate interests--especially those through whom he stands to gain the most. Too bad Ian Murphy of the Buffalo Beast might not get away with a second round of pretending to be the Koch Brothers. But perhaps we don't need him--Corbett's aims are as clear as the contributions made to his campaign by C. Alan Walker:
"Walker’s ties to the energy industry are deep. He is listed on state disclosure forms as an executive of the Pennsylvania Coal Association and he has served as chairman of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry. He also has firsthand experience with the state’s environmental regulations, because his companies would likely have applied for permits similar to those the oil and gas industry is now pursuing in the Marcellus. And like many energy companies, his, too, have run into problems with the state. In 2002, three of Walker’s coal companies notified Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection that they had run out of money and were going to stop treating the 173 million gallons of polluted water they produced each year and released into tributaries of the Susquehanna River. The state eventually got a court injunction to force them to continue treating the wastewater as required by state and federal law."
Beautiful, yes? And so transparent: "The Governor’s office did not respond to repeated requests for comment about the policy shift, the role of the economic development office, or funding for the DEP. Spokespeople for both the DEP and the state Attorney General’s office also declined to comment, saying that only the Governor’s office could speak to the issue" (www.propublica.org/article/corbett-pa-energy-exec-authority-environment).
A new state slogan: Pennsylvania, Inc.--Just like Wisconsin and Michigan--only Dirtier, Dumber, and Poorer. But who cares? Gas Executives don't have to Live Here!
Wendy Lynne Lee, Professor
Department of Philosophy
Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania
Bloomsburg, PA, USA 17815
wlee@bloomu.edu/570-389-4332
"Pennsylvania has come under fire lately as pollution from drilling in the Marcellus Shale threatens water resources across the state. But instead of ratcheting up oversight, Gov. Tom Corbett wants to hand authority over some of the state’s most critical environmental decisions to C. Alan Walker, a Pennsylvania energy executive with his own track record of running up against the state’s environmental regulations." Michigan. But even worse: as Corbett starves Pennsylvanians access to education, he also weakens the economic power of the educated citizen to resist what can only be called an ideologically driven power grab:
"Walker, who has contributed $184,000 to Corbett’s campaign efforts since 2004, is CEO and owner of Bradford Energy Company and Bradford Coal, which was once among Pennsylvania’s largest coal mining companies. He also owns or has an interest in 12 other companies, including a trucking business and a central Pennsylvania oil and gas company. Walker was Corbett’s first appointee—he chose him to lead the Department of Community and Economic Development in December, before taking office. Now, as Corbett stakes much of the state’s economy on Marcellus Shale gas drilling, a paragraph tucked into the 1,184-page budget gives Walker unprecedented authority to “expedite any permit or action pending in any agency where the creation of jobs may be impacted.” That includes, presumably, coal, oil, gas and trucking."
It's all in the "budget": Huge profits for gas companies--many of whom will wisk their profits right out of the Commonwealth--and a devastated environment for Pennsylvania citizens to clean up--all the while we're trying to figure out how to pay our mortgages and educate our kids.
And it's all about as democratic as Scott Walkers obliteration of collective bargaining in Wisconsin: "It’s not clear how Corbett can delegate such sweeping authority to the economic development office, which would be reorganized to focus on coordinating with corporate interests and creating job growth. It also isn’t clear how the state would address the legal conflicts that could arise if, for example, [C. Alan] Walker pushed for approval of a permit that conflicted with the Clean Water Act or other federal laws."
But here's Corbett's statement: "The budget introduced today represents a completely new way of doing business for DCED and its economic development partners,” the statement said. “In a tough economic climate, we need to send a powerful message to the Pennsylvania Business Community that Pennsylvania is open for business."
You bet. First it's our environment. When will it be our schools? Universities? Colleges?
The aims are abundantly clear. Corbett's goals are a carbon copy of Scott Walkers: Sell off Pennsylvania to corporate interests--especially those through whom he stands to gain the most. Too bad Ian Murphy of the Buffalo Beast might not get away with a second round of pretending to be the Koch Brothers. But perhaps we don't need him--Corbett's aims are as clear as the contributions made to his campaign by C. Alan Walker:
"Walker’s ties to the energy industry are deep. He is listed on state disclosure forms as an executive of the Pennsylvania Coal Association and he has served as chairman of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry. He also has firsthand experience with the state’s environmental regulations, because his companies would likely have applied for permits similar to those the oil and gas industry is now pursuing in the Marcellus. And like many energy companies, his, too, have run into problems with the state. In 2002, three of Walker’s coal companies notified Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection that they had run out of money and were going to stop treating the 173 million gallons of polluted water they produced each year and released into tributaries of the Susquehanna River. The state eventually got a court injunction to force them to continue treating the wastewater as required by state and federal law."
Beautiful, yes? And so transparent: "The Governor’s office did not respond to repeated requests for comment about the policy shift, the role of the economic development office, or funding for the DEP. Spokespeople for both the DEP and the state Attorney General’s office also declined to comment, saying that only the Governor’s office could speak to the issue" (www.propublica.org/article/corbett-pa-energy-exec-authority-environment).
A new state slogan: Pennsylvania, Inc.--Just like Wisconsin and Michigan--only Dirtier, Dumber, and Poorer. But who cares? Gas Executives don't have to Live Here!
Wendy Lynne Lee, Professor
Department of Philosophy
Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania
Bloomsburg, PA, USA 17815
wlee@bloomu.edu/570-389-4332
Thursday, March 10, 2011
TIME TO FIGHT: CORBETT'S EDUCATION-GUTTING BUDGET FOR PENNSYLVANIA
Dear fellow colleagues, administration, and especially students,
Though we cannot abandon hope that our local representatives--John Gordner and David Millard--will work to resist a PA-budget that can only be described as grossly irresponsible, we cannot trust them either. Here's what Millard said to reporters right after Corbett announced his budget proposal: "Obviously, if you're going to shift money...there's going to be losers" (Press Enterprise, 3.9.11).
"Shift"? That's code for more tax payer dollars going to prisons and to the subsidizing of the natural gas industry in a state that graces 70% of its corporates entities with paying NO corporate income taxes.
Corbett's aims, moreover, have as little to do with fiscal responsibility as do Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's, namely, zero. Corbett's aims are ideological; his strategy is simply different. Instead of going after the right to collective bargaining directly--and risking the public outrage this despotic move rightly inspires--Corbett goes after the funding of precisely those institutions whose workforces are unionized. Corbett's aim is simply to accomplish without all the noise the same goal--union-busting. Perhaps it would be better to call Corbett's strategy "union-bleeding," or "union-gutting."
But make no mistake about it--his objectives are precisely the same--his strategy's just more insidious. And his objectives are to effectively sell-off Pennsylvania, its labor force, and its resources to the corporations that support his party: The Tea Party Republicans. There is no point in being polite or "carefully worded" about this fact. This is a fact.
The sentiment that "the university system will survive" is a nice one--but it is no more than that. If what survives is a shell easily converted into a trade school whose primary curricula cannot be but trivially called "education," then it would be better for it not to survive.
I am in no way suggesting that we are at this point--but what I am suggesting is that this is no time for hopeful pleasantries with our elected representatives. This is a time where we must FIGHT:
FIGHT for our student's right to a real education.
Fight for the right to collectively bargain for a decent wage and decent working conditions.
FIGHT for a university system worthy of that title.
For if we don't, we will have earned precisely what we deserve: a gutted PASSHE that makes a mockery of the phrase "PUBLIC higher education."
Let us take up this fight together.
Wendy Lynne Lee
Wendy Lynne Lee, Professor
Department of Philosophy
Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania
Bloomsburg, PA, USA 17815
wlee@bloomu.edu
Though we cannot abandon hope that our local representatives--John Gordner and David Millard--will work to resist a PA-budget that can only be described as grossly irresponsible, we cannot trust them either. Here's what Millard said to reporters right after Corbett announced his budget proposal: "Obviously, if you're going to shift money...there's going to be losers" (Press Enterprise, 3.9.11).
"Shift"? That's code for more tax payer dollars going to prisons and to the subsidizing of the natural gas industry in a state that graces 70% of its corporates entities with paying NO corporate income taxes.
Corbett's aims, moreover, have as little to do with fiscal responsibility as do Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's, namely, zero. Corbett's aims are ideological; his strategy is simply different. Instead of going after the right to collective bargaining directly--and risking the public outrage this despotic move rightly inspires--Corbett goes after the funding of precisely those institutions whose workforces are unionized. Corbett's aim is simply to accomplish without all the noise the same goal--union-busting. Perhaps it would be better to call Corbett's strategy "union-bleeding," or "union-gutting."
But make no mistake about it--his objectives are precisely the same--his strategy's just more insidious. And his objectives are to effectively sell-off Pennsylvania, its labor force, and its resources to the corporations that support his party: The Tea Party Republicans. There is no point in being polite or "carefully worded" about this fact. This is a fact.
The sentiment that "the university system will survive" is a nice one--but it is no more than that. If what survives is a shell easily converted into a trade school whose primary curricula cannot be but trivially called "education," then it would be better for it not to survive.
I am in no way suggesting that we are at this point--but what I am suggesting is that this is no time for hopeful pleasantries with our elected representatives. This is a time where we must FIGHT:
FIGHT for our student's right to a real education.
Fight for the right to collectively bargain for a decent wage and decent working conditions.
FIGHT for a university system worthy of that title.
For if we don't, we will have earned precisely what we deserve: a gutted PASSHE that makes a mockery of the phrase "PUBLIC higher education."
Let us take up this fight together.
Wendy Lynne Lee
Wendy Lynne Lee, Professor
Department of Philosophy
Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania
Bloomsburg, PA, USA 17815
wlee@bloomu.edu
Monday, February 21, 2011
Union-Busting: What's Really Going On in Wisconsin
Unsurprising: Scott Walker, the Tea Partying, Koch brother-bank-rolled, Big Oil loving governor of Wisconsin lies about his intentions to crush unions, in order to starve the ONLY real money the Democratic Party has to compete (thanks to the failure of the Supreme Court in Citizen’s United) with the corporations underwriting his party—and his aspirations. Surprising: that he thought he could get away with his false “Wisconsin’s broke” claim.
As the protests at the State House in Madison make clear, fear-mongering union members isn’t easy.
Good.
Unions—public and private sector—make possible a middle class; without them there’d be no minimum wage, child labor laws, work-place safety laws, access to health insurance, or protection from discrimination and unjust firing.
Why do union members often vote Democrat? Because Democrats stand for the working class.
Why do union members (like the police and firefighters Walker sought to exempt as a strategy to divide the unions) stand together even when they don’t vote Democrat? Because whatever their other political beliefs, they know that fairness in conditions, wages, and benefits is the American way.
Bizarre, then, that the foot-soldiers of the Tea Party would counter protest, especially since Walker’s bill harms them: “the tax breaks and other goodies that Walker and the Republican legislature passed…dramatically increased the deficit” (motherjones.com/mojo/2011).
Walker’s Republicans are more interested in advantaging their wealthy patrons than in acting in the best interest of Wisconsin.
Ending the right to collective bargaining won’t close this gap.
What it will do is empower corporations to control wages and conditions, thereby widening the wealth-gap, further entrenching America Inc’s stranglehold on labor.
Walker’s bill would insure that “[the union’s] ability to bargain benefits for their members is reduced…their ability to collect dues, and thus spend money organizing members or lobbying the legislature, is undercut…workers have to vote the union back into existence every single year” (motherjones.com/mojo/2011/).
Walker is Big-Corporation’s union-busting dream come true: “The Koch's PAC…helped Walker via a familiar…political maneuver designed to allow donors to skirt campaign finance limits. [They] gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association, which in turn spent $65,000 on independent expenditures to support Walker” (motherjones.com/mojo/2011/).
Who drove busloads of Tea Partiers to Madison? Koch.
How can folks be so suckered as to agitate against their own best interests and for those of corporatists who’d curtail their access to the American dream?
Plain old titillation.
As I write this, the insane Glenn Beck is busy on his chalkboards laying out a paranoid vision of an America given over by the unions to “radicals” and “Islamacists” who “bear the mark of the beast,” and whose leader, Barack HUSSAIN Obama, is preparing to deliver America to the infidel. It doesn’t matter that not a shred of evidence supports his beyond-nuts claims.
The Tea Partiers are turned on by the spectacle of the violent world FOX lavishes on them.
It’s either this, or they’re stupid.
Walker’s claims about budget shortfalls have been debunked, his real aims exposed.
Tea Party anti-union slogan: “I stand with Walker because I care about making sure the Koch brothers and their BFFs are happy. Real happy.”
Or: “Decent wages and working conditions? Hell no!”
Or (Beck): “Who needs collective bargaining when the end times are coming?!”
Can Governor Corbett cash in on Walker’s gambit? Only if Pennsylvanians would rather be suckered by paranoid conspiracy fantasies about how only Tea Party corporatists like Walker can save them from Communist/brown/Muslim/feminazi/environmental whacko union members.
Does anyone really believe this junk? Or do they just get off on the spectacle?
I wonder.
Wendy Lynne Lee
wlee@bloomu.edu (591 words)
As the protests at the State House in Madison make clear, fear-mongering union members isn’t easy.
Good.
Unions—public and private sector—make possible a middle class; without them there’d be no minimum wage, child labor laws, work-place safety laws, access to health insurance, or protection from discrimination and unjust firing.
Why do union members often vote Democrat? Because Democrats stand for the working class.
Why do union members (like the police and firefighters Walker sought to exempt as a strategy to divide the unions) stand together even when they don’t vote Democrat? Because whatever their other political beliefs, they know that fairness in conditions, wages, and benefits is the American way.
Bizarre, then, that the foot-soldiers of the Tea Party would counter protest, especially since Walker’s bill harms them: “the tax breaks and other goodies that Walker and the Republican legislature passed…dramatically increased the deficit” (motherjones.com/mojo/2011).
Walker’s Republicans are more interested in advantaging their wealthy patrons than in acting in the best interest of Wisconsin.
Ending the right to collective bargaining won’t close this gap.
What it will do is empower corporations to control wages and conditions, thereby widening the wealth-gap, further entrenching America Inc’s stranglehold on labor.
Walker’s bill would insure that “[the union’s] ability to bargain benefits for their members is reduced…their ability to collect dues, and thus spend money organizing members or lobbying the legislature, is undercut…workers have to vote the union back into existence every single year” (motherjones.com/mojo/2011/).
Walker is Big-Corporation’s union-busting dream come true: “The Koch's PAC…helped Walker via a familiar…political maneuver designed to allow donors to skirt campaign finance limits. [They] gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association, which in turn spent $65,000 on independent expenditures to support Walker” (motherjones.com/mojo/2011/).
Who drove busloads of Tea Partiers to Madison? Koch.
How can folks be so suckered as to agitate against their own best interests and for those of corporatists who’d curtail their access to the American dream?
Plain old titillation.
As I write this, the insane Glenn Beck is busy on his chalkboards laying out a paranoid vision of an America given over by the unions to “radicals” and “Islamacists” who “bear the mark of the beast,” and whose leader, Barack HUSSAIN Obama, is preparing to deliver America to the infidel. It doesn’t matter that not a shred of evidence supports his beyond-nuts claims.
The Tea Partiers are turned on by the spectacle of the violent world FOX lavishes on them.
It’s either this, or they’re stupid.
Walker’s claims about budget shortfalls have been debunked, his real aims exposed.
Tea Party anti-union slogan: “I stand with Walker because I care about making sure the Koch brothers and their BFFs are happy. Real happy.”
Or: “Decent wages and working conditions? Hell no!”
Or (Beck): “Who needs collective bargaining when the end times are coming?!”
Can Governor Corbett cash in on Walker’s gambit? Only if Pennsylvanians would rather be suckered by paranoid conspiracy fantasies about how only Tea Party corporatists like Walker can save them from Communist/brown/Muslim/feminazi/environmental whacko union members.
Does anyone really believe this junk? Or do they just get off on the spectacle?
I wonder.
Wendy Lynne Lee
wlee@bloomu.edu (591 words)
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Diagnosing the "Crazy": Jared Loughner? Likely. The Political Discourse of the Far Right? Absolutely.
The only thing surprising (not really) about the Tea Party Republican response to the Tucson massacre is how swiftly its spin-masters and ideology-ministers rush to distance themselves and their party from the fact that their constant drumbeat of violent, paranoid, and evidence-free oratory contributes to a political and psychological climate where suggestible people like Loughner are ready to blow. All Loughner needed was a bit of direction—and the far right is there to offer it. To be clear: it doesn’t matter what Loughner believed—“Left” or “Right.” It’s irrelevant whether he knew there was a Tea Party or an American Renaissance, a Gun Owners of America, a Patriot’s Voice, a Glenn Beck, or a Ku Klux Klan—or even (heading back to the 60’s) a Weather Underground.
What matters is that his apparent anger could be channeled into violence, that he could acquire a gun with which to execute his plan, and that both of these are richly available thanks almost entirely to the far right that dominates our current and profoundly degraded political discourse. The very speed with which the TPR-faithful fell in line behind the “he’s just crazy” pitch itself offers evidence they know two things: (1) the vast majority of our current incarnation of vitriolic, hate-mongering, paranoid speech available on the Internet, through talk radio, and on the FOX Propaganda Station is from the Far Right, and (2) that they’ve got to blame someone else—fast—in order to distract us from this fact. It’s thus doubly ironic that pundits like O’Reilly blame the Left for having the audacity to point out the obvious, namely, that there’s blood on the hands of every pundit who has contributed to the ratcheting up, the dumbing down, and the gross manipulation of the American public through fear.
However disturbed, however the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Becks, Palins, Malkins, O’Reillys, Brewers, Rand Pauls, or Editor Sachettis fancy themselves psychiatric experts, Jared Loughner’s targeting of Gabriel Giffords was NOT coincidental, NOT unplanned, and NOT irrational. It is, moreover, morally depraved to call Loughner crazy—AND then insist he’s still responsible and should receive the death sentence.
There’s NO conflict between Loughner’s suffering mental illness and his having, however inchoate, political beliefs; he clearly has beliefs about the government, U.S. currency, guns, immigration—and Representative Giffords. To claim that a diagnosis of mental illness exhausts any need for further explanation of why Loughner chose the location, the target, the date, and the weapon he did is nothing more than an attempt to shut down the possibility of contributory factors—tacit admission that there are just such factors.
TPR hypocrisy: when Nidal Hasan opens fire at Ft. Hood, the far right call it “terrorism”—and dismiss the possibility of mental illness in order to score points against Islamic extremists (despite evidence he was acting alone). When Jared Loughner targets a congresswoman, then opens fire on a crowd of bystanders, the far right call it “crazy” to avoid what connects both tragedies: a political climate so toxic, so saturated by half-truths, outright falsehoods, and calls to insurrection that the only wonder is that this doesn’t happen more often.
The daily ravings of Glen Beck are every bit as incoherent, angry, and fact-free as are Jared Loughner’s. Both, for example, focus bizarre attention on U.S. currency (www.2012-doomsday-predictions.com/14690/glenn-beck-the-world-is-dumping-our-dollar). The difference? One commits a horrific crime that ends the life of a nine year old; the other “merely” helps to foment a climate of hysteria—and gets paid millions of dollars to do it.
Wendy Lynne Lee
wlee@bloomu.edu (585 words)
What matters is that his apparent anger could be channeled into violence, that he could acquire a gun with which to execute his plan, and that both of these are richly available thanks almost entirely to the far right that dominates our current and profoundly degraded political discourse. The very speed with which the TPR-faithful fell in line behind the “he’s just crazy” pitch itself offers evidence they know two things: (1) the vast majority of our current incarnation of vitriolic, hate-mongering, paranoid speech available on the Internet, through talk radio, and on the FOX Propaganda Station is from the Far Right, and (2) that they’ve got to blame someone else—fast—in order to distract us from this fact. It’s thus doubly ironic that pundits like O’Reilly blame the Left for having the audacity to point out the obvious, namely, that there’s blood on the hands of every pundit who has contributed to the ratcheting up, the dumbing down, and the gross manipulation of the American public through fear.
However disturbed, however the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Becks, Palins, Malkins, O’Reillys, Brewers, Rand Pauls, or Editor Sachettis fancy themselves psychiatric experts, Jared Loughner’s targeting of Gabriel Giffords was NOT coincidental, NOT unplanned, and NOT irrational. It is, moreover, morally depraved to call Loughner crazy—AND then insist he’s still responsible and should receive the death sentence.
There’s NO conflict between Loughner’s suffering mental illness and his having, however inchoate, political beliefs; he clearly has beliefs about the government, U.S. currency, guns, immigration—and Representative Giffords. To claim that a diagnosis of mental illness exhausts any need for further explanation of why Loughner chose the location, the target, the date, and the weapon he did is nothing more than an attempt to shut down the possibility of contributory factors—tacit admission that there are just such factors.
TPR hypocrisy: when Nidal Hasan opens fire at Ft. Hood, the far right call it “terrorism”—and dismiss the possibility of mental illness in order to score points against Islamic extremists (despite evidence he was acting alone). When Jared Loughner targets a congresswoman, then opens fire on a crowd of bystanders, the far right call it “crazy” to avoid what connects both tragedies: a political climate so toxic, so saturated by half-truths, outright falsehoods, and calls to insurrection that the only wonder is that this doesn’t happen more often.
The daily ravings of Glen Beck are every bit as incoherent, angry, and fact-free as are Jared Loughner’s. Both, for example, focus bizarre attention on U.S. currency (www.2012-doomsday-predictions.com/14690/glenn-beck-the-world-is-dumping-our-dollar). The difference? One commits a horrific crime that ends the life of a nine year old; the other “merely” helps to foment a climate of hysteria—and gets paid millions of dollars to do it.
Wendy Lynne Lee
wlee@bloomu.edu (585 words)
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Some Observations about the Massacre in Tucson
A few observations about the Tucson massacre:
One of the smartest things I heard from one of Keith Olbermann's guests last night was that it is often enough a false dichotomy to suggest that mental illness cannot coincide with political motives. I do not know whether Loughner is mentally ill--and I am VERY reluctant to attach this term to him unless he really qualifies for it. We are entirely too quick to use this language to describe the character, demeanor, habits of those who do not conform as "nuts."
Having said this, however, even if it turns out that Loughner is rightly--clinically--describable as mentally ill, that in no way means that he is not (a) politically motivated and/or (b) culpable for his actions. The two issues--is he mentally competent? Were his actions politically motivated? must be treated separately--and any answer to one is NOT an answer to the other. Moreover, it seems quite clear that even if he suffers mental impairment, it is NOT like that of, say, Jeff Dahmer.
There is also the very interesting question of what we mean by "politically motivated." This has many possible aspects. The evidence is clearly very murky here so far, but it seems that we can say this much:
1. Little evidence (so far) supports the claim that Loughner was motivated by the obvious hot-button issues like health care or immigration directly. But several of his claims (youtube, etc) Do seem to support the claim that he was profoundly disaffected as a citizen, and some of his language at least indicates that he spent time on radical far right websites (conscious dreaming, for example).
2. That he was not directed to perform this massacre by a group or organization implies (VERY much like the Hasan case) that he cannot rightly be described as a terrorist (note the hypocrisy in our assessments here), but this does not mean , again, that he was not politically motivated. And, like the Hasan case, he may very well be suffering from mental illness AND culpable for his actions.
3. The possibility that there was a second person (shooter? Something else?) strengthens the possibility that there were political motives in that it implies that this was planned more thoroughly--by a cooperation of two people in agreement about some set of motives, not just one--and that they at least considered one another to be sane enough to complete this objective. Who that second person of interest is will, I think, shed much light on this case--not necessarily a light that suggests a political objective, but this seems highly plausible. After all, Giffords was clearly the primary target. This was not a random shooting. And Loughner had approached her before.
4. What constitutes a political objective is a very important question. But I am willing to go to the mat for this claim: Whether or not Loughner had a specific objective in mind whose longer range consequences are explicitly political--like destroying the Congress or fomenting a revolution--is irrelevant. I think it's enough to call it "political"--as opposed, say, to personal, or aesthetic (for example if he imagined himself the Joker) if his objectives were to send a shock wave of anxiety through our elected representatives--if that was his aim, or to send the message that our representatives are precisely the targets Sarah Palin says they are.
Whatever Loughner's specific aims--however he is or isn't psychologically stable--I think a strong case can be made for the claim that the staggeringly violent, vitriolic, dismissive, arrogant, shrill, ignorant, and woefully disconnected from facts rhetoric of GLENN BECK, SARAH PALIN, MICHELLE BACHMAN, BILL O'REILLY, SEAN HANNITY, RUSH LIMBAUGH, ANN COULTER, JAN BREWER, MIKE HUCKABEE, MITCH O'CONNELL, MICHAEL SAVAGE, and many others almost entirely from the FAR TEA PARTY RIGHT aids, abets, encourages, and condones precisely this kind of explosion.
To be clear, I am NOT arguing for anything like censorship. I am as hawkish about free speech as anyone you'll ever meet--but this crazy fucked up idea that speech is "free"--that it hasn't consequences--is one we MUST rethink. SPEECH HAS CONSEQUENCES. DEATH IS ONE OF THEM. THIS YOUNG MAN MURDERED A NINE YEAR OLD.
Loughner may well be psychologically unstable, but my money is on the claim that even if so, his instability had to be channeled down some avenue of violent rhetoric/ideology/fear-mongering to produce THIS action. In some sense, he too is thus a victim--a victim of a climate where we celebrate the lethal combination of arrogance and ignorance and fascist ideological motives as if that was the meaning of "America."
One of the smartest things I heard from one of Keith Olbermann's guests last night was that it is often enough a false dichotomy to suggest that mental illness cannot coincide with political motives. I do not know whether Loughner is mentally ill--and I am VERY reluctant to attach this term to him unless he really qualifies for it. We are entirely too quick to use this language to describe the character, demeanor, habits of those who do not conform as "nuts."
Having said this, however, even if it turns out that Loughner is rightly--clinically--describable as mentally ill, that in no way means that he is not (a) politically motivated and/or (b) culpable for his actions. The two issues--is he mentally competent? Were his actions politically motivated? must be treated separately--and any answer to one is NOT an answer to the other. Moreover, it seems quite clear that even if he suffers mental impairment, it is NOT like that of, say, Jeff Dahmer.
There is also the very interesting question of what we mean by "politically motivated." This has many possible aspects. The evidence is clearly very murky here so far, but it seems that we can say this much:
1. Little evidence (so far) supports the claim that Loughner was motivated by the obvious hot-button issues like health care or immigration directly. But several of his claims (youtube, etc) Do seem to support the claim that he was profoundly disaffected as a citizen, and some of his language at least indicates that he spent time on radical far right websites (conscious dreaming, for example).
2. That he was not directed to perform this massacre by a group or organization implies (VERY much like the Hasan case) that he cannot rightly be described as a terrorist (note the hypocrisy in our assessments here), but this does not mean , again, that he was not politically motivated. And, like the Hasan case, he may very well be suffering from mental illness AND culpable for his actions.
3. The possibility that there was a second person (shooter? Something else?) strengthens the possibility that there were political motives in that it implies that this was planned more thoroughly--by a cooperation of two people in agreement about some set of motives, not just one--and that they at least considered one another to be sane enough to complete this objective. Who that second person of interest is will, I think, shed much light on this case--not necessarily a light that suggests a political objective, but this seems highly plausible. After all, Giffords was clearly the primary target. This was not a random shooting. And Loughner had approached her before.
4. What constitutes a political objective is a very important question. But I am willing to go to the mat for this claim: Whether or not Loughner had a specific objective in mind whose longer range consequences are explicitly political--like destroying the Congress or fomenting a revolution--is irrelevant. I think it's enough to call it "political"--as opposed, say, to personal, or aesthetic (for example if he imagined himself the Joker) if his objectives were to send a shock wave of anxiety through our elected representatives--if that was his aim, or to send the message that our representatives are precisely the targets Sarah Palin says they are.
Whatever Loughner's specific aims--however he is or isn't psychologically stable--I think a strong case can be made for the claim that the staggeringly violent, vitriolic, dismissive, arrogant, shrill, ignorant, and woefully disconnected from facts rhetoric of GLENN BECK, SARAH PALIN, MICHELLE BACHMAN, BILL O'REILLY, SEAN HANNITY, RUSH LIMBAUGH, ANN COULTER, JAN BREWER, MIKE HUCKABEE, MITCH O'CONNELL, MICHAEL SAVAGE, and many others almost entirely from the FAR TEA PARTY RIGHT aids, abets, encourages, and condones precisely this kind of explosion.
To be clear, I am NOT arguing for anything like censorship. I am as hawkish about free speech as anyone you'll ever meet--but this crazy fucked up idea that speech is "free"--that it hasn't consequences--is one we MUST rethink. SPEECH HAS CONSEQUENCES. DEATH IS ONE OF THEM. THIS YOUNG MAN MURDERED A NINE YEAR OLD.
Loughner may well be psychologically unstable, but my money is on the claim that even if so, his instability had to be channeled down some avenue of violent rhetoric/ideology/fear-mongering to produce THIS action. In some sense, he too is thus a victim--a victim of a climate where we celebrate the lethal combination of arrogance and ignorance and fascist ideological motives as if that was the meaning of "America."
Monday, December 20, 2010
Celebrating the Birth of Tea Party Republican Jesus
Given the seismic shift from a democratic majority to the Tea Party-Republicans about to rock the congress; given that the overwhelming majority of those responsible for this hard-right sea-change claim to be Christians; given that Christmas in upon us, I am moved—forced really—to contemplate the possibility that the Jesus whose birth these Christians claim to celebrate is not the Jesus of the New Testament.
New Testament Jesus was partisan, to be sure, partisan of compassion, decency, honor, honesty, courage, patience, and justice. NT-Jesus was a socialist. TPR-Jesus, well, he’s a different sort of “savior,” with a testament beholden to some different “virtues.” What do we celebrate in His birth? Who is blessed of TPR-Jesus?
Blessed are the 3000 mega-wealthy American families, for they shall inherit the earth, (such as it is), and get to be called the “job creators” even though their millions rest contentedly in off-shore accounts, their portfolios are lined with gold (real patriots don’t bet on recovery, silly!), and their wealth is almost entirely inherited—not earned.
Blessed are the “free,” for, however poor, sick, or hopeless, those millions of Big-Box, Big-Factory, Big-Fast-Food workers are lucky to live in America where the right to go without food (except, of course, cheap, nutrient-wasteland, Mc’Fatty “food”), or, for want of basic healthcare, die, or who get to watch their children die, is guaranteed. Free: better to get to “choose” a doctor you can’t afford to see than be identified as a socialist who, under “Obamacare,” might actually get to see one!
Blessed are the climate-change deniers, for TPR-Jesus loves most those—Limbaugh-Beck-Hannity-O’Reilly-Inhoff-Bachmann-Palin-Paul—who think Him so omnipotent that nothing we do to His creation can damage it. Venerating TPR-Jesus is certainly more important than yielding to inconvenient truths about deforestation, pollution, desertification, soil erosion, and species extinction. Who makes more sense? Those pesky scientists from geology, meteorology, chemistry, or climatology—or the CEO’s of Exxon, BP, Monsato, Dow, Union-Carbide, or the Koch Brothers? Who does TPR-Jesus stand with? The winners, of course (see above).
Blessed are the bigots, for these “birthers,” “Anti-Islamo-fascists,” “I-got-ur-civil-rights-right’ere” “Constitutionalists,” protect “us” against “them” brown, and/or undocumented and/or Muslim and/or poor, and/or queer not-quite-people. What’s more TPR-Jesus than signing a promise that you’ll do everything you g-damn well can to get rid of the (black) president—no matter what the cost to, say, “the people,” or, well, the not-quite-people? What’s more compassionate than—like the prophet O’Reilly recently opined—limiting our compassion? More courageous than holding the most vulnerable of American citizens hostage to the wealthiest, whitest 1%?
Blessed are the xenophobes, for TPR-Jesus loves America more than any other country, so much so that He made sure (Citizens United) that gazillions in foreign currency can be spent keeping his chosen representatives in power, that waging war in the name of “national interest” was a god-given right (especially if the dead are mostly not-quite-people—see above), and that “shoot-on-sight” is really just a call to the Christian (border) soldier.
If you’re TPR-Jesus, you have loads to celebrate this year—indifference, vulgarity, dishonor, dishonesty, cowardice, intolerance, and injustice. In fact, New Years looks even better than Christmas. After all, the TPR-faithful have managed to convince those who have the most to lose in the coming tsunami-of-“freedom” that they’re better off without economic safety nets, social security, health care, or decent jobs. So, Merry Christmas, Tea-Party-Jesus, and Happy New Year’s to the 1%, the birthers, the xenophobes, the climate change deniers, and the bigots. You indeed have inherited the (scorched) earth (see above).
Wendy Lynne Lee
wlee@bloomu.edu (587 words)
New Testament Jesus was partisan, to be sure, partisan of compassion, decency, honor, honesty, courage, patience, and justice. NT-Jesus was a socialist. TPR-Jesus, well, he’s a different sort of “savior,” with a testament beholden to some different “virtues.” What do we celebrate in His birth? Who is blessed of TPR-Jesus?
Blessed are the 3000 mega-wealthy American families, for they shall inherit the earth, (such as it is), and get to be called the “job creators” even though their millions rest contentedly in off-shore accounts, their portfolios are lined with gold (real patriots don’t bet on recovery, silly!), and their wealth is almost entirely inherited—not earned.
Blessed are the “free,” for, however poor, sick, or hopeless, those millions of Big-Box, Big-Factory, Big-Fast-Food workers are lucky to live in America where the right to go without food (except, of course, cheap, nutrient-wasteland, Mc’Fatty “food”), or, for want of basic healthcare, die, or who get to watch their children die, is guaranteed. Free: better to get to “choose” a doctor you can’t afford to see than be identified as a socialist who, under “Obamacare,” might actually get to see one!
Blessed are the climate-change deniers, for TPR-Jesus loves most those—Limbaugh-Beck-Hannity-O’Reilly-Inhoff-Bachmann-Palin-Paul—who think Him so omnipotent that nothing we do to His creation can damage it. Venerating TPR-Jesus is certainly more important than yielding to inconvenient truths about deforestation, pollution, desertification, soil erosion, and species extinction. Who makes more sense? Those pesky scientists from geology, meteorology, chemistry, or climatology—or the CEO’s of Exxon, BP, Monsato, Dow, Union-Carbide, or the Koch Brothers? Who does TPR-Jesus stand with? The winners, of course (see above).
Blessed are the bigots, for these “birthers,” “Anti-Islamo-fascists,” “I-got-ur-civil-rights-right’ere” “Constitutionalists,” protect “us” against “them” brown, and/or undocumented and/or Muslim and/or poor, and/or queer not-quite-people. What’s more TPR-Jesus than signing a promise that you’ll do everything you g-damn well can to get rid of the (black) president—no matter what the cost to, say, “the people,” or, well, the not-quite-people? What’s more compassionate than—like the prophet O’Reilly recently opined—limiting our compassion? More courageous than holding the most vulnerable of American citizens hostage to the wealthiest, whitest 1%?
Blessed are the xenophobes, for TPR-Jesus loves America more than any other country, so much so that He made sure (Citizens United) that gazillions in foreign currency can be spent keeping his chosen representatives in power, that waging war in the name of “national interest” was a god-given right (especially if the dead are mostly not-quite-people—see above), and that “shoot-on-sight” is really just a call to the Christian (border) soldier.
If you’re TPR-Jesus, you have loads to celebrate this year—indifference, vulgarity, dishonor, dishonesty, cowardice, intolerance, and injustice. In fact, New Years looks even better than Christmas. After all, the TPR-faithful have managed to convince those who have the most to lose in the coming tsunami-of-“freedom” that they’re better off without economic safety nets, social security, health care, or decent jobs. So, Merry Christmas, Tea-Party-Jesus, and Happy New Year’s to the 1%, the birthers, the xenophobes, the climate change deniers, and the bigots. You indeed have inherited the (scorched) earth (see above).
Wendy Lynne Lee
wlee@bloomu.edu (587 words)
Friday, October 22, 2010
Voter Suppression and Intimidation: Is There Anything More Anti-Democratic?
There’s nothing new about voter suppression, and while it’s no surprise that its current incarnation comes from the far right, it’s nonetheless startling to see what lengths its Republican Tea Partiers will go to intimidate, discourage, and fear monger folks into not voting—especially when those folks are African and/or Hispanic American and more likely to vote for Democrats.
Consider a campaign ad run by a conservative front group, Latinos for Reform, urging Latino Nevadans not to vote: "Don't vote this November. This is the only way to send them a clear message. You can no longer take us for granted." It’s hard to imagine a more baldly cynical manipulation of the voting electorate—though no wonder at all that Tea Party candidate Sharon Angle, as of this writing, remains silent. She benefits from this racist maneuver.
Whether you’re white, brown, black or blue, if this doesn’t drive you to the polls in November, nothing will; and it should drive you with equal vigor away from the party willing to resort to any strategy to win.
This same group “shook up the 2008 elections, when they cropped up in Pennsylvania, Colorado and New Mexico with an ad campaign that sought to drive racial divisions using a supposed allegiance of then candidate-Obama to African-Americans over Latinos.” It’s the old divide and conquer strategy adapted from the Republican book of dirty tricks. Whether the tactic is to divide the working class poor from the indigent, blacks from browns from whites, men from women, gays from straights, the goal’s the same: keep the citizens who have the most to lose by a Republican majority in Congress whose middle aged white male wealthy employ them at survival wages—black, brown, female, non-Christian, young, and gay—from voting.
Unconvinced?
Consider the Wisconsin Tea Party’s (astro-turfed by Americans for Prosperity-Wisconsin) documented plan for the November ballot: “The Republican Party of Wisconsin will use its “Voter Vault” state-wide voter file to compile a list of minority and student voters in targeted Wisconsin communities. Americans for Prosperity will use this list to send mail to these voters indicating the voter must call and confirm their registration information, and telling them if they do not call the number provided they could be removed from the voter lists. The Tea Party organizations will recruit and place individuals as official poll workers in selected municipalities in order to be able to make the challenges as official poll workers. On Election Day, these organizations will then “make use” of any postcards that are returned as undeliverable to challenge voters at the polls, utilizing law enforcement, as well as attorneys trained and provided by the RPW, to support their challenges.”
Need to see any more?
The Tea Party Republicans are not a party—they’re an organized hit squad for their corporate controllers at America, Inc. My critics are right—it’s no longer sufficient to call this party racist. With despicable strategies like this, they’re in fact corporatized fascists whose primary operatives clearly know one thing: If THE PEOPLE voted, the Tea Party would be exposed as the front for corporate greed it is, their true-believers left empty-pocketed, their ill-got power history.
Voter suppression: brought to you by your Tea Party Republican (and fake Libertarian) friends whose defense of the Constitution is nothing but a ruse to sucker your attention while they make millions—on your foreclosures, your credit defaults, your need of a living wage, and your inability to recognize the difference between blind loyalty to their profit margins and genuine patriotism.
Wendy Lynne Lee
wlee@bloomu.edu (589 words)
Consider a campaign ad run by a conservative front group, Latinos for Reform, urging Latino Nevadans not to vote: "Don't vote this November. This is the only way to send them a clear message. You can no longer take us for granted." It’s hard to imagine a more baldly cynical manipulation of the voting electorate—though no wonder at all that Tea Party candidate Sharon Angle, as of this writing, remains silent. She benefits from this racist maneuver.
Whether you’re white, brown, black or blue, if this doesn’t drive you to the polls in November, nothing will; and it should drive you with equal vigor away from the party willing to resort to any strategy to win.
This same group “shook up the 2008 elections, when they cropped up in Pennsylvania, Colorado and New Mexico with an ad campaign that sought to drive racial divisions using a supposed allegiance of then candidate-Obama to African-Americans over Latinos.” It’s the old divide and conquer strategy adapted from the Republican book of dirty tricks. Whether the tactic is to divide the working class poor from the indigent, blacks from browns from whites, men from women, gays from straights, the goal’s the same: keep the citizens who have the most to lose by a Republican majority in Congress whose middle aged white male wealthy employ them at survival wages—black, brown, female, non-Christian, young, and gay—from voting.
Unconvinced?
Consider the Wisconsin Tea Party’s (astro-turfed by Americans for Prosperity-Wisconsin) documented plan for the November ballot: “The Republican Party of Wisconsin will use its “Voter Vault” state-wide voter file to compile a list of minority and student voters in targeted Wisconsin communities. Americans for Prosperity will use this list to send mail to these voters indicating the voter must call and confirm their registration information, and telling them if they do not call the number provided they could be removed from the voter lists. The Tea Party organizations will recruit and place individuals as official poll workers in selected municipalities in order to be able to make the challenges as official poll workers. On Election Day, these organizations will then “make use” of any postcards that are returned as undeliverable to challenge voters at the polls, utilizing law enforcement, as well as attorneys trained and provided by the RPW, to support their challenges.”
Need to see any more?
The Tea Party Republicans are not a party—they’re an organized hit squad for their corporate controllers at America, Inc. My critics are right—it’s no longer sufficient to call this party racist. With despicable strategies like this, they’re in fact corporatized fascists whose primary operatives clearly know one thing: If THE PEOPLE voted, the Tea Party would be exposed as the front for corporate greed it is, their true-believers left empty-pocketed, their ill-got power history.
Voter suppression: brought to you by your Tea Party Republican (and fake Libertarian) friends whose defense of the Constitution is nothing but a ruse to sucker your attention while they make millions—on your foreclosures, your credit defaults, your need of a living wage, and your inability to recognize the difference between blind loyalty to their profit margins and genuine patriotism.
Wendy Lynne Lee
wlee@bloomu.edu (589 words)
Sunday, September 19, 2010
America, Inc's newest Corporatizing of a Fundamental Public Good: Education--Inc.
Editor Sachetti’s recent choice for an “education reform” Op-Ed is thin on fact and long on thinly veiled propaganda for America, Inc.’s newest appropriation of a public good: education. “Online schools do more with less” by The Heartland Institute’s Ben Boychuk and Bruno Behrend is a billboard for privatizing public education by replacing it with enterprises that use tax dollars to fund FOR-PROFIT ventures (Think: Phoenix). The “hybrid” examples B&B offer—the Khan Academy, for example—aren’t the schools your children would attend if B&B had their way (unless you’re rich).
In fact, there’d be no PUBLIC education at all, and this is the real message of this editorial.
The Heartland Institute: a rightwing think-tank whose “Tea Party Tool Box” mission is to promote corporate interests (major donors: Big-Tabacco/Big-Energy) and the conversion of public services into for-profits. In addition to denying climate change, opposing all environmental regulation (including clean water laws), and promoting the deregulation of healthcare, Heartland advocates “education reform” that would funnel tax dollars to private schools, including parochial schools.
Setting aside violations of the Establishment Clause, “letting the money follow the child,” and “parental choice” is code for transforming tax dollars into venture capital. As the hybrid examples show, moreover, “privatize” is code for transforming “brick and mortar” into cyberspace, and hence into a caricature of what an excellent educational experience should be.
No doubt, public education in the United States needs to be far better, but the notion that the solution is to privatize and corporatize a fundamental public good, vanquishing the classroom, makes about as much sense as allowing BP, Phillip-Morris, Aetna, the natural gas industry, or Bank of America to regulate themselves. We all know who gets screwed—our kid’s futures.
Privatizing public education is inconsistent with democratic principle: without the pressure of good public education accessible to every child, (a) curriculum will be determined by ideological, religious and/or market demands, and (b) only the wealthy will have the opportunity to become truly educated. Heartland includes pictures of brown kids on their website, but this isn’t because they’re looking to equalize education for the disadvantaged; it’s because they can leverage the fears of economically vulnerable families (and the racism that equates “brown” with “poor”) into accepting an inferior on-line “education” that comes with the false promise of jobs.
Boychuk claims that because the Constitution says nothing explicitly about education, it should be left to the states, that doing so will “empower parents.” Nonsense. He knows tax dollars siphoned away from public schools by edu-corporations will insure their demise, and thus the demise of their unions, the real obstacle to the rise of the edu-industry. He knows that poor kids will be left to the public schools whose languishing revenues will not be able to keep up with America, Inc’s education “market,” a “market” every bit as free as Big-Energy, Big-Box, Big-Bank, Big-Pharma, and Big-Health—that is, it will have us by the proverbial cojones.
No surprise, of course, that Sachetti would choose this editorial—if it opposes education, who cares about motives? But you’d think he’d do better research. Boychuk’s “Constitutionalism” is a lie; he advocates repealing the 14th amendment: “Birthright citizenship, a medieval idea, has no place in our Constitution.” He calls it “wrong and crazy,” revealing his real motives—a nation of citizens selected for their “rightness” for America, that is, for their ability to pay for America Inc’s newest product: education—Inc.
Wendy Lynne Lee
wlee@bloomu.edu (571 words)
In fact, there’d be no PUBLIC education at all, and this is the real message of this editorial.
The Heartland Institute: a rightwing think-tank whose “Tea Party Tool Box” mission is to promote corporate interests (major donors: Big-Tabacco/Big-Energy) and the conversion of public services into for-profits. In addition to denying climate change, opposing all environmental regulation (including clean water laws), and promoting the deregulation of healthcare, Heartland advocates “education reform” that would funnel tax dollars to private schools, including parochial schools.
Setting aside violations of the Establishment Clause, “letting the money follow the child,” and “parental choice” is code for transforming tax dollars into venture capital. As the hybrid examples show, moreover, “privatize” is code for transforming “brick and mortar” into cyberspace, and hence into a caricature of what an excellent educational experience should be.
No doubt, public education in the United States needs to be far better, but the notion that the solution is to privatize and corporatize a fundamental public good, vanquishing the classroom, makes about as much sense as allowing BP, Phillip-Morris, Aetna, the natural gas industry, or Bank of America to regulate themselves. We all know who gets screwed—our kid’s futures.
Privatizing public education is inconsistent with democratic principle: without the pressure of good public education accessible to every child, (a) curriculum will be determined by ideological, religious and/or market demands, and (b) only the wealthy will have the opportunity to become truly educated. Heartland includes pictures of brown kids on their website, but this isn’t because they’re looking to equalize education for the disadvantaged; it’s because they can leverage the fears of economically vulnerable families (and the racism that equates “brown” with “poor”) into accepting an inferior on-line “education” that comes with the false promise of jobs.
Boychuk claims that because the Constitution says nothing explicitly about education, it should be left to the states, that doing so will “empower parents.” Nonsense. He knows tax dollars siphoned away from public schools by edu-corporations will insure their demise, and thus the demise of their unions, the real obstacle to the rise of the edu-industry. He knows that poor kids will be left to the public schools whose languishing revenues will not be able to keep up with America, Inc’s education “market,” a “market” every bit as free as Big-Energy, Big-Box, Big-Bank, Big-Pharma, and Big-Health—that is, it will have us by the proverbial cojones.
No surprise, of course, that Sachetti would choose this editorial—if it opposes education, who cares about motives? But you’d think he’d do better research. Boychuk’s “Constitutionalism” is a lie; he advocates repealing the 14th amendment: “Birthright citizenship, a medieval idea, has no place in our Constitution.” He calls it “wrong and crazy,” revealing his real motives—a nation of citizens selected for their “rightness” for America, that is, for their ability to pay for America Inc’s newest product: education—Inc.
Wendy Lynne Lee
wlee@bloomu.edu (571 words)
Sunday, August 29, 2010
I can’t imagine a better example of hypocrisy than the hysterically racist reaction to the building of an Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero.
Catered via FOX Schmew’s political hacks—Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck (who claims to channel “The Spirit”), this non-issue has become the Summer Blockbuster for the Republican Tea Party whose corporate sponsors will do anything to win seats in the November mid-term elections.
And they might; they play the “sucker born every day” card very well.
Contrary to the claim that Tea Partiers are “pimps for the plutocracy,” they’re really just prostitutes for corporate America suckered by euphemisms about how they’re standing up for liberty; the only thing they’re standing up for is their own continued exploitation by America, Inc. Corporate sponsors like Rupert Murdoch, Dick Armey, and the Koch brothers are the pimps—making millions by suckering white folks into believing that the world as we know it is coming to an end, and the people to blame are the poor and/or the brown, and/or Muslim.
Think the “grass roots uprising” over the “9-11 mosque” was some spontaneous outcry for 9-11 victims? Think again. This charade is bankrolled by Murdoch and Koch who, by fanning the flames of religious bigotry, have exploited the horror of 9-11 for their profit margins. Why pay attention to Koch’s John Birch Society legacy? Why worry the environmental/human-health impact of his stalwart resistance to any regulation at his pollution-spewing factories? Why worry about Murdoch’s takeover of the media?
No—we have Muslims to hate, and a First Amendment to despoil.
Tea Party Republican bigotry doesn’t end at the “mosque.” The same folks who believe that Feisal Abdul Rauf is bent on training terrorists on U.S. soil are likely to believe that Obama is a Muslim (terrorist), that he’s not an American citizen, that “death panels” are part of healthcare reform, that Saddam Hussein orchestrated 9-11 and/or harbored WMDs, that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have different historical roots, and that the first amendment’s establishment clause excludes “radical” religions.
We need search no further than 30 Seconds’ Obama-is-a-Muslim-terrorist-Lysk, Got-guns-Heller, How-about-genocide-Brobst, Ditch-the-14th-amendment-Pushinaitis, and Brown-people-are-herd-animals-Harter to see what prostitution for America, Inc. looks like. According to a recent Newsweek article (www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/08/24/dumb-things-americans-believe), one in three Americans would deny freedom of religion to “fringe” faiths. Yet, 21% believe in “sorcerers, conjurers, and warlocks,” 41% in ESP, 32% in ghosts, and 25% in astrology.
Is it any wonder that we’re so easily suckered by America, Inc.’s exploitation of fear, suspicion, and bigotry?
No wonder at all, even when there’s no issue: the first amendment is no more subject to hand-wringing about our feelings than is my right to speak in a public venue, however unpopular.
There’s no more mystery about whether Muslims have a right to build a community center than there is in the fourteenth amendment about who counts as a citizen. Our Constitution guarantees us religious freedom; the fourteenth amendment insures that birth in the U.S. grants citizenship. Yet those who cry loudest for a return to the founders, who insist on “strict constitutionalism,” are the first to interject riders and exceptions—suckered by pimps like Glenn Beck whose, as John Stewart puts it, “I Have a Scheme” rally not only aims to bastardize the legacy of Martin Luther King, but make millions off “reclaiming” the civil rights movement—for white people.
Think the dollars from this event will go to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation? Think again, and read the rider: After the events bills are paid. AKA: After Beck, Palin, and their corporate sponsors get “theirs.”
Wendy Lynne Lee
wlee@bloomu.edu (597 words)
Catered via FOX Schmew’s political hacks—Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck (who claims to channel “The Spirit”), this non-issue has become the Summer Blockbuster for the Republican Tea Party whose corporate sponsors will do anything to win seats in the November mid-term elections.
And they might; they play the “sucker born every day” card very well.
Contrary to the claim that Tea Partiers are “pimps for the plutocracy,” they’re really just prostitutes for corporate America suckered by euphemisms about how they’re standing up for liberty; the only thing they’re standing up for is their own continued exploitation by America, Inc. Corporate sponsors like Rupert Murdoch, Dick Armey, and the Koch brothers are the pimps—making millions by suckering white folks into believing that the world as we know it is coming to an end, and the people to blame are the poor and/or the brown, and/or Muslim.
Think the “grass roots uprising” over the “9-11 mosque” was some spontaneous outcry for 9-11 victims? Think again. This charade is bankrolled by Murdoch and Koch who, by fanning the flames of religious bigotry, have exploited the horror of 9-11 for their profit margins. Why pay attention to Koch’s John Birch Society legacy? Why worry the environmental/human-health impact of his stalwart resistance to any regulation at his pollution-spewing factories? Why worry about Murdoch’s takeover of the media?
No—we have Muslims to hate, and a First Amendment to despoil.
Tea Party Republican bigotry doesn’t end at the “mosque.” The same folks who believe that Feisal Abdul Rauf is bent on training terrorists on U.S. soil are likely to believe that Obama is a Muslim (terrorist), that he’s not an American citizen, that “death panels” are part of healthcare reform, that Saddam Hussein orchestrated 9-11 and/or harbored WMDs, that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have different historical roots, and that the first amendment’s establishment clause excludes “radical” religions.
We need search no further than 30 Seconds’ Obama-is-a-Muslim-terrorist-Lysk, Got-guns-Heller, How-about-genocide-Brobst, Ditch-the-14th-amendment-Pushinaitis, and Brown-people-are-herd-animals-Harter to see what prostitution for America, Inc. looks like. According to a recent Newsweek article (www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/08/24/dumb-things-americans-believe), one in three Americans would deny freedom of religion to “fringe” faiths. Yet, 21% believe in “sorcerers, conjurers, and warlocks,” 41% in ESP, 32% in ghosts, and 25% in astrology.
Is it any wonder that we’re so easily suckered by America, Inc.’s exploitation of fear, suspicion, and bigotry?
No wonder at all, even when there’s no issue: the first amendment is no more subject to hand-wringing about our feelings than is my right to speak in a public venue, however unpopular.
There’s no more mystery about whether Muslims have a right to build a community center than there is in the fourteenth amendment about who counts as a citizen. Our Constitution guarantees us religious freedom; the fourteenth amendment insures that birth in the U.S. grants citizenship. Yet those who cry loudest for a return to the founders, who insist on “strict constitutionalism,” are the first to interject riders and exceptions—suckered by pimps like Glenn Beck whose, as John Stewart puts it, “I Have a Scheme” rally not only aims to bastardize the legacy of Martin Luther King, but make millions off “reclaiming” the civil rights movement—for white people.
Think the dollars from this event will go to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation? Think again, and read the rider: After the events bills are paid. AKA: After Beck, Palin, and their corporate sponsors get “theirs.”
Wendy Lynne Lee
wlee@bloomu.edu (597 words)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)