|
Putting a Pitchfork in It |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=24044"><span class="small">Jim Hightower, OtherWords</span></a>
|
|
Saturday, 28 June 2014 14:56 |
|
Hightower writes: "Lloyd Blankfein is very concerned about income inequality. With his face reflecting both worry and perplexity, he recently called inequality 'very destabilizing.'"
Texas' progressive political curmudgeon, Jim Hightower. (photo: JimHightower.com)

Putting a Pitchfork in It
By Jim Hightower, OtherWords
27 June 14
loyd Blankfein is very concerned about income inequality. With his face reflecting both worry and perplexity, he recently called inequality “very destabilizing.”
Blankfein’s concern doesn’t come from the perspective of one experiencing inequality from the bottom of the income ladder — he’s certainly not an Occupy Wall Street sort of guy. In fact, he basically is Wall Street.
As the big banana at the financial gambling house Goldman Sachs, Blankfein raked in a stunning $23 million for his wheeling and dealing last year. Under his leadership, the bank grabbed a $13 billion bailout from us taxpayers in 2008.
Having amassed a personal fortune of nearly half-a-billion bucks during his years at Goldman, he’s literally become a gold man. But in a June 13 CBS interview, Blankfein wrinkled his brow and uttered a very un-Wall Street, populist-like thought: “Too much of the (wealth) of the country has gone to too few people,” he said, adding that when that happens, “you’ll have an unstable society.”
Well, golly. Yes we will. And don’t look down now from your gilded perch way up there with your 1 percenter friends, but we already do. In the past 30 years, power elites (including you) drastically increased your share of America’s income by taking income from the middle class and the poor. Did you think we wouldn’t notice?
It’s awfully sweet of a Wall Street baron to express concern about inequality and instability, but how about doing something about it? He could turn his battalions of lobbyists and PR agents loose to develop a national jobs program, hike wages, bulk-up Social Security, and…
Hey, here’s a good one: He could get that little Robin Hood tax levied on computerized, high-speed Wall Street speculators to replenish our public treasury so we can reinvest in America. Listen, Blankfein: Don’t just worry — do something.

|
|
Why the Buffer Zone Decision Is Wrong |
|
|
Saturday, 28 June 2014 14:56 |
|
Scangas writes: "The Supreme Court ruled that the 35-feet buffer zone interfered with the free speech rights of a grandmother and others who said they just wanted to quietly counsel the women going into the clinic. But that's not what I often see."
The Supreme Court struck down buffer zones around abortion clinics. (photo: AFagen/flickr)

Why the Buffer Zone Decision Is Wrong
By Anastasia Scangas, The Progressive
27 June 14
very Saturday morning, I escort patients into a reproductive health clinic. So I'm troubled by the Supreme Court decision overturning the buffer zone in Massachusetts that protected such women.
The Supreme Court ruled that the 35-feet buffer zone interfered with the free speech rights of a grandmother and others who said they just wanted to quietly counsel the women going into the clinic.
But that’s not what I often see. Many clinic escorts, myself included, have had to strategically place our bodies between a protester and a patient because the protester was so in her face.
Many protesters yell racist or sexist slurs or compare reproductive health care to eugenics and white supremacy, enslavement and submission. Protesters often also display signs with grotesque and shocking imagery meant to scare the patients from entering the clinic.
We’ve seen patients grabbed and blocked from their cars. And we ourselves have been pushed and shoved while trying to get a patient safely into the clinic. I've even seen a protester trespass into a clinic and yell at the women there.
The Supreme Court blithely ruled that the state of Massachusetts has other laws on the books to deal with such aggressive behavior. But by erasing the buffer zone, the court is inviting more such behavior.
This is what worries me: If protesters are willing to be this aggressive with buffer zone regulations in effect, how far are they willing to go when they are absent?
Let’s remember that violence against clinics and clinic workers is not unheard of. Fanatics have murdered doctors and other clinic employees. This fear of violence, in fact, was the driving force behind many buffer zone laws on the books today.
The harassment, intimidation and physical aggression that patients are subjected to can have serious consequences.
A patient trying to obtain an abortion may be repelled by the protesters and then miss her appointment, sending her past the term restriction for the procedure in her state. She then may have to seek care out of state or be forced to endure a dangerous pregnancy.
A patient seeking a screening for a sexually transmitted infection could become infertile because she was not able to treat it in time.
A patient with an easily treatable, precancerous condition could see it progress to a cancerous condition.
While the Supreme Court ruled that the buffer zone violated free speech, ironically, the Supreme Court itself has imposed a buffer zone greater than 35 feet around its own building, which infringes far more on political speech than any zone around a reproductive health clinic.
We must guarantee that women have a right to access the health care they need and deserve.
At best, this Supreme Court ruling was naïve. At worst, it was disingenuous and hypocritical.
And it may make life much more difficult for women who need and deserve reproductive health care.
Anastasia Scangas sits on the board of directors for the Chicago Abortion Fund. - See more at: http://www.progressive.org/news/2014/06/187755/why-buffer-zone-decision-wrong#sthash.kIZfNhLK.dpuf

|
|
|
Ann Coulter Thinks Football Is Socialist |
|
|
Saturday, 28 June 2014 14:55 |
|
Hancox writes: "Determined to preserve American exceptionalism against a rising tide of baguette-munching ball-juggling pinko Europhile hippy surrender-communism, Ann Coulter has come to the rescue."
An American cheering on Team USA at a World Cup watch party in New York City. (photo: AP)

Ann Coulter Thinks Football Is Socialist
By Dan Hancox, Guardian UK
27 June 14
Team USA may be through to the last 16, but for some, the suspiciously popular game with the round ball is leftie nonsense
ith Team USA suddenly in the round of 16, and World Cup fever allegedly sweeping the nation that football forgot, the American right has sprung into action. Determined to preserve American exceptionalism against a rising tide of baguette-munching ball-juggling pinko Europhile hippy surrender-communism, Ann Coulter has come to the rescue: "Any growing interest in soccer," she wrote to widespread amusement, "can only be a sign of the nation's moral decay."
Her reasons for hating football are manifold, and typically hilarious – chiefly, the suspiciously popular game with the round ball seems to show all the key indicators of socialism. The New York Times likes it. It's foreign. Foreigners like it. Obama likes it. It is even, somehow, "like the metric system". For arch conservatives like Coulter, the culture wars never stop, and the sudden spike in interest in the World Cup is just the latest assault on The American Way, accompanying the barrages of promiscuity, multiculturalism, Islam, R'n'B, and trains: "The same people trying to push soccer on Americans are the ones demanding that we love HBO's Girls, light-rail, Beyonce and Hillary Clinton."
It's not just that the wrong people like it – Coulter thinks football as a sport is intrinsically socialist. "In soccer," she laments, "there are no heroes, no losers, no accountability, and no child's fragile self-esteem is bruised." Unlike the glorious sports of basketball, American football and baseball, she says, all individual talent is subsumed into the back-patting, winning-isn't-everything comradeship of football. (Because obviously, no one minds if you win or lose a game of football – and at the full-time whistle, after meditating for a while, the players pool their wages with the fans, before shyly retiring to their modest homes and ascetic lifestyles.)
In any case, are American sports really a Randian festival of untrammelled capitalist heroics, as she claims? Besides being more arcane, bureaucratic and hyper-managed than anything the Soviet Union ever dreamt up, the draft system used in most American team sports sends the very best young players to the clubs that did most poorly the previous season, in order to establish parity and fairness the following season. Have you ever heard of anything more socialist in your life? As if that wasn't enough, the NFL, MBA and NHL even have salary caps! Negotiated by – wait for it – trade unions! The MLB, meanwhile, has something called a "luxury tax" on its richest teams. What kind of lefty nonsense is this?
Of course, people always project their politics on to sport. Without naming and shaming, during the USA's game against Portugal, I saw one leftwing tweeter ask with plaintive, stony-faced sincerity "how can anyone be supporting the imperialists?" – as if Clint Dempsey had personally signed off on the CIA's covert military operations in Nicaragua (the poor lad has enough to handle with his burgeoning rap career).
What Coulter hasn't noticed is that even in the global game, Team USA is comporting itself with its usual bombastic exceptionalism, strutting around with an eagle tattooed on its chest. "I believe that we will win!" is exactly the kind of ridiculous army recruitment advert of a chant that you would expect from our cousins across the Atlantic.
Admittedly, there has been a bit of sour grapes in the English response to the success of Dempsey et al, and no doubt we will be treading those grapes into wine and drinking ourselves into oblivion if Team USA get much further – they are, as today's typically excitable NY Daily News front page informs us, now just "four wins from glory".
In the unlikely event that they do win the World Cup, I can see Coulter coming round to football. In the second verse of the The Right Brothers' tribute, I'm In Love With Ann Coulter, the ultra-conservative duo inadvertently sum up the appalling partisan burlesque that is modern American politics: "I've been driving liberals crazy / I bet I've quoted half her book at work / To those godless jerks who can't debate me". Like the woman herself, Coulter's armchair fans are completely unwavering in their faith, shout themselves hoarse, and are chauvinistic to the point of comical absurdity in their hatred of their opponents. Sound like anyone you know?

|
|
FOCUS | What We Can Learn From Lawrence of Arabia |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=14990"><span class="small">Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, Moyers & Company</span></a>
|
|
Saturday, 28 June 2014 11:35 |
|
Excerpt: "As fears grow of a widening war across the Middle East, fed by reports that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) envisions a region-wide, all controlling theocracy, we found ourselves talking about another war. The Great War - or World War I, as it would come to be called - was triggered one hundred years ago this month when an assassin shot and killed Austria's Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo."
Lawrence of Arabia, T.E. Lawrence, in full Arab dress, 1919. (photo: unknown)

What We Can Learn From Lawrence of Arabia
By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, Moyers & Company
27 June 14
s fears grow of a widening war across the Middle East, fed by reports that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) envisions a region-wide, all controlling theocracy, we found ourselves talking about another war. The Great War – or World War I, as it would come to be called — was triggered one hundred years ago this month when an assassin shot and killed Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo. Through a series of tangled alliances and a cascade of misunderstandings and blunders, that single act of violence brought on a bloody catastrophe. More than 37 million people were killed or wounded.
In America, if we reflect on World War I at all, we think mostly about the battlefields and trenches of Europe and tend to forget another front in that war — against the Ottoman Empire of the Turks that dominated the Middle East. A British Army officer named T.E. Lawrence became a hero in the Arab world when he led nomadic Bedouin tribes in battle against Turkish rule. Peter O’Toole immortalized him in the epic movie, “Lawrence of Arabia.”
You may remember the scene when, after dynamiting the Hijaz railway and looting a Turkish supply train, Lawrence is asked by an American reporter, “What, in your opinion, do these people hope to gain from this war?”
“They hope to gain their freedom,” Lawrence replies, and when the journalist scoffs, insists, “They’re going to get it. I’m going to give it to them.”
At war’s end, Lawrence’s vision of Arab independence was shattered when the Versailles peace conference confirmed the carving of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine into British and French spheres of influence; arbitrary boundaries drawn in the sand to satisfy the appetites of empire – Britain’s Foreign Office even called the former Ottoman lands “The Great Loot.”
The hopeful Lawrence drew his own “peace map” of the region, one that paid closer heed to tribal allegiances and rivalries. The map could have saved the world a lot of time, trouble and treasure, one historian said, providing the region “with a far better starting point than the crude imperial carve up.” Lawrence wrote to a British major in Cairo: “I’m afraid you will be delayed a long time, cleaning up all the messes and oddments we have left behind us.”
Since 2003, as the reckless invasion of Iraq unfolded, demand for Lawrence’s book, “Seven Pillars of Wisdom” increased eightfold. It was taught at the Pentagon and Sandhurst — Britain’s West Point — for its insights into fighting war in the Middle East. In 2010, Major Niel Smith, who had served as operations officer for the US Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Center, told The Christian Science Monitor, “T.E. Lawrence has in some ways become the patron saint of the US Army advisory effort in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
But then and now, Lawrence’s understanding of the ancient and potent jealousies of the people among whom he had lived and fought generally was ignored. In 1920, he wrote for the Times of London an unsettling and prophetic article about Iraq – then under the thumb of the British. He decried the money spent, the number of troops and loss of life, and warned that his countrymen had been led “into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information…. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It… may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are today not far from a disaster.”
Not for the last time in the Middle East would disaster come from the blundering ignorance and blinding arrogance of foreign intruders convinced by magical thinking of their own omnipotence and righteousness. How soon we forget. How often we repeat.

|
|