|
Pete Seeger - Character, Personality, Intuition and Focus |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=23303"><span class="small">Ralph Nader, The Nader Page</span></a>
|
|
Saturday, 01 February 2014 14:36 |
|
Nader writes: "After 94 years, on January 27, 2014, the world lost Pete Seeger. The world is the lesser for that loss."
Pete Seeger performs during the 2009 Dorothy and Lillian Gish Prize special outdoor tribute at Hunts Point Riverside Park. (photo: Joe Kohen/WireImage)

Pete Seeger - Character, Personality, Intuition and Focus
By Ralph Nader, The Nader Page
01 February 14
fter 94 years, on January 27, 2014, the world lost Pete Seeger. The world is the lesser for that loss. The accolades for this giant of folk songs and herald of all causes just, are pouring in from around the world. He is celebrated for regularly showing up at mass protests, for singing songs so transcendent (This Land is Your Land; We Shall Overcome; Where Have All the Flowers Gone) they are sung in many foreign languages all over the earth and for his mentoring and motivating of millions of people and children.
Pete Seeger overcame most of his doubters and adversaries. On his famous five string banjo, he inscribed the slogan, "This machine surrounds hate and forces it to surrender."
No less than the Wall Street Journal, after reprinting an ugly commentary on Seeger's earlier radicalism, wrote: "troubadour, rabble rouser, thorn in the side of the bloated and complacent, recipient of the National Media of Arts, American idealist and family man, Seeger maintained what Mr. Springsteen called his 'nasty optimism' until late in life."
At a Madison Square Garden songfest for Seeger's 90th birthday, Springsteen added: "Pete Seeger decided he'd be a walking, singing reminder of all of America's history. He'd be a living archive of America's music and conscience."
I met and spoke to Pete Seeger a few times and can attest to his steady determination and uplifting spirit. All the above are measures of this authentic man and his rare traits of character, personality, intuition, scope and focus.
The man's character shone when he was subpoenaed before the powerful House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) in August 1955, along with other outspoken entertainers and actors, he refused to take the easier way out and invoke the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. Instead, he made himself vulnerable to later prosecution by pleading the First Amendment and his right to free speech, petition and assembly.
After rejecting the Committee's probe about whom he associated with politically and his beliefs, he suggested that they discuss the music that the committee members found so objectionable. He offered unsuccessfully to sing his songs, then and there, before the startled clenched-jaw politicians.
"I think," he told them, "these are very improper questions for any American to be asked especially under such compulsion as this." In those days, that was an astounding act of courageous character.
He paid the price, when he was prosecuted and convicted before winning his appeal. In those years of "commie symps" witch-hunts by McCarthyite zealots, his career nearly collapsed. Television networks banned him for over a decade; record companies shunned him; concerts dwindled. So what did he do? He continued recording, touring among everyday people around the country, learning music from them and singing on street corners, at union halls, churches, schools and what he called "hobo jungles."
He quit a popular band he formed - the Weavers - after it did an advertisement for Lucky Strike cigarettes. More recently, according to his producer, Jim Musselman, and record label (Appleseed Recordings), he turned down an offer by BP of $150,000 to use one of his songs in a commercial, even though he could have given the money to charity.
Complementing this sterling character, Seeger possessed a stunningly functional personality. His resilience in overcoming setbacks, ideological adversaries and smear specialists was legendary. That was because he never let his ego get in the way and wear him down and he recognized the big picture of social change and how he could use his stardom to amplify the people's efforts for peace, justice, the environment and other necessities of the good life. It helped mightily that he was married to the stalwart Toshi for seventy years.
"The key to the future of the world," he remarked in 1994, "is finding the optimistic stories and letting them be known." In 2009, he said his task was "to show folks there's a lot of good music in this world, and if used right it may help to save the planet." He placed his greatest hope in women wisely teaching their children. Three years ago, he won a Grammy for his album, "Tomorrow's Children."
His connection with audiences of all kinds, here and abroad, was uncannily attuned to getting them to participate and sing. For Mr. Seeger, it was not about the song or the singer - these were the means - it was about the audience's own experience.
He disliked the overwhelming sound of rock that blotted out the lyrics. The lyrics, he believed, were what needed to be communicated and therefore had to be heard, sung and understood. That is one reason he avoided electric guitars and other electrified instruments.
In his biography by David Dunaway, titled How Can I Keep From Singing: Pete Seeger, Mr. Seeger spoke about rural traditions. "I liked the strident vocal tone of the singers, the vigorous dancing. The words of the songs had all the meat of life in them. Their humor had a bite, it was not trivial. Their tragedy was real, not sentimental."
Arlo Guthrie, son of the great Woody Guthrie, a mentor of Seeger's, played with Pete for nearly fifty years. He spoke to Time Magazine about his magic in getting audiences to "relax and sing along with him. My eyes just opened up and I couldn't believe what was happening in front of me. He would just wave his hand, and you could hear people singing…Someone who has not [seen him] will find it hard to believe. It was almost as if he had some extra sense that allowed that kind of response. There's no one else I have ever seen in my life that has had that, on any country, on any continent or in any city. Nobody came close."
His intuition was augmented by a vast knowledge of American history, astonishing memory and what one reporter called "a vast repertoire of ballads, spirituals and blues songs."
Seeger's scope covered just about every social justice cause that arose from the people and some that he helped ignite such as opposing wars and cleaning up rivers. He knew what he was singing about, such as when he focused on his beloved Hudson River. He launched his famous 106-foot sloop, the Clearwater, whose journey with musicians up and down the Hudson unleashed civic and litigation energies that have greatly reduced the pollution of that storied river. Again and again, the Clearwater would take adults and children on these trips so they could appreciate the river, learn, sing, and resolve to combat the polluters, such as General Electric and its dumping of PCBs. The children, recounted Musselman, would go home knowledgeably motivated and urge their parents to act. The work done on the Clearwater is now a model for cleanup efforts in other rivers.
This man, who led sing-alongs and gave benefit concerts for the downtrodden and the defiant, would bring his audience to silence and then joyous singing. Imagine, today's domineering, ear-splitting, flashing bands jetting their fans into frenzied, uproarious, sweaty reactions with the sounds drowning out the lyrics. That was never Seeger's vision. Thank goodness he leaves behind hundreds of hours of music that stimulates both the ears and sweetens or alerts the minds.
Musselman related a powerful example of how Pete Seeger communicated at gatherings. He quotes Seeger as saying, "Nelson Mandela went from prison to the presidency of his country without a shot being fired. The Berlin Wall came down without a shot being fired. And did anybody think there would be peace in Northern Ireland? There is always hope when it comes to unlikely social change."
"Pete planted many seeds all over the world," Musselman concluded. That is why Pete Seeger lives on.

|
|
Marx Was Right: Five Surprising Ways Karl Marx Predicted 2014 |
|
|
Saturday, 01 February 2014 14:31 |
|
McElwee writes: "Most people are vaguely aware of the radical economist's prediction that capitalism would inevitably be replaced by communism, but they often misunderstand why he believed this to be true."
Karl Marx. (photo: Wiki Commons)

Marx Was Right: Five Surprising Ways Karl Marx Predicted 2014
By Sean McElwee, Rolling Stone
01 February 14
From the iPhone 5S to corporate globalization, modern life is full of evidence of Marx's foresight
here's a lot of talk of Karl Marx in the air these days - from Rush Limbaugh accusing Pope Francis of promoting "pure Marxism" to a Washington Times writer claiming that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is an "unrepentant Marxist." But few people actually understand Marx's trenchant critique of capitalism. Most people are vaguely aware of the radical economist's prediction that capitalism would inevitably be replaced by communism, but they often misunderstand why he believed this to be true. And while Marx was wrong about some things, his writings (many of which pre-date the American Civil War) accurately predicted several aspects of contemporary capitalism, from the Great Recession to the iPhone 5S in your pocket.
Here are five facts of life in 2014 that Marx's analysis of capitalism correctly predicted more than a century ago:
1. The Great Recession (Capitalism's Chaotic Nature)
The inherently chaotic, crisis-prone nature of capitalism was a key part of Marx's writings. He argued that the relentless drive for profits would lead companies to mechanize their workplaces, producing more and more goods while squeezing workers' wages until they could no longer purchase the products they created. Sure enough, modern historical events from the Great Depression to the dot-com bubble can be traced back to what Marx termed "fictitious capital" - financial instruments like stocks and credit-default swaps. We produce and produce until there is simply no one left to purchase our goods, no new markets, no new debts. The cycle is still playing out before our eyes: Broadly speaking, it's what made the housing market crash in 2008. Decades of deepening inequality reduced incomes, which led more and more Americans to take on debt. When there were no subprime borrows left to scheme, the whole façade fell apart, just as Marx knew it would.
2. The iPhone 5S (Imaginary Appetites)
Marx warned that capitalism's tendency to concentrate high value on essentially arbitrary products would, over time, lead to what he called "a contriving and ever-calculating subservience to inhuman, sophisticated, unnatural and imaginary appetites." It's a harsh but accurate way of describing contemporary America, where we enjoy incredible luxury and yet are driven by a constant need for more and more stuff to buy. Consider the iPhone 5S you may own. Is it really that much better than the iPhone 5 you had last year, or the iPhone 4S a year before that? Is it a real need, or an invented one? While Chinese families fall sick with cancer from our e-waste, megacorporations are creating entire advertising campaigns around the idea that we should destroy perfectly good products for no reason. If Marx could see this kind of thing, he'd nod in recognition.
3. The IMF (The Globalization of Capitalism)
Marx's ideas about overproduction led him to predict what is now called globalization - the spread of capitalism across the planet in search of new markets. "The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe," he wrote. "It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere." While this may seem like an obvious point now, Marx wrote those words in 1848, when globalization was over a century away. And he wasn't just right about what ended up happening in the late 20th century - he was right about why it happened: The relentless search for new markets and cheap labor, as well as the incessant demand for more natural resources, are beasts that demand constant feeding.
4. Walmart (Monopoly)
The classical theory of economics assumed that competition was natural and therefore self-sustaining. Marx, however, argued that market power would actually be centralized in large monopoly firms as businesses increasingly preyed upon each other. This might have struck his 19th-century readers as odd: As Richard Hofstadter writes, "Americans came to take it for granted that property would be widely diffused, that economic and political power would decentralized." It was only later, in the 20th century, that the trend Marx foresaw began to accelerate. Today, mom-and-pop shops have been replaced by monolithic big-box stores like Walmart, small community banks have been replaced by global banks like J.P. Morgan Chase and small famers have been replaced by the likes of Archer Daniels Midland. The tech world, too, is already becoming centralized, with big corporations sucking up start-ups as fast as they can. Politicians give lip service to what minimal small-business lobby remains and prosecute the most violent of antitrust abuses - but for the most part, we know big business is here to stay.
5. Low Wages, Big Profits (The Reserve Army of Industrial Labor)
Marx believed that wages would be held down by a "reserve army of labor," which he explained simply using classical economic techniques: Capitalists wish to pay as little as possible for labor, and this is easiest to do when there are too many workers floating around. Thus, after a recession, using a Marxist analysis, we would predict that high unemployment would keep wages stagnant as profits soared, because workers are too scared of unemployment to quit their terrible, exploitative jobs. And what do you know? No less an authority than the Wall Street Journal warns, "Lately, the U.S. recovery has been displaying some Marxian traits. Corporate profits are on a tear, and rising productivity has allowed companies to grow without doing much to reduce the vast ranks of the unemployed." That's because workers are terrified to leave their jobs and therefore lack bargaining power. It's no surprise that the best time for equitable growth is during times of "full employment," when unemployment is low and workers can threaten to take another job.
In Conclusion:
Marx was wrong about many things. Most of his writing focuses on a critique of capitalism rather than a proposal of what to replace it with - which left it open to misinterpretation by madmen like Stalin in the 20th century. But his work still shapes our world in a positive way as well. When he argued for a progressive income tax in the Communist Manifesto, no country had one. Now, there is scarcely a country without a progressive income tax, and it's one small way that the U.S. tries to fight income inequality. Marx's moral critique of capitalism and his keen insights into its inner workings and historical context are still worth paying attention to. As Robert L. Heilbroner writes, "We turn to Marx, therefore, not because he is infallible, but because he is inescapable." Today, in a world of both unheard-of wealth and abject poverty, where the richest 85 people have more wealth than the poorest 3 billion, the famous cry, "Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains," has yet to lose its potency.

|
|
|
Why I Left the Republican Party |
|
|
Saturday, 01 February 2014 14:20 |
|
Brown writes: "My opinion is the 'Duck Dynasty Wing' of the Republican Party has taken over the GOP, and they're not about to retreat in their war on science and common sense."
Chad Brown of Urbandale looks on as one of the television stations declares Barack Obama as the winner of the state of Ohio during the Iowa Republican Party's election watch party at the downtown Des Moines Marriott on Nov. 4, 2008. (photo: Des Moines Register)

Why I Left the Republican Party
By Chad Brown, Reader Supported News
01 February 14
ormer Nevada Lieutenant Governor Sue Wagner is not alone in her courageous decision to exit the Republican Party. Just last August, I made the same decision and resigned my position as Polk County Republican Party of Iowa Co-Chair. I immediately changed my party affiliation to Independent and later moved forward to officially switch my party affiliation to Democrat. Just as Sue Wagner said, I also stated that the Republican Party has left me. Back in 1996 when I registered to vote as a Republican and supported Robert Dole in the Iowa caucuses, I did not expect to some day welcome the opportunity to vote in the Democratic Party of Iowa caucuses, but that is precisely what I did on Tuesday, January 21 of this year.
Several reasons led me to my decision, and they're similar reasons to why Wagner says she left the GOP. Republicans misread the electorate in 2012, and I became increasingly aware that I needed a change because the GOP no longer shared my values. The Iowa GOP holds views that are increasingly out of touch and are too extreme for me, and their unwillingness to compromise is on full display every day from local, state and national Republicans.
My opinion is the "Duck Dynasty Wing" of the Republican Party has taken over the GOP, and they're not about to retreat in their war on science and common sense.
In Polk County, volunteers, activists and party leaders became more interested in saying what the far right of the party wanted to hear than doing anything to change our organization in a way that would broaden its appeal to Iowans. It got to the point that members of the party were throwing around hateful slurs and offensive remarks that made me uncomfortable. More than anything, it deterred me from the democratic process I believe so much in. In fact, it alienated me because I was not raised in a household that would accept such comments.
In the past few years, the Republican Party has been the party of subtraction. When I was younger, I saw my GOP as a big tent. I stood behind the ideals of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Eisenhower because they stood for freedom and justice for all. Now, the only thing I see Republicans embodying is a war on common sense. I am a husband and father of two little girls. As a parent, I see my children's education in a different light. I want my two babies to have the chance to receive the best education they can -- starting right from the days of preschool straight through college. GOP officeholders and candidates have been vocal about putting measures in place that are harmful to education, ranging from shutting down the Department of Education to eliminating state funded early childhood education. Not only will my children suffer from these measures, but all children will be led on the path to mediocrity. Our families deserve better.
I was very disappointed to watch how my party responded to the hateful rhetoric of Iowa's own Rep. Steve King. King has always been an embarrassment to our party, but his latest comments have permanently damaged our party's standing with Latinos and fair-minded Iowans. But what was more disappointing was that leaders of the Iowa GOP refused to stand up to him and only offered bland disapproval. The GOP was founded on the ideas of expanding the rights and freedoms of Americans, but today it seems only interested in protecting the interests of rich, white men.
I believe the 97 percent of scientists who affirm that climate change is a man-made problem. I believe we need common sense gun regulations that will help protect children and adults from deranged gunmen. I believe we have an obligation to make the United States a better place for all Americans. I'm proud of Sue Wagner for taking a stand against the extremists in the GOP. I have spoken with many who have done the same thing and who have also left the Republican Party.
Making this move was not a decision I took lightly. Yet, being a member of the GOP and a leader of the Polk County Republicans has compromised my values, and I could no longer stand behind their mission. I want to support a party that is working to move our country forward. After a lot of soul searching, I have found that there is only party interested in that work -- the Democratic Party. While I may disagree on some of their policies, Democrats have a vision to move our country forward. I am proud I became a Democrat and work with them to grow our state and help every American reach their fullest potential.

|
|
FOCUS | McDonnell and Christie Rise and Fall Together |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6853"><span class="small">Frank Rich, New York Magazine</span></a>
|
|
Saturday, 01 February 2014 11:24 |
|
Rich writes: "The one-two punch out of McDonnell and Christie has pretty much leveled the media and GOP Establishment fantasy that the Republicans might nominate a 'centrist' conservative for president in 2016."
New York Magazine columnist Frank Rich. (photo: NY Magazine)

McDonnell and Christie Rise and Fall Together
By Frank Rich, New York Magazine
01 February 14
ormer Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, were indicted yesterday for accepting and attempting to conceal $140,000 in loans and gifts (among them private-jet trips and wedding catering) in exchange for helping a shady Richmond-based businessman curry political favor and push a non-FDA-approved “dietary supplement.” McDonnell's scandal helped Democrats sweep Virginia's 2013 elections. What is the political fallout of the former First Couple's indictment and will it lead to more?
It was just a little over four years ago that the simultaneous election of McDonnell and Chris Christie to the governorship in two states along the northeastern corridor — the purple Virginia and blue New Jersey — heralded the arrival of a pair of dream presidential contenders for the GOP: relatively moderate, bipartisan-minded exemplars of good governance rather than ideological warfare. In McDonnell’s case, the moderation was a bit of a stretch: He’s the governor schooled at Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network University (since rebranded as Regent), whose tenure became synonymous with “transvaginal ultrasound wands” after he endorsed the idea of inflicting them on women seeking abortions. He’s also the governor who left any mention of slavery out of his declaration of Confederate History Month because he wanted to focus only on issues that he “thought were most significant for Virginia.” Now he will also be known for his close association with Rolex, Ferrari, Oscar de la Renta, Armani, Louis Vuitton, Bergdorf, and all the other aspirational brands that he and his wife were able to harvest with the aid of a sugar daddy seeking a gubernatorial blessing for a pseudo-pharmaceutical product that sounds suspiciously like snake oil.
McDonnell has a better chance of landing in prison than the White House. His household scandals paved the way for a most unlikely figure, the freewheeling Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe, to succeed him as Virginia’s governor. That’s the local political fallout. As for the future national fallout: The one-two punch out of McDonnell and Christie has pretty much leveled the media and GOP Establishment fantasy that the Republicans might nominate a “centrist” conservative for president in 2016. As I’ve said before — and before Christie’s fall — the front-runner for that nomination, at this early date at least, is Rand Paul. Unless, of course, Mitt Romney is inspired to run again by the runaway success of the humanizing documentary Mitt at Sundance. It goes up on Netflix on Friday, and may prove a winning political antidote to the repellent fictional Democratic politician Frank Underwood, soon to return in season two of House of Cards.
Christie was inaugurated yesterday amid scandals over the George Washington Bridge lane closures, Sandy relief money, and a growing sense that his office routinely punished his political adversaries. You dismissed Christie's presidential chances before these scandals. What happens to him now? Can he still be a viable governor? And are there any conclusions we can draw between McDonnell's abuses of power and Christie's office's misdeeds?
Before the scandal, Christie had about as much a chance of winning his party’s hearts and minds on the primary circuit as his fellow bully Rudy Giuliani did in 2008. In their own party, they are considered quasi-leftists by the grassroots. Now fellow Republicans have another reason to beat up on Christie, and so they are, with even (relative) moderates like Lindsey Graham joining long-time Christie bashers like Rand Paul in piling on. When Christie went down to Florida over the weekend to fund-raise for the reelection campaign of the incumbent Republican governor, Rick Scott, the two men had no joint public appearances or press conferences. Ken Cuccinelli, the right-wing former Virginia attorney general who lost the Virginia governorship to McAuliffe in part because of the McDonnell scandal, has just become the first to call for Christie to resign as chairman of the Republican Governors Association.
Christie cannot be a viable governor if he is spending all his time trying to defend himself. And he will keep having to defend himself until we get the answer, for starters, to the basic question that every voter is still asking: How does an underling send the order “Time for some traffic problems at Fort Lee” and get it executed on the busiest bridge in the world for four disruptive days without someone above her knowing about it or acting to end it? We also don’t know what other scandals will emerge, including the dirt that turned up in the Romney campaign’s vetting of him for the vice-presidency, or to what extent Christie and his circle will stonewall investigators and subpoenas. It tells you a lot about what’s to come that Christie has now hired a Giuliani crony, the criminal lawyer Randy Mastro, to help him circle the wagons as investigators flood into Trenton. Meanwhile, Christie’s public persona shows no signs of real contrition. He remains a world-class narcissist who regards himself, not his constituents, as the truly “sad” and “heartbroken” victim of the scandal. By the count of James Warren of the Daily News, Christie still managed to use the pronoun “I” nearly twenty times in his downsized eighteen-minute inaugural address yesterday. This is going to be a long second term.
If there’s a unifying lesson to be learned from the double-header of the McDonnell-Christie scandals, it’s only that dubious character is hardly a bar to running for governor. Yesterday, the Republican senator David Vitter, best known for turning up in the phone book of the “D.C. Madam” in 2007, announced he would seek Louisiana’s state house in 2015. Somewhere, perhaps, Rod Blagojevich is laughing.
Last week, the Oscar nominations were announced, with American Hustle, Gravity, and 12 Year a Slave getting the most nods. Did the Academy do last year's films justice? And what or who were you most sorry didn't make the cut?
This was such a great year for movies that there was no way even the Oscars could screw it up. I am a fan of Inside Llewyn Davis — a taste not universally shared — so I was sorry to see it snubbed. I remain baffled by the popularity of Gravity, a bravura slab of cinema smothered by a syrupy script that is as mawkish as it is unbelievable. (But if grosses count at the Oscars — and they do — it must be considered the front-runner.) I look forward to watching the ceremony, and hope that Mitt Romney, who spurned a Tony Awards invitation to present a trophy to The Book of Mormon a few years back, will serve as a presenter this time, now that he’s got skin in the Hollywood game.

|
|