NEON GODS

Pay for news content?

Over the years I've been blogging I have never generated anything newsworthy myself.  Much of what I write originates with paid reporters from papers or news organizations I pay nothing to.  Often the way it works is that reporters report facts, others - often bloggers - evaluate it, put it in some kind of context and write about it and I link to them.

Over the years I've sent contributions to the bloggers I rely on, but I subscribe to no newspapers or news services.  I've always felt bad about that.  And for that reason I decided to subscribe to the New York Times.  Obviously I don't agree with everything they write, but on the whole they provide us with professional news reporting and they support some good columnists and blogs like Paul Krugman's. 

I don't want newspapers to fail.  I would love to see them band together and form a subscription service that charges a micro-charge ($ 0.001?) per click on an article and bills each subscriber at the end of the month.  Obviously news fact finding and reporting is in transition now and I really worried about who will hold politician's feet to the fire and investigate corruption in the future.  I would hate to see it fall to the partisan blogs because they will always spin the news to suit their audience. 

So, for now I'm supporting the NYTimes with my bucks and hope they survive.

--Trakker

If there never will be enough jobs for all our workers, what do we do with the permanent jobless?

Okay, here's what I'm hearing.  Companies in America have found that they can meet their production goals with far less workers than ever before.  This is due to a variety of reasons: computers, automation/robotics, offshoring, lower wages, and desperate workers willing to work long hours without demanding overtime, etc.

This looks like the way things are going to be for the foreseeable future.  So if America only has enough jobs for about 65% of it's adults who are capable of working, what do we do with the remaining 35% who cannot find a job because they just aren't there?  These are adults who want a job, NEED a job, need a certain amount of money each week for food and shelter, and in many cases feed and clothe their kids.

Can 65% of the adults who do have jobs support those who don't (and remember, these are people who are jobless because the jobs aren't there and never will be.  Some will try to make the problem go away by labelling these people as lazy or parasites and thus they aren't our problem)?

This is a problem that must be faced and soon.  We can already see hundreds of thousands of American workers who have been jobless for more than six months, many for over a year, and companies are doing just fine without them.

So, what do we do? 

--Trakker

America: screw the future, it's more fun to attack strawmen and let big business run the country

Paul Krugman put to words exactly what's been bothering me,

America used to be a country that thought big about the future. Major public projects, from the Erie Canal to the interstate highway system, used to be a well-understood component of our national greatness. Nowadays, however, the only big projects politicians are willing to undertake — with expense no object — seem to be wars. Funny how that works.

As the radical right has taken over this country, it has done all it can to insure that America becomes an 18th century country in a 21st century world.  A nation of high unemployment, low wages, crumbling infrastructure, extremely high college tuition (that only the rich from all over the world can afford), and run by big business for big business, not the people.

The NYTimes, in an article today, reports that a lot of immigrant's kids, especially those from India, China and other countries with booming economies, are leaving the U.S. and returning home because they can see they have no future here.  So true.

--Trakker

 

Nancy Brinker is a liar and everyone knows it.

Plucked from Susan G. Komen, Founder and CEO, Nancy G. Brinker's statement today:

We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Bullshit!  Of course they were made for political reasons, and everyone knows it.  In fact Komen's response to the rage over dumping Planned Parenthood has been one of the most obvious pack of lies I've ever seen.

Komen's founder/CEO, Nancy Brinker, has always been close to the Republican party and the Bush II administration.  I suspect Komen has been under increasing pressure over the years from the anti-abortion radicals on the right to dump Planned Parenthood and Komen finally decided PP had been sufficiently weakened and cowed by Congress that they could now safely dump them and few would notice or complain.  Bad on Them!  The response has been stunning and Komen's reputation has taken a huge hit.  The strength of the response has shocked everyone. 

I think there are two things going on here.  1. Planned Parenthood has been around for a long time and has helped a lot of women when they were young and poor or when they were struggling students.  Many of these women are now successful and are angry to see Komen, another group they think highly of, drop them for obvious political reasons, and 2. we are shocked when a large disease prevention and research group succumbs to political pressure.  Most of us believe politics should never influence important health goals like preventing and curing cancer.  If Komen lets the conservatives bully them on this issue, what next, refusing grant money to groups that work with Latinos, some of them here illegally?  Or maybe refusing grants to certain universities thought to be too liberal?

This decision by Komen and the backlash will end up in textbooks as an example of bad judgement.  I believe it also shows that the right's hubris and bullying might have reached a breaking point.  Women may be feeling they've been pushed too far. 

--Trakker

My first (quick) visit to Occupy DC.

Sunday evening I dropped off some books and plastic containers at the Occupy DC camp.  I only had a few minutes to walk around and observe. 

Occupy DC is camped out at McPherson Square, a square block park in downtown DC,  named for James B. McPherson, a General in the Union Army.  There is a statue of him in the middle of the square.  I believe the square is owned and administered by the U.S. Park Service.

The park is criss-crossed by cement sidewalks that run roughly diagonal through the park, and these sidewalks are all unobstructed allowing people to walk though the park as usual.  There are tents in all the grassy areas except in a large grassy segment in the southwest corner reserved for group meetings I believe.  On the west side of the McPherson statue there is a make-shift Information booth, and to the left is their make-shift library.  While a lot of work has gone into making the park clean and organized, the general feeling is one of organised makeshift chaos.  However, I felt safe and welcome (as opposed to tolerated) walking through the park. 

The people.  I only spoke with a few and observed maybe 60 others. It was about 7:30 on a pleasant Sunday night and a lot of people were eating, sitting on the park benches and around the statue.  There was a lot of energy evident, with a lot of pockets of people talking together, but the park was generally quiet.  I saw no police in the park, just four unoccupied DC police cars parked randomly nearby.  I'm sure they have undercover police embedded.

From what I can tell there has been very little trouble at the site and there appears to be a good working relationship between Occupy DC and the city.  The organizers seem determined to keep the park open and accessible to the public.  My impressions of the people I observed are that they are largely working class, high school educated, with some homeless and drifters mixed in.

My question is, how many are there because they have no place to go and might not have any strong political feelings, and how many are there because of a strong desire to change the system?   I wonder how you can start a "Occupy" movement in a city park and not have it turn into a camp of displaced people with personality or mental problems, violent tendencies and anger management problems?  The latter can cause trouble in camp and the surrounding neighborhoods and generate unwanted negative publicity (which has plagued other Occupy sites), negative publicity that the Fox News crowd delightfully uses to paint the whole "Occupy" movement as undisciplined rabble, or "dirty hippies."

I will be in West Virgina for the next two weeks but hope to return to Occupy DC when I get back.

--Trakker

What are they accomplishing?

I still haven't visited Occupy DC yet.  Maybe tomorrow since we aren't leaving for West Virginia until Monday. 

The "Occuy [fill in the blank]" movement is beginning to wear out it's welcome (if there was any welcome to begin with) in many cities.  Most of the occupy camps are not there legally.  Many have problems with sanitation and trash, they are damaging tax supported facilites and grounds, and they often attract the homeless and people with mental or drug problems.  Cities claim the occupy camps require extra law enforcement resources which means the rest of the city suffers and the taxpayers get charged.  The bottom line is, on balance is this movement accomplishing anything positive?

If you read the news reports you would have to wonder, because they tend to dwell on the violence, the drugs, the damage to the city's facilities, how much the extra city law enforcement resources are costing the taxpayers, and how it's making the rest of the city less safe.  Also, the right is going hog wild painting the protesters as dirty hippies, the scum of the earth, and I worry that public opinion is going to swing quickly against the movement, especially as Fox News and the richly supported right wing propaganda machine gets going.

Obviously my heart is with the protesters.  I think they will eventually get their act together and become a major force in politics next year, but it will be hard because they are going to continue to attract drifters, the unstable, addicts, plus those who believe the only way to achieve real change is through violence.

The Occupy movement will present a mine field for Democrats in the coming elections.  While the movement seems to be much more aligned with Democratic values, the right will do everything they can to link the Democrats to every act of violence, civil disbedience, damaged property and unsanitary conditions in the camps.

This is just a new battlefront in the ongoing civil war being fought in America, a war hardly anyone acknowledges.

--Trakker

Occupy DC

I still haven't had time to visit the Occupy DC site in McPherson Square, a couple of blocks NE of the White House.  They have had good write-ups in the Washington Post and it appears that they are well organized and prepared to spend the winter there.  They even have their own newspaper (scroll down to the newspaper's image and click on it to bring u a PDF copy).

I have to leave for West Virginia Sunday so don't know If I'll get to visit it, but if so I'll blog my impressions.

--Trakker

A growing "Occupy Wall Street" movement is just what Obama needs as he fights to get a jobs bill passed

I like what I'm hearing from the President these last few days, don't you? Here he is today, challenging the press:

Go ask the Republicans what their jobs plan is, if they’re opposed to the American Jobs Act. And have it scored, have it assessed by the same independent economists that assessed our jobs plan. These independent economists say we can grow the economy by as much as 2 percent and as many as 1.9 million workers wold be back on the job. I think it would be interesting to have them do a similar assessment. Same people. Have those economists evaluate what over the next two years the Republican jobs plan would do. I’d be interested in the answer.

I see some smirks in the audience, because you know that it’s not going to be real robust. The question is, Will Congress do something? If Congress does something, then I can’t run against a “do nothing” Congress. If Congress does nothing, then it’s not a matter of me running against them. I think the American people will run them out of town. Because they are frustrated. And they know we need to do something big and something bold.

Yes, we heard this same strong rhetoric back in 2008 when Obama was running for his first term and we ended up bitterly disappointed with the Obama we got once he was elected.  I would love to believe he has finally seen the light and is beginning to beat up on the Republicans, but I'm too cynical now to get my hopes up. 

However, this time around there is a new force that could grow to be as influential as the Tea Party has been in Republican circles, the "Occupy Wall Street" movement (or to give it a better name, "The 99%ers" a name I hope catches on).  The movement seems to be growing at an impressive pace, and if it remains a grass roots effort, and if the coming winter weather doesn't dampen it, this could be a force that could give Obama the kind of cover he needs to push for more jobs and programs to help the middle class.

 --Trakker

Starve the beast, gun violence, and hot, hot weather

Usually July and August are slow and quiet when it come to politics.  Whew, not this year!  We are seeing just how rabid the right has become, willing to crash our economy to make a point: no new taxes, not now, not ever!  Starve the beast.  Never mind that the "beast" they want to starve created the middle class, and made us no.1 in the world in almost every measurable category.

Fortunately we've been too busy here to pay much attention to the debt ceiling show.  We spent the past week getting the West Virgina cabin in order for family and friends who will be visiting soon.  We had to move the kayaks to the lake, and once there we couldn't resist an afternoon paddle on a very hot day.  Thursday it hit 88 degrees here on the mountain.  I've never seen it hotter than 83 here before.  No one out here has air conditioning so we sweated along with the rest of the east coast, except 88 was far more tolerable than the 104 back home!

I'm beginning to wonder when the American people are going to realize that gun violence in America is out of control?  I get select Associated Press feeds on my Kindle, updated hourly, and it seems like every day now there are stories of mass shootings. Just from this morning's feed, here is the story of a gun owner at a family outing in Texas who killed 5 and wounded 4, before shooting himself.  Here is the story of a gun owner who shot 12 people at a car show near Seattle.  Also, the number of cops who have been shot and killed has been escalating for the past year.

Ever since the conservatives took over the country with the election of Ronald Reagan our country has been regressing in so many ways.  And this is just the beginning, If the right gets it's way.  Our infrastructure will crumble, we will be sponsoring less and less research, and fewer of our kids will ever get a college education.  This is our future unless the American people rebel and push the loonies back under their rocks.

--Trakker

The adventures of MiddleMan

To read the rest of MiddleMan's adventure, click here.  I suspect this isn't the last we'll see of MiddleMan...