Professional Documents
Culture Documents
News Brief
Global Economy and the Fear of Insignificance By Carlo Strenger. . . .p3 Oil and Gas Industry Using Military Psyops Tactics to Break Insurgency Against Fracking By David O. Williams. . . .p4 LAPD and Special Forces Conduct Military Exercises in Downtown L.A Sourced From Dateline Zero. . . .p4 What Does a Progressive Christian Believe By Cynthia B. Astle. . . .p4 Bronx Community Compares NYPD to KKK After Shooting Death of Ramarley Graham From The Huffington Post. . . .p5 The Science of Collective Consciousness By Robert Kenny. . . .p5
The Dig
The Future of Organized Labor in the U.S By Bill Fletcher Jr., Kate Bronfenbrenner and Donna Dewitt. . . .p6 Libya and the Decline of the Petrodollar System By Peter Dale Scott. . . .p10
Real Money
Supply-Side Economics: Myths and Realities By Jack Chambless. . . .p3 &14
Officials Wake Up to Peak Oil Part 1 and 2 By Chris Nelder. . . As Public Policy Fixes Are Impossible, Focus on Individual Solutions By Charles Hugh Smith. . . .p22 .p16
The Class War Battlefield Podcast Episode 20 Obama and the Pursuit of the Jackals
This weeks Class War Battlefield Podcast recounts two stories where the assassination of President Obama was referenced as a means to stop him from doing something deemed distasteful to the establishment. The first is rather well known, a Jewish Publisher remarked that assassinating an American President was a viable option to enable Israel to continue its immature bullying of Arab Nations (my words not his), if youd like more information on this subject read the last issue of Revolutionarys Voice which includes an interesting article by Alison Weir. The second incident is less well known and includes a remark made by one of Obamas Transition Advisors (I wont tell you what was said here but it was chilling). The bases for the comment is my concern over several passages from two prophecy books I read a few years ago (dont roll your eyes, its a weakness I know but I bring those prophecies into focus by comparing them to a plot on my favorite cancelled show The West Wing, exposing how simple it would be to make one of those prophecies come true without any real trouble). I hope you enjoy it, if you have any comments, concerns or questions please send them to Classwarbattlefield@live.com. The Link http://jumbofiles.com/l4nhwege9etu
Page |2
News Brief
Global Economy and the Fear of Insignificance
The Global Upper Class: Do the rest of us matter?
March 1, 2011; By Carlo Strenger in Homo Globalis; From Psychology Today This post is adapted from Carlo Strenger, The Fear of Insignificance: Searching for Meaning in the Twenty-first Century http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-globalis/201103/global-economy-and-the-fearinsignificance Homo Globalis is faced with a difficult idiot when I look at my classmates who predicament. A new class has evolved at the dropped out of medicine and moved to some border of the upper and the upper-middle biotech company or a fund that invests in classes, which led Secretary of Labor and now them. They have more money now than I'll professor of public policy at the University of make in a lifetime!" California at Berkeley Robert Reich to speak of These physicians represent the larger the "New Rich-Rich Gap." He writes: group of the traditional professions who feel "A new group is emerging at the very top. largely disenfranchised. First they feel They're CEOs and CFOs of global corporations, financially stressed. They need to work very and partners and executives in global hard to just get their kids through college, investment banks, law firms and consultancies. and they still feel that they have difficulties Unlike most national symbolic analysts, these maintaining the lifestyles that they were led global symbolic analysts conduct almost all to expect when they chose their professions. their work in English, and share with one Second, they feel that the status that another an increasingly similar cosmopolitan they expected when they entered their culture. professions eludes them. If doctors or Most global symbolic analysts have been lawyers could once reasonably expect to be educated at the same elite institutions -respected in their communities, most of America's Ivy League universities, Oxford, them, except a few stars plugged into the Cambridge, the London School of Economics or system of Reich's "international symbolic the University of California, Berkeley. They analysts," don't make the type of money work in similar environments -- in glass-andneeded to afford a lifestyle with the prestige steel office towers in the world's largest cities, that was associated with the traditional in jet planes and international-meeting resorts. professions in the past. And they feel as comfortable in New York, Existential Psychology has shown the London or Geneva as they do in Hong Kong, depth of the human need to matter, make a Shanghai or Sydney. When they're not working difference, to feel that you have a significant -- and they tend to work very hard -- they live place in this world. We all need to feel that comfortably, and enjoy golf and first-class we do something that matters within the hotels. Their income and wealth far surpass frame of reference that defines our those of national symbolic analysts." (Robert experiential world. The question is what this Reich, The New Rich-Rich Gap. American frame of reference is. Prospect, December 12, 2005.) Those who belong to the group of The impact of this new upper class is felt national symbolic analysts may be highly most strongly by the traditional upper middle competent, and do interesting work, but their class Reich calls the "national symbolic impact and reach is limited to their immediate analysts." The first impact is quite concrete. environment. As a result they often feel left out, Cities that house the large multinational because the global infotainment system has companies' headquarters are unaffordable for a become Homo Globalis' frame of reference. growing number of people, because real estate Add to this that many national symbolic prices and rents shoot through the roof into analysts have lost their independence through stratospheric heights. the new global developments. For lawyers it is The second impact is psychological. I becoming increasingly difficult to be have, for example, worked with physicians who competitive in a market that has come to be felt like complete idiots. "I have studied and dominated by ever larger firms able to provide specialized for fifteen years, and I'm starting to 24/7 services, providing their global clients with make money only now. I feel like a complete legal services at very high speed. The same
http://net.valenciacc.edu/forum/v02.i01/v02.i0 1.03.jchambless.htm
In 1962 the federal budget deficit stood at $7.1 billion the third largest shortfall since World War II. The U.S. was on the precipice of even greater funding shortfalls as the combined effects of the space race, Cold War outlays and the Vietnam conflict loomed. Faced with the reality that the economy would not be able to sustain the tax revenues necessary to fund these endeavors, John F. Kennedy stood before the Economic Club in New York in December of 1962 and said, It is increasingly clear thatan economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The following year, President Kennedy was successful in producing legislation that would lower the top income tax rate from a staggering 91% to 70%. From 1963 to 1966 total federal tax revenues increased by 16%. Tax collections from those individuals earning more than $50,000 per year shot up by 57%, while revenue from people who made less than $50,000 increased by 11%. During that same time period, the U.S. unemployment rate fell from 5.5% to 3.6%. It is somewhat ironic today that policymakers continue to debate the effects of changes in marginal tax rates on the deficit and overall level of economic activity. Any serious economic analysis of the history of tax cuts would make the job of legislators much more manageable. Beginning in the 1920s, economists have observed an immutable fact concerning taxes and tax revenues. Mr. Kennedy was right. Soaking the rich as an instrument for lowering the deficit or creating new revenues simply does not work.
Continues on Page 14 holds true for consultants, accountants and advertisers whose environment has changed dramatically with the advent of global firms like McKinsey, Ernst and Young and McCann Erickson. Our culture, addicted to global success stories, is making it increasingly difficult for the overwhelming majority of people who make a decent living through hard work, but do not belong to the global ruling class, to feel that they matter. In future posts I will address the question how we can regain our sense of selfworth in the new global economy.
Page |3
Oil and gas industry using military psyops tactics to break insurgency against fracking
November 9, 2011; By David O. Williams; From The Colorado Independent http://coloradoindependent.com/105456/oil-and-gas-industry-using-military-psyops-tactics-to-break-insurgency-against-fracking First there was Talisman Energys Joe We have several former psyops folks winter warfare training in the mountains near Camel moment with Terry the Fracking that work for us at Range because theyre very Vail clearly for future deployment to the Dinosaur a clumsy oil and gas industry comfortable in dealing with localized issues and mountains of Afghanistan. attempt to win young hearts and minds over to local governments, Range Resources In 2003, a psyops trooper heading into hydraulic fracturing. Now come revelations of communications director Matt Pitzarella said on Camp Hale a former 10th Mountain Division actual psychological operations aimed at tape. Really, all they do is spend most of their and CIA training ground between Vail and breaking adult resistance to fracking. time helping folks develop local ordinances and Leadville told the website Real Vail that CNBC Monday reported on recordings things like that. But very much having that psyops are all about marketing (with a gun): made by an Earthworks activist at a Houston oil understanding of psyops in the Army and in the We provide information, thats basically what and gas industry confab last week. The tapes Middle East has applied very helpfully here for we are, In a laymans sense, we do marketing. reveal that companies use psyops techniques us in Pennsylvania. We try to sell democracy and the concept of and even former military personnel to break the In another session, Matt Carmichael, how it works. insurgency of community activism opposing manager of external affairs for Anadarko In that same article, a professor who domestic drilling. Petroleum, made similar recommendations. studies psyops techniques had this to say: Its Download the U.S. Armyall bullshit, said Donald Goldstein, a professor slash-Marine Corps of public and international affairs at the Counterinsurgency Manual, because University of Pittsburgh. Warfare has changed we are dealing with an insurgency, to the point that instead of just killing people, Carmichael said. Theres a lot of you have to understand them first. good lessons in there and coming The link between modern warfare and from a military background, I found domestic energy production seems particularly the insight in that extremely topical given the Republican push for more remarkable. drilling on federal lands and in American What are psyops techniques and suburbia to improve security abroad. troopers and how does the military GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain use them? Think strongman Manuel recently said hes a Koch brothers brother Noriega in Panama being blasted from another mother, referring to Koch incessantly by Van Halen and Howard Industries David and Charles Koch the Stern until he finally surrendered to energy and chemical industry giants pumping January 26, 2012 11:42, Source Dateline Zero, From U.S. troops in 1990. Or leaflet drops millions into conservative candidates and the tea Before Its News over villages in Iraq and Afghanistan. party movement. In Beaver Creek, Colo., this http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1681/760/LAPD_AND_SP In Colorado, the U.S. Armys summer, Charles Koch said the campaign to ECIAL_FORCES_CONDUCT_MILITARY_EXERCISES airborne 324th Psychological unseat President Barack Obama and his pro_IN_DOWNTOWN_LA.html Operations Company is based out of environment policies would be the mother of Why is the Los Angeles Police Department the Buckley Air National Guard base all wars. conducting military exercises? This was a question in Aurora. The unit regularly conducts on peoples minds when tactical exercises were carried out in plain view over downtown LA last Wednesday. LAs CBS Local reports that the LAPD teamed with military special operation forces Wednesday evening to conduct multi-agency tactical exercises in the skies above downtown LA. Many questioned what was going on Wednesday night as a Black Hawk helicopter and four OH-6 choppers or Little Birds flew over the city, at one point hovering just above the US Bank building downtown and later flying low over the Staples Center as the Lakers played inside. Someone could May 21, 2011; By Cynthia B. Astle; From The Progressive Christian Magazine be seen sitting inside an open chopper with his legs http://www.tpcmagazine.org/article/what-does-progressive-christian-believe hanging off the side.Sky9 spotted the Black Hawk in Every so often, there's a family regular contributor, the Rev. Jim Burklo, the dark, making what appeared to be a drop off at a squabble among Progressive associate dean of religious affairs at the park before quickly ascending back into the Christians. Over the past two weeks, University of Southern California, who pleads air.Throughout the exercise, the five rotorcrafts were the tempest has been between the Rev. with Jim Wallis to reconsider his public stance. staged at Dodgers Stadium. The LAPD said the Jim Wallis and his magazine, The other column was written by the Rev. purpose of the training was in part to ensure the Sojourners, and the Believe Out Loud Frederick W. Schmidt, an Episcopal priest who militarys ability to operate in urban campaign urging Christians to blogs at Patheos.com. It's of the latter column environments.In a release Monday, the LAPD said acknowledge publicly their support that I now write. training exercises would take place at various sites for LGBT rights. Disclosure: I know Dr. Schmidt and around the greater Los Angeles area through To date, this magazine has respect his work; several of his books sit on my Thursday. The exercises were coordinated with local stayed out of the debate, but this week shelf. In addition, I'm currently enrolled in a authorities and owners of the training sites, two columns appeared that we found spiritual direction program that he leads at according to the release. appropriate to reprint. One is by a Perkins School of Theology. Consequently,
Bronx Community Compares NYPD To KKK After Shooting Death Of Ramarley Graham
February 7, 2012; From The Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/bronx-community-compares-nypd-kkk-ramarleygraham_n_1259770.html
Tensions are growing between Bronx residents and the NYPD after the fatal shooting of unarmed 18-year-old Ramarley Graham Thursday. "I never wanted him to go out like this," Leona Virgo, Graham's 22-year-old sister told fellow demonstrators outside the 47th precinct Monday night, according to The New York Times. "He was only 18 years old," adding, "This is not just about Ramarley. This is about all young black men." A large and raucous crowd-- led by the victim's father, Franclot Graham, his mother, Constance Malcolm and grandmother, Patricia Hartley--marched from Malcolm's Wakefield home to the precinct, where they compared NYPD officers to hate groups. "NYPD: KKK" went one chant. NY1 reports: "They cornered that little man in his house, perfect place to ask questions, but instead of asking questions, they shoot him down right then and there. And they are New York's finest--what is fine about that?" said one protester. "They just judge by our looks, or whatever and think that some of is bad kids like that, they don't really want to give us a chance, as well," said another. A vigil was also held outside Graham's home Monday, where neighbors lit candles, laid flowers, and left posters with anti-police slogans including, "Blood is on your shoulders NYPD killer!" Security footage from Thursday shows Graham entering his home and police following him shortly thereafter. Cops said they had witnessed Graham participate in a drug deal and thought he had a gun. Inside the home Graham went into the bathroom, where he may have been trying to flush some marijuana down the toilet when an unidentified officer--now on restrictive duty while Internal affairs investigates the incident--fired one shot and killed the teen. Graham did not have a gun. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, whose department initially said there had been a struggle with Graham before the gun fired (there was not), said Friday, "At this juncture, we see an unarmed person being shot. That always concerns us." Graham's tragic end is reminiscent of the Bronx shooting death of Amadou Diallo over a decade ago, which similarly galvanized minority communities in the borough against police. From The Daily News: "Anytime you end up having an unarmed person, particularly someone of color, who gets shot and killed by police, it brings back all of the old stories," said State Assemblyman Carl Heastie. Diallo died in a hail of police bullets at his Soundview home on Feb. 4, 1999. After mistaking Diallos wallet for a gun, four officers fired 41 times, hitting the 23-year old Guinean immigrant 19 times. The Thursday before Graham's death, someone videotaped Bronx police officers excessively beating 19-year-old Jateik Reed after Reed allegedly hit an officer. The four officers involved in that incident have been been placed on modified duty. Here is a link to a related video: http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhAyzL55e6E3xfbI1n (Continues from previous page) what follows may seem foolhardy, if not downright suicidal academically, but it's offered in a spirit of healthy theological debate. Questioning Theological Validity In his column, Schmidt questions Progressive Christianity's validity as a faith movement. He argues that responses to the Believe Out Loud dispute show that the movement has no theological core and therefore does not qualify as religious. As TPC editor, I chose to reprint such a highly provocative column because I think he raises the kind of uncomfortable questions that all Christian movements should ask themselves from time to time. Nonetheless, with some trepidation, I now must say that I find Schmidt's thesis that progressive Christianity has no expressed theological core flawed. Here's why. Today's Progressive Christianity has many stars: Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, Diana Butler Bass and Brian McLaren, to name but a few. Each of them comes at progressive Christian theology from different, but often converging, perspectives. Over the past decade, McLaren and writing partners Borg and Crossan have been particularly adept in the areas of Schmidt's critique, especially the nature of God and the reign of God. Yet even with the exciting work of these contemporary thinkers, I contend that Progressive Christianity's theological foundation rests on the work of two oftenunsung giants: James Rowe Adams and Delwin Brown. To learn about these two men is to discover how Progressive Christian theology has developed over the past quarter of a century. Jim Adams, who lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts, founded The Center for Progressive Christianity in 1994 while rector at
St. Mark's Church on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. He's credited with coining the term "progressive Christianity" and with devising eight points that define the work of the center. Adams' original goal, "to keep churches from drying up and blowing away," has evolved through the past 25 years to include developing both adult and children's Christian curriculum that focuses on building relevant, effective and inclusive faith. As expressed in the recent second edition of his book, So You Think You're Not Religious? (2010, Saint Johann Press), Adams' basic definition of "God" is not an all-powerful being "out there," but the experience of living in a community in which individuals struggle together to find meaning in life. Sadly, Del Brown died from cancer in September 2009 while working on a new college curriculum for the organization he cofounded, The Beatitudes Society. At the time of his death, Brown was dean emeritus of Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, California, from whence he retired in 2003. During his career he also held a variety of academic and administrative roles at Iliff School of Theology in Denver, and taught earlier at Arizona State University. Brown wrote many academic books and articles on facets of Christian theology and on theology's role in creating healthy religious traditions. His last book, What Does a Progressive Christian Believe? (2008 Seabury Books), was the capstone of his work. Among other topics, he summarized his understanding of God as a being or force beyond human comprehension, but intimately present in human experience. Some of Brown's writing remains available online in a blog cosponsored by TPC, Communicating Progressive Christianity in the Public Square. The Theologians Agreed Mostly In Fall 2008, The Progressive Christian magazine published a dialogue between Adams and Brown. Their email-facilitated discussion showed that the two thinkers came to many of the same theological conclusions, although Adams held that Brown's view of God was, in his words, "feeble." Nonetheless, the theologians were agreed on two major points, as Brown wrote in his last book and with which Adams concurred in a review: "Progressive Christians are people formed by the tradition grounded in Jesus Christ," and "The Bible is our foundational resource." On these common statements hang all the Progressive Christian theology that currently exists. Thus, I submit that the assertion that Progressive Christianity has no theological core must be considered unsubstantiated. Instead, the movement has a substantive body of theological writing expressed in keeping with its inherently questing nature. The variations of this core theology, including the nature of God and Jesus, represent Christianity's diversity as much as the works of any long-ago church fathers and mothers. What I suspect lies at the heart of the dispute over Progressive Christianity's
Page |5
Page |6
Page |7
The Dig
The Future of Organized Labor in the U.S.
Reinventing Trade Unionism for the 21st Century
By Bill Fletcher Jr., Kate Bronfenbrenner and Donna Dewitt, From The Monthly Review http://monthlyreview.org/commentary/the-future-of-organized-labor-in-the-u-s
The essence of trade unionism is social uplift. The labor movement has been the haven for the dispossessed, the despised the neglected, the downtrodden, the poor.A. Philip Randolph An important debate has commenced within the ranks of organized labor regarding the future of the movement. From our experience we know that the top-to-bottom approach to revitalizing workers organizations will not foster meaningful membership participation and support. The debate must be joined by rank-and-file union members and leaders, other labor activists, scholars and the broad array of supporters of trade unionism. It must be open, frank and constructive, recognizing that we all have a stake in the outcome of these discussions. The following represents the collective opinion of several individuals from different sections of the labor movement who have joined together to let our voices be heard as the debate unfolds. Our intervention in this debate is at least partly motivated by our sense that the concerns and perspectives of people of color and women are all but absent in these discussions about labors future. The irony, of course, is that our respective demographic groups represent the future of organized labor in the USA, if organized labor is to have a future at all. The economic and political changes over the last thirty years both in the USA as well as globally, have resulted in a far more hostile environment for labor unions specifically and for working people generally. In this context, contrary to the spirit of A. Philip Randolphs notion that the essence of trade unionism is social uplift, the trade union movement is rarely looked to today as a voice of progress and innovation, or a consistent ally of progressive social movements. It is not just that organized labor declined as a percentage of the workforce since 1955; or that it carried out unfocused growth, evolving eventually into no growth; or that it emphasized servicing its current members rather than planting the seeds for future growth. It is that organized labor looks at itself as separate and apart from the rest of the working class, and, for that matter, does not see itself as the champion of workers and their communities, but rather a mechanism for advancing the interests of those it currently represents. For organized labor in the USA, the path away from oblivion must begin with the recognition of the vastly different situation that the working class faces in the early 21st century from what existed even twenty years ago. Time and space do not permit an exhaustive examination of all of these changes. Much has been written about it in various journals and books. Suffice to say that the growth of neoliberal globalization1 has represented a dramatic change in the approach of capitalism toward both the working class as well as towards society as a whole. Multi-national corporations and their allies have concluded that the terms of any social partnership must be altered in their fundamentals at the expense of working people. This viewneo-liberalism has grown in importance, coming to dominate the thinking of both major US political parties and has guided the shift to the political Right in the ruling circles of the USA. The current situation necessitates a new approach to strategy, tactics, and fundamentally, the vision of trade unionism. This is more than the production of new mission statements, but instead rests on the necessity to rethink the relationship of the union to its members, to the employer(s), to government, to US society as a whole, and to the larger global village. Can the union, we must ask, as an institution and as a representative of a larger movement, rise to the challenge of being a means to confront injustice, or is the union condemned to be solely an institutional mechanism to lessen the pain of contemporary capitalism on those fortunate to be members of organized labor? In this context, we propose the following: 1. There is a need for a vision that includes, but is not limited to organizing the unorganized: Missing from the current debate is a clear statement as to what the trade union movement actually believes. Of course there must be massive organizing of the unorganized. But a sole focus demonstrates the same inflexibly that reformers are attempting to root out. In spite of the qualified success of the organize-above-all-else approach, it is still being touted as the panacea to what ails the trade union movement. As essential as is organizing, alone it is not enough. When the Congress of Industrial Organizations began to come into existence (with the formation, first, of the AFLs Committee on Industrial Organization) in 1935, there was a very different social, economic, and political climate. Yet this situation is frequently cited, ahistorically it should be noted, as a parallel to the moment in which we find ourselves. While there are critical matters relative to the structure of unions, the AFL-CIO and organized labor as a whole that must be settled, these are not the issues which should be the starting point for any debate.2 Why, we must ask, should millions of unorganized workers potentially sacrifice so much in order to join or form unions? Why should millions of potential allies of organized labor spend any amount of time away from their own core issues, to unite with the demands of organized labor? What does a reconstructed, if not reborn, trade union movement have to say to people of color and women that goes beyond the tried and true rhetoric of the past? What are unions doing about the increasing degradation of work, i.e., that even unionized workers are working harder, faster and longer than in the past, providing us less free time and increasing the level of stress on individuals, families and friendship circles? If these questions are not answered organized labor will not serve as a beacon of attraction to the millions of non-union workers in the USA, and, in fact, the rebirth of organized labor will be still-born. 2. The union movement must be unapologetically pro-public sector and propublic service: Over the years, since the emergence of neo-liberalism, with the corresponding rejection of positive government intervention in the economy as the dominant philosophy directing globalization, the US trade union movement has addressed the symptoms rather than the disease. Thus, it has spoken out against privatization, cuts in social services, and right-wing tax proposals that reduce taxes on the wealthy and deceive the rest of us. This is all important, but organized labor has not tied this all together into a package. A clear example of this was the failure of much of organized labor to dissect the actual politics and economics of the Clinton administration, as it advanced institutions like the World Trade Organization, and supported notions of free trade, all of which undermined (and continues to undermine) the notion of the public sphere. Organized labor in the USA must study the current economic and political situation, and understand that there is no space for a compromise with any view that rejects positive government intervention in the economy. Organized labor must also refuse to support individuals and/or organizations who believe that progress and social justice can be achieved
Page |8
Page |9
P a g e | 10
P a g e | 11
P a g e | 12
P a g e | 13
Real Money
Supply-Side Economics: Myths and Realities
By Jack Chambless; From The Valencia Forum
Continuation from Page 2 The Mellon Tax Cuts When the 16th amendment was ratified in 1913, creating the first federal income tax, Congress established a progressive income tax system that ranged from 1% on incomes between $20,000 and $50,000 to 7% on incomes over $500,000. In effect, only the richest Americans were exposed to income taxation. With the top marginal tax rate set at a level that did not distort incentives to create new jobs, the nations wealthiest individuals did not engage in wholesale income tax avoidance. That came later. During World War I the Wilson administration increased the top tax rate on the wealthy to 77%. Subsequently, the number of people with incomes over $300,000 dropped from 1,296 in 1916 to only 246 by 1921 and the demand for tax-exempt municipal bonds increased by threefold, costing the federal government millions of dollars in lost tax revenue. With capital investment being withdrawn from the economy at an alarming rate, treasury secretary Andrew Mellon remarked, It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower rates. What followed were The Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924 and 1926 that slashed tax rates from 77% to 25%. Tax rates on those earning under $4,000 were reduced from 4% to percent and those in the $4,000 $8,000 bracket saw their tax burden fall from 8% to 2%. From 1921 to 1929 total federal income tax receipts surged from $719 million to $1.16 billion an increase of more than 61% in a period that saw record economic growth with virtually nonexistent inflation. Moreover, the Progressives who argued that higher rates would lead to lower tax burdens on the wealthy were proven incorrect as the share of the tax burden paid by the rich climbed to 78% (from 44% in 1921). Hoover, FDR and Tax Evasion While it is popular in some circles to pin the Great Depression on excessive wealth accumulation, irrational exuberance in the stock and real estate markets and corporate greed, the reality is that the downturn in the 1930s stemmed in large part from ignoring the causes of the prosperous 1920s. When the stock market collapsed and the economy began to lose steam, the Hoover administration responded with a bewildering decision to increase the top marginal tax rate from 25% to 63%. Combined with the disastrous effects of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which raised tariffs dramatically and helped plunge the world into a global downturn and Federal Reserve policies that actually tightened the money supply and increased interest rates, the Depression was more government-created than a result of excessive capitalism. During World War II, Franklin Roosevelt discovered first hand how tax rates impact incentives and economy activity. With the top tax rate already at 88.9%, FDR argued that all excess income should be allocated to the war effort. He called upon Congress to impose a top income tax rate of 100% on incomes over $25,000 per year. When Congress balked, FDR signed an executive order that created the 100% rate. Late in 1943, Internal Revenue Service officials notified Roosevelt that zero Americans had reported incomes of more than $25,000. Reaganomics The 1980s saw the emergence of what became known as Reaganomics, even though the ideas of the Reagan administration were almost two hundred years old. In 1803 the French economist, Jean Baptiste Say theorized that supply creates demand. Simply put, in any economic system, the only way long run economic growth can be sustained is by encouraging suppliers (i.e. entrepreneurs) to take the necessary risks associated with providing new products and services. If those incentives are present, more suppliers will appear and with them the jobs, income and tax revenue that is necessary for the system to survive. However, the U.S. government adopted a demand-side approach to economics from the Great Depression through the 1970s. Any disruption in economic activity was seen as evidence that there was not enough demand and thus, operating under the guidance of Keynesian economics, government simply increased spending in order to stimulate consumption. The results proved to be counterproductive by the 1970s as increased government expenditures ultimately proved to be inflationary. With inflation and unemployment increasing simultaneously for the first time in American history, economists, led by Arthur Laffer, began arguing for a return to the idea that new suppliers are more important than more demanders. With the election of Ronald Reagan who was in the 94% tax bracket in the 1950s - came a sharp turn towards supply-side fiscal policies. In 1981 and again in 1986 Reagan signed legislation that eventually lowered the total number of tax brackets from fourteen to two and the top income tax rate from the Kennedy-era 70% to 28%. Reagan repeatedly claimed that by lowering rates across the board, the incentives to save, invest and spend would increase. With the exception of the Federal Reserve Bank induced recession of 1982, the U.S. economy expanded for the longest period of time in peacetime history. Total federal tax receipts increased from $599 billion in 1981 to $991 billion in 1989. The nations unemployment rate fell from 10.8% in 1982 to 5.0% in 1989. Keynesian economists argued that Reagans tax cuts would stimulate demand more than supply and thus trigger inflationary pressure. The opposite occurred. Inflation was running at 10.3 % in 1981. With massive gains in productivity, labor force participation rates and new technological investments, the nations aggregate supply increased at a rate that brought inflation down to 1.9% by 1986 the year Reagans last tax cut was passed. While the Reagan tax cuts represented smaller cuts as a percentage of the economy than Kennedys rate cuts, Democrats during and after the 1980s argued that rich people gained at the expense of the poor. Here again, the data does not line up with the conventional wisdom. According to the IRS, The share of income taxes paid by the top 10% of tax earners climbed to 57% in 1988 from 48% in 1981. The top 1% saw their share of the tax bill rise to 28% in 1988 from 18% in 1981. As it turns out, supply-side economics also helped the middle class and the poor. According to the Federal Reserve Bank, while people earning more than $50,000 saw a gain in net wealth of 6.6%, people earning $30,000-$50,000 realized an increase in net wealth of 27.7%. Families with incomes in the $20,000 range gained 28.9% and those earning $19,999 and under had a gain in net wealth of 21.1%. Meanwhile, the Decade of Greed gave us a transfer of wealth, in the form of charity, of 5.1% a year, compared with a rate of 3.5% over the previous 25 years. Charitable giving increased faster than jewelry purchases, beauty parlor and health club spending and consumer debt. The Bush/Clinton Tax Hikes In 1980 candidate George H.W. Bush called Reagans supply-side proposals, Voo-Doo economics. In 1990, President Bush proved that he was not convinced of the merits of supply-side economics when he increased income taxes during the outset of the 1990-91 recession. His tax increase was designed to bring down the bloated federal budget deficit, the results did not work out as he and Congress intended. While the deficit increased from $221 billion in 1990 to $269 billion in 1991 and a record $290 billion in 1992, Mr. Bush did not even get to claim that the rich paid for his tax hike. The top income tax rate increased from 28% to 31% in 1990. On July 7, 1993 The Wall Street Journal published the data on what the rich did with the tax hike. Of course, they called their accountants and instructed them to look for ways to lighten their tax load. In 1990 wealthy
P a g e | 14
P a g e | 15
P a g e | 16
P a g e | 17
where the presentations were shown on monitors with no sound. When reporters asked for sound, the monitors were turned off. All sessions were then declared to be private, and the reporters that had come from around the globe to cover the conference were simply shut out. According to journalist Matthew Wild, the presentations included one from PFC Energy titled "Unpacking Uncertainty: Investment Issues in the Petroleum Sector." The document reviews three forecasts for oil supply: The IEA's, which shows it reaching 109 mbpd by 2030; OPEC's, which expects it to reach 111 mbpd; and PFC's own, which expects supply to peak around 2020-2025 at 95 mbpd, then decline to 90 mbpd by 2030. Although it sees the decline of mature fields proceeding at a slower rate than the IEA, PFC Energy still believes it will be "rapid enough to produce a world energy picture that differs vastly from previous long-range energy assessments," and goes on to explain: This is not a world of "peak oil" where global hydrocarbon potential is exhausted, but rather of peak production, where the petroleum industry's ability to continue to increase-or even maintain-production of conventional oil (and eventually gas) is constrained. Exploitation of unconventional oil will provide additional liquids, but in all probability only at increasingly higher costs, and it will depend on significant investments to develop appropriate technologies to
P a g e | 18
P a g e | 19
P a g e | 20
P a g e | 21
P a g e | 22
The Bloggerist
As Public Policy Fixes Are Impossible, Focus on Individual Solutions
Divisive politics and the Tyranny of the Majority guarantee policy fixes will fail or be symbolic only
January 20, 2011; By Charles Hugh Smith, From of Two Minds http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjan11/policies-individuals01-11.html
Though I am drawn to public policy questions, I always regret proposing any policy fixes. Why? For a number of reasons: 1. It's safer and easier to be a critic or doomsdayer. Finding flaws in policies addressing a diverse populace, be it a town, city, state or nation, is like shooting fish in a barrel: it's incredibly easy to shred any policy proposal. The hard part is proposing a coherent, pragmatic one. It's also easy to say that the status quo is unsustainable, i.e. stating the obvious. 2. Pragmatism does not inspire the partisan passion that drives politics. The hate mail I receive often includes some line like "you must be a Republican"--the most hateful, vile slam the invective-spewing AC (anonymous coward) can conjure. Or it might be "you Big Government liberals"--once again, a party-hewed cliche is the most searing condemnation the AC can find to express his venomous rage. No wonder reasonable voices are soon shouted down, or they leave the room; the partisans demand the sort of ideological purity that simply doesn't work in the real world, but which inspires fanatic devotion, fund-raising, etc.--the building blocks of partisan political success. Politics has always been a mean-spirited, ugly business; now, even a whiff of politically charged policy debate will draw the ire of those seeking an outlet for their anger and frustration. A town-hall meeting might offer up an opportunity for spewing the pressurized anger, and if not, then some blogger or writer will stand duty as the straw man/woman to demonize. Those of you who have attended these kinds of shout-fests know how the pragmatists feel; they slip out in dismay and disgust. Who needs that kind of abuse? 3. There is a great confusion between limited government that pragmatically serves its citizenry and a government that serves its cartel/political elites. Many Libertarians take the view that government is the root of all evil, and eliminating all government is the key solution. Without making a fetish of the Constitution, it seems self-evident that the Founding Fathers engaged in a vigorous debate on just this issue, and chose a limited Central State which ceded most government issues to the states. In this structure, there was an implicit option of citizenry to "vote with their feet" (the non-enslaved citizenry, that is) if any one state became overly oppressive. Over the past century, the Central State has evolved into the Savior State and Global Empire, a massive "mission creep" expansion which rather clearly has centralized powers to a degree which threatens state and individual liberty. That said, to claim that we would do just fine without any Central State at all seems impractical. It seems self-evident to me that the Federal government has appropriated too much power and too much of the national income, and that it did so in large part to reward its fiefdoms and privatesector partners, the corporate cartels. We seem to have forgotten the distinction between a kleptocratic State which serves its Elites, and one which makes modest efforts to stabilize opportunities for the well-being of its citizens. A Central State might provide some basic public health services--minimizing epidemics is generally conceded to be a good idea, for example-and provide for the common defense. Somehow the first has morphed into paying a sickcare cartel $120,000 a week for hospital care for every citizen over the age of 65, and "defense" has transmogrified into a concern with "protecting our interests" literally everywhere on the planet. Both of these missions--unlimited medical care provided for profit, and a global Empire of embassies, bases, intelligence networks, and so on-are fiscally unsustainable. 4. There are severe limits on policy fixes. People respond to incentives and disincentives, and if they are getting something for free, then they will resist any withdrawal of the entitlements. Politicians understand this dynamic, and thus entitlements have become "untouchable" as their constituencies have grown into the tens of millions. As a result, our democracy is facing the danger posed by the Tyranny of the Majority, in which 51% of voters who receive State largesse can extract more taxes from the minority, or demand more State borrowing--whatever it takes to keep the swag flowing. Of course the cartels play the same game: they really don't care how the State comes up with the funding for their profit centers, as long as it isn't from their pockets. With voters demanding entitlements and cartels ponying up huge campaign donations to make sure their profit centers have unlimited access to State swag, then you have a recipe for fiscal implosion and/or collapse of the heavilytaxed minority. The standard "policy fix" of the past 100 years is to vacuum up more private-sector income via taxes and spend it on implementing the policy. Now we have reached a point in history in which policy fixes must consume radically less money and resources. Policy fixes which reduce entitlements, profit flows and freebies are insanely unpopular and thus politically impossible. So the recipients of the swag, voters, fiefdoms and cartel Elites alike, in effect choose systemic collapse over cuts. Another limit is psychological. It is a difficult truth that the more dependent one becomes on free money (or equivalent), the less self-reliant one becomes. Thinking for oneself, taking responsibility for oneself, making the hard choices, taking risks--all these essential skills atrophy in dependence. Just as destructively, the dependent person reacts with tremendous fear and then anger if their lifeline is threatened; having grown dependent, they have lost their self-confidence. They fear they will not survive the weaning. So they lash out at the agents of change, and devote every fiber of strength to beating back the threat to their dependency. In this way, they seal their fate as the system, increasingly brittle and top-heavy, eventually implodes under the weight of all who have become dependent on the Central State-citizens, State fiefdoms and private enterprises. This obsession with "what I was promised, what I deserve, it's my right," etc., fosters a selfabsorbed culture of greed in which the focus is entirely on what the individual can extract, never mind the consequences on the larger society. The necessity and nature of self-reliance is the heart of my book Survival+. 5. Pluralism manages slow, gradual changes which threaten no major constituency. The two-party system evolved to offer a pluralistic path to gradual change via compromises and "baby steps." As a result, it is completely incapable of responding to crises which demand prompt, radical adaptations and fast evolutions of the "punctuated equilibrium" kind. For example, pluralism's "solution" to a failed healthcare system is a 1,300-page giveaway to all the key interests, a complex bureaucratic "fix" that offered only incremental, and ineffectual,
P a g e | 23
P a g e | 24
Institutional Minds
RAP, ROCK AND CENSORSHIP:
Popular Culture and the Technologies of Justice
March 2001; Mathieu Deflem, From the University of South Carolina Contact Information: deflem@sc.edu; Available at www.mathieudeflem.net A previous version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association, Chicago, May 27-30, 1993. Revised, March 2001. Please cite as: Deflem, Mathieu. 1993. "Rap, Rock, and Censorship: Popular Culture and the Technologies of Justice." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association, Chicago, May 27-30, 1993. http://www.cas.sc.edu/socy/faculty/deflem/zzcens97.htm "Eventually it was discovered that God did not want us to be all the same. This was bad news for the Governments of the World... Mankind must be made more uniformly if THE FUTURE was going to work out... It was about this time that someone came up with the idea of TOTAL CRIMINALIZATION, based on the principle that if we were ALL crooks we could at least be uniform to some degree in the eyes of the law. Shrewdly our legislators calculated that most people were too lazy to perform a REAL CRIME. So new laws were manufactured making it possible for anyone to violate them at any time of the day or night... which is one of the reasons why music was eventually made ILLEGAL." --Frank Zappa, liner notes from Joes Garage, Acts 2 & 3 (CBS, 1979)
While the censorship of art is not a new phenomenon, the 1980s experienced renewed and intensified attempts to control popular culture. In particular, rap and rock music then came under increasing attack from various sides representing the entire left and right political spectrum, purportedly for their explicit sexual and violent lyrical contents. In this paper I investigate the moral codes underlying these claims against popular music, how social movements mobilize actions around these claims, and the way in which they are manifested in mechanisms of control targeted at rap and rock music. Moreover, I explore how the performers and fans of these musical styles have in turn articulated counter-claims, and how they have mobilized social forces in defense of the free expression of their art-form. The issue is addressed through an historical examination of the actions undertaken to censor and control rap and rock music from the time of the founding of the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) in 1985 up until the early 1990s. Concerns over rock n roll music have lead to public debate, political and legal actions, and law enforcement activities ever since its "invention" in 1955 (Jones 1991:75-76; McDonald 1988a:294-302). However, since the formation of the PMRC in 1985, a new, more organized and systematic attack to control popular music has been launched. I. SETTING THE STAGE: THE PARENTS, THE SENATE, THE LABEL 1. The Invasion of the "Washington Wives" The Parents Music Resource Center was founded in 1985 as the result of the unusually combined efforts of a few concerned parents (Coletti 1987:421-426; Gray 1989a:151-153, 1989b:6-8; Kaufman 1986:228-231; McDonald 1988a:302-106; Roldan 1987:222-231). Tipper Gore, wife of current Vice-President and then Senator of Tennessee Albert Gore, bought the album "Purple Rain" by Prince for her then 11year old daughter. She was shocked to find out that one of the songs on the album, "Darling Nikki", contained a reference to female masturbation. The same Prince song was also listened to by the daughter of free-lance journalist Kandy Stroud, who was shocked to discover that her daughter was exposed to "unabashedly sexual lyrics" (Stroud 1985:14). Around the same time, Susan Baker, wife of former Treasury Secretary and White House Chief of Staff James Baker, overheard her 7year old child sing along to "Like a Virgin" by Madonna, which lead her to realize "whats going on in pop music" (quoted in Roldan 1987:223). Also around the same time, Pam Howar, wife of a wealthy construction executive, noticed the lyrical contents of the songs she was dancing to during her aerobics classes, and discovered that her daughter was listening to the same kind of music over breakfast. In April of 1985 the concerned parents, together with Sally Nevius, wife of former Washington D.C. council chairman John Nevius, and Ethelynn Stuckley, wife of former Congressman Williamson Stuckley, joined forces: on May 13, 1985, they formed the nonprofit, tax-exempt organization Parents Music Resource Center. Under the Presidency of Pamela Howar, the PMRC compiled a mailing list to appeal to similarly concerned parents and to raise money. Soon after its formation, affiliates of the PMRC included several U.S. Congressmen and Representatives. On the same day of the PMRCs formation, Edward Fritts, President of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), wrote over 800 letters to radio and TV stations warning against pornographic record lyrics, and requesting that record companies affix lyric sheets to all recordings sent to broadcasters (U.S. Senate 1985:133; see Kaufman 1986:236). The main goals of the PMRC were to inform parents about the music their youngsters were exposed to through radio broadcasts, in record stores, or at concerts, and to request the record industry for voluntary restraint with regard to explicit and obscene music. The PMRC specifically proposed a rating system, similar to the movie ratings system used by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and requested that specific warning labels be placed on album covers (Coletti 1987:424-425). The PMRC also suggested that song lyrics be printed on the album covers, records with obscene covers be placed under the counters of record stores, record companies should reconsider their contracts with performers who displayed sex or violence during shows or on records, radio stations be furnished with lyric sheets, backward masking be banned from all songs, and music videos be rated according to both lyrics and performances. To gain exposure, the PMRC started the publication of a monthly newsletter and sent letters to sixty music companies, to the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), and, most importantly, to the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA). The RIAA, which represents record companies responsible for 85% of the total sales of records in the U.S., initially responded fiercely against any of the PMRCs demands, invoking First Amendment rights for the free exercise of speech and music
P a g e | 25
P a g e | 26
P a g e | 27
P a g e | 28
P a g e | 29
P a g e | 30
P a g e | 31
P a g e | 32
P a g e | 33
P a g e | 34
P a g e | 35
P a g e | 36
P a g e | 37
P a g e | 38