By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH

GOP's John Boehner. His malefactions would go nowhere if the Democrats had any principles.

This week’s cover of Time magazine screams “Washington is Frozen.”  The New York Times News of the Week in Review for February 21, 2010 tells us that “Washington doesn’t work.”  Evan Bayh of “Bayh, Bayh-Partisanship” tells us that he is leaving at the end of his term because there is just “too much partisanship in Washington” that leads to “nothing getting done” and is the fault of “ideologues on both sides.”  Nevertheless, on that score Bayh tends to finger (or is it give the finger to) the “far left” in preference to any sort of GOPer.  (Would that there were a “far left” in Washington, but that’s another matter.)  So it’s just all of that partisanship that’s the matter.  Why people aren’t even civil to each other anymore.  And again, that’s the fault on both sides.

Well, there are two points (at least) that one can make here.  First, it ain’t both sides that are primarily responsible for the partisanship, and there is indeed plenty of it.  Washington doesn’t “work” because the GOP doesn’t want it to and is doing everything in its power to make sure that it doesn’t.  “Washington working,” in the sense of major national problems like the failing health care delivery system, the crumbling infrastructure, and the rapidly declining education system being productively dealt with, significantly reduces the GOP’s political chances.  After all, they have been, and are being so at ever-increasing volume, the party that is against “big government,” even though the big problems we face precisely require big government if they are to be dealt with.  Every time that “big government” can do something positive reduces their chances of getting back into power so that they can, in the delightful Grover Norquist’s terms, “shrink it to the size of a bathtub and then drown it in the tub.”

It is in fact the GOP that has been on the attack against both the Democrats and any and all parts of the Federal government other than the powers of political repression and the military/industrial complex since they began making their Federal governmental comeback with the Gingrich takeover in 1994.  From the outset, the Gingrich House was attacking everything the Democrats stood for [however pallidly—Eds], unless it was something that was GOP policy, like killing welfare.

For example, during the first six years of the Bush Presidency when the GOP controlled the House, Denny Hastert never consulted with the Democratic minority on any legislation.  He brought legislation up to the floor only when he had secured all the votes he needed for passage from the GOP majority, even if that meant violating the House’s time-rules so that the Exterminator (Tom DeLay) could twist their arms (or worse).  And such “Bayh-partisanship” has continued with a vengeance during the first year of the Obama Administration.

Having the titular leader of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh, announce before the inauguration, that “I hope he fails,” gave every possible signal to the GOP troops that they had better not do anything other than to work to grant that wish.  Having Mitch McConnell announce, before the election, that he would engage the filibuster rule on any proposed legislation he didn’t like, wasn’t exactly an indication of bipartisanship.  Having Jim (the income tax is unconstitutional, and who cares about the 16While all of this is going on, the DLC-lead Democrats always give away the store before opening time.  At the beginning of the Bush Administration when he was proposing the massive tax cuts for the wealthy that all responsible parties were predicting would lead to massive deficits (and that was before the invasion of Iraq), did the Democrats, who had just come out of the Clinton Administration showing a surplus, say “no, nothing,” and start to bargain from there?  No, they started with half a loaf and in the end got nothing anyway. On health care, did Obama and the Congressional Democrats start with single payer and then bargain it away for, let’s say, a public option?  No they began with the public option and then bargained it away for nothing. So if the problem is simply “partisanship” of the kind that prevents anything from getting done, it’s not partisanship on both sides that’s responsible.  It’s partisanship on one side that’s responsible.

But in the real world of Washington, as much as the media, the GOP itself, and the GOP-lites like Bayh would like the American people to think that the trouble is partisanship or worse — “Washington just can’t work,” “our liberty is at stake,” “sovereignty must return to the states” (most of which wouldn’t want it even if that were a real solution; they are already “under water” financially worse than any home owner) — that is not the current cause of the “gridlock.”  It is simply that the US has become the largest undemocratic so-called democracy in the world.

Behold, we not only have an upper house for our legislature that has real power when there is no other such body in the world.  Further, it is an upper house that is entirely undemocratic in its make-up, with two Senators per state, regardless of population.  Not only do we have such an upper house with such a composition but we have it as a legacy of slavery and a British parliament that at the time had a totally un-elected upper house, with power.  (Of course the British House of Lords lost any real power just about 100 years ago, but that is another matter.)  And finally, we not only have such an upper house, but it is one where the minority can prevent the majority from getting “anything done” by simply saying, not even doing, “filibuster.”

Just imagine for the moment that there were no filibuster rule.  Would the media and the GOP and their fellow-travelling Tea Partyers and their lap-dog media be talking about “gridlock?”  They might not like what Obama would have accomplished in his first year (well let’s say theoretically might have accomplished in his first year because given the DLC control of the Administration one cannot be sure) but the list could have included: some kind of meaningful health care reform with a public option; a real “stimulus package” spending about twice as much with few if any non-productive tax cuts; an immediate increase in the tax rates for the rich; a real start on dealing with global warming and climate change; hundreds of bright and eager, technically competent leaders of all Executive Branch departments; meaningful steps to save Social Security could have been taken, starting with increasing the upper income limit for the payroll tax deduction; some kind of level playing field could have been restored for the trade unions; at least some thought might have been applied to figure out how to prevent all the rest of the U.S. manufacturing jobs from being exported overseas by greedy corporations; meaningful regulation of the banking and financial industries could already have been in place; and so on and so forth.

Yes, “Washington is frozen.”  But it is not because of bi-partisan “partisanship.”  It is not because the government is “too big” (big problems require big solutions).  It is because the GOP a) is totally, categorically opposed to any of the above because of whom they really represent and b) wants to do everything it can to prevent any success from emanating from the Obama Administration.  Unfortunately, it’s the DLC-lead Democrats (starting with Rahm Emmanuel) who cannot (actually don’t want to) see this.  Given the filibuster rule, Washington will not be unfrozen anytime soon.  And so we might actually see a McConnell/Boehner-lead Congress next January.  And actually they might not like that.  After all, with their present authority to stop anything from getting done, they would then have the responsibility to get something done.  And any of the somethings that would do very many people any good are anathema to their party and what it really stands for.  But that’s another story, actually one I’ve already told.

Indeed the political weather in Washington is very cold.  Given a GOP that knows exactly what kinds of policies and politics serve its best interests and a Democratic Party that doesn’t, it will likely remain that way for quite some time.

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) and author/co-author/editor of 30 books. In addition to being a columnist for BuzzFlash, Dr. Jonas is a senior editor with THE GREANVILLEPOST.COM, and other quality news aggregators.

Does the stashing of weapons at home provide true security? The NRA says, “Yes!”

But what do you think?

By Case Wagenvoord

Heston’s boast: “From my cold dead hand!!”

[I] KEEP NO WEAPONS IN MY HOUSE. Never have; never will.  Okay, so there’s the chef’s knife in the kitchen drawer, but that doesn’t’ count.

.

I didn’t even arm myself during the media-hyped “crime wave” of the early seventies when our Euromerican oligarchs neutralized the gains made during the civil rights movement by siphoning as many Afromericans into jail as they possibly could.

,

There was one time, though, when I saw an ad for a commando knife and wondered if it might not be a good idea to keep one in my nightstand “just in case.”  As soon as that thought crossed my mind, a funny thing happened:  my anxiety level rose.  That was because just the thought of arming myself brought to mind all of the “possible” situations that might require its use.

.

And that’s the problem—sweating possibilities instead of probabilities.  Anything is possible.  Yes, it is “possible” some madman might break into my house in the dead of night and murder my wife and me.  It’s possible, but not probably, which is why I don’t worry about it unless I start obsessing on the possible.  (Probability means having some hard data to work with.  It is probably I could be wacked in an automobile accident, but it is highly improbable I’ll ever be murdered in my sleep.)

.

That was the problem with the knife.  As soon as I thought about getting a weapon for security, my anxiety level rose because just having the weapon on the premises shifted my focus from the probable to the possible.

.

It’s a closed feedback loop.  I consider the possible, feel threatened by it and buy a weapon to alleviate the anxiety it creates.  Yet, the very possession of the weapon increases my anxiety and prompts me to think about buying a deadlier weapon.  Had I purchased the knife it would have only been a matter of time before I became so anxious that the knife would have become inadequate.  In the end I might have ended up with an assault rifle tucked under the bed, while I lay awake nights wondering how I could get my hands on some surplus landmines.

And this explains how America became a security state.  The possibility of Communists, criminals, terrorists or (fill in the blank) worries us, so our leaders churn out weapons and start wars to make us feel secure.  But we don’t feel secure because we began to obsess on the “possible.”  This results in a gaggle of security bureaucrats sitting around table saying “What if…?  What if….?  What if…”

.

What if the terrorists develop an effective shoe bomb?  (Have airline passengers take off their shoes.)  What if an explosive can be poured into a shampoo bottle?  (Limit the amount of shampoo that can be carried onto an airliner.)  What if the terrorists develop a workable underwear bomb?  (Use your imagination on that one.)

.

And, of course, the more secure we try to become, the more anxious we become, which suits our oligarchs just fine because an anxious people are more willing to surrender their freedoms for a false sense of security and, as Ben Franklin noted, they end up with neither.

.

As for me, I think I will remain unarmed; it keeps the anxiety level down.  And while I’m at it, I think I’ll hold on to my freedoms.  Somewhere it is written that they are inalienable.  So, no matter what the government does or what the courts decide, I remain a free citizen of a free country.  The job is to keep it that way.

.

Case Wagenvoord blogs at http://belacaquajones.blogspot.com and welcomes comments at Wagenvoord@msn.com.

RELATED FEATURE:

The problem remains crazy, embittered people — and this country has no shortage of them — getting access to handguns far too easily…

Hey, Handgun Fans: These Gun Victims Were Heavily Armed

By Bill Mann

TV-Radio Critic, www.dcweasels.com

Posted: November 30, 2009

But the media these days isn’t interested in doing gun-control stories. Flashing police lights and heavily armed officers scurrying around make far better video.

Sunday, I watched six hours of Seattle TV coverage up here about the tragic killing of four cops in a Tacoma coffee shop.

All were armed and in uniform, and all were wearing flak jackets.

I got scores of angry e-mails after my HuffPost blogs from handgun lovers, but one argument remained central.

“If those soldiers (or Virginia Tech students, yadda yadda yadda) had been armed, the killer would have been stopped cold. There wouldn’t have been a massacre.”

The “if-only everyone-were-armed” argument was crazy and reckless before this. Now it’s been proven beyond a doubt to be absolutely ridiculous.

Time to retire that one for good, Handgun Nation. Re-staging Tombstone, Ariz., circa 1889 is an irrational, wild fantasy at best.
The problem remains crazy, embittered people — and this country has no shortage of them — getting access to handguns far too easily.

I know the politics of this are difficult at best, but a serious, adult dialogue about our national gun sickness has to start at some point.

BY LORNA SALZMAN

We need to “get our asses in gear” says Bernard Weiner (crisispapers.org; countercurrents).

Sensibly he does not put all the blame on either Obama or the Republicans, because he recognizes the failure of progressives themselves and understands that only their self-resuscitation will accomplish anything. Elaborating on this theme, it becomes clear that, first, progressives must unify behind a basic platform and set of demands, and second, that they must abandon the two major political parties. After this they will be able to pursue, with strength and consistency, a variety of actions.  Here are my thoughts:

1) Abandon the two major political parties. Those enrolled in either party should change their enrollment to No Party or Independent, and urge their family, friends and colleagues to do the same.

2) Use other existing affiliations (religious, civic, cultural, community, workplace, union, recreational) to promote a basic platform that encompasses the chief concerns of the broad American public: jobs, health care, military spending, environment and energy, campaign finance reform, civil liberties.

3)Integrate relevant and related issues now marginal or ignored into these categories, with special emphasis on environment and energy policy, with the understanding that an appropriately strong energy policy will have an impact in other areas such as public health, transportation and jobs.

4)Enter into discussions with other people and groups about how to influence and re-shape upcoming elections for congress and for president in 2012, with emphasis on forming a PAC, and on running candidates by petition or through forming a third party at the municipal or state level.

5.Circulate the new platform via the internet and in printed form and solicit citizen signatures supporting it and agreeing to vote only for those candidates who also support it in full. (I prepared such a platform/petition over a year ago which I will provide on request).

Briefly, I see the following as being fundamental to any broad political movement:

• 100% publicly financed political campaigns plus an end to state-level laws that inhibit independent and third-party candidacies;

• Universal single-payer health care, perhaps obtained by expanding Medicare, with a mandate that no one pay more than 5% of gross income for premiums and care;

• Removal of military presence from Iraq and Afghanistan;

• End to all federal subsidies and tax breaks for all sectors (starting with energy and agriculture) as the first step in moving towards full-cost pricing of energy and goods;

• A carbon tax on all fossil fuels at point of production or import, with revenues rebated equally to all citizens; (”fee and dividend”);

• Stringent mandatory national energy efficiency standards for construction, transportation, commercial, industrial and domestic consumption, starting with public buildings and schools/institutions;

• Low-cost loans for individuals for energy efficiency compliance and retrofitting;

• Major commitment to expanding and rebuilding public transportations systems nationwide, with subsidies utilized to insure that cost to public is lower than using private cars and trucks;

• Oversight mechanisms to protect consumers and homebuyers from mortgage, banking and credit card extortion and fraud;

• Increasing income tax rate of corporations to that of the 1950s: 50%;

• Tax on financial transactions (“Tobin tax”), with revenues used to combat global poverty and climate change;

• Value-added tax on consumption of all goods except food and medicine;

• Stiff penalties and/or taxes or prohibition on corporation out-sourcing or removal of production abroad;

• Imposition of a Border Tax Adjustment (BTA) on imports with a high carbon footprint or exported by countries who refuse to curb their fossil fuel use;

• Withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO;

• Abolition or drastic reform of IMF and World  Bank;

• Creation of local and regional credit unions and banks dedicated to funding local and regional business and commerce only;

• Rigorous new laws to mandate re-use and recycling, with high taxes on use of virgin materials, non-reusable and non-recyclable packaging and containers;

• Economic disincentives and taxes on processed and pre-packaged food items;

That’s for starters.

—Lorna Salzman

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Above all, Lorna Salzman is an environmental activist. Unafraid of controversy, her outspoken support for Israel has often created friction in progressive circles.

The deeper the world’s elites sink into criminality, the more outrageous the hypocrisy, and as usual the US leads the parade

BY JOHN STEPPLING   [print_link]

The response in the US to Roman Polanski’s arrest in Switzerland … as he was on his way to receive an award………is typical of a resentful, angry, and most significantly, a puritanical society.

This case is almost laughable actually, the girl was sexually mature and active, the mom an almost pimp, and the sex consensual. Oh, oh, oh, it can never be consensual with a minor. Well, this is more puritanism, and more hatred of pleasure. A society that so criminalizes, pleasure (drugs, sex, etc) and is simultaneously addicted to all forms of illicit activities….. is a very unhealthy place.

I do wonder where the outcry is about Henry Kissinger still walking around? Or Ollie North (who is gainfully employed at FOX) or any number of priests, who havent done time but were merely shuttled off to a new parish. Why no moral indignation?

Actually, I think the reason Polanski is being piled on this way is that he has never apologized. In the Oprah era of public confessional that is the modern US, *not showing remorse* is the ultimate sin.

The question of Polanski as an artist is an interesting one, too. In the culture of the US, being an artist makes you a target of hate, unless (!) you manage to neuter yourself like a Tom Hanks or are, in fact, just a celebrity (like Hanks).  But a serious artist, the Pinters or the like, are never going to find a home in the US.  [Chaplin was hounded by the same puritanical battalions, as was Ingrid Bergman and many others). Real uncompromising artists are important people, they provide the much needed disruption in this sleepwalking culture, they provide a tacit conscience for the various cantons of encapsulated narcissism that passes for a civilized society. In the US they have always been distrusted and denounced.

Ads like these are all too common on US media.

This case is almost laughable actually, the girl was sexually mature and active, the mom an almost pimp, and the sex consensual. Oh, oh, oh, it can never be consensual with a minor. Well, this is more puritanism, and more hatred of pleasure. A society that so criminalizes, pleasure (drugs, sex, etc) and is simultaneously addicted to all forms of illicit activities….. is a very unhealthy place. Check the internet for swingers sites, and ads for tranny prostitutes, and ask yourselves how many of the people involved (and I have no issue with such activities at all) are also condemning Polanski.  The girl, the *victim* wants the case forgotten (she got her settlement) and so what is the DA of LA county doing in a cash-strapped time, having this man arrested and wanting an expensive extradition ?  One wonders, might it have to do with publicity?  Gee, ya’ think?

Spare me the moral indignation over a thirty-year-old statutory rape case and give me investigations into torture. Give me Kissinger and war criminals like Wes Clark, give me those behind Iran Contra and give me the guys still tutoring death squads for the most repressive but business friendly regimes in the world. Give me the Catholic church, a foul and rotting institution of hypocricy and duplicity, give me the whole damn church, and give me all the bad cops who routinely abuse their power (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQSv88bdsbQ).  Give me Blackwater and give me Dick Cheney.

JOHN STEPPLING‘s last film credit was Animal Factory (directed by Steve Buscemi 2000). Expat Steppling lived until recently in Lodz with Norwegian director Gunnhild Skrodal, while teaching at the Polish National Film School.

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]S IT ADVISABLE  FOR ONE WHO IS NOT AN EXPERT on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

•

ALBERT EINSTEIN needs no introduction.  His faith in socialism was the kind of “detail” about his biography that the media gatekeepers carefully kept out of sight.