Regressives, get the hell out of my country!

In my last piece (Trading Places: A Tale of Two Countries), I used a plethora of statistics to make a comparison between the United States and Sweden. The point was to use those little evil pests called facts to point out to the fools on the right that while they are correct about American exceptionalism, it doesn’t play out quite the way they think.

America is, in fact, exceptionally bad when it comes to any of a whole host of measures, such as health, longevity, economic equality, crime, pollution, etc. Over there in Sweden, on the other hand, the application of socialist ideas has turned out slightly differently than what those nice conservatives in America would have you believe. The ‘disaster’ of European socialism has led Europeans, especially Swedes, to kick America’s ass on basically any measure of quality of life one can imagine.

Uh-oh.

That whole fact thing that we in “the reality-based community” rely upon for intelligent analysis and policy prescription is almost always a disaster for regressives. You know, sorta like, “Iraq has WMD, therefore we should invade, and it will be a great war, fast, easy, cheap, and it will bring democracy to the Middle East (even though all our other policies there are about preventing it at all costs, but pay no attention to that)”. That kinda thing. When that little riff smacked up against the ugly reality-based community known as the real world, it, uh – how shall we say it? – didn’t fare so very well. Nor did the insistence that radical tax cuts for the rich would boom the economy and simultaneously actually increase revenues to the federal treasury. Oops. Now the very same people who made that promise are screaming about how we have to slash spending on health and education to make up for the massive debt that was produced when their fantasies met reality. Then there’s global warming...

I could go on and on here. There is a very real pattern, which twenty minutes of watching Glenn Beck would immediately reveal to anyone who didn’t already know better. Regressives hide from reality. It’s that simple. Nor is it a mystery why. Facts don’t support the policies they’ve already ferociously embraced before – not after – they’ve done their ‘analysis’, policies they cling to so strongly because they either benefit them personally or assuage their rampant fears. That’s how it works, and that’s why this country is in the disastrous state that it’s in. We’ve been following so-called conservative policies for thirty years now (yes, very much including those periods in which Democrats were in the White House and ruled Congress). These policies are astonishingly destructive, which is why regressives have to pretend when it comes to reality, and which is why they almost always do, more so in this current era of Bachmann-Palin overdrive than ever.

I mention all this because a couple of folks reacted to the blizzard of comparative facts in my last piece in the usual regressive way: through obfuscation, distortion and deceit. No surprise there. One particular response caught my eye, however, and nearly knocked me off my chair. A couple of folks noted that, yes, America does poorly on all these statistics compared to other countries, but only if you count minorities. If you compare American whites only, they argue, then the US does much better.

Excuse me?!?! What’s that?!?! Did you really just say that?!?!

It’s hard to imagine all the ways in which this is nonsensical. More to the point, it’s difficult to determine whether at the end of the day it is characterized more by its unmitigated stupidity or its sheer offensiveness.

Why? Let’s start with the most benign criticism we might imagine, which is that – Hello! – other countries have minorities too. There are lots of folks who could be dropped from Sweden’s or France’s or Germany’s population if we are in the business of cherry-picking statistics. Of course, if on the other hand you’re just desperately trying to win a debate that otherwise makes you look stupid, then you would only cherry-pick on one side of the comparison.

Second, where in the world do nice, shiny white folks get off making a point like this, anyhow? Have they forgotten that there’s the small matter of how American minorities wound up in the condition they’re in to consider? You don’t suppose that, say, four centuries of white-imposed slavery and Jim Crow might have had anything to do with that, do you? I mean, I’m just thinking out loud here, and I know it might just be a really big coincidence and all, but just the same...

Third, what does race have to do with statistics that compare the health care systems, or the degree of government corruption, or the percentage of women in parliament, or the propensity to go to war, or carbon emissions, or the number of hours worked per week, or worker safety, or any number of other measures? The answer, of course, is nothing. At all. None of those factors would be changed by omitting one portion of American society from the comparison, and all of them reveal how exceptional the US is – exceptionally backward, that is.

But, finally, and most egregiously, what the hell is up with this concept of comparing only part of a country, anyhow? Are blacks and Hispanics somehow less American in the eyes of regressives? Do they somehow not count for as much? I think we all pretty much know the real answers to those questions, right-wing protestations that conservatives aren’t racist notwithstanding.

But let’s just go with their concept, shall we? Just for fun. What if there was one part of America that was dragging down the rest of us? Shouldn’t we exclude them from the country, or at the very least treat them with the contempt they so fully deserve for polluting the otherwise unblemished exceptionalism of our nation? Aren’t regressives really right about this? Shouldn’t we ditch these losers, so the rest of us can shine like we deserve to?

For example, let’s talk about health. What if I told you that a 21-factor health index statistic revealed that the following states are the ten most healthy in America, in order: Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Maine, Iowa, Utah, Hawaii, Nebraska and Connecticut? Now what if I told you that the following states are the ten least healthy on that same ranked list: Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Nevada, New Mexico, Mississippi, and worst of all, Louisiana?

Might you notice anything interesting in that pattern? For instance, that almost all of the most healthy states are blue states – including Vermont, Massachusetts, Hawaii and Connecticut, four of the bluest states in the union? Or that Vermont and Massachusetts, the healthiest and third healthiest states in America, respectively, have the most socialized health care systems in the country? Or perhaps you’d find it remarkable that among the ten least healthy states in the country there are no blue states and just two purple ones. Indeed, with the exception of Utah, that list includes all our most conservative states, places like Texas and Mississippi and South Carolina. They’re as red as they come.

So, how about it, my regressive friends? Are you still on board for the idea of dropping the national detritus off the list in order to boost America’s statistics and restore its rightful comparative place? Think how much better we’d look compared to the Europeans if we just ditched the Terrible Ten listed above! What do you say?

Sorry, could you speak a bit louder? I’m not quite hearing your response...

Oh well, no worries. You’ll have plenty of other opportunities. We’re just getting started.

Let’s look at some other measures of heath, for example. How about obesity? Here are the ten fattest states, in order: Mississippi, West Virginia, Texas, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee and Missouri. Not exactly paragons of liberalism, are they? No, for that you’d have to look to the list of the least obese states, which are: Hawaii, Utah, Florida, Montana, Arizona, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Massachusetts, and best of all, Colorado. Most of these are, of course, blue states.

Well, maybe we should look at infant mortality rates, that key indicator in measuring the quality of health in any given polity. Those American states with the worst scores are: Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, West Virginia, Delaware, Missouri and Arkansas. On the other hand, those states who do best on this measure are: Utah, Alaska, California, Minnesota, Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine and New York. Louisiana’s infant mortality rate is 10.3 per 1000 live births. New York’s is less than half that, at 4.0.

Is anyone beginning to see a pattern here?

How about crime? These ten states had the highest per capita incidence of violent crime in 2006: South Carolina, Tennessee, Nevada, Florida, Louisiana, Alaska, Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico and Michigan. On the other hand, the safest states were: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Utah, South Dakota, New Hampshire, Vermont, North Dakota, and best of all, Maine. These lists are a bit more mixed than others we’ve seen, but there is still a clear tendency for the red states to be more violent. Should we drop them from America?

But surely the conservative parts of America do better economically, right? No doubt fiscal conservatism has raised the standard of living in red states, while the blue states are dragging down the US average, eh? Here are the ten states in America with the highest median family income: New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Alaska, Hawaii, Minnesota, Virginia and Illinois. With the exception of purple Maryland and Virginia and red Alaska, they are all blue states. And, since Alaska gets such a huge chunk of its income from federal government and oil giveaways, it shouldn’t even be on the list. On the other hand, here are the ten poorest states in America: North Carolina, Idaho, Alabama, Montana, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Mexico, West Virginia, Arkansas and bottom-feeder Mississippi. See a pattern, anyone? There’s not a single liberal state on that list. Mississippi, with a median family income of $39,319, is only slightly better than half as rich as New Jersey, at $73,973.

Same is true of bankruptcies. Those states with the highest per capita number of filings include: Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Michigan, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio. Those with the lowest are: Wyoming, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, California, Maine, Alaska and best of all Hawaii. Once again, it is mainly Regressiveland that is dragging down the United States.

These figures are even clearer if we look at poverty. If you want to go somewhere in America where the poverty rate is really high, here are your choices: Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Texas, Alabama, South Carolina and Oklahoma. On the other hand, those states sporting the lowest poverty rates are: Delaware, Iowa, Virginia, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maryland, New Jersey, Minnesota, Alaska, Connecticut, and best of all, New Hampshire. It’s an extremely clear pattern. The conservative states are the poorest. In Mississippi, 21.6 percent of people are living below the poverty line (no wonder Governor Haley Barbour is running for president with that proud record), while in New Hampshire it’s about a third of that amount, at 7.6 percent.

Education is no different. Here are the ten states in America with lowest percentage of folks having a high school diploma or better: Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, California, Rhode Island, North Carolina, West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, and least educated of all, Texas. On the other hand, these states do best on that same measure: Minnesota, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Utah, New Hampshire, Vermont, Alaska, Iowa and Washington.

How about per capita occupational fatalities? Wyoming has the worst record, followed by Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, Kentucky, West Virginia, South Dakota, Mississippi, New Mexico and Alabama. The safest ten states for workers are: Maryland, Arizona, New York, California, Michigan, Maine, Delaware, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, and on top, Rhode Island.

Or divorce rates? They are highest in Nevada, Arkansas, Alabama, Wyoming, Idaho, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida and Mississippi. On the other hand, those states with the lowest rates are: Connecticut, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Illinois, Massachusetts and Georgia.

The pattern repeats itself over and over, with respect to almost any indicator of social welfare or standard of living one cares to examine. The upshot is simple: You do not want to live in red states. You will be poorer, fatter, less safe, less healthy, less married and less educated if you do.

In fact, about the only thing red states are better at is going to church. The ten states with the highest percentage of children attending religious services each week are: Mississippi, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, North Carolina and Nebraska. On the other hand, these states have the lowest rates on that same measure: Connecticut, Montana, Colorado, Oregon, Alaska, Nevada, Washington, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, and lowest of all, Vermont.

Hmmm. That’s interesting. It would almost appear that god doesn’t love conservatives very much. And imagine how badly she’d treat them if they weren’t so busy praying to her every week!

Oh well, that’s a subject for another essay.

But what we can say to our conservative friends right now is that, for once, they were correct (in addition to being right) about something. Well, sorta, anyhow. Yes, they were spot on in noting that there is a segment of America dragging the country down, and ruining its otherwise exemplary exceptionalism.

So, okay, fair enough. Credit where credit is due. Perhaps we can all agree with the folks on the right that America would be better off without these deadbeats diluting our national greatness, even though some of us used to think we’re all one country in it together and we should support each other.

Okay, okay, I concur. Let’s get rid of them. Let’s cut bait. Let’s restore America’s greatness by ditching he precise group of people dragging the rest of us down.

Regressives, get the hell out of my country!

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." Abraham Lincoln

Undividing the Left: Hard-core and Soft-core progressives

By Don Smith (about the author)

The Right is amazingly united. Despite the varied factions within the GOP coalition (corrupt capitalists, neocons, libertarians, and the Christian Right), Republicans usually work well together. In the US Senate, Republicans often vote unanimously to oppose even modest Democrat proposals. The GOP has repeatedly kicked progressive ass. They may very well succeed in their diabolical plan to bring the nation and the world to ruination (aka "freedom").

In contrast to cooperating Republicans, the Democrats and the Left in the US are perpetually divided. The Democratic Party is divided into its progressive and "centrist" (Blue Dog) factions. In Congress, Democratic party discipline is weak. The Democratic leadership (including President Obama) is centrist and naively bipartisan. Moreover, even within the progressive wing there is considerable acrimony and division between the hard-core progressives and the soft-core progressives.



The Divided Left by Don Smith


The hard-core progressives reject the Democratic Party because they say it's hopelessly corrupt and little or no better than the Repugs. The Dems use progressive talking points, but in the end they support the corporations, the rich, and the military, while betraying the progressive base who sent them to office.

Soft-core progressives acknowledge the failings of corporate Dems and of the Obama Administration, but they believe that there are plenty of good Democrats, that it's useful to push the Democrats leftward, and that supporting third-party candidates will likely just empower the GOP, who are, after all, progressives' worst nightmare. Even the corporatist Dems aren't generally as evil as the Republicans. Progressives are outnumbered, outgunned, and outspent. Splitting off into a third-party would still leave them outnumbered, outgunned, and outspent. This argument is made more fully here.

On websites like OpEdNews, there are often pitched battles between hard-core progressives and soft-core progressives, especially in the Comments sections of articles.

The highest levels of acrimony, accusation, and defensiveness between soft-core and hard-core progressives concern the 2000 elections. Supporters of Nader deny they are responsible for handing the election to Bush. Such supporters often say, "I'm never going to settle for the lesser of two evils" or "Blame the Republicans, Gore, and Clinton." Soft-core progressives ask the Naderites to face the facts and to own up to their huge tactical blunder.

This is a tough issue: when to submit a principled/protest vote. I think it depends on the details. For me, if there's a viable non-progressive candidate or if my vote won't help throw the election to a much worse Republican, I'll vote for the third-party person or the progressive primary challenger. Usually, though, there's no viable alternative and the Republican opponent is much worse than the (possibly corporate) Dem. The Republican Noise Machine of Fox News and AM talk radio has convinced tens of millions of middle class Americans that the Dems and Big Government are the problem.

Some critics of Obama and the Dems are, I suspect, Republican moles, aiming to incite division on the Left.

Some hard-core progressives are, no doubt, socialists or communists, and their opposition to the Democratic Party runs deep. They will never work within the Democratic Party. Let's call such hard-core progressives the "super-hard core." Given the realities of American politics, the hopes of the super-hard core for a socialist America seem quixotic. Besides, I do not support socialism or communism. I want a European style mixed economy, with a balance between private and public control.

But I know many hard-core progressives who are not socialists and who like and vote for many Democratic candidates. They're the "medium hard-core." Their unwillingness to work within the Democratic Party is a shame, because there seems to be little ideological difference between such medium hard-core progressives and the soft-core progressives. Both factions do not want to eliminate private property or to nationalize most industry. But the medium-hard core progressives reject the Democratic Party and hold out hope for a viable third party, even though it may be decades before a viable third party arises that can challenge the Dems and the GOP.

I see this effect particularly in local politics: I know of several progressive, affluent anti-war friends who refuse to participate in the local Democratic Party. Much of the reason is, no doubt, ideological. But part, I bet, is the unpleasantness of attending meetings and of having to defer to the people who often run such meetings. Local politics is boring and tedious and often puerile.

Much if not all politics is local, and the party activists who tend to be involved are generally elderly or lacking in passion. The most passionate progressives tend to be the angry, hard-core ones. In any case, if these medium hard-core progressives were to attend my local district meeting, I could work to defeat the corporate Dem who is running for a state office. I could pass resolutions in support of progressive views.

I think some of the hard-core progressives are simply inveterate iconoclasts, independents, and dissidents. There's freedom and a sense of superiority when you're in opposition, but it's not always a productive place to be. The internal politics of third parties is pretty damn ugly too. You gotta work with what you got. What we got is a mixed Democratic Party that produces some good candidates and some decent bills.

The point of this article is this: the animosity between soft-core and medium hard-core progressives is kinda silly. Both factions share the same goals and values (economic justice, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, environmentalism, unionism, an end to militarism, and justice & accountability). They just disagree on techniques.

I still hold hope for the Democratic Party, but I respect those who choose not to. Yet the status quo, with the Left divided, is enervating. Either all (soft and medium hard-core) progressives should bolt and form a new party, or all should work within the Democratic Party to reform it. I prefer the latter path, because I think that it's easier to influence the Democratic Party as its progressive wing than it is to influence the entire nation as an out-of-power, outgunned, outnumbered, and outspent third party. If America had a parliamentary political system, then third-parties could wield tremendous influence. But in our political system, third parties can usually end up aiding the enemy.

Groups like the PDA straddle the progressive divide by being willing to work both within and outside of the Democratic Party. That is, they're willing to support individual third-party candidates and work with advocacy groups unconnected to the Democratic Party, but they give preference to progressive Democratic candidates. This the position I'm most comfortable with.

Unfortunately, things may have to get a lot worse before the political landscape changes in America. If things do get worse, who's to say that we won't end up with a right wing populist government?

DFA organizer, Democratic Precinct Committee Officer, writer, and programmer. My op-ed pieces have appeared in the Seattle Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and elsewhere. See http://TruthSite.org for my writing, my musical creations, and my (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

March 21, 2011 at 08:37:17

They take our money for WAR

By Steven Forrest (about the author)

Another war has been started against Libya in the name of Humanitarian action; another war to expend American money in exchange for favor with the political party who will eventually control the country; another war in which American soldiers will be used as chattel as we march closer to a New World Order; another war justified by mass media, convincing American automotons that it is for our mutual freedoms and the protection of America. The reasons will vary that they will present to We the People in order to justify another war but they will never tell us the truth for these actions.

They will tell us this war is to combat terrorism when that very "terrorism" represents the actions of a people standing against a world power who is destroying the very fabric of their existence and is to them an act of protecting themselves in a war brought on by Western greed.

They will tell us it is for humanitarian action when the American initiated war against Iraq cost the lives of over a million civilians. Civilians: Women and children and unarmed men, trying to live the life given to them but having that life taken so easily by Western intervention. Civilians who knew nothing of the power struggle in the New World Order, now dead.

They will tell us it is to protect the American way when that "way" is taking us all toward a future where freedom will be a commodity bought and sold as part of a Global workforce. The destruction of Unions is a major step toward this goal.

They will tell us that Wikileaks, the people who uncovered the real reasons and secrecy behind American "Intervention" is un-American and new age cyber-terrorism when they are the ones who had spawned it with their secrecy and villainous acts of global dominance. They still have Bradley Manning suffering torture for his act of true Patriotism.

They will have the mass media parade in the trenches of faux-patriotism to anoint a new generation of the blind hiding behind the guise of Christianity while condemning anyone who does not conform to this new Order. Islam is evil they will tell us. They will claim that the Muslim Brotherhood is poised to take over in these countries if we do not act. They will and have mislead America into a false action of protecting ourselves from Islam when we should be more concerned about the threat from our own government.

They will also tell us to condemn those among us who will stand up to them and label us as traitors and Liberal demons while they rob this country of its meaning and their corporate backers race to profit from a new cultural kill zone. Madison, Wisconsin saw the rising up of a people but F.E.M.A. camps stand ready to imprison many if a National uprising should occur.

They will tell us many things to justify the means but none of these reasons are what this country stands for. The new Patriots are self proclaimed, self-labeled and self-touting devils trying to convince us all with the last of their breaths that we should be supporting their greed in the name of Liberty. These people stand behind lapels and love of God when the only god they know is He who hides in the shadows of death: The God of Money. The devils we know, the demons of hate and the greedy of our system strengthened by the people's ignorance and controlling all information to further their message of hate.

We know them for the masks they wear have been seen many times in the history of this world and they stand united for a system that favors the few and imprisons the rest in chains woven from the strongest metals of deception. They have been here before but we had defeated them. Now, they have the people behind them; the poor, blinded people so intoxicated by materialism and excess and so fearful of losing it that they parade behind the Masters hoping to be among the chosen who will survive the new global holocaust.

Today, we stand on yet another battle ground in the name of this American fiction called freedom while the poor and downtrodden are stripped of their rights, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They take our money for War while shutting down the schools; they take our money for War while denying the voice of a people; they take our money for War while our fellow citizens lose their homes; they take our money for War while our national infrastructure crumbles"They take our money for WAR.

spaulforrest.com

Steven Forrest is a Project Architect living in St. Petersburg, Florida. Currently, he is working to implement Green Building initiatives in several communities across Florida. Given the current situation in America and the continued (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Anti-war protesters arrested near White House

From the Wires

SATURDAY Mar 19, 2011 17:58 ET

Anti-war protesters arrested near White House

By ERIC TUCKER, Associated Press

AP

On the 8th anniversary of the Iraq invasion anti-war protesters rally near the White House in Washington, on Saturday, March 19, 2011. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

More than 100 anti-war protesters, including the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers, were arrested outside the White House on Saturday in demonstrations marking the eighth anniversary of the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

The protesters, some shouting anti-war slogans and singing "We Shall Not Be Moved," were arrested after ignoring orders to move away from the gates of the White House. The demonstrators cheered loudly as Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who in 1971 leaked the Pentagon's secret history of the Vietnam War that was later published in major newspapers, was arrested and led away by police.

In New York City, about 80 protesters gathered near the U.S. military recruiting center in Times Square, chanting "No to war" and carrying banners that read, "I am not paying for war" and "Butter not guns."

Similar protests marking the start of the Iraq war were also planned Saturday in Chicago, San Francisco and other cities.

The demonstration in Washington on Saturday merged varied causes, including protesters demanding a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan as well as those supporting Bradley Manning, the jailed Army private suspected of giving classified documents to the website Wikileaks.

One chant that was repeated was: "Stop the War! Expose the Lies! Free Bradley Manning!"

There was little talk of the U.S. missile strikes against Moammar Gadhafi's forces in Libya on Saturday, part of an international effort to protect rebel forces.

Manning is being held in solitary confinement for all but an hour every day at a Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Virginia. He is given a suicide-proof smock to wear to bed and is stripped naked each night. On Sunday, a protest will be held in Quantico, outside the brig where Manning is being held.

Ellsberg has publicly defended Manning, calling him a "brother," and Wikileaks.

Hundreds of protesters attended the rally and marched around the White House, but the crowd -- which included many military veterans -- thinned considerably as the U.S. Park Police warned that they'd be arrested if they didn't move. As officers moved in with handcuffs, one protester who clutched the gates outside the White House shouted, "Don't arrest them! Arrest Obama!" and "You're arresting veterans, not war criminals!"

Authorities said 113 protesters were arrested, processed and given violation notices for disobeying an official order. They could pay a small fine and be released, or be freed with a future court date.

"The majority were cooperative," said U.S. Park Police spokesman David Schlosser. "A couple had to be carried, but altogether a polite and orderly crowd."

One military veteran who showed up for the rally was Paul Markin, a 64-year-old retired Army colonel from Lynn, Mass., who said he's frustrated by what he sees as the U.S. government's escalation of the wars. He said he's been against wars since coming home from Vietnam.

"Ever since that time, I've gone to the other side. Instead of a warrior, an anti-warrior," Markin said.

Ralph Nader, a consumer advocate who's unsuccessfully run several times for president, attended the demonstration and said anti-war protesters needed to continue putting pressure on government leaders. He said he believed most Americans and even soldiers agreed with the views of the protesters

"I believe they reflect the majority opinion of the soldiers in Afghanistan," Nader told The Associated Press. "This is a majority opinion movement."

------

Associated Press reporter Chris Hawley in New York City contributed to this story.