Wednesday, March 4, 2015

More evidence that corporations are just plain greedy

And could give a shit about their employees. See this article. Big corps are using their profits to buy back their own stock, thereby reducing its availability and raising its price. They do this instead of using those profits to reinvest in their business and to give pay hikes to their employees, something they used to do. It's all about short-term, increased profits for their executives and shareholders and to hell with any other consideration. It didn't used to be this way, with companies spreading the wealth to the people that actually make it for them, their employees. Another indicator of the end of a capitalism gone horribly wrong and on its deathbed.

DOJ report of Ferguson

Find it here. From the summary:

"Ferguson’s law enforcement practices are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs. This emphasis on revenue has compromised the institutional character of Ferguson’s police department, contributing to a pattern of unconstitutional policing, and has also shaped its municipal court, leading to procedures that raise due process concerns and inflict unnecessary harm on members of the Ferguson community. Further,Ferguson’police and municipal court practices both reflect and exacerbate existing racial bias, including racial stereotypes. Ferguson’s own data establish clear racial disparities that adversely impact African Americans. The evidence shows that discriminatory intent is part of the reason for these disparities. Over time, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices have sown deep mistrust  between parts of the community and the police department, undermining law enforcement legitimacy among African Americans in particular."

Robert Reich on the Democratic Presidential nominee

See his article here. While he doesn't say it outright, he's describing Senator Warren and definitely not Hillary Clinton. He says what we need in a candidate is someone who will take on the moneyed interests, like the big banks, Wall Street and corporations. Someone who will resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act, break up the big banks, impose jail sentences on criminal banking practices, enact a financial transactions tax. Someone who will end corporate welfare, oppose unfair trade agreements, make the rich and corporations pay their fair share of taxes, reverse Citizens United. This is the agenda needed to restore democracy in the US. Nothing less will do. And between Warren and Clinton, we absolutely know which one will fight for this agenda and which one will give it lip service while enabling it further.

Senator Warren on regressives screwing labor, again

Please, please run for President Senator. Here she lambasts Congress for proposing a Bill that would thwart the National Labor Relations Board from more efficiently doing its job of handling labor disputes. The regressives complain about government bureaucratic inefficiency, yet when the NLRB proposes new rules to make the process more efficient they don't want it. What they want is an ineffective labor movement, preferably no labor movement. Oligarchy what they are working to fully implement, and without the likes of Senators Warren and Sanders they will complete that mission, which is almost there now.

Bibi's regressive blow job

Jon Stewart makes light of Netanyahu's political speech before Congress recently. If the Democrats had done this during a Republican President's tenure, make no mistake they'd bring charges of treason.

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Different government views on education


Hoes and ploughs

Following up on the last post, I sent it to a local discussion group we're having on the integral model. John responded:

"Talk about outdated "science." It's been pretty widely accepted within cultural anthropology that cultures which are male dominant vs those that are more egalitarian are those where men's greater strength is more useful to where it is less useful. The classic distinction is that cultures that depend on intensive agriculture with plows are male dominant, cultures that do their agriculture with hoes are more egalitarian. It has nothing to do with "warrior cultures" or the other commonly accepted mythologies. Here's a discussion of a 2010 paper that puts a bit of statistical rigor behind the idea. . It's fairly long, and Razib Khan expects that his readers will have the background to understand what he's saying without a lot of hand-holding."

My reply:

The chalice and the blade

Many women have noted how there seems to be a dearth of feminine values in the integral model. To provide context, this is from Riane Eisler's The Chalice and the Blade:

"In that classic Marxist work, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Friedrich Engels was one of the first to link the emergence of hierarchies and social stratification based on private property with male domination over women" (45).

Thus the partnership societies of old Europe (chalice) were invaded and conquered by the dominator warrior societies from the north and south (blade), and with it hierarchical relationships that led to slavery, private property and domination. Capitalism is a direct outgrowth of this dominator culture, which unconsciously infects to this day the sorts of hierarchical models we continue to use in the name of evolution. Wilber even has a term for it: dominator hierarchy. Unfortunately he doesn't seem aware how his own hierarchical model is unconsciously affected by this inherent cultural bias via capitalism and private property.

President Obama knows about trans-partisanship

Following up on the last two posts, if anyone has tried trans-partisanship it's President Obama. He tried and tried to work with the regressives, himself believing it possible. Thankfully he finally came to his senses in this speech, some of it following:

"You’ll hear if you watch the nightly news or you read the newspapers that, well, there’s gridlock, Congress is broken, approval ratings for Congress are terrible. And there’s a tendency to say, a plague on both your houses. But the truth of the matter is that the problem in Congress is very specific. We have a group of folks in the Republican Party who have taken over who are so ideologically rigid, who are so committed to an economic theory that says if folks at the top do very well then everybody else is somehow going to do well; who deny the science of climate change; who don’t think making investments in early childhood education makes sense; who have repeatedly blocked raising a minimum wage so if you work full-time in this country you’re not living in poverty; who scoff at the notion that we might have a problem with women not getting paid for doing the same work that men are doing.

False equivalencies

Continuing from the last post, here's more on the topic.

See this article from Ornstein and Mann. As Ornstein noted in the previous article, it's not partisan to state the facts. Or in kennilingus, it ain't mean green meme either, especially coming from Ornstein. The following excerpt makes clear what one is dealing with in the current regressive party. And there's much, much more evidence contained therein. There's no constructive or 'trans-partisan' way to work with that. To think otherwise is as I noted in the last post.