"Triumphant Plutocracy"

The title of this post comes from the title of a book published in 1921, by Richard Pettigrew.  He was a U.S. Senator from South Dakota. 

I find the title of his book disturbing because it suggests from the get-go that the triumph has already occurred - it's a done deal.  And it is also suggestive of the sad fact that where there are winners, there are also losers.

For those who haven't already Googled the term: plutocracy - 1. the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy.  2. a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.  3. a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.

There have been many articles recently pertaining to the Princeton/Northwestern study which concludes that America is an oligarchy (the rule by a few).  One article I read recently made the case that "plutocracy" is the more accurate term, and I agree.

These articles reminded me of Pettigrew's book, which has been sitting on my shelf waiting for me to pick it up and read it.  Actually, I did start reading it a few years ago before putting it down to focus on some other books.  Here are a few items I highlighted at the time which I think are very relevant for today.  Keep in mind that this was published in 1921, with observations on the preceding 50 years.

"The American people should know the truth about American public life.  They have been lied to so much and hoodwinked so often that it would seem only fair for them to have at least one straight-from-the-shoulder statement concerning this government 'of the people, by the people and for the people,' about whose inner workings the people know almost nothing.

"The common people of the United States, like the same class of people in every other country, mean well, but they are ill-informed.  Floundering about in their ignorance, they are tricked and robbed by those who have the inside information and who therefore know how to take advantage of every turn in the wheel of fortune."

"Again, bankers, lawyers, manufacturers and business men are going to save the country - not by keeping us out of war, but by getting ready for the next war.  It is these men who dominate the life and thought as well as the industries of these United States, and it is just such men that have been in control of the United States ever since I entered the Senate thirty years ago."

"I witnessed the momentous changes [as the United States became "probably the richest and most influential among the great nations"] and participated in them.  While they were occurring I saw something else that filled me with dread.  I saw the government of the United States enter into a struggle with the trusts, the railroads and the banks, and I watched while the business forces won the contest.  I saw the forms of republican government decay through disuse, and I saw them betrayed by the very men who were sworn to preserve and uphold them.  I saw the empire of business, with its innumerable ramifications, grow up around and above the structure of government.  I watched the power over public affairs shift from the weakened structure of republican political machinery to the vigorous new business empire.  Strong men who saw what was occurring no longer went into politics.  Instead, they entered the field of industry, and with them the seat of the government of the United States was shifted from Washington to Wall Street.  With this shift, there disappeared from active public life those principles of republican government that I had learned to believe were the means of safeguarding liberty.  After the authority over public affairs had been transferred to the men of business, I saw the machinery of business pass from the hands of individuals into the hands of corporations - artificial persons - created in the imagination of lawyers, and given efficacy by the sanction of the courts and of the law."


I could go on and on with quotes, but eventually I'd end up replicating the book right here.  The point is, America has been a plutocracy virtually from its inception, and the members of the Club became pretty brazen about it during the Gilded Age, and seem to be recapturing that brazen spirit in our time.  The question is always the same: what are we going to do about it?

What About Snowden?

Hero or traitor?  In the end, I hope history will record him as a hero.

Read the "Comments" section after a news article on Edward Snowden.  He tends to get a really bad rap, especially from those who identify themselves as veterans - not a lot of love coming to Snowden from that quarter.

But, I would urge my fellow veterans: before you condemn Snowden as a traitor, read the Constitution and do a little research that sheds some light on why we have a Bill of Rights.  Do you understand some of the things that had been happening in Europe that compelled the enumeration of those rights?  Do you understand the very real abuses that our founders were seeking to avoid in this new country?  The Bill of Rights is more than just a list of "good ideas."  It was included in our Constitution as a response, a reaction, to recent history.

As a veteran, what good is my oath to protect the Constitution if we don't have one to protect?  If our government has made it a habit to act outside the limits of the Constitution, and does so with impunity, then we don't really have one, do we?  Our Constitution exists to keep the government of a free nation in check.  If it takes someone like Snowden to expose the wrongdoings of the government, if it takes someone violating their oath of secrecy to help preserve (or restore) the integrity of our Constitution, then that's what it takes.

It isn't Snowden who should be in the hot seat - it's our government.

Surveillance State Does Not Belong In A "Free" Country

Here are some recent status updates from my facebook page.  I thought they should be seen here.  (And, yeah, I use hashtags sometimes in a non-Twitter setting.)

-Privacy matters. Yes, it matters. As a group of authors recently calling for a "Bill of Digital Rights" put it: a person under surveillance is not free. Think about that, and let the truth of it sink in.

-Your indifference to living in a surveillance state is proportional to your willingness to be manipulated by those who are watching you. #BraveNewWorld #1984 #ItCan'tHappenHere #WhyHaveStalkerLaws?

-Imagine a prison or jail without any surveillance of its population whatsoever. What would that mean for the prisoners? Given time and opportunity, their freedom. Get it? People who are under surveillance are not free. #SovietUnion #EasternBlocCountries #ItIsABigDeal

-If you support "stalker laws" but are indifferent to living in a surveillance state, you're missing something. #privacymatters #yourprivacymatters #IHaveNothingToHideIsNotThePoint

-If an individual doesn't have the right to stalk people, then how does a GROUP of people get the right to stalk everyone? Stalker laws are unconstitutional if what the NSA has been doing is not. #CannotHaveItBothWays #NoSurveillanceState

"I am scared for this country!" --A Polish immigrant

Some of you who have read this blog will remember that I am a piano tuner.  I recently did a tuning for a customer who came to this country in 1981 from Poland.  As I was packing up to leave, she said to me, among other things (and with a heavy accent):

"I love this country!  I love America!  But it is not the same country as when I arrived in 1981.  It starts to feel socialist.  It reminds me of where I came from.  In Poland, it was always the dream to come here to America - the dream!  

"But now, it is changing into what I left.  The surveillance.  I was talking to friend on phone the other day and thought I should be careful what I say.  It reminded me of growing up in Poland and my father always said, 'You can talk about politics in the house, but when you go outside, be careful of what you say or they will come after me and your mother.'"

When I mentioned Edward Snowden, and that some here think he's good and others think he's bad, she said unabashedly, "He is a hero!  We need whistle-blowers!"

She went on: "I am scared for this country!  I love this country and consider it my country.  But it is changing.  And Wall Street!  In this country if you steal a soda at the store you go to jail.  But if you steal from the whole country, nothing happens!  

"When I was growing up, everyone wanted to come to America.  It truly was a unique country in the whole world.  But now, I think of sending my daughter to Europe for college.  It's not the same.  And no one is getting mad!  It is changing, and not for the good."

Freedom Has No Ties To Racism And Fear

This is a blog in which the central theme is freedom.  True, the majority of posts deal with the taxation of earned income which, to me, is more a liberty issue than a government revenue issue.  But, considering that broader, central theme of freedom, have you ever wondered why this blog is not filled with links to, and articles from, so-called "freedom" websites?  Have you ever visited some of those websites?

Once in a while, I'll come across a link to an article from some "Libertarian" or "free-thinking" or "freedom" website, and I'll click to read the article.  Sometimes the article in and of itself is good and worthwhile (IMO), but then I start looking around at the rest of the site.  And what do I see?

I see an underlying racism.  I see fear.  I see extremism.  I see paranoia.  And I see a lot of commercial interests trying to make a buck off of that fear.

Truth to tell, none of those things have anything to do with freedom (ding!  ding!  ding!  ding!  ding!).  If one is really interested in freedom, one cannot be interested in holding to racist ideas.  Fear and paranoia have nothing to do with freedom.  And extremism binds one to a very narrow outlook on just about everything.  A narrow mind is not free.

Fear and paranoia should not be a substitute for vigilance.  Extremism should not replace reason.  Racism should not be mistaken for true brotherhood.

So, having read such-and-so article on said "freedom" website, I move on as if I'd never been there.

And that is why this blog has no links to other freedom loving websites, and no advertisements from manufacturers of backyard bomb shelters.

Have You Heard Of The Robin Hood Tax?

[from  http://www.robinhoodtax.org]

The big idea

Simply put, the big idea behind the Robin Hood Tax is to generate hundreds of billions of dollars. That money could provide funding for jobs to kickstart the economy and get America back on its feet. It could help save the social safety net here and around the world.  And it will come from fairer taxation of the financial sector.

This small tax of less than ½ of 1% on Wall Street transactions can generate hundreds of billions of dollars each year in the US alone.

Enough to protect American schools, housing, local governments and hospitals. Enough to pay for lifesaving AIDS medicines. Enough to support people and communities around the world – and deal with the climate challenges we're facing.

It won't affect ordinary Americans, their personal savings, or every day consumer activity, such as ATMs or debit cards. It's easy to enforce and tough to evade. 

This is a tax on Wall Street, which created the greatest economic crisis in our nation, and globally, since the Great Depression. The same people who have returned to record profits and bonuses while ordinary Americans, the 99%, continue to pay the price of their crisis.

So it's time for justice for ordinary families and businesses. For American families faced with a choice between buying food or paying the heating bill.

The Robin Hood Tax is just. The banks can afford it. The systems are in place to collect it. It won't affect ordinary members of the public, their bank accounts or their savings. It's fair, it's timely, and it's possible.

It's not a tax on the people, but a tax for the people.

California Defends Freedom

Jerry Brown Signs California Ban On Indefinite Detentions

The Huffington Post  |  By Shadee Ashtari Posted: 10/02/2013 6:05 pm EDT  |  Updated: 10/02/2013 9:00 pm EDT

Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed a statewide ban on indefinite detentions into law Tuesday, prohibiting compliance with provisions of federal law. 

After receiving overwhelming bipartisan support in the California State Assembly, Brown approved AB 351, in effect banning any state assistance with federal enforcement of "indefinite detention" of vaguely defined "enemy combatants," including American citizens, without due process, as outlined in the the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

Among other points of legal controversy, President Barack Obama’s signing of the NDAA has sparked particular legal backlash over its provisions on indefinite detention, contained in section 1021. AB 351 now prohibits any future “local entities from knowingly using state funds ... to engage in any activity that aids an agency of the Armed Forces of the United States in the detention of any person within California for purposes of implementing Sections 1021.”

A number of states have raised legal challenges against the NDAA, claiming that aspects of the law violate First Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights. According to PolicyMic, section 1021 has also been denounced internationally, with opposition from the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Cato Institute and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The ACLU also views the NDAA’s scope of indefinite detentions as “particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield."

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, state Rep. Tim Donnelly (R-San Bernardino), author of AB 351, said, “Indefinite detention, by its very definition, means we are throwing away the basic foundations of our Constitution.” Donnelly also claimed AB 351 "will prevent California from implementing indefinite detention for any reason.”

Although Alaska and Virginia have passed similar legislation, California’s AB 351 goes further in using the restriction of state funds to accomplish a broader prevention of indefinite detention. The state's successful passage of the more aggressive ban on assistance with federal indefinite detentions -- built on bipartisan support -- may indicate a better chance of success for other states launching legal battles against controversial NDAA measures.