<p>Huey Long's FDR-prodding left populist movement -- <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.hueylong.com/programs/share-our-wealth.php"><strong>Share Our Wealth</strong></a> (a.k.a. Share the Wealth) -- seemed and still seems, from the perspective of the bottom 3/4ths, common sense, morally right, and doable <strong>now</strong> (more than ever!). Read below for the details, but here is how Long began a speech in <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.sagehistory.net/deprnewdeal/documents/HLongSOW.htm">January, 1935</a></p>
<p>:</p>
<blockquote>We are in our third year of the Roosevelt depression, with the conditions growing worse. . . .  . . . We must know the truth and speak the truth. There is no use to wait three more years. It is not Roosevelt or ruin; it is Roosevelt's ruin.  . . . We ran Mr. Roosevelt for the presidency of the United States because he promised to us by word of mouth and in writing:      <strong>*</strong> That the size of the big man's fortune would be reduced so as to give the masses at the bottom enough to wipe out all poverty; and     <strong>*</strong> That the hours of labor would be so reduced that all would share in the work to be done and in consuming the abundance mankind produced.  Hundreds of words were used by Mr. Roosevelt to make these promises to the people, but they were made over and over again. . . . Summed up, what these promises meant was: "Share our wealth."  When I saw him spending all his time of ease and recreation with the business partners of Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., with such men as the Astors, etc., maybe I ought to have had better sense than to have believed he would ever break down their big fortunes to give enough to the masses to end poverty-maybe some will think me weak for ever believing it all, but millions of other people were fooled the same as myself. I was like a drowning man grabbing at a straw, I guess. The face and eyes, the hungry forms of mothers and children, the aching hearts of students denied education were before our eyes, and when Roosevelt promised, we jumped for that ray of hope.  So therefore I call upon the men and women of America to immediately join in our work and movement to share our wealth.</blockquote>
<p>We are beginning the second year of the Obama recession. Is there any sign of resistance akin to Long's? Populist rebellion against the actual roots of our economic and political crisis: the vast wealth transfer over the last 30 years to the richest 10% and 1%, and the takeover of our media/political system by that 10% and 1% and big business? If a really popular populist resistance were to arise, it might come from the back roads of Louisiana and have a program something like <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.sagehistory.net/deprnewdeal/documents/HLongSOW.htm">this</a>:</p>

There's more...

America needs it, and I appreciate very much <strong><a href="http://www.correntewire.com/shooting_handcuffed_children">David Swanson</a></strong>'s righteous moral anger against our obscene war on Afghanistan:

<blockquote>The occupied government of Afghanistan and the United Nations have both concluded that U.S.-led troops recently dragged eight sleeping children out of their beds, handcuffed some of them, and shot them all dead.</blockquote>

(Swanson provides all the mainstream media news sources to back up the above.)

<blockquote>No one so much as blinks at the CIA's avowal of vengeance for the recent suicide attack, never mind the illegality, because the entire illegal war on Afghanistan/Pakistan was launched and is still maintained as a pretended act of revenge for the crimes of 9-11. Of course, we're not bombing the flight schools or the German and Spanish hotels. Of course , we admit that there are fewer than 100 members of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Of course we openly seek massive permanent bases and an oil pipeline. . . . Of course, revenge would not be a legal justification for war even if we could persuade ourselves it was a sane one. But the war is publicly understood as revenge, the resistance by its victims is understood as revenge, the escalation is understood as revenge for the resistance, and an eye for an eye slowly makes the whole world blind.</blockquote>

This is what an antiwar movement should sound like. Moral outrage, but not just at the bosses or Congress or Obama, at <i>everyone</i> carrying out the war (emphasis added):

<blockquote>I know many soldiers and mercenaries had few other options, given our failure to invest in any other industries. I know they've been lied to. I know they're scared and tired. But they wouldn't be there if we brought them home. And I support a full investment in their physical and mental and economic recovery. <strong>What I don't support is anyone participating in these wars</strong>, and that includes every single American who is not putting every spare moment into demanding that Congress stop forking over the money.</blockquote>

There's more...

Michelle Rodriquez as Trudy Chacon in 'Avatar'

It definitely seems morally right to side with the colonized against the colonizer and preemptive invader, the U.S. and the Western invaders now so nakedly aggressively imperialist toward the third world. NGOs' feeble cover stories notwithstanding, poor people and poor countries are there for the rich and powerful to exploit, otherwise they are ignored.

But much much better never to join the military as it is now, and I think 'Avatar' can be an impactful as hell anti-recruitment propaganda video for U.S. high school kids. You really don't want to join the corporate mercenary imperial shock troops burning down and blowing up native villages and all inside. Those are the bad guys, the assholes, the macho airheads, not the heroes.

But, the above interpretation of U.S. military conduct in the world, though the obvious one, requires wide social support, by you and me, especially all over the progressive blogs and whineytopia. We must counter the huge corporate media lie, the 'our troops are heroes' bullshit. Make it so my army of progressive and left bloggers!! Talk up Avatar's anti-colonial, pro-resistance, anti-U.S.-military-recruitment meaning everywhere your blogging selves reach.

24 Percent, in Avatar And Anti-Colonial Resistance, explains Michelle/Trudy joining the resistance, turning her guns on her former mercenary mates:

The Na'vi . . . win for real, sending the colonizers - represented by the corporate-military alliance of Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) and the K.I.A. Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) back to Earth at the barrels of guns or in pieces. But it isn't just theNa'vi sending the invaders away, the scientific team (Skully, Dr. Augustine, avatar guide and science dork Norm Spellman (Joel Moore), their military pilot Trudy Chacon (Michelle Rodriguez) and Dr. Max Patel (Dileep Rao)) joins the Na'vi very quickly. There is no discussion of non-violent resistance or any real attempt to negotiate, the intellectuals - including all the women and people of color among the humans - show no hesitation in siding with the the colonized against the colonizer and shooting humans. By the end of the film we have a clear division between the white male capitalist imperialists fighting ruthlessly for profit and everyone else siding with the indigenous Na'vi fighting to save their homeland. The best line in the movie is when Quaritch says to Skully in the heat of battle, "How does it feel to be a traitor to your race?" The film's answer is: Great! In this way, Trudy is perhaps the most interesting character. She's a member of the military, but through her contact with the scientists gains empathy for the Na'vi. She refuses to fire missiles at the natives' home, this is according to the traditional script. But what isn't is when she rapidly turns her guns on her fellow soldiers. There's no discussion of how she knows the men on the other side and has served with them, nothing about their wives and kids. She dies in combat, and there was never a question of an ethical third-way.

There's more...

It was really pretty common predicting and pre-emptive lamenting, in fact me and d'tale had a whole poop-on-the-vote sewagey underground thing going till he revealed his loyalist moderate turncoat. Anyway, as a tribute to DavidByron's I knew Obama was going to do all this 18 months ago. Am I Cassandra?, here's my old thing from 2007, but with the lamentably defunct politicalfleshfeast links removed and probly some bold added:

65% of Democrats Back Hillary/Obama? R They Crazy?

by fairleft
Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 04:28:36 PM EST

Why are Hillary and Obama the Democratic voters' leading presidential candidates -- 65% of likely primary voters choose them --when they're so obviously bipartisan police-state corporate-whore imperialist Republicans?

My sane way of choosing a candidate or deciding to say fuk `em all is to look at their positions on the major issues of the day. I don't ask much anymore, just "Hey, if she/he would do the right thing on even ONE of the big issues, maybe I could see myself giving her/him my vote." So here are my six major issues and best guesses on what Obama/Hillary's real positions are (I know Hillary & Obama don't actually say the following, but their money has the following `bipartisan' & `responsible' positions, and neither has taken a strong and (especially) clear enough position contrariwise to make me think they will disobey their money):

[I realize the Iran prediction so far is wrong, but we've still got three years on that.]

I could go on (for example, under either Obama or Hillary the Pentagon would get its regular budget boosts, the rest of the budget would be subject to `responsible' drastic budget cuts, and the Bush police state measures would continue on), but you get the idea.

So, Obama and Hillary (pre-1980s thinking alert) simply are not Democrats the way I used to understand what that word meant. . . .

There's more...

The Senate Banking Committee vote approving Bernanke was 16-7, with only Senator Merkley joining the 6 Republicans in voting 'No'. Merkley's vote was both the right one on the facts and strategically smart, but Repubs are now way out ahead of Dems on the faux populist anger front, which will be a very important factor in the mid-term elections.

In a voice vote four years ago, only Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, expressed opposition to Mr. Bernanke's first nomination. This time, five other Republican committee members joined him, while four approved the nomination.

Only one Democrat, Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, opposed the nomination. He said that while Mr. Bernanke had proved "adroit with the fire hose," he also bore some responsibility for having allowed the economic blaze to erupt.

No "no" vote by Sherrod Brown, so he has disqualified himself imho as a possible authentic future progressive Presidential candidate. At present count, btw, there'll be a few more Dem anti-Bernanke votes on the Senate floor.

2010 strategy-wise, the Dems being identified with Bernanke and 'Wall Street Democratic' economic policy is disastrous. Don't believe me then listen to Arianna Huffington, or Massachusetts Rep. Michael Capuano:

There's more...

Unbelievable. Et tu Sherrod Brown? Why would any reality-based person reconfirm such a catastrophically terrible economic manager? I mean, look at that unemployment rate, the flatulent economy, or just read about his and other conventional thinkers' gigantic MISS on the real estate bubble. The whole corrupt financial sector takeover of the political system is responsible for our deep recession, of course, but why shouldn't Bernanke take a fall for his ostrichy lack of foresight? Why shouldn't somebody take a fall for the catastrophically bad economic forecasting, the record-breaking giveaway to incompetent financial institutions? And then there is pwoggieland's utter silence (except for David Sirota and, I guess, Jane Hamsher) and worse (see Dean Baker below on 'liberal' NPR 'reporters' openly ridiculing Senator Jim Bunning, a Republican Senator willing to criticize Bernanke, giving him an F- on his management of and responsibility for the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression). This is why common sense people say there is no left in the U.S., and why we so desperately need one. Here's Merkley:

Tomorrow, I will vote against confirming Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The reason, in short, is that as Chairman, Dr. Bernanke failed to recognize or remedy the factors that paved the road to this dark and difficult recession. Following our economic collapse, it is also apparent that he has not changed his overall approach to prioritizing Wall Street over American families. . . .

Our nation is just beginning to emerge from the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, and there is no guarantee we will continue on the road to recovery over the long or short terms. Unemployment remains far too high, credit is unavailable to too many businesses, and families are plagued by falling home prices and high foreclosure rates. Even as we move forward with our efforts to get our economy back on track, it is critical we carefully examine what led us to this point.

For too many years, federal regulators turned a blind eye to signs of an impending financial crisis. Tricks and traps proliferated in the credit card and consumer lending industries. Predatory mortgage loans exploded, fueling an unsustainable housing bubble. Regulators lifted rules requiring banks to keep adequate capital, and a laissez-faire approach to securitization, derivatives, and proprietary trading encouraged excessive risk-taking on Wall Street. As a member of the Board of Governors, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, and then ultimately as Chairman of the Board of Governors, Dr. Bernanke supported each of these decisions, failing to take the necessary precautionary steps that could have averted or mitigated financial collapse.

There's more...

The World Socialist Website is in the best Marxist tradition of accurate reporting combined with clear-headedness regarding the historical and economic underpinnings of seemingly fleeting current events. An excellent but flawed example is a recent piece - The Nation and the Obama Doctrine - attacking The Nation magazine, which long ago was a proud little rag ranting against imperialist war and for social democracy. Now it is just another self-important capitulation to `whatever Obama sez', even when he says preemptive war and threatens half a dozen nations with it, as he did last week in Oslo (see ** below). WSWS's Joseph Kishore writes:

There should be no confusion as to the position of the Nation and the privileged upper-middle-class layers for which the magazine speaks, including former radicals and one-time critics of US imperialism. They have moved squarely into the camp of American imperialism. They support Obama's wars in Central Asia and Iraq and, more generally, the efforts of the United States to assert global hegemony.

In the run-up to the 2008 elections, the Nation was among the most enthusiastic supporters of the Obama campaign, presenting his victory as the first stage in a radical reform and revitalization of American democracy. It vouched for Obama's supposedly antiwar credentials.

One year later, the candidate of "change" and "hope" presides over a right-wing administration that is expanding US military aggression while it bails out Wall Street and attacks the jobs and living standards of the working class.

This bowing down to inside-the-Beltway groupthink and the interests of the Democratic Party leadership has been a phenomenon for a couple decades at The Nation and so me and many other leftists haven't bought it or read it religiously in years. But, it's good to see WSWS keeps track of how bad things have gotten (so I don't have to look), in part because The Nation used to matter (and when historical insight calls WSWS is there), it used to represent the "Henry Wallace to George McGovern" (imperfectly) anti-imperialist and otherwise `pinko' side of the Democratic Party.

But that was your parents' Nation; today's version needs to be attacked. Kishore writes:

The "purring" [over Obama] of the Nation comes at a time of growing popular opposition to the Obama administration and its policies. In his speech, Obama himself made reference to the fact that his expansion of war is deeply unpopular, noting the "disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the population." He made clear, however, that this "disconnect" will have absolutely no effect on the policy of his government.

So now, because Obama sez to, The Nation backs mass death imperialism overseas and Wall Street and other major corporate contributors' pillage at home. And yet, there is no replacement for The Nation. This despite most Americans' (and the vast majority of Democrats') opposition to U.S. bullying and killing abroad and support for basically progressive social and economic policies. (Yes, there is Counterpunch, but it is and wants to be an outsider publication not representing any sort of wing of the Democrats. Huffington Post is so large and disorderly that it doesn't have a front or editorial page you can point to as `what its position is'.)

Okay, but back to WSWS; I wanna say why the site partly sucks. Here’s why: at the end of nearly every WSWS article – and Kishore’s is no exception - there are several sentences of nonsensical "What Is To Be Done" rah rah crap. A sacrificial cyber-offering to their God Trotsky, I suppose, but I have no inside insight into the why of this end-of-article rite. And I don't mean the following, which follows directly from Marxism and Trotskyism and can't be said often enough:

There's more...

On domestic policy, progressively speaking, last week wasn't so terrible for Obama, looking at the latest Senate health care bill and the new House financial industry reform bill. But the pwoggie bloggie coverage of him was pretty damn negative. (Perhaps understandable in the backwash of his War is Peace Prize and rapid escalation in Afghanistan, but I'm focusing on domestic policy.)

Medicare 55-64:

I'm a bit behind the pwoggie politicos, who all seem very upset (Jason Rosenbaum, Jane Hamsher, the AFL-CIO) about the Senate ditching the pathetically feeble public option but offering in its place Medicare for uninsured people ages 55 and 64. Sucks if you're 54 and under, but we'll all be 55 someday, right?? So, good on all of us? And it being for uninsured folks only: hey, without cost controls on insurance plans in Obama's insurance deform, employers will be foisting crap insurance on us or ditching it altogether over over the next lost decade. And employees will start demanding their companies NOT provide health care as a benefit if Medicare at decent rates becomes available.

(Okay, yeah, right, this morning the White Houseis telling Harry Reid that Medicare 55-64 is a bad idea. Alright, now that, if true, is worth getting upset at Obama over.)

Of course, the 55-64ers will have to pay for their Medicare (but why can't we force their employers, if they have them, to kick in their fair share?), it won't be a welfare program for them like it mostly still is for 65 and uppers. But there's a real need here that the legislation would fill:

Currently, there are about four million people in that age group who are uninsured, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. They often have a hard time finding or affording coverage.

And just look who's opposed to the idea: Joe Liberman, the hospitals, the doctors, and the Wall Street Journal. What a fine bunch of assholes to piss off.

There's more...

Eva Golinger: Did people in your class [at Evergreen University] know you were in the military? What did they say to you?

Josh Simpson: Yes, but people knew I was opposed to the war.

Benji Lewis: The "support the troops" campaign has altered everyone's perception.

Simpson: I'm actually opposed to that campaign. People should have been more confrontational with the troops.

Golinger: Like in Vietnam.

Lewis: The "support the troops" campaign was engineered to allow for indirect acceptance of the war.

Simpson: People are scared to criticize the troops, it's considered the most blasphemous thing in the world. At the same time, if you are never criticized then you will never know that what you are doing is wrong.

Lewis: You can't criticize the troops. It's a poverty draft, these kids just do it because they have no other way out of poverty.

Simpson: But you have to criticize them, because they will say they are just following orders, but that's bullshit, the Nazis were just following orders too. The military is fascist, it's basically blind, unquestioning obedience. Then they try to tell you that the blind obedience is some form of courage and bravery. It's much easier to go with the current than against it. While I was at Evergreen [University] I was learning something different than what I was told in the military. I got to the point where morally I couldn't just be opposed to the war, I also couldn't even participate in the military or train other soldiers to go kill people in a racist war.

The above (emphasis added) is an excerpt from Venezuelan-American lawyer and journalist Eva Golinger's September interview (which I've just unearthed) of two Iraq war veterans (see PROFILES below for short bios of all three), which provides further insight into how U.S. troops conduct themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan. All of us who pay for these wars must confront this knowledge, especially those Americans and others who support or do not sufficiently oppose President Obama's Iraq and Afghanistan wars. . . .

There's more...

Support the Non-Troops

Coulda been one of the heroes honored at half-time.

Another guy gets his p.m. coffee.

Coulda been one of the heroes Jay Leno jokes around with.

Beep says fries're ready.

Why did I feel torn up and shitty about signing up?

Did I really feel those wars're fucked up, criminally wrong?

I never hear anybody say that.

Want fries with that?

They did cause 9/11.

The whole country loves the troops or at least feels damn sorry for them.

Fuck this apron.

Yeah some bullshit Afghans or Arabs're gonna hate me, so what?

There's more...