Unbossed
and unbought news and information you can use
Vol.
13 No. 47…Dedicated to the Dialogue on Race…November 22, 2010
Democrats Afraid of
the Dark
By John Burl Smith
If one falls asleep during the
brilliance of daylight and awakens in pitch blackness, the sudden change can
startle and 
terrify.
Contrarily, if one is aware and cognizant of the gradual fading of illumination
no matter its source, even if one is not prepared for a caliginous existence,
it is not difficult to keep one's wits about them. Consequently, one's reaction
to the lack of luminosity depends on one's mind-set regarding darkness.
Fear of the dark is akin to fear
of the unexpected or unknown. Whether one's eyes are opened or closed if they are
aware, surprising events do not incapacitate. On the other hand, if one has
relied on the knowledge of others for direction or was inattentive while navigating
an unfamiliar course, even if one's eyes are open, similar to sleep walking,
they can be awaken suddenly and not know day from night. Under such fearful
circumstances, even the dim glow of a firefly can seem as bright as a torch.
This scenario is emblematic of those presently leading the Democratic Party.
Garnering a huge majority in 2008, their prospects rose like the morning star.
Their luminous rhetoric was like floodlights illuminating the nation's path to
the future. Lulled to sleep by the humdrum of their own voices, Democrats have
been abruptly awakened from their sleep walk by the fearful sucking sound of
the recent mid-term election. Unexpectedly pulled into what seems like a black
hole, haplessly Democrats groping in the dark can not find their back pockets
with both hands.
Following a sleep walker, who burned dollars to light the way down a bottomless
pit, the Blue Dog White House is terrified of darkness as the green backs flame
out. Stalwart leaders, who follow the administration's course using binoculars,
peer benightedly into pitch-blackness, as mere sparks seem like brilliant
torches. However, such sparks are the results of friction caused by weak knees
knocking in the White House at the thought of fighting Tea Party/Republicans to
defend Democratic Party principles.
Democrats have run away from
their principles for so long, they must gaze upon a tattered emblem to know
which way the wind is blowing. Currently, leadership among Democrats is a
beauty contest in which they compete to dress in garments Republicans have cast
off. Rummaging through the Republicans' trash bin, Democrats call their
scavenger hunt pragmatism. Having given up all principles that distinguish them
from Republicans, Democrats have taken refuge under the cover of
bi-partisanship to hide their lack of resolve. There is a maxim that describes
Democrats' lack of standards: "It does not matter who you dance with in
the dark, everyone looks the same."
The most difficult path to follow is a trail taken in the dark that one thought
they would never travel again but now find they must backtrack. Stranded in the
wasteland of bi-partisanship, Democrats are clueless about where they are.
Unlike Republicans, who fought Democrats on every issue following their 2008 drubbing,
Democrats can not wait to cave in to Tea Party/Republicans, even before the
lame duck Congress meets. Democrats need to follow the old maxim which says;
"When one is lost and confused, backtrack until you find something you
recognize."
Obviously, Democratic leaders have lost their way and need to go back to
fundamentals. First, what does it mean to be a Democrat? Does anyone remember?
Secondly, Democrats are so mesmerized by pragmatism and bi-partisanship, they
are indistinguishable from Republicans. Finally, if one votes for a Democrat
and still get a Republican, why vote for a Democrat?
Democrats have been here before and had to go back to basics. After breaking
the Republican grip on political power during the 1950s, Democrats finally recognized
that black voters were a key component of the Democrats' three legged stool --
blacks, labor and middle class whites. Unfortunately, in restructuring the
party, Democrats saw blacks as swing voters and not a vital part of party
machinery.
Democrats depended on discrimination, segregation and racism to drive black
voters away from Republicans and toward Democratic Party candidates. Although
Democrats were guilty of discrimination, they gave lip service to black issues.
However, Democrats never gave full party support to blacks and used the party's
machinery to impede their efforts to gain equality.
Always on the outside looking in, black issues then as now, were pushed to the
back of the bus to allow whites that were not Democratic Party supporters to
ride up front. Even after huge black voter turnouts gave Democrats big
majorities, Republicans that switched parties were given positions ahead of
blacks who had always supported Democrats. Now, Democrats must rebuild and as
before they must rely upon the loyalty of black voters to survive.
Previously, Democrats were petrified, facing a dark future, after huge loses.
The reality that black voters had become the majority of the Democratic Party's
base was even more terrifying to Democrats than a dark future out of power.
Each time Democrats arrive at this point -- the 1972 insurgency of
Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm and the re-nomination of Jimmy Carter 1980 --
Democrats grudgingly gave blacks more delegate seats but blocked them from
holding real power. President Bill Clinton's cave in to Republicans on welfare
reform following the 1994 mid-term debacle required another rescue by a huge
black voter turnout in 1996. But Democrats still took black voters for granted
and refused to reward their loyalty.
Today, with a President that seems more afraid of darkness in his
administration than previous Democrats, their prospects for digging out of the
deep dark hole they find themselves are bleak indeed. With Republicans playing
the musical theme from the mid-term election, they will dance cheek to cheek
with President Barack Obama at Tea Parties in the White House for the next year
and a half, while blacks are serenaded on the White House lawn with watermelon
the last few months before the election.
Ah, the Temptation
By Nicholas Gordon
Ah, the temptation
When one can print money
To print it and print it -
As much as one needs!
Ah, for one moment
The outlook is sunny:
Wealth is restored!
The project succeeds!
People are working,
Beginning to spend;
Credit is flowing,
The market is
pleased;
Banks once again
Have money to lend;
One has a sense
That the moment was
seized.
The problem is nothing
Can never be something:
Money just printed
Was not bought or sold.
There was no exchange
Of one thing for one thing:
Something produced,
Like laughter or
gold.
And so we've increased
Our money without
Increasing the value
Of what it can buy.
The outcome must be
Without any doubt,
According to laws
Of demand and supply.
When there is more money
In relation to things,
Prices will rise
In response to
demand.
Since just-printed wealth
No exchange for goods brings,
The goods stay the same
As the dollars
expand.
Prices rise quickly,
Leaving us nothing
More than we had
When we first began.
And so we learn nothing
Can never be something
The hard way -- again -
As we sink in the
sand.
The
By David Glenn Cox
We talk and talk and discuss the
pros and cons and the rights and wrongs until our tongues grow weary and our 
heads
begin to ache. That is fine, that is how it's supposed to be. Or is it?
I was taught as a child to never
start fights and never get involved in a fight that didn't involve me, but to
never, ever back down from a bully. Backing down from a bully will only bring
you more fights in the long run, not fewer of them. A bully who sees a soft
mark will always push for more and more. A bully confronted will either back
down or fight, but in most cases will move on looking for another easy
pushover.
In March of 1932, the hungry and
the unemployed in the
The marchers made their way to
The marchers responded by
throwing frozen mud and stones back at the police. The 
the
crowds in sub-freezing temperatures. When that failed the police and Ford's
private security thugs opened fire on the crowd with live ammunition killing
four and wounding several dozen. Calls for food and work had been answered with
ice water, tear gas and bullets.
There has never been a question
as to who were the aggressors in the
My grandfather was a union
organizer in
In a fair system the bullyboy
should have been charged with assault; instead my grandfather was charged with
a crime. The power was behind the company. The union paid my grandfather's bail
and he was back on the line the next day. Again the bullyboys came and again my
grandfather was arrested and hauled before the same judge. The judge asked,
"If I release you on bail will you promise no more trouble today?"
He answered, "Today?
Sure!" As he was released he turned to the judge and said, "See you
tomorrow."
My grandfather was a large man at six foot four and stocky and easy to
identify, so when the bullyboys came the third time they focused on him. As he
resisted their assault a policeman's billy club came down across his forehead
opening a three-inch gash. In the melee some of the men on the line put him in
a car fearing what might happen if he was arrested again. They took him home,
bleeding and unconscious, and a neighbor lady sewed up his forehead with a
needle and thread.
Towards evening as he lay on the
couch my father called out from the porch, "Some cops are coming." My
grandfather met them at the door with a baseball bat in his hand. The officers
explained, "The plant owner wants to talk with you but was afraid that you
would kill him if he came by himself." My grandfather answered only,
"He's a smart man."
The next day the plant owner arrived. The deal was simple, if my grandfather
would get the men to call off the strike the boss would make him the plant
foreman with a large raise and answering only to him. My grandfather told him,
"Get the hell off the porch."
Within another week the bosses gave in and the strike was over and was settled
in favor of the workers. At no time did the bosses bargain in good faith. They
tried intimidation and then force and then coercion, and only when all of those
tactics had failed were they willing to bargain fairly. It is a sad commentary
on our society but it was force and not negotiation that ended the strike.
Power only backs up when forced to back up; they don't admire courage, and they
don't care about the environment or saving the whales.
It was force and fear that the
status quo would be smashed that brought about change. At the same time across
the ocean in
The Social Democrats and the
Catholic party made complaints to the police but the police could only offer a
few men to defend their rallies. The Nazis came to power because the power to
oppose them was weak and disunited. Once in power they began to make
territorial demands and because the powers in
So, let's not fight with them;
let's let them keep the media spotlight and tell their side but not yours.
"You do not become a
'dissident' just because you decide one day to take up this most unusual
career. You are thrown into it by your personal sense of responsibility,
combined with a complex set of external circumstances. You are cast out of the
existing structures and placed in a position of conflict with them. It begins
as an attempt to do your work well, and ends with being branded an enemy of
society." Vaclav Havel
About Me: A Powder Springs,
Bernanke's QE 2 Wager
By
Ben Bernanke has made a very
dangerous bet. The Fed's Quantitative Easing 2 announcement of $600 billion in 
additional
Treasury purchases is literally a "bet the farm" move. True, the Fed
had already engaged in an unbelievable amount of bailouts both known and
unknown. However, the Fed's previous moves were all made when (1) the world
financial system was teetering on the brink of collapse and (2) other countries
were engaging in similar practices.
In contrast, the Fed's new QE 2
announcement comes at a time when the consensus is that the US economy is
recovering (I don't buy it, but most analysts/ commentators do) and other
central banks have publicly declared they won't be engaging in additional
easing (the ECB and UK) or are outright tightening credit and raising interest
rates (China and Australia).
So this time, the Fed is going at
it alone. Indeed, the only other major economy that is determined to engage in
more intervention is
Consequently, even the country
engaging in more QE is NOT a fan of Bernanke's QE 2 plan. However, this is just
ONE of the myriad of problems QE 2 faces. The three biggest problems with QE 2
are: (1) The potential for a US Dollar break-down, (2) Treasuries falling and
pushing interest rates UP and (3)
Of these, #3 is the most
worrisome for global financial markets. Let's be clear here,
Moreover,
Rare earths are used in a
multitude of electronics (hybrid cars, LCD screens, magnets, batteries, TVs,
etc).
Consider this sequence of events.
(1) A Chinese boat crashes into a Japanese coast guard ship. (2)
The message here is clear.
These are some of the trump cards China currently holds: (1) Rare earths production,
(2) US Treasuries ownership (a decision by the #1 holder to dump would start a
global rush from the US Dollar), (3) Derivatives: China could simply tell its
banks and firms to renege on all derivatives deals, not just the commodity ones
(commodity derivatives only comprise 2% of global derivatives, interest
rate-based derivatives, in contrast, comprise 80% or so of the $600 TRILLION
derivative market and (4) Interest rates hikes.
In plain terms,
Which is why Bernanke's decision to blame
How
Joseph Stiglitz:
By Monika Mitchell
A Call to Action...We did not fix
the banking system,
The Feds pulled the big banks
back from the brink of oblivion, but left everyone else up a creek without a
paddle. You know the fortunate few-- Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells
Fargo, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Capital One, and American
Express among others.
To remind you of the facts, these
banks were rescued through three lifelines: capital, credit and relief from
debt. In their emergency hours, they were liquidated with $700 billion in capital.
Toxic debts were allowed to be moved "off" books; the government
bought billions of dollars worth of toxic securities and let other debt remain
dormant on balance sheets for years to come. Thirdly, these banks have had
access to Fed funds at near zero percent for the past two years while lending
to consumers at rates of 18-29%.
So what happened to the rest of
the banking system? They are struggling like so many of us to stay afloat. As
they tread water, sea level for mid-range and regional banks is rising.
Stiglitz says 800 smaller
Time to fire the whole crew at
the Fed, Treasury, and National Economic Council! (Larry Summers--thank you for
saving us the trouble.) According to Joseph Stiglitz, the Feds did not finish
the job.
Big bailout banks are swimming in
cash--cash that was supposed to fuel the rest of the economy. Instead these
bloated money suckers use taxpayer reserves for foreign investment and
speculation that bypasses everyone in the
Yet where does this pooling of
cash at the top leave small and medium-sized business? SMEs, supposedly the
nation's primary job creators, have been stripped of access to capital and
credit, and are overburdened with debt.
SMEs are dependent on bank loans for liquidity. Big banks are not lending to
small and medium sized businesses, because they don't need to. They make more
money with less hassle and less regulation on foreign shores and use U.S.
Federal Reserve cash to do so. Smaller banks are unable to take the risk.
Depressed real estate markets limit the source of traditional collateral SMEs
use to support loans. The result?
According to Stiglitz, one of the world's most respected economists, this
scenario has created two economies--one for big banks and corporations where
money is circulating and the other for small and medium sized business where
access to cash has been cut off.
My question is simply this: If SMEs make up 70% of the business economy in the
Stiglitz says yes, this is possible. One of six people can't find full-time
work in the U.S. Long term unemployment hovers between 9-10% and continues to
weigh heavily on the economy. The professor believes that the federal
government will have to jump in and lend directly to small and medium business
to stimulate job growth and provide all-important credit CPR.
President Obama, Congress, state
and city governments, large and small banks, bickering politicians"
another economic catastrophe is growing--a credit crisis for every part of the
economy that is cut off by the business air supply of credit and capital. This
means 70% of the
So what can you do to make a
difference? I invite small and medium sized businesses, professionals,
entrepreneurs and anyone else to tell us your story. How are you doing in this
economy? Make a short 30-60 seconds video and we will post it. Send us your
comments and challenges on the current economic conditions and we will publish
it. Perhaps together we can make a difference and have our voices heard. For
the complete article, visit www.opednews.com/articles/Joseph-Stiglitz-America-H-by-Monika-Mitchell-101008-961.html.
Log on to www.good-b.com, a web-based Think Tank
dedicated to building better business for a better world, to learn how to post
your video.
On Older Workers!
By Dot
Treachery and exploitation are
afoot in the
Remember the legalese espoused by
John Roberts and Samuel Alito following their nominations by George W. Bush to
the Supreme Court? In Senate confirmation hearings, they made a big deal of
respecting precedents established by prior judicial decisions and foreswearing
against judicial activism. However, once confirmed, all bets were swept from
the table, as in the case of Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.
In 2004, Jack Gross sued FBL
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and won in the
lower court. On appeal, the Eight Circuit reversed and ordered a new trial,
holding the jury had been improperly instructed to place the burden of
persuasion on the company, since Gross presented no direct evidence of age
discrimination.
The Supreme Court heard the case
and ruled in favor of FBL. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas
was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony
Kennedy, and Samuel Alito. Basically, the Court threw out past ADEA precedence
and did a bit of "unnecessary lawmaking" in ruling the plaintiff must
prove by a "preponderance of the evidence" that age was the cause of
the defendant's action, according to Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the
minority opinion.
From personal experience, I know
age is a big deal when it comes to retaining a job, getting promoted, hired and
fired. For those over 50, age can be viewed like built-in obsolescence, a term
generally applied to appliances, cars and electronic gadgets. Manufacturers
want to keep consumers buying new models or more of the same old products, so
they build them to last only so long. I never considered the term in reference
to humans. But, apparently, it applies to older workers.
I recently attended a resume
writing workshop offered by the Georgia Department of Labor for a few
unemployment compensation recipients. The letter I received left no doubt that
unemployment benefits would be terminated for failure to attend a series of classes.
The first of which was resume writing.
I promptly showed up to watch a
short firm on the pros and cons of various types of resumes. As I attentively
listened, occasionally jotting down a note, it occurred to me that I was
wasting my time attending this class. I am over fifty (50); I am college
educated, but my degree is more than ten (10) years old. And, to make me less
marketable in today's economic climate, I have experience in the private and
public sectors, so I should command more than an entry level salary.
Sounds crazy? Well, I thought so too, at first. Then, the moderators provided a
fairly lengthy segment on disguising the age of education and experience in
one's resume to make older Americans appear more attractive to prospective
employers. You see, this is an employers' market. Employers are exploiters that
do not really want to fully compensate employees for experience or education.
Besides, when workers become desperate and have exhausted their unemployment
benefits, even the most experienced and well-educated will accept ten dollars
an hour jobs to put food on the table and maintain a roof over their heads.
Such is the thinking of Republicans and Blue Dogs that refuse to extend
unemployment compensation benefits, even though there are more workers actively
seeking employment than job vacancy announcements.
Added to an unsavory mix of
treachery and exploitation in the
Disgruntled wants to know: Shortly
after his selection, George W. Bush proposed and Congress passed a $1 trillion
tax cut package touted to stimulate investments in capital and equipment, which
along with increased consumption, would lead to job creation. While it was
running budget surpluses at the time, the
Disgruntled
feels: Inflationary! I recently read a number of articles on the
Disgruntled
says: Robert Brent Toplin, Professor of History at the University of
North Carolina, is the author of a dozen books including Radical Conservatism:
The Right's Political Religion (2006). He recently penned an essay titled
"Blame Ronald Reagan for Our Current Economic Crisis." According to
Professor Toplin, "Ronald Reagan rarely catches any blame these days for
the present economic mess that is destabilizing markets in the