Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8357NEWS -- 2013.09.21.Saturday -- Autumal Equinox

Expand Messages
  • James Martin
    Sep 21, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Saturday 21 September 2013
      Sat 21/09/2013
      ---
      When does fall begin? This year, the equinox brings autumn on September 22, 2013 at 4:44 P.M EDT.
       
      So this year it on the 22nd.  Usually the exact moment occurs on the 21th. 
      The four seasons --
      21 September Fall
      21 December Winter
      21 March Spring
      21 June Summer
       
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       
      NEWS
      1) two years ago today a black man executed in Georgia
      2) Meanwhile at the Pentagon, Fundamentalist Christians Protest a Non-Existent War
      3) from the FRC -- Heir Force: Senate Takes a First Look at USAF Successor
      4) Writing Professor Under Fire For Attack Against Republicans: On the "Free Exchange Of Ideas"
      5) House GOP Didn't Get Pope’s Memo On Poor Before Slashing Food Stamps
      6) Debating Capitalism - Redefining Outdated Terms
      7) Angry, Disgusted, Frustrated
       
       
       
      1)
      two years ago today
      a black man executed in Georgia --- 
       

      Georgia proceeds with Troy Davis execution

      By Melanie Eversley and Larry Copeland, USA TODAY

      Updated 9/22/2011 12:52 PM
       
      --- click on URL to read ---
       
      --------------------
       
      see also
       
       
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       
       
      2)
      Posted by Mikey Weinstein at 1:27 pm
      September 18, 2013

      Meanwhile at the Pentagon, Fundamentalist Christians Protest a Non-Existent War

      “No matter how big the lie; repeat it often enough and the masses will regard it as the truth.”  – Winston Churchill

      Last week, a coterie of proud, prejudiced, Christian fundamentalists met with officials of the Department of Defense, specifically the U.S. Air Force, at the Pentagon.

      The undignified and truly ignoble goal of this meeting? The sowing of confusion within the ranks of our military leadership and the subversion of the United States Constitution.

      This gang of lying zealots came to huff and puff over a “war on Christians” supposedly taking place within the U.S. military. SPOILER ALERT: absolutely NO such war exists, period!

      Cheered on by the conjured voices protesting this phony “war,” this gang of fundamentalist Christian religious predators came loaded for bear with two petitions carrying a total of 220,000 signatures. The true purpose of these inveterate religious extremists was to lobby the top brass to officially give free rein to the Christian fundamentalist vultures within our United States armed forces to coercively preach and proselytize to their otherwise helpless subordinates within the American military.

      Oh, and did I mention that they also want to offset the historic gains of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) by granting homophobes the full right – enshrined and protected by law – to bully and dehumanize these very same defenseless subordinates or fellow servicemembers for their gender identity and/or sexual orientation?

      Section 529 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2014 will do precisely that. Oh, but don’t take my word for it. According to Bishop James Magness, Bishop Suffragan of the Federal Ministries of the Episcopal Church in Washington D.C.:

      “…this proposal will in effect trounce the actual religious liberties of those who rightly should have access to freedom from an established religion in the public square. Those military members present at a military ceremony are often required by duty to be present and therefore may not have the ability to get up and leave. These military members will have to listen to the chaplains offend them — and they will have no recourse.”

      The real kicker, my friends, is that this campaign of fundamentalist Christian extremism, fueled by hatred and fear, is being carried out under the flagrantly false flag of “religious liberty.”

      What these fraudulent whiners are bellowing about is the loss of their prior existing fundamentalist Christian privilege in the face of withering Constitutional civil rights activism that has demanded the end of these hideous and illicit offenses within the ranks of our military. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), the organization of which I’m Founder and President, has spearheaded this campaign, hence the sour grapes. It is precisely this that led Decision magazine, a publication of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, to decry me in their July/August 2013 cover story as not only “perhaps the nation’s most fervent anti-witnessing activist,” but no, get this: they also ran a full sidebar feature on me entitled “ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS MEN IN AMERICA”. This was all featured under the dramatic heading, “THE WAR ON GOD’S WORD.”

      In a brazenly bizarre and transparent homage to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, the vanguard of this push to legalize fundamentalist Christian proselytizing predation and tyranny have assembled under the perverse umbrella of the “Restore Military Religious Freedom Coalition” (RMRF). Indeed, most of the so-called “offenses” against their inverted and distorted conception of “religious freedom” consist of those all-too-frequent episodes whereby we’ve managed to successfully beat back their cowardly attempts to destroy and dangerously delimit our actual liberties (not to be confused with “license to kill”-style “liberties” tailor-made for “Modern-day Torquemadas”).

      Helming this delegation of so-called “Christian leaders” was Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin (ret.), Executive Vice President of the Family Research Council (FRC). Mister “No Mosques in America” Boykin exemplifies precisely the type of “religious liberty” RMRF stands for. After all, this is a quintessential and unapologetic racist, a man who’s been virtually canonized by his vast fundamentalist/dominionist constituency for his blood-soaked incitements to “holy war” against all Muslims everywhere, the likes of which haven’t been witnessed since the equally blood-drenched medieval Crusades. Dark Ages thy pathetic avatar be Boykin the Bigot.

      Tailing Lt. Gen. Boykin was another renowned bigot, Col. Ron Crews (ret.), the head of Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty (CARL). Crews is an overgrown poster-child of the “homophobia industry “and a “prize Chicken Little” from among the retired chaplaincy. Following the landmark repeals of DADT and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Henny Penny Crews raised a deafening din of “the Sky is falling” squawking to the effect that there would be a vast exodus of servicemembers from the various branches as a result of the Obama administration turning the U.S. military into a “social experiment” (read: “Big Gay Boot Camp”). Of course absolutely no such “exodus” occurred, with chaplains instead giving a “common, positive verdict about repeal.”

      Conservative radio host Sandy Rios also attended the meeting. Rios, a frequent Fox News contributor and member of the hate-engorged American Family Association (AFA), recently linked LGBT love to the monstrous Ariel Castro’s decade-long spree of torment afflicted upon three helpless young women in Ohio held in torturous captivity. Rios also ludicrously compared the teaching of respect for sex and gender minorities to the espousal of using crack-cocaine, and fingered gay-inclusive school curricula for a decline in student performance. When she’s not espousing her base, evil, and vile hatred of gays, she’s advocating anti-Muslim extremism of the most pernicious kind.

      True heroes of “liberty” and constitutional “rights,” indeed. Recall, however, that the Southern Poverty Law Center has characterized the FRC and AFA as not only domestic hate groups, but the “chief purveyors of lies about LGBT people” that result in trauma, hate crimes, and a tragic epidemic of teen suicides. Click here to read the hideous declamations of these organizations in their own words.

      Yet now these well-funded exemplars of monstrous duplicity are disingenuously posing as champions of religious pluralism, tolerance, and civil liberties? Unlimited and galling hypocrisy at best – enormous national security threat at worst.

      The enemies of our (remaining) constitutional protections and civil liberties thrive on lies, misinformation, and outright disinformation to advance their anti-democratic and fundamentalist Christian, religious extremist agendas. Such has certainly been our experience here at MRFF. By salting the “information battlefield” with false innuendoes, red herrings, and blatant untruths designed to appeal to diehard and disgusting prejudices, these professional religious bigots have managed to hoodwink all-too-many Americans into believing that President Obama’s Defense Department is waging some tooth-and-nail battle against all good Christians, especially those who faithfully serve in our U.S. military.

      Søren Kierkegaard once opined, “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true. The other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

      Is there REALLY any persecution of Christians in the U.S. military? Such cartoonish and cretinesque fantasy couldn’t be farther from the truth.

      However, the fact that some docile and supine Americans are buying into this universally false fairy tale should be of significant alarm to those of us who don’t want to see the adoption of a militarist Christian dominionist gospel as our nation’s official state religion.

      If and when that day ever comes, it will be the last day of freedom for our American democratic republic.

      The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is up against well-funded extremist religious organizations. Your donations allow us to continue our fight in the courts and in the media to fight for separation of church and state in the U.S. military. Please make a fully tax-deductible donation today at  helpbuildthewall.org.

      Michael L. “Mikey” Weinstein, Esq. is founder and president of the five-time Nobel Peace Prize-nominated  Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) and an honor graduate of the Air Force Academy. He served as a White House counsel in the Reagan Administration and as the Committee Management Officer of the “Iran-Contra” Investigation. He is also the former General Counsel to H. Ross Perot and Perot Systems Corporation. Mikey is an honor graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and a former J.A.G. in the U.S. Air Force. His two sons, daughter-in-law, son-in law, and brother-in-law are also graduates of USAFA. In December 2012, Mikey was named one of the 100 Most Influential People in U.S. Defense by Defense News. He is the author of  “With God On Our Side” (2006, St. Martin’s Press) and  “No Snowflake in an Avalanche” (2012, Vireo).

       
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       
       
      3)
      from the FRC -- Family Research Council -- Southern Baptist political front
      September 19, 2013

      Heir Force: Senate Takes a First Look at USAF Successor

      The next Secretary of the U.S. Air Force is already inheriting some significant challenges -- but none are greater than the attack on religious liberty. Today, the Senate Armed Services Committee made a point of highlighting that climate of intimidation in the hearing of Deborah Lee James, President Obama's pick for the highest post in the USAF. At 54, James has never served in the military, but she has worked for several defense and national security contractors. Not much is known about James's personal beliefs -- and even less is known about her position on faith in the force. "We want to know," FRC's Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin told reporters, "if she would be an advocate for allowing military members to live their faith, not just to believe in certain things."

      And we aren't the only ones. In this morning's hearing, Senator David Vitter (R-La.) opened his questioning by explaining that "a lot of us are very concerned about what in our opinion is political correctness run amok on steroids quashing the legitimate exercise and expression of religion in the military." He cited specific examples of religious speech being restricted (several of which are documented in FRC's report, "A Clear and Present Danger") and a Chaplain being told he could not pray according to his particular faith's tenets. When asked if she supported such constraints, James indicated she was not familiar with the incidents, would look into them, and wanted to stay in open communication with the committee regarding any other troubling stories. In a surprising show of unity, Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) expanded on Senator Vitter's questions and urged James to give a forthright reporting to the full committee on these issues. After all, he insisted, this is a "serious subject, deserving of all of our attention." Let's hope the rest of the Senate feels the same.

      ----------
       
      My comment ---
      Nobody knows how to lie and bear false witness like a Southern Baptist, or an SB clone.
       
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       
       
      4)

      Writing Professor Under Fire For Attack Against Republicans: On the "Free Exchange Of Ideas"

      Saturday, 21 September 2013 09:54 By Joseph Natoli, Truthout | Op-Ed
       

      "At MSU, it is important the classroom environment is conducive to a free exchange of ideas and is respectful of the opinions of others."

      - Kent Cassella, Michigan State University spokesman

      "I set out to grasp the mechanisms of the effective exercise of power; and I do this because those who are inserted in these relations of power, who are implicated therein, may, through their actions, their resistance, and their rebellion, escape them, transform them - in short, no longer submit to them."

                                                                                                              - Michel Foucault, Dits et Ecrits

      I've been rattled by a video sent to me wherein, according to the Detroit Free Press "a noted writing professor at Michigan State University" railed against "Republicans" and "closet racists in class last week." The video is now on You Tube, and, I suppose, like all viruses will run its course and then fade from memory. The words, however, of a Michigan State University spokesman in regard to "a free exchange of ideas" going on in a classroom brought back to me some words by Foucault, quoted above, regarding power's reach, words I extended to the classroom.

      In Discipline & Punish, Foucault himself had made a frightening comparison when he asked "Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons?"

      On the most obvious level, one that angry responses to this professor's rant point out in referring to his abuse of power, students are a captured audience, wary of angering those who wield the power of the grade, now more than ever a linchpin in our zero sum game of Winners and Losers. But I'm also mindful of another sort of power, one not wielded by the professor, but already instilled in the societal surround at play here, unrecognized and therefore unindicted. I think this sort of power invades the classroom under the disguise of phrases such as "free exchange of ideas," a phrase which is now as faddish a credo as "free to choose" - but like that phrase conceals dark complexities that can be disturbingly linked to our present asymmetrical arrangement of power. That arrangement, most certainly the product of our zero sum competitive Monopoly-like game of Winners and Losers, infects places, like neighborhoods and classrooms, and practices, like politics. But minds also, minds which are already subject, not simply to the Wielder of the Grade, but to the exercise of unequal power which aligns students with the goals and objectives, elections and destructions which support the preservation of that power.

      No manner of "free exchange of ideas" can go on, given this situation, because already existing priorities rearrange all critique into what is palatable to those already existing priorities. If that initial defense is overcome somehow, one is yet in a classroom in which a clash of ideas and arguments has become no more than a clash of opinions, a clash without resolution as each disputant retreats to the sanctity of "my own opinion." The task of reaching young minds already "friending" and "unfriending" words in line with powerful overriding societal priorities, plus the frustration of discovering that all attempts at "unpackaging" those priorities lead to the dead end of a student's personal opinion that overrides even Socrates's pedagogy, is a formidable task, but one not deterred by disingenuous notions of the "free exchange of ideas."

      Pre-existing conditions of asymmetrical power already make a farce of "free exchange" as well as the inviolability of personal opinion, a condition that itself preempts any attempt in a classroom to dismantle asymmetrical power. A society in which power is asymmetrically arranged cannot be exposed or dismantled by the pretenses of an objective, disinterested and balanced approach. Such an approach confirms the illegitimacy of a corrupted status quo. Unfortunately, it is an approach that lingers on and comes tied to the equally problematic pretense of a "free exchange of ideas."

      Why wouldn't we expect that what we now mean by the "free exchange of ideas" is a "free exchange of opinions," no one's opinion overruling another. After all, we are in a "post-truth" era. This means that the age of absolute and universal judgments, judgments made from outside the furor of clashing subjectivities, is over. None, of course, on either side of an issue hold their truths to be merely stories or their judgments not to be universal. No one, in fact, who knows in their heart what was true, or knows by rigorous rational or empirical methods what is true, believes we live in a "post-truth" age. Nonetheless, a mere survey of the last half century would show us that no universally accepted universal rule of truth judgment has been at play in the world - Humankind's or any Celestial Entity's.

      The troublesome aspect of opinions is that although they seem personally inspired - with each person creating for themselves a response to conditions they observe - our opinions are more certainly shaped by the surrounding conditions than our own original genius. Surrounding conditions, the social and cultural milieu, the economic and political arrangements are the waters within which our minds swim. And in asymmetrical power distribution, you can expect that our opinions are not being shaped to disturb that distribution.

      How do we re-orient such an arrangement? It seems that when our opinions are serving a foundational inequality, we should not be trumpeting them, but rather investigating them. We need to question the unquestioned mantras of the day, especially the illusion that we personally design the world the way we personally design a Facebook page or a web site, that all things personal exceed and are opposed to all things societal.

      The mainstream media is loathe to point out in the dramatic way it deserves that our democracy has turned into a plutocracy, and I suppose the reason for this has much to do with the mainstream media's ties to the top 20%. Americans remain unconcerned with this slow, but seemingly inexorable alteration of democracy to plutocracy because the story gets lost amid other stories. And it does seem as if Pandora's Box has been opened when it comes to story making, what some call a "democratization" of journalism, a freer exchange of ideas because everyone is now involved, free to comment, to like, to blog, to opine.

      In the absence of any Solomon of judgment or Oracle of Truth, or what scientists call an external point of reference to which all claims can be adjudicated, what we have now is a cacophony of voices. We have a whirlwind of opinions that either blow heatedly and often viciously, but mostly emptily in cyberspace, or they take the shape that an asymmetrical power gives them by virtue of owning the mechanisms of influence, i.e. volume, spectacle and repetition.

      Again, how to challenge such an arrangement? One of the ways that this is done is in the classroom, which is a societal space - but not in the sense that its mission is to inculcate the priorities of any particular society. Whether a society is enjoying good or bad economic times, the classroom mission is to impart the highest level of societal awareness which itself depends upon an understanding of the achievements of the past and the development of a critical awareness grounded in skepticism.

      Our classrooms have travelled far from this mission because our US society has travelled far from this understanding. Any level of education must serve the priorities of a society that has transferred all social and public enterprise to the personal and private level that is itself governed by market principles. There is no freedom in this because there is no equality in the powers of representation, although ironically a sense of personal and individual freedom as well as a sense of self-empowerment prevails. If we could see through such illusions, we could see the dominance of a free market economic rule leading to a severe asymmetry in wealth and power. Such rule has self-protectively fabricated illusions of personal freedom, although such freedom - upon any examination - we see has been severely abrogated. This rule makes only one demand of the classroom: that it lead the young to accept that rule and detour them from any opposition.

      The way you lead students in this fashion is ensuring that a theoretically balanced neutrality oversees any discussion. Students are, in this scenario, like jurors listening to a case as presented. The professor is a judge who makes sure that the rules of the court, in this case, objective balancing of all views, are upheld. But teaching is not anything like this; the role is not passive, nor is there any pretense to a balanced treatment when every aspect of the enterprise, including the already existing dispositions of the students, as well as the societal forces that dominate their thinking, are far from balanced.

      The easy course is not to trouble those already existing preferences and prejudices.

      The easy course is to stay clear of the credos, illusions and presumptions that block development of thought.

      The easy course is to stay clear of taking on the already existing distortions of thought ensuing from an outside-the-classroom imbalanced and distorted surround.

      The easy course is to avoid any disruption of resident student values because your dissidence antagonizes students and creates a hostile audience.

      The easy course is to make sure that if a hidden camera is on you that you say nothing that will lead to the public humiliation of a YouTube video.

      The easy course is not to unravel opinions and expose the subtle machinations of power seeking to maintain its position as the status quo or, philosophically, a true expression of "things as they are" when "things as they are" are only what a plutocracy wants them to be.

      There is now a great deal more pressure to take this easy course when every student has some handheld device to broadcast your dissidence globally.

      In an already dangerously deluded and divided society, no one can go on as if an enormous power disparity could be amended by going on as if such a disparity did not exist. Nevertheless, an enlightened, objective disinterestedness is rolled out to protect such a disparity from the rigorous critique needed. Any attempt to correct such an imbalance is greeted as extreme, as radical. However, the nature of inquiry is not to presuppose or impose a balance that does not exist, but to expose the deceit, illusions, and blindness of what does exist.

      The university classroom has at least sometimes been a place where young minds can be challenged. It is difficult now to find any place where such challenges are made. You would have to range beyond the power of money and the political power it achieves and maintains in a plutocracy. Print newspapers go extinct and head online where they join a faceless horde of "citizen journalists" and thereby, in the chaotic, unsearchable mix, all distinction is lost, all solidarity dissolves into personal tweets and photos on Facebook. Popular culture takes its shots, but market values quickly commercialize such threats. Art, however, high and serious or low and popular, has historically found a way to fly by all nets. But it is in the classroom where the challenge to a resident order, especially one so askew as our own, is launched. This is a time when young minds are seeking to comprehend, when there is some hope that minds exploited by an exploiting culture can be re-directed. There's a chance that the baggage piled on students by a society that already has them bending to the mantra of "Let Markets Rule!" can be exposed, like the Wizard of Oz behind a curtain, as impostures and fabrications serving the very narrow ends of a very few.

      Just as Dietrich Bonhoeffer in a classroom at the University of Berlin was seen as an enemy of the state ruled by the Third Reich, we now have teachers in classrooms whose words oppose the injustices of our own plutocracy. I hesitate to mention Bonhoeffer and the treatment of his dissidence by the Third Reich because the victims of our market rule cannot be so imagined, if imagined at all. But the supremacy of our market rule Prime Directive has made not only our egalitarian democracy a victim, but also the health and sustainability of all people but  a wealth minority and of the planet. The fact that progress and growth are reported by and experienced by a top 20% who also steadily work on 80% of the population to assume responsibility for their own misery undoubtedly makes it difficult to make the case I am making.

      This is the hard course to take. However, some may understand that what goes on in the classroom is a battle for young minds unaware that such a battle is being fought. They are unaware that, by the time they enter university, they have already committed themselves to values that do not go beyond profit to shareholders. The university classroom can be and has been the site where what is threatened can be examined and where common understandings can be achieved. None of this has ever been a covert operation because it has always been felt that our democracy was one in which its failures and missteps were always open to examination. Now what is required in the classroom is almost a "Shock & Awe" campaign, a sudden shock of recognition that gross inequities in a society cannot foster an open and free exchange of ideas.

      Plutocracy cannot survive with the openness of ideas and therefore must weed out ideas and forums, like classrooms, of ideas that threaten its privilege. Plutocracy targets classroom challenges as a danger to itself in the same axiomatic way that globalized techno-capitalism axiomatically responds to governmental regulations and entitlements. There will undoubtedly be an increased burden placed upon university professors when and if public education from K to 12 becomes increasingly privatized, becomes another for-profit enterprise, explicitly confining "free exchange of ideas" to the dimensions of market rule.

      As Bonhoeffer discovered, it is difficult and dangerous to expose the ills of a society from within the institutions of that society but some take that hard course and do it - and they do it in a classroom. There's more than a little hope in that.

      Joseph Natoli

      Joseph Natoli taught postmodernism at Michigan State University.  He is series editor for Postmodern Culture (SUNY Press 1995-2009), Tracing Literary Theory, Literary Theory’s Future(s) (University of Illinois Press 1989), A Postmodern Reader (with Linda Hutcheon) (SUNY 1993) and other articles and books.

       
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       
       
      5)
      Tea Party and the Right  

      House GOP Didn't Get Pope’s Memo On Poor Before Slashing Food Stamps

      The GOP's war on the poor can now be seen in new and harsher light.
      September 20, 2013
       

      There’s nothing new about the House GOP’s war on America’s poor. They want people to go hungry. They want to deny people healthcare. Those were the bottom lines in votes on Thursday and Friday.

      The first vote cut $40 billion from food stamps over the next decade, which today assist one in seven households. The second vote cut funding for implementing the Affordable Care Act, including outreach to the poor. 

      Now the GOP’s critics don’t just include progressives and Democrats, they include Pope Francis, who called on people to help the poor  after his election in March, and in a just-published interview, decried those with “dogmatic” and “obsessed” views inside the church, especially over human sexuality.

      The papel interview, which surfaced within hours of the Republican-led House  voting to cut billions from food stamps and then from healthcare, underscored just how extreme the GOP’s obsessions have become. There are 61 Republicans who are Catholic in the  House; only 15 Republicans opposed the food stamp cuts; only one opposed cutting Obamacare.

      “This church with which we should be thinking is the home of all, not a small chapel that can hold only a small group of selected people,” the Pope  said, chastizing idealogues. “I often associate sanctity with patience... as a constancy in going forward, day by day.”

      There was little that was patient or inclusive in the House Republican’s ongoing tirade against the poor. If anything, their speeches calling for food stamp cuts were notable for their lack of understanding. They ignored the impact on the poor and presuppose that America is filled with people who don’t want to work and are waiting for government handouts.  

      “There are workfare programs, there are options under the bill for community service,”  said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, speaking of the bill's language cutting off food stamps after several months until the recipient has a job. “This bill that points to the dignity of a job—to help people when they need it most with what they want most, which is a job.” 

      Cantor never mentioned the Congressional Budget Office analysis finding that the bill would cause 3 million people to lose benefits while another 850,000 would see their benefits cut. Nor did he mention that millions of Americans remain unemployed after the 2008 recession.

      More impersonal, ideological language came from Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-IN, who led the push for bigger food stamp cuts.

      “Mr. Speaker, this bill eliminates loopholes, ensures work requirements, and puts us on a fiscally responsible path,” he  blared. “In the real world, we measure success by results. It’s time for Washington to measure success by how many families are lifted out of poverty and helped back on their feet, not by how much Washington bureaucrats spend year after year.”    

      The democratic process breaks down when politicians love their ideals more than the real world impact of those ideas on people. That distinction was not lost on some Democrats, whose floor speeches noted the bill’s mean-spirited and vindictive nature.

      “You say to the states, ‘If you cut more people off your rolls, we’ll let you keep half the money, and you can do with it whatever you want.’ That is immoral,”  said Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-New Jersey. “We’re talking about kids. We are talking about veterans. And we are talking about the disabled.”

      Washington’s pundits quickly noted that neither of the House GOP bills—cutting food stamps and defunding Obamacare—were going anywhere. The White House said it would veto the food stamp bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that Democrats would delete the Obamacare cuts, which even Tea Party Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas admitted was all but inevitable.

      ----------
       
      Republican (Southern Baptist) mantra ---
      If all the starving millions of people around the planet were to hurry up and starve to death, they wouldn't be starving anymore.
       
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       
       

      Debating Capitalism - Redefining Outdated Terms

       
       
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       
       
      7)

      Angry, Disgusted, Frustrated

      By Sen. Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News

      21 September 13

       A middle-class American family made less last year than in 1989, according to a new Census Bureau report released on Tuesday. Meanwhile, Forbes magazine this week reported that the 400 wealthiest Americans doubled what they were worth a decade ago and "finally gained back all that they lost" in the 2008 economic collapse. "You want to know why the American people are angry and disgusted and frustrated?" Sen. Bernie Sanders asked in a Senate floor speech on Wednesday. "That's why," he thundered.

      --- click on URL to watch the video, and to read the comments ---

      The Census Bureau also reported that:

      • The typical middle class family has seen its income go down by more than $5,000 since 1999 after adjusting for inflation.
      • Average male workers made $283 less last year than they did 44 years ago.
      • Average female workers earned $1,775 less last year than they did in 2007.
      • A record breaking 46.5 million Americans lived in poverty last year.
      • 16 million children in America (21.8% of all kids in America) lived in poverty last year.
      • A higher percentage of American kids lived in poverty last year than in 1965.
      • A higher percentage of African Americans lived in poverty last year than 15 years ago.
      • 9.1% of seniors lived in poverty last year, higher than in 2009. More American seniors were living in poverty last year than in 1972.
      • 48 million Americans are uninsured, 3 million more than in 2008.
       
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       
       
      ***