Respectfully Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty-Guest Blogger
After the news over the past few months about the global uprisings against tyrannical and non-responsive governments, I have pondered why the United States has not had more people in the street protesting the economic inequality that we are facing here at home?
We have seen uprisings in Egypt, Libya, Spain, Greece and many more places, but at best we have seen large numbers in Wisconsin and Ohio protesting about State governments trying to remove collective bargaining rights away from state employees. One group of dedicated and non-violent protesters is especially interesting to me since they have taken to the streets and they have stayed there to press their fight. It is a group in Spain called the Indignados. They are camped out in various areas of Spain in an attempt to draw the country’s and the world’s attention to what they see as the Spanish government’s attempts to cater to the bankers and not to Main Street.
“Thursday night Madrid’s city centre offered a glimpse of what Western democracies have become, as thousands of unarmed nonviolent civilians with their hands up in the air shouting “these are our weapons” and “this is a dictatorship” were beaten by police commandos in full riot gear. This event was the culmination of a month of intense mobilizations across the country by the popular movement known as the ‘Indignados’. People, whom despite being ignored by the government have made their voices heard, as banking cartels, European bureaucrats, rating agencies and the country’s elites continue in their frantic push to sell-off Spain’s remaining public wealth, and persist in the implementation of drastic cuts to the welfare state. The ‘Indignados’ are fully aware of the fact that their government does not represent them, whenever they congregate they shout that loud and clear. They know that only popular unity will salvage them from the train wreck, which complicit speculators and politicians have created, and as they read the financial news, they know things can only get worse. When the EU announced today that the economic crisis is no longer restricted to the Euro-zone periphery countries, people in the movement understood that this could only mean bad news for them.” Truthout
Now, we have had some Tea Party protests, but their numbers were paltry in comparison to the Spanish protests. The numbers in Wisconsin and Ohio were the closest to the Spain numbers, but those protesters were not met with wide-spread beatings at the hands of the government and police and they are still not camping out in Madison and Columbus as they are in Madrid.
Would protestors in the United States ever commit to a continuing protest for months in Washington, D.C.? These Indignados in Spain, are continuing to protest what they see as government attempts to balance their budgets on the backs of the poor and the middle class. Why haven’t we seen tent cities springing up in Washington, D.C. and in state capitals across the country? Many progressives and liberals have claimed that Washington is working only for the bankers and Wall Street barons, so why aren’t our streets filled with dedicated people who are willing to nonviolently protest against the Rich getting richer, while the middle class and poor seem to get poorer? Is the claim of rising inequality between the rich and poor true?
Where is the evidence that the income disparity is growing in the United States? … “in dollar terms, the rich are still getting richer, and the poor are falling further behind them. The income gap between the richest and poorest Americans grew last year to its largest margin ever, a stark divide as Democrats and Republicans spar over whether to extend Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy. The top-earning 20 percent of Americans – those making more than $100,000 each year – received 49.4 percent of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4 percent made by the bottom 20 percent of earners, those who fell below the poverty line, according to the new figures. That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968.At the top, the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans, who earn more than $180,000, added slightly to their annual incomes last year, the data show. Families at the $50,000 median level slipped lower.” Huffington Post
With those depressing numbers, why haven’t American “Indignados” taken over Washington, D.C. like their Spanish counterparts did in Madrid? Are Americans just too lazy or indifferent to their plight? Have they given up being able to make a real difference in Washington? Why aren’t you and I there in Washington pressing our claims for economic equality? Finally, what will it take for the American poor and jobless to stand up and say, enough is enough? Maybe you have the answer for these American Indignados!
Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty-Guest Blogger
AY:
I like labels, they explain my world to me, like tree or dog or cat or an apple. They are concepts essentially. Like dog-a four legged animal domesticated by man and descended from wolves genus canis.
So left or right is a concept. In my lexicon left means – those opposed to individual rights and for collective rights.
Right means – those favoring individual rights and opposing collective rights.
Furthermore individual rights do not spring forth from God or from government but rather from our nature.
What I have stated is pretty simple, for example I am OK with abortion most of the people you perceive to be on the right are not. I would not counsel my daughter to have one but it isnt my business. Like seat belts on a car, I should be able to buy a car without seat belts if I want to. Or wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle, why should I have to? It is my life, if I want to become an organ donor that is my business, not the states.
It really is pretty simple, complexity is for people who do not understand. The best solution is the simplest, what science people call elegant. Anyone can write a computer program using 10,000 lines of code, it takes a really smart person to do it in less than a 1,000 lines. Of course it depends on what you are trying to do, but simplicity is usually best.
What business is it of governments to decide the color of margarine?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44084236/ns/health-behavior/t/rich-are-different-not-good-way-studies-suggest/?fb_ref=.TkWiXH1_q-w.like&fb_source=home_oneline
———————
I hate to sound whiney but here it is….those who garner wealth do so with the support and altruism of others…only to turn around and screw them when they get to the top. Unfortunately, with $$$$ now the new ‘voice of reason’ in the circles of power….the potential to become Cruellians is too real. I hope our elected officials have the courage to change it.
Yes KD I was aware that Palin also had some other issues she was trying to resolve in her state…then in about December of 08′ she was being courted by the Right as a viable candidate to fancy favors with the women voters…an attempt to deflect support from Hillary….don’t you see that?
@AY, did you know that Palin before tapped by mcCain was very cozy with AK dems trying to break up the Rep hold over AK politics and corruption. She was criticized for that by the right and admired by the left. Politics is funny that way.
Kderosa,
I may have but at least I feel I voted my conscience…..Again, I would have voted for McCain but for the clown car attachment….
Roco,
You said that “Huntsman” is what the left want…You must be out of your fricken mind….I would think again, before you said that….Now, If I had said Bachman should be the GOP bid…You should take that as a joke and then you’d know that I would be behind Obama 1000%, but I am not….
But, if left with ANY choice of what is out there now announced and including Perry, I still favor Huntsman….Truthfully, I as well as a number of folks will hold our nose and Vote for him…
Exactly, what does the left mean to you? Somebody that you disagree with politically? You all can’t even muster enough people within your own party to have a firm grasp on what is really needed for the recovery of the county…Everyone must have a label….
Sounds a bit like McCarthyism…If you are not like us you must be communist….therefore to the left….
Roco,
I nominate Sean Connery. Although the guy from “Men in Tights” wouldn’t be a bad idea either (British Accent and all).
Roco, “The very fact that sounds radical is a testament to how far we have fallen since our founding.”
We are a long ways from 1776, we can thank our ‘Founders’ for the living document that is the Constitution. ‘We the People’ is not We the Republicans or We the Democrats or We the Corporations or We the Well heeled….and yet that is the governing voice of our current times. Anyone opposing any of the aforementioned We’s is given pretty short schrift in most venues these days. There is an apparently newly accepted modus operandi of ‘Do first, the Law follows’…..again, if you are 1 of the aforementioned groups, holy priveledge Batman!. Well, ‘We the People’ is not just one faction…it is WE THE PEOPLE. ALL THE PEOPLE, and not just those who need to hide in thier gated priveledge or corporate cloaks. It’s a great document and is still pertinent. That said, wake me when it gets taken seriously….and not just manipulated to the ends of the few at the expense of the many.
people should read it…..
Mike Spindell:
In what ways do you find Huntsman to be to the Right of Reagan? Would you please provide quotes from both to support that idea.
Mike Spindell:
I dont think he is. I think you think he is though.
I am radical. I want less regulation, lower taxes, a reduction in entitlement spending, fealty to the Constitution, the elimination of Obama Care, smaller government, and that is just for starters.
The very fact that sounds radical is a testament to how far we have fallen since our founding.
Medieval serfs only paid 43% of their labor to the Lord. Some of us pay over 50%. Seems to me Washington, DC and the Sheriff of Nottingham are pretty similar, taking from the productive to give to the non-productive.
I am looking for a Robin Hood to run for president. I dont see one yet.
“Huntsman is not a viable candidate, he is the lefts choice.”
Roco,
That you would see him from a leftward perspective, which I don’t disagree with, only shows how radical the rightward part of the spectrum has become.
This is because politically Huntsman is to the right of Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan.
“It cannot be any other way; in a world where corporations are not entitled to constitutional protections, the police would be free to storm office buildings and seize computers or documents. The mayor of New York City could exercise eminent domain over Rockefeller Center by fiat and without compensation if he decides he’d like to move his office there. Moreover, the government would be able to censor all corporate speech, including that of so-called media corporations.”
———————–
those poor nekkid corporations…they do what they do because they are so powerless I suppose….
you people frighten me…………………
Huntsman is not a viable candidate, he is the lefts choice.
Here’s a good law review article on the rights of corporations if anyone is interested.
ABSTRACT
Corporate participation in public discourse has long been a controversial issue, one that was reignited by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010). Much of the criticism of Citizens United stems from the claim that the Constitution does not protect corporations because they are not “real” people. While it’s true that corporations aren’t human beings, that truism is constitutionally irrelevant because corporations are formed by individuals as a means of exercising their constitutionally protected rights. When individuals pool their resources and speak under the legal fiction of a corporation, they do not lose their rights. It cannot be any other way; in a world where corporations are not entitled to constitutional protections, the police would be free to storm office buildings and seize computers or documents. The mayor of New York City could exercise eminent domain over Rockefeller Center by fiat and without compensation if he decides he’d like to move his office there. Moreover, the government would be able to censor all corporate speech, including that of so-called media corporations. In short, rights-bearing individuals do not forfeit those rights when they associate in groups. This essay will demonstrate why the common argument that corporations lack rights because they aren’t people demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature of corporations and the First Amendment.
@AY
“I voted for Nader”
Sweet fancy Moses. You just went and threw that vote away now didn’t you?
“The issue you teabaggers have is you can’t get away from the labels….Democrat/Republican”
There is a small distance between the two. The problem is that each party has their corrupt wing and their more ideological wing. You’re getting corruption no matter what, so you can still decide based on what ideology you favor.
@Bob, Esq.
I also addressed that above. Acquiescence plus residence (failure to emigrate) doesn’t equal consent. Implied consent is a legal fiction. I’m ok with that, mind you, but popular sovereignty is still technically a legal fiction. there are other grounds where you might argue that consent rests (i.e., consent of founders, etc.) but they also suffer from infirmities.
I had read about the 9 or 13 business as well but really haven’t looked into it.
“As I said above, by what authority did the states have to consent for their people?”
Through the ratifying conventions of the states and the silence of the people thereafter being deemed consent.
If you’re really looking to stir up shit about the validity of the constitution, look no further than Article VII.
Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation required unanimity among the states per dissolution. Compare with Article VII that only required 9 out of 13 for ratification.
Accordingly, the ratification of the constitution was ultra vires.
Rhode Island had every right to ignore it completely.
Kd, since you are new to the blawg but know a lot about most of the seasoned posters….You are probably aware I was and am still a Edwards supporter….then McCain…not Herman…but when he was forced to take the head clown fish as his running mate….I voted for Nader…Would do the same thing again…But this time it is more important to keep the whole clown college out of power….If, the boy with the bad fake tan can cause the US Bonds to be down graded then what use is his fiscal conservatism….He is flagrantly stupid and has abused his position of power….all in the name of serving the heads of clown school…..I am sure he will not bite the head that feeds him…..or is that hand…well he’s already don’t that….but the other can be more painful…until…they are just into pain and there are some people out there that like that I hear…its not twisted…if they wanna play that way behind closed doors…it is their right…
I will reiterate…that if Huntsman was the GOP choice I would more than likely vote for him…really…The issue you teabaggers have is you can’t get away from the labels….Democrat/Republican…think about it….
@Bob, Esq,
“That the Federal government is empowered by the states is not a fiction. It’s the basic structure of the document.”
As I said above, by what authority did the states have to consent for their people? The legal fiction just moves down a level. The consent remains a legal fiction as does popular sovereignty. Which is not to say that there aren’t other grounds that government might draw its authority, but popular sovereignty isn’t one of them.
@Bob, Esq, good call.
@SM, that’s a lot of ballots.