Back in the 50's when I was taking photography at Broadway Edison
VocTech, I came across the Peerless Camera Company. But I couldn't
remember why. I googled it and came up with the name, Willoughby
PEERLESS Cameras in New York. Charles Willoughby was the owner.
Your memories of growing up were not unlike the average family in
Seattle, back in the 40's and 50's. By the time my sisters and I were
teenagers, dad had moved up in the world, from ditch digger to
structural steel estimator. We moved out of our sagging little
cramped rental house and the folks bought a two story older home in a
decent working class neighborhood. For the first time my sisters and
I had our own rooms. We began eating out from time to time, mostly at
Dong Ting's Chinese restaurant in China Town)now called the
International District). Five of us could eat our fill for about five
dollars.
While we fell far short of New York City's offering of entertainment
and art studios and theaters, we did have some decent quality live
theater at the University of Washington drama theaters. Professor
Glenn Hughes devised the Theater in the Round and the performances
there were very intimate. The seating was only four rows deep, and
the performers not only worked on the stage, they moved up and down
the aisles and around the back of the theater.
Seattle also had a pretty good opera troupe, and a world class
symphony orchestra.
But what I set out to say is that this all goes to make my point. FDR
had saved Capitalism by forcing the financial giants of the day to
share a bit of their wealth with their employees. That has not
happened under Barack Obama, nor did it happen under Bill Clinton or
Jimmy Carter. Even as Ronald Reagan sounded the cry and the Berlin
Wall came tumbling down, so did the World of the New Deal begin to
crumble.
So many of those social improvements that came from the 30's and 40's
were taken back or so altered as to be of no value. Colleges began
hiking up tuition to the point where students owe more in student
loans than their parents owed on their first home.
In a sense, even though my early years were spent as a very poor
child, by my teens we did have the best of the Working Class New Deal
days. Today's children have no concept of life as we lived it. We
were so close to really having that American Dream, but we could not
hold onto the dream, and it slipped away.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/30/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl,
All that you say is true. But from my own individual perspective, living as
a member of a Jewish working class family in New York City in the 40's and
50's, we were not shut out of the life of culture and recreation located a
30 minute subway ride from our apartment building. We could, and did,
attend
Broadway theater shows and concerts at Carnegie Hall. We could eat in fine
restaurants in Manhattan. My father didn't earn much money and my mother
began working as a sales person at Bloomingdale's Department Store when I
was about 13 years of age, but we had access to many of the same things as
did the wealthy. Perhaps, we sat in less expensive seats, and the fine
restaurants were not the finest, but we could afford, not only to meet our
basic needs, but to have a bit of really lovely experiences as well. I was
talking to someone on the phone today, who told me that she hasn't gone to
the doctor to diagnose what feels like something a bit worse than a really
bad cold, because she can't afford the $40 copay. She said that she and her
husband are paying $1,000 a month for health insurance. Never, when I was
growing up, did we avoid going to the doctor, or having him visit,
(something they actually did back then), because we couldn't afford it.
Working people paid insurance for surgery and hospital care, but not for
visiting the doctor. And it wasn't necessary. Also, no one had to wait 3
weeks for an appointment. Maybe we never had real Democracy, but what we
did
have was real personal interaction. If you called a store or a business,
you
talked with the owners or with employees who really listened to what you
said and made an effort to help. The big change is impersonality and huge
bureaucracy. My parents had a group of friends with whom they'd socialized
since they were all young and single. As time passed, some of those friends
became wealthy. Some, like my father, never did. But the relationships
persisted. The wealthiest couple eventually moved to an upscale
neighborhood
in Westchester County where we visited them. I remember them taking us to
visit their friends who were the owners of a huge company called, I think,
Peerless Cameras. These people owned a monstrously large mansion, very
ugly.
But there we were, in their foyer, my father, the man who worked in a hat
factory and my mother, a saleswoman. Those kinds of interrelationships
among
members of the different classes, don't exist anymore. A ticket to a
Broadway show costs between $100 and $200. The working class is splintered.
While we dream about unity, I know, from personal experience, that many
African American folks look down on, and want to have nothing to do with
Hispanics. You don't hear that on Democracy Now or read it in articles in
Truthdig or Common Dreams, but I've heard people here in Westbury talking,
as well as the home health aide who was working with me. The articles all
talk about resisting Trump's influence and fighting back. The people whom I
know, feel that they have no power, and that there's no point in getting
upset about what Trump will do because, as they explain, "There's nothing
we
can do about it anyway". The other day, I've been told, some huge object
fell in a local shopping mall and made a loud sound. Everyone panicked and
began running toward the doors, assuming they'd heard a gunshot or an
explosion. So it's not Democracy we're talking about. It's a breakdown in
our society. It's social fragmentation and fear and the effect of huge
impersonal bureaucracies. We never had Socialism here and the democracy
was
limited to small town meetings and communes, I suppose. But our capitalism
within the US was regulated for a while, and it was responsible for a rise
in the standard of living for many families. The problem is, it kept on
evolving to the next stages.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 10:39 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Obama's Support for International Law Draws
Bipartisan Ire
Miriam,
When I run your word, "Democdracy", google takes me to Democracy Now.
I guess that since it's your word, you get to define it.
Without revisiting my long, boring and oft repeated ramble, I only talk
about the two major Political Parties in the framework of an American
Oligarchy. History, even the doctored version which appears in our
Official
History Books, demonstrates that the Sacred Constitution was written with
the protection of the Landed Gentry in mind. Before FDR and the Great
Depression, our grand fathers and great grandfathers had a much keener
grasp
on this fact. A ground swell of resistance was building, labor unions were
organized, strikes became more frequent, demands for changes in the laws
that were set in place by the ruling class for their protection, women
gained the right to vote, and on and on. The Ruling Class fought back,
but
their highly toted Wonderland came smack up against the worst depression of
all the financial dips that had plagued the Oligarchy since its foundation.
Just as the Working Class was on the verge of toppling the Establishment,
probably through a revolution, Franklin Delano Roosevelt rode into
Washington Town on his high stepping New Deal, and saved the ratty necks of
the Establishment. And they never thanked him. Instead, Roosevelt's New
Deal was proclaimed the Saving Grace of the People. In fact, the New Deal
set in place a holding pattern, a pause in the unchecked greed of the
Ruling
Class, allowing the Establishment to continue holding onto their flawed
Capitalism. The Empire was becoming the dominate power in this
expansionist
government. During the next several decades America moved across the
Western Shores of the Pacific Ocean...more than already had been done, and
great fortunes were being made despite the improved standard of living by
the Working Class. The Second World War and the never ending wars that
followed, created even greater opportunities for Greed to rake in the
world's wealth.
And all this time there were far too many American Working Class members
who
bought the Capitalists propaganda that "We" were spreading democracy around
the world.
Bit by bit the Empire and its Capitalists took back that which FDR had
given. What angered me back during those days when Labor Unions were at
the
height of their power, that they spent their time pushing for certain gains
among American Workers, without lifting a helping hand to bring the Workers
around the World up to our standards. Instead, some labor leaders began
slipping into bed with the corporate CEO's.
Between sleazy, self serving union leaders, and indifferent workers, who
were kept dancing joyfully with distractions and glittery gadgets, they
came
to believe the promise that this wonderful life would never end.
Now we are living in the end times. That is, the end times of the New
Deal.
And now we look to 2017 as the beginning of a "Final Deal", the death blow
to any hope of individual freedom.
If we were living back in 1900, I would say that we might have a ray of
hope
for building a People's Government. But far too many of us have been
drugged with lies and turned upon one another, to ever hope for a united
people's takeover.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/30/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I know. Everyone keeps saying we're about to lose our Democracy or welaw.
only have vestiges of it. I think it's long gone. I think we've been
sold an illusion that is called, "Democdracy".
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 10:49 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Obama's Support for International Law
Draws Bipartisan Ire
Miriam,
Not only do I not hold out hope for the Democratic Party, in part due
to the fact that it is no longer the Party of the Working Class, but I
hold out little hope for democracy and freedom of speech in these 50
United States.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/29/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For all of you to whom I sent blind copies of this, what the authorDemocratic party.
writes is one of the reasons that I hold out little hope for the
Miriam
Obama's Support for International Law Draws Bipartisan Ire Published
on Thursday, December 29, 2016 by The Progressive Obama's Support for
International Law Draws Bipartisan Ire by Stephen Zunes
President Obama speaking at the Ben-Gurion Airport in 2013. (Photo:
The Israel Project/cc/flickr) Here's one way to look at it: The
United States was the only country in the fifteen-member U.N.
Security Council that did not support a resolution passed last week
criticizing Israel for continuing to expand illegal settlements in
the occupied territories.
On the other hand, the Obama administration refused to veto the
resolution-for which it is now drawing fire from both Republicans and
Democrats. This opposition has come despite the resolution also
calling on both the Israeli and Palestinian governments to prevent
violence against civilians, condemn and combat terrorism, refrain
from incitement, and comply with their obligations under international
Peace,"The clauses addressing Israeli colonization in the occupiedviolation of this critical international treaty.
territories simply reconfirmed the longstanding consensus that such
settlements are illegitimate. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva
Convention-to which both Israel and the United States are
signatories-bars any occupying power from transferring "parts of its
own civilian population into the territory it occupies." The United
Nations, through such measures as Security Council Resolutions 446,
452, 465, and 471, has repeatedly recognized that the West Bank,
including East Jerusalem, constitute territories under foreign
belligerent occupation and that Israel's settlements policy is in
A landmark 2004 decision by the International Court of Justice also
confirmed these Palestinian-populated areas' occupied status and the
illegality of the settlements. In that same ruling, the World Court
enjoined the United States and other signatories of the Fourth Geneva
Convention to "ensure compliance by Israel with international
humanitarian law."
Furthermore, the official State Department position, adopted in 1978
and never repealed, states that "the establishment of the civilian
settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international
law."
But recent U.S. Presidents have been reluctant to acknowledge the
illegality of these settlements. Instead, both Republican and
Democratic administrations, recognizing that the settlements make
establishing a viable contiguous Palestinian state impossible, have
opposed expansion on the grounds that it is "an obstacle to peace."
"The U.S.-backed peace plans put forward by former CIA director
George Tenet and the Mitchell Commission called for a freeze on
Israeli settlement activities, as did the much-vaunted "Road Map for
Peace,"which both the Bush and Obama administrations repeatedly stressed wasAdministration.
necessary to resolve the conflict.
Still, the Obama administration's decision to refrain from blocking
the U.N.
resolution is being lambasted as an act of appalling irresponsibility.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, insisting that the
resolution was somehow designed to "isolate and demonize Israel,"
declared that "Our unified Republican government will work to reverse
the damage done by this administration, and rebuild our alliance with
Israel."
Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky,
claimed Obama has sought "to abandon our ally Israel." And Senator
Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, accused Obama of carrying out a
"systemic agenda to weaken Israel and strengthen its enemies."
President-elect Donald Trump has signaled his displeasure with the
resolution, promising the Israelis that "things will be different"
after January 20. Indeed, Trump's nominee for U.S. ambassador to
Israel, David Friedman, and his pick for chief negotiator in the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Jason Greenblatt, are both
outspoken supporters of the Israeli settler movement.
Meanwhile, instead of backing up Obama, scores of Congressional
Democrats have publicly sided with Trump in criticizing the Obama
Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, the incoming Senateconfounding"
Democratic leader, called it "extremely frustrating, disappointing,
and
for the United States to have not vetoed the resolution.unacceptable."
Representative Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, said he was
"extremely disappointed by this action," insisting it was "wrong and
unjust" to criticize Israeli settlements and for "delegitimizing Jews'
ancient and historic connection to the land."
Other Democrats made similar statements. Representative Brad Sherman,
Democrat of California, referred to it as "an unfortunate change in U.S.
policy in support of Israel." Representative Alcee Hastings, Democrat
of Florida, called Obama's action "reckless" and "completely
These Democrats' backing of Trump's position over that of Obama isviolation of this critical international treaty.
not simply a matter of giving into "pro-Israel" political pressure.
Moderate pro-Israel groups like J Street andAmericansfor Peace Now
joined a wide range of liberal groups in successfully lobbying the
administration to not veto the resolution.
And it certainly does not reflect the views of a majority of
Democrats. A recent poll shows that not only do a vast majority of
Democrats believe that the United States should oppose Israeli
settlements in the occupied territories, 60 percent believe the U.S.
should support economic sanctions or tougher measures, which even the
Obama administration has ruled out.
And
more American Jews support the Obama administration's recognition
that Israeli settlements are bad for Israel that those who support them.
It appears, then, that the post-Obama Democratic Party will not only
be willing to back Trump's hardline positions against human rights
and international law, they are also willing to ignore their
constituents who support such principles. As a result, there will be
little in the way of checks and balances to deter Trump from his
dangerous foreign policy agenda.
C 2016 The Progressive
Stephen Zunes
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Thursday, December 29, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. #NotNormal
. #NoDAPL
. Bernie Sanders
Obama's Support for International Law Draws Bipartisan Ire Published
on Thursday, December 29, 2016 by The Progressive Obama's Support for
International Law Draws Bipartisan Ire by Stephen Zunes
. 1 Comments
.
. President Obama speaking at the Ben-Gurion Airport in 2013. (Photo:
The Israel Project/cc/flickr)
. Here's one way to look at it: The United States was the only country
in the fifteen-member U.N. Security Council that did not support a
resolution passed last week criticizing Israel for continuing to
expand illegal settlements in the occupied territories.
. On the other hand, the Obama administration Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid. to veto the resolution-for which it is now
drawing fire from both Republicans and Democrats. This opposition has
come despite the resolution also calling on both the Israeli and
Palestinian governments to prevent violence against civilians,
condemn and combat terrorism, refrain from incitement, and comply
with their obligations under international law.
. The clauses addressing Israeli colonization in the occupied
territories simply reconfirmed the longstanding consensus that such
settlements are illegitimate. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva
Convention-to which both Israel and the United States are
signatories-bars any occupying power from transferring "parts of its
own civilian population into the territory it occupies." The United
Nations, through such measures as Security Council Resolutions 446,
452, 465, and 471, has repeatedly recognized that the West Bank,
including East Jerusalem, constitute territories under foreign
belligerent occupation and that Israel's settlements policy is in
.
https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/resist-in-2017https://secu
r
e.actb
lue.com/contribute/page/resist-in-2017
A landmark 2004 decision by the International Court of Justice also
confirmed these Palestinian-populated areas' occupied status and the
illegality of the settlements. In that same ruling, the World Court
enjoined the United States and other signatories of the Fourth Geneva
Convention to "ensure compliance by Israel with international
humanitarian law."
Furthermore, the official State Department position, adopted in 1978
and never repealed, states that "the establishment of the civilian
settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international
law."
But recent U.S. Presidents have been reluctant to acknowledge the
illegality of these settlements. Instead, both Republican and
Democratic administrations, recognizing that the settlements make
establishing a viable contiguous Palestinian state impossible, have
opposed expansion on the grounds that it is "an obstacle to peace."
"The U.S.-backed peace plans put forward by former CIA director
George Tenet and the Mitchell Commission called for a freeze on
Israeli settlement activities, as did the much-vaunted "Road Map for
which both the Bush and Obama administrations repeatedly stressed wasAdministration.
necessary to resolve the conflict.
Still, the Obama administration's decision to refrain from blocking
the U.N.
resolution is being lambasted as an act of appalling irresponsibility.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, insisting that the
resolution was somehow designed to "isolate and demonize Israel,"
declared that "Our unified Republican government will work to reverse
the damage done by this administration, and rebuild our alliance with
Israel."
Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky,
claimed Obama has sought "to abandon our ally Israel." And Senator
Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, accused Obama of carrying out a
"systemic agenda to weaken Israel and strengthen its enemies."
President-elect Donald Trump has signaled his displeasure with the
resolution, promising the Israelis that "things will be different"
after January 20. Indeed, Trump's nominee for U.S. ambassador to
Israel, David Friedman, and his pick for chief negotiator in the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Jason Greenblatt, are both
outspoken supporters of the Israeli settler movement.
Meanwhile, instead of backing up Obama, scores of Congressional
Democrats have publicly sided with Trump in criticizing the Obama
Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, the incoming Senateconfounding"
Democratic leader, called it "extremely frustrating, disappointing,
and
for the United States to have not vetoed the resolution.unacceptable."
Representative Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, said he was
"extremely disappointed by this action," insisting it was "wrong and
unjust" to criticize Israeli settlements and for "delegitimizing Jews'
ancient and historic connection to the land."
Other Democrats made similar statements. Representative Brad Sherman,
Democrat of California, referred to it as "an unfortunate change in U.S.
policy in support of Israel." Representative Alcee Hastings, Democrat
of Florida, called Obama's action "reckless" and "completely
These Democrats' backing of Trump's position over that of Obama is
not simply a matter of giving into "pro-Israel" political pressure.
Moderate pro-Israel groups like J Street andAmericansfor Peace Now
joined a wide range of liberal groups in successfully lobbying the
administration to not veto the resolution.
And it certainly does not reflect the views of a majority of
Democrats. A recent poll shows that not only do a vast majority of
Democrats believe that the United States should oppose Israeli
settlements in the occupied territories, 60 percent believe the U.S.
should support economic sanctions or tougher measures, which even the
Obama administration has ruled out. And more American Jews support
the Obama administration's recognition that Israeli settlements are
bad for Israel that those who support them.
It appears, then, that the post-Obama Democratic Party will not only
be willing to back Trump's hardline positions against human rights
and international law, they are also willing to ignore their
constituents who support such principles. As a result, there will be
little in the way of checks and balances to deter Trump from his
dangerous foreign policy agenda.
C 2016 The Progressive
