Back in the days I was studying sociology, at the University of
Washington, we talked about the Extended Family and the Nuclear
Family. I recall one professor pointing to the invention of the
automobile as a major contributor of the breakup of the extended
family. Young men and women were able to begin ranging further and
further from home. Then Eisenhower undertook funding the nation-wide
network of super highways. With better roads, factories that had been
crowded into small quarters in the inner cities, moved to the cheaper
land outside the limits of the towns and of the town taxes.
The towns, like the example set by the Nation, became expansionists,
spreading their sphere of influence further and further out from their
original centers.
Today we have the wonderful internet. With our quick access to "The
World", we sit in our corner and "feel connected". But like the
automobile, the sense of freedom and connection is an illusion. In
fact, the greater our ability to wander the world, the more isolated
we become individually. Sure, we have developed faster methods of
transporting ourselves around the globe. We still attempt to head
"Over the Meadows and Through the Woods" to the homes of our
childhood, but even the jet age has its isolating features. We are
jammed into crowded airports, crammed into seats designed for midgets,
treated with indifference, and pushed out into more crazy crowds at
our destination. Or we can point our car toward Grandma's farm, and
spend hours breathing exhaust, and becoming a mass of jittery nerves
in the jumble of traffic jams on the super highways. Even our
attempts to connect with family ends up driving us further apart.
And the sad thing is that all of this could be corrected. But that
would call for a change in focus. We would need to put People's needs
ahead of Profits. That is, Working Class People's needs. We know
that already the Ruling Class is living the Great American Dream.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/30/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl,
Interestingly, after I wrote my little rant about social breakdown and
impersonal bureaucracies being part of what we are thinking about when we
talk about the loss of Democracy, I stumbled on a video in my Truthdig
of Bernie Ssanders and Sarah Silverman, she's a comedienne and a Bernie
supporter, doing an hour's presentation after a talk that I think he gave
in
California regarding his book. Anyway, during that talk, he began talking
about what people mean when they talk about loving America, and he said
that
it had to do with the feeling of community that people have, like in the
small Vermont town where he lives. He then talked about the museum in the
town with displays of all the different products that used to be
manufactured in the area, and how when things are manufactured neare where
you live, you have a feeling of control. But, he said, when things are
manufactured in other countries, when they come from all over the world and
you don't understand the process, you feel like you have no control. I
suspect that he was actually trying to talk about what I was writing about
earlier, the impersonality of our society, the fragmentation, the lack of
social interraction and community. The products are coming from elsewhere,
manufactured by huge corporations. You try to call about a faulty product,
or to ask a question about your charge card, and the customer service
person
is actually in India or Costa Rica, but has an American sounding first name
and tries to sound American, only there's something skewed in the
communication. Bernie was just talking off the top of his head, no prepared
comments, so he couldn't really explain what he was trying to say. By the
way, his book, Our Revolution, is on Bookshare, for those who are
interested. I downloaded it, but I'm not quite finished with Alexander
Cockburn's book on the Mid East which is more than 450 pages, and I have a
bunch of other books to read as well.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 6:22 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Obama's Support for International Law Draws
Bipartisan Ire
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,back then), because we couldn't afford it.
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
Working people paid insurance for surgery and hospital care, but notfoundation.
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
Just as the Working Class was on the verge of toppling thechange in U.S.
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 orlaw.
we 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
which both the Bush and Obama administrations repeatedly stressedAdministration.
was 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.
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.Peace,"policy in support of Israel." Representative Alcee Hastings,unacceptable."
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://sec
u
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 stressedAdministration.
was 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.
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
policy in support of Israel." Representative Alcee Hastings,unacceptable."
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
