#BuyRight: Kellogg’s pulls ads from white nationalists, Breitbart calls for un-American boycott

December 1st, 2016

From today’s Wall Street Journal:

Breitbart News is asking its readers to boycott Kellogg Co. after the cereal maker said it would no longer advertise on the conservative news website.

In a post on Breitbart News on Wednesday, the publication called on readers to sign a #DumpKelloggs petition against the manufacturer, whose brands include Frosted Flakes, Rice Krispies and Cheez-It.

Kellogg on Tuesday said it would pull its ads from Breitbart News after consumers notified the manufacturer that its products were appearing on the site. A company spokesperson told the Associated Press, “We regularly work with our media buying partners to ensure our ads do not appear on sites that aren’t aligned with our values as a company.”

Breitbart fought back hard. “Boycotting Breitbart News for presenting mainstream American ideas is an act of discrimination and intense prejudice,” Alexander Marlow, Breitbart News editor-in-chief, said in the Breitbart News article.

The anti-Kellogg petition accused Kellogg of trying to “placate left-wing totalitarians.”

In a statement, Kellogg said, “To be clear, our decision had nothing to do with politics.”

Breitbart News, a hard-right site know for scorched-earth populism, has been popular with the “alt right,” portraying immigration and multiculturalism as threats. The site’s critics say it has explicitly embraced white nationalism.

The site’s former chairman, Stephen Bannon, helped run Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and is now poised to become one of the president elect’s top advisers in the White House. Since the election and Mr. Bannon’s appointment, scrutiny of Breitbart has intensified.

#VoteRight: Trump Cabinet Signals Embrace of Wall Street Elite

December 1st, 2016

We told you so, America. Trump voters have elected a billionaire business man, with a myriad of conflicts of interest between his private companies and his new public position, and who has deep ties to Wall Street and the wealthy and political elite of this country. There will be no change under Trump; only more of the same status quo economics that has hurt ordinary working Americans and enriched the wealthy even more. It almost belongs in a Charles Dickens novel. So sad!

From The New York Times, December 1, 2016. Read the full story here.

In a campaign commercial that ran just before the election, Donald J. Trump’s voice boomed over a series of Wall Street images. He described “a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth, and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations.”

The New York Stock Exchange, the hedge fund billionaire George Soros and the chief executive of the investment bank Goldman Sachs flashed across the screen.

Now Mr. Trump has named a former Goldman executive and co-investor with Mr. Soros to spearhead his economic policy.

With Wednesday’s nomination of Steven Mnuchin, a Goldman trader turned hedge fund manager and Hollywood financier, to be Treasury secretary, a new economic leadership is taking shape in Washington.

That two investors — Mr. Mnuchin and Mr. Ross — will occupy two major economic positions in the new administration is the most powerful signal yet that Mr. Trump plans to emphasize policies friendly to Wall Street, like tax cuts and a relaxation of regulation, in the early days of his administration.

While that approach has been cheered by investors (the stocks of Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have been on a tear since the election), it stands in stark contrast to the populist campaign that Mr. Trump ran and the support he received from working-class voters across the country.

#VoteRight: Don’t believe economic lies that Trump peddles this election

August 8th, 2016

From today’s NYT article on Trump’s economic policy speech:

“But the economic agenda Mr. Trump described included many traditionally Republican policies that offer little to no direct benefit to working-class Americans, while giving a considerable financial boost to the wealthiest.

For example, Mr. Trump called for ending what Republicans label the “death tax.” He did not mention that the estate tax currently exempts the first $5.45 million for an individual and $10.9 million for a married couple — meaning that only the very wealthy pay even a dime. If Mr. Trump’s net worth is as large as he has says, his heirs would have a great deal to gain from eliminating the estate tax; the typical displaced steelworker or coal miner, or even a relatively prosperous retiree, would have nothing to gain.”

If disaffected workers want to make gains, they should not vote for someone who will institute “labor” reforms that make the already wealthiest American even more wealthy, while leaving workers themselves farther behind. The only way American workers will be able to make gains is by advocating for and passing labor reform that improves wages, while limiting the income gains of the wealthiest Americans who, let’s face it, already have enough to get them by comfortably.

#VoteRight: Just 9 percent of eligible voters chose Clinton vs. Trump

August 2nd, 2016

The New York Times has an excellent interactive graphic that illustrates just how problematic American democracy is, given widespread skepticism about the choices voters face in the 2016 Presidential Election.

Some facts:

  1. The United States is home to 324 million people. Each square in the graph represents 1 million people.
  2. 103 million of them are children, noncitizens or ineligible felons, and they do not have the right to vote.
  3. 88 million eligible adults do not vote at all, even in general elections. (THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM THAT NO POLITICAL PARTY IS ADDRESSING.)
  4. An additional 73 million did not vote in the primaries this year, but will most likely vote in the general election. (TAKEN TOGETHER WITH FACT #3, THIS MEANS 161 MILLION ELIGIBLE VOTERS DID NOT VOTE FOR ANY CANDIDATE DURING THE PRIMARY ELECTIONS.)
  5. The remaining 60 million people voted in the primaries: about 30 million each for Republicans and Democrats.
  6. But half of the primary voters (30 MILLIONS PEOPLE!) chose other candidates. Just 14 percent of eligible adults — 9 percent of the whole nation — voted for either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton.

When only 9 percent of eligible voters choose the candidates from the two major political parties, and so many other people are either (a) unhappy with those candidates and voted for someone else or (b) didn’t show up to vote at all, it shows there is a debilitating weakness in America’s democratic process.

How can we strengthen democracy in America without addressing the stranglehold that the two-party system has on it? Republicans vs. Democrats, Democrats vs. Republicans? No wonder there is such polarization in our politics, because the system is rigged to benefit the major political parties. And neither party is doing anything to encourage the majority of eligible voters who are not showing up to the polls at all (and likely won’t in this election given the dissatisfaction of the electorate with both candidates).

Cal State Faculty Unions protest Chancellor Tim White’s campus visits, prepare themselves for strike

January 19th, 2016

Hundreds of thousands of Cal State students will not have to worry about their professors going out on strike after the union representing faculty members failed to authorize a work stoppage on Tuesday.

That reprieve may be temporary, however. The leaders of the California Faculty Assn. warned they could still hit the picket line in the near future if their salary demands are not met.

“Faculty are ready and willing” to go on strike, said union President Jennifer Eagan, a professor at Cal State East Bay in Hayward.

The union, which represents nearly 26,000 professors, lecturers, counselors, librarians and athletic coaches at the 23-campus system, and Cal State administrators have been in deadlock since June 2015 over salary increases for the 2015-16 academic year.

The union has demanded a general 5% pay hike. Cal State Chancellor Timothy P. White has offered a 2% increase, despite the lack of any raises over the last six years in the post-recession climate.

Click this link for video clip of today’s rally at Cal State LA:  IMG_7744

 

On MLK Day, Wisdom about Work

January 18th, 2016

“No work is insignificant. All labor that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance and should be undertaken with painstaking excellence.”

Martin Luther King Jr.

Strong Unions, Strong Democracy

January 14th, 2016

From yesterday’s New York Times “Opinion” by By Richard Kahlenberg

IF the questions that came up during oral argument in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association on Monday are any guide, the ruling bloc of conservative justices appears ready to render a decision later this year that would significantly weaken public sector labor unions.

By stripping these unions of key financial resources — their fair share of fees provided by nonmembers — the court would upend a longstanding precedent. A decision in favor of the plaintiff would effectively slam the door on an era in which some conservatives joined liberals in recognizing that vibrant unions help make our democracy work. This is radicalism, not conservatism.

Public sector unions — representing teachers, firefighters and the like — are the remaining bright spot in America’s once-thriving trade union movement. In the case before the Supreme Court, Rebecca Friedrichs, a dissident teacher in Southern California, argues that she should be able to accept the higher wages and benefits the union negotiates, but not help pay for the costs.

Relying on the First Amendment, Ms. Friedrichs says that she shouldn’t be forced by the government to support political causes with which she disagrees. But almost four decades ago, the Supreme Court came to a sensible compromise on this issue, written by an Eisenhower appointee, Justice Potter Stewart:

No public sector worker can be compelled to join a union or to pay for its political efforts. However, the state may require that every worker pay fair share fees to support the costs of collective bargaining over bread-and-butter issues like wages, benefits and working conditions.

That 1977 ruling appears in real danger of being overturned. Doing so, David C. Frederick, a lawyer representing the union, told the court, “would substantially disrupt established First Amendment doctrine and labor management systems in nearly half the country.”

Continue Reading Full Article Here.

SCOTUS upholds equal protection, rules against laws excluding gays and lesbians from marriage

June 30th, 2015

What a long, strange trip it’s been.

In 2003 I was a graduate student in the philosophy program at UCSD, taking a seminar on jurisprudence from the eminent moral philosopher David Brink. In his seminar we read and discussed a variety of arguments by scholars ranging from Justice Antonin Scalia on “originalism” to Joel Feinberg on free expression vs. “offensive nuisances,” and we also read and discussed seminal Supreme Court cases relating to these issues. I had been interested in law and legal issues for many years by that time, having taken up policy debate as a way of life in high school, not to mention mock trial and Model U.N. in college. Moreover, I was a gay man and conscientious citizen who had already concluded that legal discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation had no place in a constitutional democracy that depends, in its very meaning, on the motto “equal protection under the law.” In other words, I was a “second-class” citizen with an axe to grind and had the analytical skills and arguments to hone its edge to near perfection. Sharpen Sie!

It was in that seminar that a close reading of constitutional principles and significant SCOTUS decisions on due process and equal protection convinced me there was one, and only one, simple line of argument leading from the 14th Amendment to the legal validity of same-sex marriage. I wrote my seminar paper on this topic, revised it later that summer, and sent it out for publication. The paper was titled “Equal Protection and Same-Sex Marriage” and it was published in the Journal of Social Philosophy in 2004. In it, I argued that the proper constitutional argument for supporting a decision on behalf of same-sex marriage and invalidating both federal and state laws defining “marriage” as a union of a man and woman is easily discerned in equal protection doctrine.

Admittedly, there is a lot of semantic confusion about the word “marriage” and its proper referent in this case, as well as a lot of empirically inaccurate, vaguely historical arguments about its definition as such a union (truthfully, before the emergence of the modern democratic state in Western societies only recently, and in much of the world still, “marriage” really refers to men owning and treating women like property). However, there is a precise legal meaning to the word “marriage” in this constitutional debate, and here we are talking exclusively about “civil” marriage, or the state’s legal recognition of a union between two persons that includes all the benefits and burdens that such recognition entails. Insofar as the state recognizes such unions from a legal standpoint they cannot exclude some persons from participating in it but not others. To do so is to violate the letter and the spirit of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which can be found at the very end Section 1 of that amendment. The sections reads:  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Unfortunately, the inane and insanely inaccurate debate sponsored by American-style conservatism about re-defining the word “marriage” has simply muddied the water to what is otherwise a crystal-clear expression of the obvious:  The decision that the Supreme Court reached in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 27, 2015 doesn’t redefine “marriage” at all, doesn’t substitute the judgment of “five lawyers” on the bench for the “will of the people,” and doesn’t even invent a new “gay” right on anything. Rather, the landmark ruling does nothing more and nothing less than enforce the equal protection of the clause of the 14th Amendment concerning the “civil” recognition of marriage laws by states. In short, there are already are “marriage” laws on the books, and since the 14th Amendment states to the letter, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” it follows without remainder that the majority decision of this civil rights case is exactly right.

Now for those who unfamiliar with its history, the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of several Reconstruction Amendments drafted in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War including the intransigence of southern states to accept the rule of law. In short, the amendment was created as a means of strengthening our constitutional system against detractors and scofflaws. We fought them in the Civil War, we fought them against Jim Crow, we fought them to desegregate. Therefore, it is important to recall that the basis of this landmark decision overturning anti-gay marriage laws, that civil rights are for all not just for some, is rooted in this country’s long and painful history to overcome, confront, overcome again and confront yet again.

By Kory P. Schaff, Editor

The Great Wage Slowdown of the 21st Century

October 7th, 2014

From today’s NYT “UpShot” Blog  by David Leonhardt:

American workers have been receiving meager pay increases for so long now that it’s reasonable to talk in sweeping terms about the trend. It is the great wage slowdown of the 21st century.

The typical American family makes less than the typical family did 15 years ago, a statement that hadn’t previously been true since the Great Depression. Even as the unemployment rate has fallen in the last few years, wage growth has remained mediocre. Last week’s jobs report offered the latest evidence: The jobless rate fell below 6 percent, yet hourly pay has risen just 2 percent over the last year, not much faster than inflation. The combination has puzzled economists and frustrated workers.

Of course, there is a long history of pessimistic predictions about dark new economic eras, and those predictions are generally wrong. But things have been disappointing for long enough now that we should take the pessimistic case seriously. In some fundamental way, the economy seems broken.

I probably don’t need to persuade most readers of this view, so the better way to think about the issue may be to consider the optimistic case. And last week, in his most substantive speech on domestic policy in months, President Obama laid out that case.

Read the entire article here.

Voodoo Econ, the Next Generation

October 6th, 2014

From yesterday’s NYT “Opinion” by Paul Krugman:

Even if Republicans take the Senate this year, gaining control of both houses of Congress, they won’t gain much in conventional terms: They’re already able to block legislation, and they still won’t be able to pass anything over the president’s veto. One thing they will be able to do, however, is impose their will on the Congressional Budget Office, heretofore a nonpartisan referee on policy proposals.

As a result, we may soon find ourselves in deep voodoo.

During his failed bid for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination George H. W. Bush famously described Ronald Reagan’s “supply side” doctrine — the claim that cutting taxes on high incomes would lead to spectacular economic growth, so that tax cuts would pay for themselves — as “voodoo economic policy.” Bush was right. Even the rapid recovery from the 1981-82 recession was driven by interest-rate cuts, not tax cuts. Still, for a time the voodoo faithful claimed vindication.

The 1990s, however, were bad news for voodoo. Conservatives confidentlypredicted economic disaster after Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax hike. What happened instead was a boom that surpassed the Reagan expansion in every dimension: G.D.P.jobswages and family incomes.

And while there was never any admission by the usual suspects that their god had failed, it’s noteworthy that the Bush II administration — never shy about selling its policies on false pretenses — didn’t try to justify its tax cuts with extravagant claims about their economic payoff. George W. Bush’s economists didn’t believe in supply-side hype, and more important, his political handlers believed that such hype would play badly with the public. And we should also note that the Bush-era Congressional Budget Office behaved well, sticking to its nonpartisan mandate.

But now it looks as if voodoo is making a comeback. At the state level, Republican governors — and Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas, in particular — have been going all in on tax cuts despite troubled budgets, with confident assertions that growth will solve all problems. It’s not happening, and in Kansas a rebellion by moderates may deliver the state to Democrats. But the true believers show no sign of wavering.

Meanwhile, in Congress Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, is dropping broad hints that after the election he and his colleagues will do what the Bushies never did, try to push the budget office into adopting “dynamic scoring,” that is, assuming a big economic payoff from tax cuts.

So why is this happening now? It’s not because voodoo economics has become any more credible. True, recovery from the 2007-9 recession has been sluggish, but it has actually been a bit faster than the typical recovery from financial crisis, despite unprecedented cuts in government spendingand employment. In fact, the recovery in private-sector employment has been faster than it was during the “Bush boom” last decade. At the same time, researchers at the International Monetary Fund, surveying cross-country evidence, have found that redistribution of income from the affluent to the poor, which conservatives insist kills growth, actually seems to boost economies.

 But facts won’t stop the voodoo comeback, for two main reasons.

First, voodoo economics has dominated the conservative movement for so long that it has become an inward-looking cult, whose members know what they know and are impervious to contrary evidence. Fifteen years ago leading Republicans may have been aware that the Clinton boom posed a problem for their ideology. Today someone like Senator Rand Paul can say: “When is the last time in our country we created millions of jobs? It was under Ronald Reagan.” Clinton who?

Second, the nature of the budget debate means that Republican leaders need to believe in the ways of magic. For years people like Mr. Ryan have posed as champions of fiscal discipline even while advocating huge tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations. They have also called for savage cuts in aid to the poor, but these have never been big enough to offset the revenue loss. So how can they make things add up?

Well, for years they have relied on magic asterisks — claims that they will make up for lost revenue by closing loopholes and slashing spending, details to follow. But this dodge has been losing effectiveness as the years go by and the specifics keep not coming. Inevitably, then, they’re feeling the pull of that old black magic — and if they take the Senate, they’ll be able to infuse voodoo into supposedly neutral analysis.

Would they actually do it? It would destroy the credibility of a very important institution, one that has served the country well. But have you seen any evidence that the modern conservative movement cares about such things?