A Brief History of American Socialism

“Educating Americans through the means of the library service could bring about a change of their political attitude quicker than any method. The basis of communism and socialistic influence is education of the people.”

– Congressman Harold Velde of Illinois (1950), speaking to Congress in opposition to library services in rural areas (Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States)

 

The United States has a rich socialist tradition. It is an integral part of our history and saturates our modern culture. Each morning millions of schoolchildren rise from their desks, place hands over their hearts, and recite a Pledge of Allegiance written in 1892 by socialist Francis Bellamy, a New York pastor.

Many American children learn and love the popular song “This Land is Your Land” by socialist Woody Guthrie. One of the verses:

In the shadow of the steeple I saw my people,
By the relief office I seen my people;
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking
Is this land made for you and me?

Millions of tourists flock to New York each year to see the Statue of Liberty, which is engraved with a poem, “The New Colossus,” written by radical Emma Lazarus. It ends:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Famous figures like Helen Keller, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jack London, Kurt Vonnegut, Malcolm X, Upton Sinclair, Arthur Miller, and W.E.B. Du Bois called themselves socialists. Same with Elizabeth Cady Stanton, John Dewey, Margaret Sanger, A. Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin. Others, such as Mark Twain and Thomas Paine, espoused socialistic ideas without labeling themselves (the latter existed before the term). People like Francois Fourier, Robert Owen, and Étienne Cabet established socialist towns across the nation. One community in West Roxbury, Massachusetts, was supported by Nathaniel Hawthorne and Ralph Waldo Emerson (see Nichols, The S Word).

Before the Red Scare and McCarthyism swept the United States during the Cold War, socialism was not a widely vilified political ideology. Major individuals and organizations publicly espoused it, from the Congress of Industrial Organization to American churches (launching the Christian Socialist movement; as Marx wrote, “Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge”).[1] The Scare has not yet passed, still gripping the older generation and conservatives, typically perpetuated by misinformation and fear-mongering. It has, however, begun to weaken, particularly due to Bernie Sanders and a surge in interest from a younger generation.

Whatever your political persuasion, it is undeniable that American socialism fueled the progressive movement and broadened freedom for all citizens. Throughout our history, many of the loudest demands for black rights, women’s rights, worker rights, and peace came from socialists, communists, anarchists, and other elements of the radical left.

Consider first the labor movement. Radicals were instrumental in leading the charge against starvation wages, child labor, unsafe working conditions, 12-16 hour workdays, seven-day workweeks, fines for tardiness, and so on in the 19th century and beyond. Solidarity was their battle cry. Troublemaking was their tactic: organizing, petitioning, striking, protesting, boycotting, picketing, sitting in, rioting. Socialist heroes like “Big Bill” Haywood and Ella Reeve “Mother” Bloor helped win us the workplace rights we take for granted today.

Of course, worker strikes occurred in the 18th century—that is, before the socialist movement. Americans already had a keen understanding of how capitalism functioned. Shoemakers with socialistic ideas declared in Lynn, Massachusetts, in 1844, four years before The Communist Manifesto:

The division of society into the producing and the non-producing classes, and the fact of the unequal distribution of value between the two, introduces us at once to [a] distinction—that of capital and labor… Labor now becomes commodity… Antagonism and opposition of interest is introduced in the community; capital and labor stand opposed.[2]

In 1860, Lynn participated in the largest strike in American history up to that point. 20,000 shoemakers went on strike in 25 towns throughout New England. The ideas that are the foundation of socialism—that the interests of owners and workers are not the same, that the capitalist few are a “non-producing” class growing wealthy off the labor of the many, the workers, the “producing class”—were already held true by American workers. They knew it from their own experiences. Thus socialism became fairly popular in the United States.

The quest for democratic, worker control of workplaces has also been underway for a long time. In the first recorded strike of U.S. workers, 20 tailors in 1768 left their employer and formed a cooperative. The Knights of Labor helped launch nearly 200 worker cooperatives by 1886, across the country and across various industries. “The Knights thrived for a decade but were eventually crushed by big businesses, which rallied to stamp out this new and disturbing breed of competition, refusing to ship goods made by cooperatives, sell machinery and materials to them, or issue them bank loans.” Still, the movement persisted, seeing a resurgence as African Americans sought economic independence (in 1907 there were 156 co-ops founded by African Americans), during the Great Depression, and in the revolutionary times of 1960s and 1970s.[3] Today there are still worker cooperatives across the country.[4]

In the spring of 1886, 200,000 Americans rose up in rebellion. American socialists organized and led labor unions and the Knights of Labor in a massive nationwide strike to push for an 8-hour workday, declaring a May 1st deadline for corporate power to yield. Violence sparked between protesters and police, and when a bomb went off in Haymarket Square in Chicago, the authorities hunted down and arrested the leaders of the strike. After a sham of a trial, four socialists were executed. May Day, International Workers Day, commemorates this event.

Strikes only grew larger. In the fall of 1934, 421,000 textile workers across the nation went on strike for better working conditions. During World War II, there were 14,000 strikes involving nearly 7 million people.[5] One strike reached half a million people. Still today, the labor movement (Fight for $15, Occupy Wall Street, and so on) is often organized, led, and strengthened by Marxists.

The history of American socialism is also a revolution against slavery, racial hatred, discrimination, and segregation. For example, the Republican Party was founded as an anti-slavery party in a schoolroom in Ripon, Wisconsin (a former utopian socialist community) on March 20, 1854 by radical Alvan Bovay and 16 other socialists.[6] Many socialists, the most prominent being Karl Marx, condemned black slavery and were elated when Lincoln became the first Republican president in 1861.

Abraham Lincoln, while no socialist, had his sympathies in the right place. As John Nichols points out in The “S” Word: A Short History of an American Tradition…Socialism, Lincoln was close to socialist editor of the New York Tribune Horace Greeley, befriended and allied himself with radicals who fled after failed revolutions in Europe in 1848 (some of them friends of Marx), appointed one socialist as his assistant secretary of war and another his ambassador to Spain, and even cordially corresponded with Marx about the American Civil War.[7] Lincoln said in his 1861 State of the Union Address:

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them…[8]

Later, the labor movement sparked an interracial push for equality for blacks in many workplaces and leftist groups. Throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s, poor blacks and whites often came together to strike for better wages, working conditions, and equal treatment. There were thousands of strikes in cities across the nation each year, and within them were sparks of progress. Blacks and whites were fighting the same battle, as losing limbs or dying on the job, dire poverty, and starvation were realities for millions of workers in Industrial America. Many realized their true conflict was not race but class.

Workers of all colors saw their employers grow rich, but were themselves given barely enough to stay alive, even though it was the workers themselves who created the wealth by creating the good or providing the service. And thus many unions and organizations integrated, like the Knights of Labor and the Industrial Workers of the World, both of which welcomed blacks, women, Asians, and immigrants. Many of such institutions’ founders, leaders, and members, the lifeblood of the labor movement, were socialists, who called for “equal rights for all without distinction to sex or race”[9] (to quote an 1883 congress in Pittsburgh). One union, the American Workers League, was formed as an interracial organization in 1853.[10] The American Federation of Labor opened its doors to black members in 1929.[11] At its height the Communist Party had 80,000 members, 9% of them black.[12] In an America where blacks were drinking from separate water fountains and being tortured and executed at neighborhood picnics, small pockets of socialists across the country were building a more tolerant society.

Many socialists understood the relationship between race and class. Racism was used to justify further oppression and wage theft by the capitalist class. Just as emancipation would mean the end of free labor for slave-owners, human equality would force business owners to pay blacks the same wages as whites. Racism served to prevent this, just as sexism and xenophobia prevented the same for women, undocumented immigrants, and others. In Communism and the Negro (1933), New Yorker Max Shachtman (head of the Worker’s Party) wrote:

The ruling class is in urgent need of the theory of racial inferiority…it affords them a moral justification for the super-exploitation and persecution to which it subjects the Negro. If trifling sums are allocated for Negro education, he is, after all, “only a nigger.”; if housing conditions are abominable, if the Negro is scandalously underpaid, if he is deprived of every democratic right, he is, after all, an inferior who does not deserve or require better; if he is hanged from a tree and riddled with bullets, or soaked with oil and burned to death by a mob of savages, it is, after all, “only a nigger” who suffers.[13]

Shachtman declared, “White workers [must] become the most uncompromising champions of the Negro.”[14]

Now, this is certainly not to say all leftist unions and all socialists were pro-civil rights or accepted blacks as equals. Racism within their ranks stalled progress, to be sure. There was often intense racial hostility in the competition for work. Corporations often responded to strikes by hiring unemployed blacks to replace white strikers, since they could pay them dismal wages with less threat of resistance—the racial tension and violence this created damaged the prospects of interracial organizing. And racism served capitalists a second way: it discouraged workers of different colors from uniting and unionizing to push for higher wages or shorter workweeks. However, many saw the closing line of The Communist Manifesto (“Working men of all countries, unite!”) as a call for racial equality in the fight for class equality. It is telling, also, that the Communist Party of the United States ran a black man, James W. Ford, for the vice presidency in 1932—to put that in perspective, Martin Luther King, Jr. was three.

Socialist, civil rights leader, and labor organizer A. Phillip Randolph once said, “The Socialist Party was the only party that had a philosophy that took account of the race problem and whose economic analysis addressed itself to the solution of the Negro’s problems.”[15] W.E.B. du Bois said in 1908 that “the only party today which treats Negroes as men, North and South, are the Socialists,”[16] and fifty years later, “It is clear today that the salvation of American Negroes lies in socialism.”[17]

Malcolm X later commented:

You can’t have capitalism without racism. And if you find a person without racism and you happen to get that person into conversation and they have a philosophy that makes you sure they don’t have this racism in their outlook, usually they’re socialists or their political Philosophy is socialism.[18]

Stokely Carmichael posited:

If a white man wants to lynch me, that’s his problem. If he’s got the power to lynch me, that’s my problem. Racism is not a question of attitude; it’s a question of power. Racism gets its power from capitalism. Thus, if you’re anti-racist, whether you know it or not, you must be anti-capitalist. The power for racism, the power for sexism, comes from capitalism, not an attitude.[19]

And Dr. King said:

We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing-oriented” society to a “person-oriented” society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.[20]

Moreover, he declared:

We must recognize that we can’t solve our problem now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power… this means a revolution of values… We must see now that the evils of racism, economic exploitation and militarism are all tied together… you can’t really get rid of one without getting rid of the others… the whole structure of American life must be changed.[21]

Still today, many of the most passionate anti-racists, such as those involved in the Black Lives Matter movement, are also socialists.

While white and black socialists pushed for racial equality, socialist women were hard at work across the country battling for gender equality. Marxist women were integral to the labor, peace, and civil rights movements (in 1937, while men conducted a sit-down strike in Flint, Michigan, plants, women armed themselves and fought police to protect the strikers[22]), but they are more so responsible for the freeing of womankind (something not all socialist men were happy about). They published literature, organized, and protested. In the 1915 suffrage campaign in New York, they distributed hundreds of thousands of leaflets in multiple languages, and held hundreds of meetings. Radical leftists like Emma Goldman, Helen Keller, and Mother Mary Jones (who co-founded the IWW), led the charge for voting rights, property rights, sexual rights, education rights, employment rights. Like some African Americans, they understood that a capitalist system that kept economic and political power in the hands of a few rich white men impeded their human progress.

Charlotte P. Gilman of Connecticut wrote a poem called “The Socialist and the Suffragist”:

Said the Socialist to the suffragist:
“My cause is greater than yours!
You only work for a special class,
We for the gain of the general mass,
Which every good ensures!”

Said the suffragist to the Socialist:
“You underrate my cause!
While women remain a subject class,
You never can move the general mass,
With your economic laws!”

Said the Socialist to the suffragist:
“You misinterpret facts!
There is no room for doubt or schism
In economic determinism—
It governs all our acts!”

Said the suffragist to the Socialist:
“You men will always find
That this old world will never move
More swiftly in its ancient groove
While women stay behind.”

“A lifted world lifts women up,”
The Socialist explained.
“You cannot lift the world at all
While half of it is kept so small,”
The suffragist maintained.

The world awoke, and tartly spoke:
“Your work is all the same:
Work together or work apart,
Work, each of you, with all your heart—
Just get into the game!”

After 20,000 immigrant women garment workers organized and went on strike in New York City in 1909, they celebrated the first Women’s Day. A few years later, in 1917, women demonstrators in Soviet Russia helped topple a dictator, and March 8 became the day International Women’s Day would later be celebrated.[23] Many of the fiercest feminists and equality advocates in the modern era are of course radicals.

With their activity and leadership in the progressive freedom movements, socialists were quite popular, a force to be reckoned with. In the first decades of the 20th century, an estimated 1 million Americans read socialist newspapers. The Appeal to Reason, a socialist publication from Kansas, was one of the nation’s most widely read papers, with 790,000 subscribers.[24] The Socialist Party had nearly 120,000 members.[25] Socialist politicians served in 340 cities across the country, some 1,200 mayors, councilpersons, state congressmen, etc.[26] In 1910, Milwaukee became the first major city to elect a socialist mayor, Emil Seidel. The city had socialist mayors off and on for the next 50 years, popular because they rooted out corruption and improved public services like health care, education, and public housing. Victor Berger of Milwaukee became the first socialist U.S. Congressman in 1911 and served off and on until 1929; throughout the 1910s and 1920s, the two major parties in Wisconsin were the Republicans and the Socialists. Even the smaller Communist Party put men on the New York City Council. The first Communist mayor in America served Crosby, Minnesota in 1933.[27] Oklahoma had one of the strongest socialist movements, with 12,000 Socialist Party members, who joined other voters in giving over 100 socialists local political power in 1914.[28] Missouri had 135 Socialist Party locals.[29]

Socialist parties had significant influence over candidates and policies. Even decades later, when the Red Scare gripped America, people still favored socialist policies; Upton Sinclair (author of The Jungle), in a letter to famous socialist Norman Thomas, remembered, “The American People will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label. I certainly proved it…running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to ‘End Poverty in California’ I got 879,000.”[30]

The most famous of all American socialist politicians was Eugene V. Debs of Indiana. He was the presidential candidate for the Socialist Party in 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912, and 1920. In 1920, he garnered 6% of the national vote (nearly 1 million people), a percentage any modern third-party candidate would die for, and he did it from a prison cell.

Debs was jailed, like thousands of other Americans, many of them socialists, by the Wilson administration for opposing America’s involvement in World War I. In a 1918 speech, Debs had thundered, “The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.” When the ruling class beat the drums of war, the loudest pleas for peace were often from socialists.

At his trial, Debs said, “I have been accused of obstructing the war. I admit it. Gentlemen, I abhor war. I would oppose it if I stood alone… I have sympathy with the suffering, struggling people everywhere. It does not make any difference under what flag they were born, or where they live.”

He was sentenced to 10 years, experiencing firsthand America’s sacred “freedom of speech” and its relevance during wartime. He was released early by President Harding, and died in 1926. Though not all radicals opposed the war (it in fact caused great division in the socialist movement), across the nation thousands of IWW members, unionists, laborers, socialists, and communists marched for peace, while the Department of Justice censored mail, raided meetings, broke into homes, and made arrests to root out these “disloyal” Americans. The government managed to destroy the IWW, but not the antiwar spirit. In Boston, for example, 8,000 marched on July 1, 1917, holding banners that read: “If this a popular war, why conscription? Who stole Panama? Who crushed Haiti? We demand peace.”[31]

Throughout the rest of the 20th century, American socialists and communists would continue to be at the forefront of peace movements during each and every war the United States entered. This continued into the 21st century.

 

Notes

[1] Communist Manifesto, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2762617?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[2] Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, 231

[3] http://inthesetimes.com/article/17061/a_co_op_state_of_mind

[4] https://usworker.coop/home/

[5] Zinn, People’s, 397, 417

[6] Nichols, The “S” Word, 58

[7] Nichols, 66, 73, 80

[8] Lincoln, 1861 State of the Union Address, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29502

[9] Zinn, People’s

[10] Nichols, 179

[11] Nichols, 179

[12] https://socialistworker.org/2016/08/15/the-socialist-history-they-hide-from-us

[13] Schachtman, Communism and the Negro

[14] Schachtman

[15] Nichols, 187

[16] Manning Marable, W.E.B. Du Bois: Black Radical Democrat, https://books.google.com/books?id=aw4eCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT108&lpg=PT108&dq=w.e.b.+du+bois+%22north+and+south,+are+the+socialists%22&source=bl&ots=dxvYm4T2L1&sig=CG5ioeCDBdppiVc2c7mXhm1v5C0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbsLWP9anSAhVM82MKHQhpAWsQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=w.e.b.%20du%20bois%20%22north%20and%20south%2C%20are%20the%20socialists&f=false

[17] W.E.B. du Bois, “The American Negro and Communism,” October 23, 1958, http://credo.library.umass.edu/view/pageturn/mums312-b206-i015/#page/1/mode/1up

[18] Malcolm X, Remarks at Militant Labor Forum Symposium, May 29, 1964

[19] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tug8RJyLoz0

[20] King, Beyond Vietnam: Breaking the Silence, 1967

[21] http://kairoscenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/King-quotes-2-page.pdf

[22] https://socialistworker.org/2016/08/15/the-socialist-history-they-hide-from-us

[23] https://socialistworker.org/2016/08/15/the-socialist-history-they-hide-from-us

[24] https://socialistworker.org/2012/07/19/the-appeal-for-socialism

[25] Howe, Socialism and America

[26] Zinn, 340

[27] Nichols, 132-133, 103-105

[28] Zinn, 340

[29] https://jacobinmag.com/2017/02/rise-and-fall-socialist-party-of-america/

[30] Letter to Norman Thomas (1951), Upton Sinclair, http://spartacus-educational.com/Jupton.htm

[31] Zinn, People’s

The Corporate Assault on Human Beings and Their Democracies

Political power, wealth, and business interests are all intimately linked. Rarely do we see one without the others, which can have devastating effects on both democracies and citizens. To paraphrase radical historian Howard Zinn, “The interests of corporations and the interests of the people are not the same.”

 

I: The Corporate Assault on Democracy

To rise to the highest political positions, an official must have a great deal of money and be well-connected to established political players and business titans. While there are some upsets, the best-funded candidates win congressional elections 86-97% of the time.[1] The same is virtually always true of presidential races.

Corporate donors therefore have a tremendous amount of power. In the Citizens United case of 2010, the Supreme Court allowed corporations to give as much money to political campaigns as they like. Therefore the richest corporations have the greatest ability to help decide elections, leaving poorer businesses, unions, organizations, not to mention the common people, in the dust. (Many problems with corporate influence in government also apply, to a lesser degree, to unions and organizations, from the UAW to the NRA. Solutions like public financing of elections [or perhaps only allowing small campaign donations from individuals] and lobbying reform must apply to all entities.) The 2013 McCutcheon v. F.E.C. case then allowed unlimited individual spending on elections, further empowering the rich to choose candidates.

However, capitalists cannot always know who will receive the most funding nor foresee with absolute certainty the victor, so corporations have long given money to both sides to assure whoever wins will aid their interests (public officials are keen to pay back donors, especially to secure funding for reelection campaigns). A senior vice president of International Telephone and Telegraph put it best in 1960 when he said his company board would “‘butter’ both sides so we’ll be in a good position whoever wins.”[2] As the Center for Responsive politics reported on giving to the party governor associations, “High profile donors that give to both sides include Comcast, Wal-Mart, Hewlett-Packard, AT&T, Coca-Cola, AFLAC and Verizon. The majority of these corporations donate about the same amount of money to both sides with five corporations giving exactly 50%: Novartis Corp, Kolhberg & Co, KKR & Co, Jacobs Entertainment Inc. and Intuit Inc.”[3]

Einstein wrote in 1949 that there existed an

…oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education).[4]

Corporations have methods of influencing public policy beyond candidate selection. They either are media companies or own the media (GE owns NBC and Comcast, Disney owns ABC, etc.), and fund think tanks, plus university departments and research institutes.[5] They threaten to move to other cities, states, or countries if politicians don’t enact laws that benefit them; their departure could mean ruin for local economies and working families. Boeing, the largest employer in Wichita, Kansas, infamously held that city—and state—hostage in the early 2000s.[6] Corporations employ armies of lobbyists to bribe politicians with campaign funds to enact or oppose specific policies, such as deregulating industries or putting exemptions into the tax code. Armies of lawyers and accountants then make sure companies are effectively using the loopholes to whittle down their taxes. This has been underway for decades, and now the largest companies pay no taxes, and even get tax refunds. Tax rates for rich individuals have likewise been significantly reduced. See “Giant Corporations Are Not Paying Taxes.”

Corporations lobby to make sure certain unethical and illegal actions can no longer be punished. In 1966, for instance, “auto industry lawyers persuaded members of Congress to delete the criminal penalty from the motor vehicle safety law, even for companies who knowingly sold defective cars or parts—and willfully declined to recall the cars even after their use resulted in injuries or death.”[7] Increased product safety meant higher costs for capitalists, so it was important to minimize or eliminate criminal penalties once they decided to put workers or consumers at risk. Or take the deadly opioid crisis of the first two decades of the 21st century, in which pharmaceutical companies made a killing by ignoring government requirements to report suspiciously large orders of opioids (such as nine million hydrocodone pills over two years to a town of 392 people), which were going to shady pain clinics and thus to addicts. When the DEA began cracking down on this negligence, the pharmaceutical industry launched the usual bribery methods (lobbying, donations to politicians, job offers) to convince Congress to scale back the DEA’s regulatory and enforcement powers.

In addition to the trillions in subsidies and tax breaks they receive, corporations use the government (and taxpayer money) as a life raft when they run into trouble. In the 1980s through the early 2000s, the financial sector succeeded in deregulating the practices of Wall Street banks and insurance companies, allowing those entities to make predatory investments and loans with public money. It was fraud on an unimaginable scale: mortgage lenders handed out low-quality, high-cost (and overvalued) home loans to consumers. This reaped hundreds of billions in profits for the banks, but in 2008 destroyed the housing market when scammed borrowers facing enormously high interest rates and mounting credit couldn’t make their payments. These people lost their homes to foreclosure, millions of nice homes stood empty, and the demand for housing construction vanished. The housing market crashed, and with it nearly the entire national economy (the global economy took a hit as well). Americans who owned stock lost fortunes, the poor lost their homes, and the banks, which loaned and borrowed money from each other, collapsed like dominoes. Yet the government bailed out the largest financial institutions, handing over trillions in taxpayer funds to the very CEOs and boards of directors who created the crisis!

Corporate power players, after all, ran the Department of the Treasury. Former Goldman-Sachs executives, for instance, held many of the top positions in the department, per usual. (Phone records have revealed the heads of financial institutions like Goldman-Sachs, Citigroup, and JP Morgan can get the treasury secretary on the phone several times a day, something no ordinary American is privileged to.[8]) The corporatists would stop at nothing to acquire the fortunes needed to save their corrupt institutions. Bailouts have been common practice for a long time—in 1999, Noam Chomsky pointed out that over 20 corporations on the Fortune 100 list would not still exist if not for public bailouts.[9] Congress gave the banks a $700 billion bailout. Not only did they save their banks, the capitalists awarded themselves millions of dollars in record bonuses. Today, the same men still control the financial sector and the governmental body in charge of overseeing it. “Three years after a horrific financial crisis caused by massive fraud,” reported Charles Ferguson in 2011 (Inside Job), “not a single financial executive has gone to jail.” Finally, one did in 2014. He got a sentence of 30 months.[10]

Senator Bernie Sanders summarized the state of American politics well when he said, “Wall Street is extraordinarily powerful. Congress doesn’t regulate them… Wall Street regulates Congress,”[11] in the same way Populist Party orator Mary Ellen Lease summarized it in 1890: “Wall Street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street and for Wall Street.”[12] In the Trilateral Commission report of 1976, Samuel Huntington of Harvard, a consultant to the White House during the Vietnam War, wrote that the country was “governed by the President acting with the support and cooperation of key individuals and groups in the executive office, the federal bureaucracy, Congress, and the more important businesses, banks, law firms, foundations, and media, which constitute the private sector’s ‘Establishment.’” He was not being critical. He believed there was an “excess of democracy,” recommending “limits to the extension of political democracy.”[13]

Corporations now design the very laws by which they must abide. Ralph Nader writes, “Few regulations are issued without heavy tinkering by corporate attorneys; the results are often obsolete before they are enacted” and “corporate lobbies have effected changes in the law that reduce or escape fines, cap damages under tort law, hold enforcement budgets down, appoint enforcers from their own executive ranks to head agencies, and pour money into the coffers of political parties and candidates.”[14] In 2013, 70 of the 85 lines in a bill on financial reform came straight from a draft created by Citigroup lobbyists.[15] Groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) bring together local lawmakers and business titans to draft legislation that ends up being voted on and thus benefiting the corporate designers.[16] Corporate influence leads to all kinds of lunacy, from Obama pushing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which allowed corporations to sue governments, including the U.S., if their policies interfered with corporate profits, to the weakening of anti-trust (anti-monopoly) laws, allowing corporations to swallow up or eradicate competitors.

2013 research from Political Research Quarterly showed that both political parties follow the whims of their wealthy constituents and donors, and during the 111th Congress Democrats were worse than Republicans in serving lower-income, majority interests.[17] A 2014 study from Northwestern University and Princeton University found that when economic elites overwhelmingly oppose a law, it only has an 18% chance of enactment.[18] Researchers concluded, “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” In 2017, Republicans were openly admitting that it was urgent to pass a new tax law or donors would abandon them. It is no coincidence that the Democrats who oppose Medicare-For-All get the most from the health insurance industry or that Republican leadership got huge corporate donations days after slashing the corporate tax rate.

Corporate executives are regularly installed in high government positions and set about serving the interests of private capital. President Nixon appointed a businessman to head OSHA who “was hostile to OSHA’s aims. One of his first acts was to order the destruction of 100,000 government booklets pointing out the dangers of cotton dust to textile workers.”[19] In 2013, President Obama announced that Tom Wheeler, former executive of (and Washington lobbyist for) cable and telecommunication giants, would be the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Wheeler, after all, raised almost three-quarters of $1 billion for Obama’s two presidential campaigns.[20] A man who spent decades lobbying for deregulation for some of the wealthiest corporations was now head of the government agency responsible for overseeing and regulating the same industry. Within a year, Wheeler was leading the charge to further allow monopolistic practices among Internet, cable, and phone service corporations, and dismantle net neutrality regulations. A later FCC chair attempting to axe net neutrality, Ajit Pai, was a former lawyer for Verizon, one of the companies pushing for the same. Things of course reached an absurd level under President Trump. His secretary of energy was on the board of directors of Energy Transfer Partners and earlier said he wanted to abolish the Department of Energy. His head of the Environmental Protection Agency didn’t believe in climate change and was at the time suing the EPA over environmental and health regulations. His National Economic Council director, chief strategist, and treasury secretary were all Goldman Sachs boys. His education secretary favored private schooling without government oversight over public schools, and was in no way qualified for the job, but donated huge sums to the Republican Party. His Health and Human Services director was a Big Pharma exec.[21] Most all were extraordinarily wealthy.

Not only do corporate millionaires and billionaires become powerful politicians and federal agency heads, many public officials retire and join corporate lobbying firms. The politicians who once at least put up a façade of serving the public make millions using their political connections to influence legislation to the benefit of corporations. It is called the “revolving door.” It is a two-way street of corruption and client politics. In 1974, only 3% of retiring Congressmen became lobbyists, but now it’s 50% of Senators and over 40% of House Representatives.[22] A 2012 article from the Nation reminded us, “Politicians never have to disclose job negotiations while in office, and never have to disclose how much they’re paid after leaving office,” leaving corporations free to

…secretly promise [politicians] a million dollars or more in pay if they come to work for [them] after they leave office. Once a public official makes a deal to go to work for a lobbying firm or corporation after leaving office, he or she becomes loyal to the future employer. And since those deals are done in secret, legislators are largely free to pass laws, special tax cuts, or earmarks that benefit their future employer with little or no accountability to the public.[23]

The average increase in salary for a lawmaker-turned-lobbyist in 2011 was 1,452%.[24] This is just an example of the rich getting richer, however. In 2009, nearly half of all 535 congressmen were millionaires, with a median net worth of $1.8 million for senators and over $620,000 for house representatives.[25] In 2012, over half of Congresspersons were millionaires.

It also takes money to preserve political careers, a large part of the problem. Congressmen spend 25% to 50% of their time in office fundraising, possibly more during election years. Even congressmen who have no chance of being voted out of office still are required to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for their party, to be used to support tight races. Thus politicians spend enormous amounts of time at dinners where donors pay huge sums of money per plate, or on the phone asking for contributions, instead of focusing on legislation the people desire.[26]

The Center for Responsive Politics tracks lobbying and corporate spending to influence law, and found the financial and real estate sector spent nearly $500 million in 2013 alone. The health care industry spent about the same. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce alone spent nearly $75 million on lobbying, the National Association of Realtors $38.5 million, Blue Cross/Blue Shield $22.5 million. Thousands of firms poured a collective $3.21 billion into lobbying. Campaign coffers overflowed with legalized bribes: the 113th Congress got $30 million worth of contributions from law firms, $16.5 million from real estate firms, $14 million from insurance powers. Nearly 130 senior staff (aides and advisors who work for lawmakers) of the 112th Congress were former lobbyists. In 2018, the Trump administration included 164 former lobbyists. The White House and the Departments of Commerce, Defense, State, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture have each employed over 1,000 people who were once lobbyists or went on to become lobbyists. The CIA, the Army, the Federal Reserve, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Education, Treasury, Transportation—virtually every agency—is infested with officials with business associations and interests.[27]

This can have enormous effects. Take the construction of the transcontinental railroad, one of the most important achievements for the development of our nation. Railroad companies

became dependents on government, using their initial capital not to start construction, but to bribe legislators…the first transcontinental railroad was not built by laissez-faire. The railroad capitalists did it with government land and money…the Central Pacific, starting on the West Coast, got 9 million acres of free land and $24 million in loans (after spending $200,000 in Washington for bribes).

The Union Pacific railroad sold shares to congressmen at discounted rates because, as one congressman involved in the bribe said, “There is no difficulty in getting men to look after their own property” (Zinn, A People’s History of the United States)!

Indeed, the deals and favors border on the absurd. After Reagan removed controls on oil prices, essentially awarding $2 billion to the oil industry, twenty three oil executives donated over a quarter-million dollars to redecorate the White House living quarters; the owner of the Core Oil and Gas Company said, “The top man of this country ought to live in one of the top places. Mr. Reagan has helped the energy business.”[28] Lobbying is an extraordinarily important practice for oil and gas companies in the face of the environmentalist movement, as massive sums of cash help keep politicians in line with industry objectives and garner profitable subsidies. The industry spent nearly $41 million on politicians’ campaigns in 2013 and 2014. Total, the industry spent over $326 million lobbying the U.S. government. The government spent nearly $34 billion on the fossil fuel industry in the same time period, in the form of subsidies, a nice return on an investment.[29] University of Kansas Law School researchers found that for every dollar spent on lobbying, companies received $220 in tax breaks—a return of 22,000%.[30]

That is the corporate assault on our democracy. It is dangerous because in a democracy decision-making power is supposed to rest with the people, who send public officials to Washington to represent them. Those with greater wealth are not supposed to have more influence and control over the process. If the majority of the people want to protect the environment but oil companies do not, who should win?

 

II: The Corporate Assault on Human Beings

Yet the dangers of capitalist control of government are overshadowed by the physical perils of the profit motive (distinct from the theft that constitutes capitalistic exploitation). Corporate abuse harms and kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people worldwide each year and can work against positive social goals, like ending drug addiction, establishing safer workplaces, or protecting the environment (we’ve seen elsewhere the damage capitalism is doing to our planet). Corporate abuse takes place to increase profits, and weak regulations and harmless consequences allow it to continue.

Profit is why corporations sell addictive, deadly cigarettes, which kill more people than all illegal drugs combined. Profit is why tobacco companies kept knowledge of cancer and other dangers secret.[31] Profit is why the National Football League tried to bury findings on CTE, the brain injury many players sustain.[32] Profit is why Big Oil buried its own findings that manmade CO2 was contributing to climate change.[33] Profit is why the quality of fast food is so poor, why much of it is packed with dangerously addictive levels of sugar, salt, and fat, as well as chemical additives and preservatives. Profit is why innocent people are dropped from their health insurance coverage when they get sick or denied insurance when applying for it, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths each year.[34] Profit is why energy companies want inefficient modes of transit and electricity, and therefore fight tooth and nail against cleaner, more efficient forms of energy, higher MPG requirements, and stricter environmental standards. General Motors and Chevron bought up and destroyed Los Angeles’ public rail system to make way for their products.[35]

Laws with no teeth allow corporations to dump toxic waste or install garbage incinerators in poor minority areas, and to poison our air, water, and soil with pollutants, pesticides, and hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) toxins. Profit is the reason drug companies “promote off-label or unapproved uses for their medicines through their salespeople and physicians,” resulting in tens of thousands of deaths each year.[36] It’s why drug companies focus research and development on medicine for minor problems that have to be bought continuously over a lifetime, and focus less on drugs for diseases like malaria, whose victims have no money.[37] It’s why some companies research ways to make their products wear out faster, so people have to buy more—“planned obsolescence.”[38] It’s why oil companies sometimes conspire to hold back production to keep prices up—this has been done not just by Arabian oil cartels but also by American firms.[39]

Weak regulations are why employers casually violate rules for worker safety, leading to everything from lead and asbestos poisoning to maiming, blindness, and death. “In the ’80s, the Reagan administration essentially informed the business world that it was not going to prosecute violations of OSHA regulations. As a result, the number of industrial accidents went up rather dramatically…working days lost to injury almost doubled from 1983 to 1986…”[40] In 2014, Congress changed safety rules for truck drivers, raising the number of hours per week an employee could drive from 70 to 82—despite recent deaths on the roads caused by exhausted truck drivers.[41] Businesses had money to make. In 2016, Oxfam reported that American workers in poultry plants were denied bathroom breaks so often that workers had to wear diapers. Oxfam said that “the cost of cheap chicken in the U.S. is workers who face low wages, suffer elevated rates of injury and illness and face a climate of fear in the workplace.” It reported that

…unnamed workers from Tyson Foods Inc., Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., Perdue Farms Inc. and Sanderson Farms Inc… said that supervisors mock them, ignore requests and threaten punishment or firing. When they can go, they wait in long lines even though they are given limited time, sometimes 10 minutes, according to the report. Some workers have urinated or defecated themselves while working because they can’t hold on any longer… Some workers “restrict intake of liquids and fluids to dangerous degrees”…[42]

Workers and undercover journalists report appalling conditions at Amazon warehouses, where too much deviation from the breakneck pace will get workers fired, forcing them to urinate in trashcans and bottles to avoid bathroom break penalties, some collapsing from exhaustion and leaving in ambulances. There exist penalties for sick days (like at Walmart), and wages are so low some workers resort to camping near the warehouses. Walmart and Amazon have patented systems to listen to employee conversations and track hand movements in real time, respectively. At Tesla factories, energy drinks are distributed to combat exhaustion, and not even a raw sewage spill under workers’ feet will stop production.

Employers often find it more profitable to put worker lives on the line and simply risk paying pennies in fines (illegal immigrants can have it even worse). Nader writes:

Roughly sixty thousand Americans die each year due to workplace-related toxins and trauma. OSHA has an annual budget of $550 million to diminish the occupational disease, death, and injury epidemic, but only a portion of that budget is used for actual inspections and enforcement. Violations that pose a substantial probability of death or serious injury incur an average penalty of only $910.

60,000 Americans a year. The International Labour Organization, a United Nations agency, estimates over 650,000 workers around the world die each year from workplace hazards and toxins; 160 million people grow ill.[43] No, not all these deaths are due to capitalist negligence in the name of profit – accidents happen, and many jobs are dangerous by nature – but some are. For example, from 2009 to 2010, 137 Apple workers were poisoned by inhaling hexane, a chemical in gasoline used to clean the glass cases on iPhones. Apple favored hexane over something safer, like alcohol, because hexane dries very quickly, meaning faster production.[44]

If it’s not the employees at risk, it’s the consumers. In the 1970s, after defective fuel tanks in Ford Pintos were revealed to explode in some accidents, Ford calculated that it would be cheaper to pay lawsuit settlements ($200,000 for each case) than recall and repair the cars ($137 million). Ford did not fix the problem. 180 innocent people died each year from explosions linked to the defective fuel tanks.[45] In 2015, the Justice Department declared GM had intentionally misled the public about its defective ignition switches, which killed 124 people. At the same time, Volkswagen was found to have installed software in its vehicles that could detect and trick emissions tests.

None of this is new. As capitalism matured, industrializing nations saw horrific suffering as armies of poor men, women, and children were worked to exhaustion in factories, plants, and mines. Dying or losing limbs on the job and starving to death at home were the realities for millions of human beings during the Industrial Revolution. Ordinary people saw their employers grow rich, while they were given barely enough to stay alive. Victor Hugo[46] in the 1880s told the rich of England:

The workers of this world whose fruits you enjoy live in death. There are little girls who begin at eight by prostitution, and who end at twenty by old age. Who among you have been to Newcastle-on-Tyne? There are men in the mines who chew coal, to fill their stomach and cheat hunger. Look you in Lancashire. Misery everywhere. Are you aware that the Harlech fishermen eat grass when the fishery fails? Are you aware that at Burton- Lazers there are still certain lepers driven into the woods, who are fired at if they come out of their dens? In Peckridge there are no beds in the hovels, and holes are dug in the ground for little children to sleep in; so that, in place of beginning with the cradle, they begin with the tomb.[47]

In 1904, 27,000 American workers were killed at work; in 1914, 35,000 died in industrial accidents.[48] In the U.S. and across the world, workers had to organize, unionize, strike, protest, and riot for government regulations, for safer working conditions, decent pay, shorter days, weekends, the end of child labor, and equal opportunity and treatment for minorities and women.

At times the deaths of employees can be profitable to capitalists in a more direct way. “Dead peasant insurance” (or “corporate-owned life insurance”) is used when a corporation takes out a life insurance policy on an employee or former employee and receives cash upon his or her death. It was originally a way to insure the lives of top executives and buffer against turmoil and collapse in the case of an executive death, but it was later extended to cover even the lowest-paid employees because it was profitable to do so. Capitalism: A Love Story stresses this is a common practice in corporate America, with Wal-Mart, Procter & Gamble, Bank of America, AT&T, and Citibank among the many guilty firms. It tells the tale of Daniel Johnson, whose employer received $1.5 million upon his death, and explains how corporate owners compare worker deaths and insurance rewards against “expected mortality” estimates to increase the efficacy and profitability of the system. From a 2002 Wall Street Journal report we learned that when former employee Filipe Tillman died of AIDS, Camelot Music collected $339,302; when store clerk William Smith was murdered at work, National Convenience Stores collected $250,000; when nurse Peggy Stillwagoner died in a car wreck, Advantage Medical Services collected $200,000.[49] It is difficult to call our society civilized when corporations actively find ways to profit from worker deaths. Government regulation in 2006 required employers to get employee consent before taking out a policy and restricted the use to higher-paid employees. But this effort was weak, as it left a deplorable practice completely legal. In 2011, the owner of an oil-change business tried to hire a hit man to murder a former employee so the owner could collect $250,000.[50]

A 2016 CBS News investigation found mass fraud throughout the life insurance industry. Firms like MetLife, Prudential, and John Hancock didn’t pay death benefits to family members of the deceased who weren’t aware they were beneficiaries. Instead of honoring the deceased, who paid for the policies to make sure their families would have money in case something happened to them, the companies cancelled the unclaimed policies and kept the sums. Millions of such policies were wrongfully and knowingly cancelled, saving the companies billions. 25 companies settled lawsuits and paid $7.5 billion in owed death benefits. 35 more were under investigation that year.[51]

Clearly, the interests of corporations and the interests of the people are not the same.

 

Notes

[1] http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-white-house-and/

[2] Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, 548

[3] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/11/democrats-and-republicans-sharing-b/

[4] Einstein, Why Socialism?

[5] http://time.com/4148838/koch-brothers-colleges-universities/

[6] Frank, What’s the Matter With Kansas?, 86-88

[7] Nader, Seventeen Solutions

[8] Maass, Case for Socialism, 93.

[9] Chomsky, The Common Good, 73

[10] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/magazine/only-one-top-banker-jail-financial-crisis.html?_r=0

[11] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/18/1092100/-Bernie-Sanders-Congress-doesn-t-regulate-banks-banks-regulate-congress-Must-see

[12] Zinn, People’s, 288

[13] Zinn, People’s 559-560

[14] Nader, Seventeen Solutions

[15] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/29/business/dealbook/29lobbyists-documents.html, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/citigroup-bill-passes-house/

[16] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2002/09/ghostwriting-law/

[17] http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/19/oligarchic-tendencies-study-finds-only-the-wealthy-get-represented-in-the-senate/

[18] http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-us-no-longer-democracy

[19] Zinn, People’s, 575

[20] http://business.time.com/2013/05/02/tom-wheeler-former-lobbyist-and-obama-fundraiser-tapped-to-lead-fcc/

[21] http://www.marieclaire.com/politics/a23922/donald-trump-cabinet-appointments/; https://www.axios.com/alex-azar-made-millions-in-the-drug-industry-1513307070-2fdf898e-f5a1-409e-a7bf-53d5535a5f1b.html

[22] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/books/review/this-town-by-mark-leibovich.html?pagewanted=all

[23] http://www.thenation.com/article/166809/when-congressman-becomes-lobbyist-he-gets-1452-percent-raise-average#

[24] http://www.thenation.com/article/166809/when-congressman-becomes-lobbyist-he-gets-1452-percent-raise-average#

[25] Alan Maass, Case for Socialism, 106

[26] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk

[27] http://www.opensecrets.org/influence/; https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/07/revolving-door-update-trump-administration/

[28] Zinn, People’s, 577

[29] http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-industry-influence-in-the-u-s/

[30] http://archive.news.ku.edu/2009/april/9/taxlobbying.shtml

[31] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/big-tobacco-kept-cancer-risk-in-cigarettes-secret-study/

[32] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-nfl-worked-to-hide-the-truth-about-concussions-and-brain-damage-excerpt/

[33] https://gsgriffin.com/2016/12/08/even-oil-companies-know-global-warming-is-man-made/

[34] https://gsgriffin.com/2017/06/14/free-market-healthcare-is-immoral/

[35] Chomsky, Common Good, 59

[36] Nader, Seventeen Solutions

[37] Imagine, 181

[38] Imagine, 181

[39] Zinn, People’s, 549

[40] Chomsky, Common Good

[41] http://socialistworker.org/2014/12/18/washingtons-presents-1-percent

[42] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-11/poultry-workers-in-diapers-as-bathroom-breaks-denied-oxfam-says

[43] http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/eurpro/moscow/areas/safety/statistic.htm

[44] Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA, 232

[45] Wright, Envisioning Real Utopias, 74

[46] How socialist was Hugo? See http://isreview.org/issue/89/enduring-relevance-victor-hugo

[47] Hugo, “The Rich”

[48] Zinn, People’s, 327

[49] http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/april_19.htm

[50] http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2014/06/26/does-sneaky-boss-have-life-insurance-on/

[51] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-life-insurance-investigation-lesley-stahl/

The Ethics of the N-Word

When I wrote “Why Black History Month Isn’t Racist But White History Month Would Be (and Other White Conundrums),” I summarized and closed with the following sentence: “Because you know your history and because you are a decent person.”

Of all white conundrums, “Why is it OK for black people to say the N-word but not white people?” is probably the most embarrassing. The answer to this question is of course identical to the conclusion of the prior article, but I did not include the infamous racial slur because it seemed like the topic deserved its own piece. Further, while the answer is the same the question is a bit different. The last article concerned why white people shouldn’t celebrate their race the way many black people do. That had something to do with whiteness — what should white identity really entail? White people being able to freely say racial slurs has nothing to do with whiteness. Only blackness.

Asking why it’s “not OK” for whites to use the N-word is really asking why it isn’t socially acceptable. Asking why something isn’t socially acceptable is asking why a majority opinion exists that this something is immoral. What’s socially acceptable is always rooted in ethics, from slavery to the age of consent, and thus the question is actually “Why is it immoral for whites to say the N-word but not blacks?”

Morality concerns what does harm to others. Our answer is thus self-evident. Whites who use the slur do more harm (psychologically, emotionally) to black folk than other black people who use it.

“It’s like a knife,” Ice Cube told Bill Maher after Maher used the slur. “It’s been used as a weapon against us by white people.” Maya Angelou described it as a “poison.” Human beings, she said, “are worth everything. Women are better than being called the ‘b’ word, and blacks are better than being called the ‘n’ word… You are better than being called the word that would deny your humanity.” It is astonishing that some white people seem confused that a term historically used to mark blacks as subhuman, worthy of oppression, rape, and murder, might cause emotional distress, from embarrassment to rage. (It’s not actually astonishing; white people have a long history of lacking basic empathy and critical thinking skills.) The slur causes such pain that physical dangers like knives and poison often accompany its description.

While some African Americans use the N-word and others despise it so much they do not (Ice Cube and Angelou, respectively), in either case the word coming from a white person has a different connotation because of our history. That is obvious and hardly complex. Even if the user considers himself or herself an antiracist or speaking without racist intent, the impact needs to be considered as well. It’s what ethical people do. They think about how their actions affect others; for the N-word, the impact of a white user is simply not the same as that of a black user, even if some black people are also bothered when fellow blacks use the term.

If what’s immoral is based on what causes harm to others, we know then that varying amounts of harm translates to varying degrees of wrong. Ethics exist on a continuum, a sliding scale; they are not black and white. A poor man who steals $25 from a rich man to buy a meal because he is hungry has not committed a wrong as grave as a rich man who steals $25 from a poor man because he is greedy. The intents are quite different, and while the financial loss is the same it hardly has the same impact. A woman who kills a rapist in self-defense has not committed so grave an immoral act (in fact, none at all in my view) as a woman who kills her husband to cash in a life insurance policy. Different intent, even different impact: though the loss of either man may cause pain to their family and friends, one scenario rids the world of a rapist.

Knowing ethics are situational, it’s easy enough to imagine a continuum for the immorality of the N-word, from least wrong (or perhaps not wrong at all) to most wrong, such as:

  • A white person quoting a black person criticizing the word or a white racist using the word (as a means of education)
  • A white person using it when singing hip-hop alone in a car (only potential harm exists: frequent use of the word privately could lead to public use)
  • A white person using it in a joke or mimicking its use as a term of endearment among black people (these contexts cause emotional and psychological harm)
  • A white person using it to degrade, vilify, oppress (overt racism, extreme emotional and psychological harm)

Other scenarios could be conjured. While some will object, insisting these are all equally immoral (or disagree on the order — perhaps the first and second could be switched, as the first one is public and might cause more harm), emphasizing that the use of the N-word is on an ethical continuum is key to demonstrating why it’s not OK for white people to use it, why it isn’t a double standard, hypocritical, all that intellectual laziness.

Imagine the scenarios we would put before those above. These would be situations even less unethical, perhaps morally acceptable. For example, a black person singing along to hip-hop, using the N-word as a term of endearment with a friend, writing a song that includes it, etc. None of these carry the harm or potential harm that the examples featuring white folk do (even though they may carry some, such as upsetting other African Americans who do not use the term, influencing white folk, and so on).

So we see how different contexts and different speakers cause varying degrees of harm, which changes the immorality accordingly. To be moral, we whites must be cognizant of the pain we can cause. You do not use the N-word because you know your history and because you are a decent person.

(Here I must acknowledge my bias. As a white writer interested in race, I often am in the first category for whites above, quoting others word-for-word so as to preserve the full power, whether wickedness or wisdom, of the N-word. I do not censor the words of James Baldwin:

What you say about somebody else, anybody else, reveals you. What I think of you as being is dictated by my own necessities, my own psychology, my own fears, and desires. I’m not describing you when I talk about you, I’m describing me… I didn’t invent the nigger… I’ve always known that I am not the nigger. But if I am not the nigger, and if it’s true your invention reveals you, then who is the nigger?… You’re the nigger, baby. It isn’t me.

Nor do I censor — whitewash — the true wickedness and hatred of whites who use the slur to tear down and demean black people, such as when a Baltimore teacher, in addition to calling her black students “idiots” and “stupid,” screamed that if they didn’t take schoolwork seriously each would end up a “punk-ass nigger who’s going to get shot.”

There are times when the N-word is redacted not to protect black people but to protect white people. Not all readers will agree, but I think there are moments when quoting the word — in writing; verbally falls elsewhere on the moral continuum — can remind whites of its evil, its pain, in the same way exposure to the true barbarism of our racial history can deeply impact white people and change them in positive ways. In a time of white denial, such an education of the word’s full power may be helpful.)

But even after understanding the moral difference between users of different colors and accepting that whites should not use the term, whites may yet have a remaining conundrum: “Why do black people use the term when it’s hate speech targeting them?”

While again emphasizing that many African Americans detest the word no matter who says it and would never say it themselves, we need to understand that appropriating derogatory labels is a very human thing to do, almost to the point of being predictable. Victims often seize the hate speech of perpetrators and adopt it because it strips the latter of their power.

There are many examples in world history of this. “Yankee Doodle” was originally a song used by the British to mock the American troops during the Revolution (yankee itself was likewise a term of derision). The song was quickly appropriated by the Americans. Next, observe what the GLAAD Glossary of Terms notes of queer: “Once considered a pejorative term, queer has been reclaimed by some LGBT people to describe themselves; however, it is not a universally accepted term even within the LGBT community.” Impressionist was created to mock Monet and others who didn’t paint in an ultra-realist fashion. If a sneering art critic inspires the reclamation and redesign of insults, why wouldn’t white supremacists? A jesuit was originally someone criticized for using the name of Jesus too often. Suffragette was first intended to mock militant women. Nasty woman became a badge of honor in 2016, as did deplorable. For many African Americans, “black” used to be a pejorative, “negro” respectful, but now it’s the reverse. There are countless other reappropriations, varying in their degrees of popularity, from tree hugger to bitch. Parents even teach children to handle bullies in a similar manner. Adopting words meant to attack and insult you is a human trait that speaks to our resiliency, feelings of self-worth, and deep appreciation for irony and tragicomedy. Understanding this should erase white people’s assumptions that black people who use the N-word are expressing nothing but self-loathing.

Petition Against the Militia

On the weekend of August 19, 2017, leftist activists organized two events in Kansas City, Missouri: a rally against prisoner abuse and a march against white supremacy. Though successful, these rallies were stalked by men dressed in camouflage and armed with knives, handguns, and rifles — members of a right-wing “militia” group called the “Three Percenters.”

These men were inspired by the “militia” that protected the neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and Confederates in Charlottesville, Virginia, the week before. They were not present to protect the Kansas Citians gathering for justice for prisoners and people of color, as they absurdly implied in the press and to passersby. They came to intimidate, no doubt with some hope a protester would break a window or step out of line in some fashion so they could murder said protester and call it justified. The Three Percenters circled the protesters during speeches and then followed them on their march.

The Kansas City Police Department allowed this. It could have kept these counter-protesters behind a police line, cornered off away from the crowd, as it did during a June 10, 2017 protest/counter-protest. But instead the “militia” was allowed to stalk the crowd. Videos even surfaced of a disturbingly friendly police-“militia” relationship, in which one Three Percenter says the KCPD asked them to come and another tells police they’d “keep you in the loop” concerning any altercations (highlighting what they were there for, to take matters into their own hands, the police a mere afterthought).

Because the Three Percenters were there to intimidate, because weaponry readied against unarmed protesters is both unnecessary and enormously increases the risk of altercations, violence, or death, because protesters felt unsafe, and because (as with a car mowing down protesters) it is only a matter of time before a “militia” kills a protester for no reason, we demand the following:

1. During future events, “militias” and other counter-protesters will be kept at a safe distance behind a police line. The police will not allow them to leave their area, circle the crowd, enter the crowd, follow the crowd, or harass or terrorize or intimidate the crowd in any way.

2. The KCPD will immediately release a public statement declaring the above is official policy and will be followed to the letter.

https://www.change.org/p/kcpd-keep-the-militia-on-a-leash

It Can Happen Here

The chilling hatred white supremacists, white nationalists, and neo-nazis displayed in Charlottesville, Virginia, the weekend of August 12, 2017, was an affront to human dignity — and at multiple times a literal attack upon it. On Friday night on the University of Virginia campus, students standing up against the “Alt-Right” were surrounded and assaulted. At the “Unite the Right” rally the next day at a city park, a rally participant ran over and killed Heather Heyer, a paralegal and anti-racist activist. He injured 19 others in the attack. Others severely beat Deandre Harris, an anti-racist protester and hip-hop artist, in a parking garage. Fistfights broke out elsewhere.

Symbols of white supremacist violence, genocide, and oppression were prevalent. Swastikas and Nazi salutes, Ku Klux Klan hoods and crosses, Confederate flags and burning torches. Chants like “Proud to be white,” “You will not replace us,” “White lives matter,” and “Blood and soil” (an old Nazi slogan) filled the air. Many enjoyed the privilege of walking around with heavy weaponry and acting provocatively without fear of swift and painful police retribution.

Yet standing against them, arm-in-arm and singing, were local clergy. People of all colors, genders, orientations, and beliefs worked together — truly, the American ideal — to show with their bodies and voices that white supremacy has no place in a decent society. Residents and visitors from around the nation, youths and workers, radicals and civil rights activists, they all marched through the streets together in the name of justice. Not all went home unscathed. One did not go home at all. But all did the right thing in that moment. History will look as admirably upon them as it looks upon the souls attacked on the Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday 1965.

It is their example that Kansas City must follow. With our words and with our bodies, Kansas Citians must confront racial hatred in all its forms. What happened in Charlottesville can happen here.

Kansas City is still scarred by its history of oppression of people of color: from where we live to how long we live to how much wealth we have. Events in 2017 alone have left an open wound in our present. As documented, swastikas, nooses, slurs, vandalism, threatening phone calls, declarations of “white power,” Alt-Right literature condemning a diverse America, beatings, and a shooting by a man hunting Arabs have all been experienced in our city in the past eight months alone. The past few years is an even darker story. There is no question the same elements that made this weekend’s horrific events possible exist in Kansas City.

We will confront daily the legacy of Kansas City’s white supremacy, working for equality and prosperity for all people. All of Kansas City — especially white people, who have turned away in the face of injustice for too long — must address racial and other mistreatment or stereotyping wherever they see it and at the moment they hear it. All of us must be fearless in the face of danger. We must confront hatred with our words and our bodies. We will speak up and show up. Justice expects nothing less. History expects nothing less.

How Racism and Illegal Immigration Benefit Capitalism

Both racism and illegal immigration have been enormously beneficial to capitalism.

In human history, the idea of biological inferiority only became widespread alongside the rise of the African slave trade, as traders and merchants needed a justification for the enslavement of millions of people who were neither prisoners of war nor individual debtors (the traditional justifications for slavery among Europeans). Perpetuating the myth that blacks were little better than animals allowed organizers and participants in the slave trade to reap colossal profits from free labor with impunity. Racism served the monetary interests of a certain few.

Even after slavery ended, racism was used to justify further oppression and wage theft by the capitalist class. Just as emancipation would mean the end of free labor for slave-owners, human equality would force business owners to pay blacks the same wages as whites. Racism served to prevent this, just as sexism and xenophobia prevented the same for women, undocumented immigrants, and non-whites in general. In Communism and the Negro (1933), New Yorker Max Shachtman (head of the Worker’s Party) wrote:

The ruling class is in urgent need of the theory of racial inferiority… It affords them a moral justification for the super-exploitation and persecution to which it subjects the Negro. If trifling sums are allocated for Negro education, he is, after all, “only a nigger.”; if housing conditions are abominable, if the Negro is scandalously underpaid, if he is deprived of every democratic right, he is, after all, an inferior who does not deserve or require better; if he is hanged from a tree and riddled with bullets, or soaked with oil and burned to death by a mob of savages, it is, after all, “only a nigger” who suffers.[1]

Racism served capitalists a second way: it discouraged workers of different colors from uniting and unionizing to push for higher wages, shorter workweeks, or more decent working conditions and treatment. There was racial hostility in the competition for work, and corporations often responded to strikes by hiring unemployed blacks to replace white strikers, as they could pay them dismal wages with less threat of resistance. The racial tension and violence this created impeded the progress of interracial organizing and helped keep the working class poor.

Prominent black leaders saw the connection between racism and capitalism. Malcolm X said, “You can’t have capitalism without racism”; Stokely Carmichael said, “Racism gets its power from capitalism”; and Dr. King said, “The evils of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism are all tied together.”[2] They knew that racism served capitalists’ financial interests, whether consciously or as a matter of course.

Illegal immigration has likewise enormously benefited capitalism, both in the U.S. and worldwide, in a similar way to how racism benefits capitalism. In the U.S. it is illegal to hire undocumented workers; employers do so regardless, particularly in the manufacturing, construction, agriculture, restaurant, and service sectors.

Illegal immigrants are some of the most exploited workers in history. (See Amnesty Solves Conservative Criticisms of Illegal Immigration for more on this general topic.) With employers holding the power to fire or turn them in to the authorities, undocumented workers face dismal pay, harsh working conditions, and an inability to organize and unionize to improve their position. They are not entitled to a minimum wage, nor benefits, nor overtime, nor child labor protections, nor in most states injury compensation. In 2008 authorities discovered children as young as 13 working in an Iowa meatpacking plant, and beaten and bruised adults working 17-hour days.[3]

Alan Maass writes:

For corporations and the U.S. political establishment, immigration has nothing to do with making opportunities available to the world’s poor and suffering. Like slavery in an early era, the key is how immigration guarantees a pool of cheap and easily controlled labor.

If you look at the history of the United States, the idea that immigration controls and border security are about keeping immigrant labor out is laughable. For two centuries, one group after another was encouraged to move to the United States under conditions of illegality, and be the scapegoat at the bottom of the heap. Irish, Jews, Germans, Swedes, southern Italians, Eastern Europeans, Asians, Mexicans, Central Americans, Muslims…[4]

Capitalists can increase their profits by taking advantage of millions of people, again whether intentionally or as a natural, inadvertent consequence. Capitalism benefits from a steady flow of illegal immigrants.

It is very interesting to note that in this case the ideology of anti-immigrant conservatives does not align with the interests of capitalist power. So often conservatism serves corporate interests, such as the hostility toward environmental protection regulations and the opposition to the minimum wage.

But here racism benefits capitalism in one way and hurts it in another. Virulent racism allowed for the super-exploitation of certain groups of people, but also created masses of racist people who opposed the arrival of blacks, Jews, Greeks, Italians, Hispanics, etc. throughout American history. Most all non-Western European immigration, legal and illegal, has been opposed because of bigotry at various times. The current anti-immigrant hysteria certainly has a racial component. In sum, while capitalism benefits from illegal immigration the same racism that also benefits capitalism encourages people to oppose illegal immigration, screaming for deportation, patrolling borders as vigilantes, and calling for the construction of massive walls.

 

Notes

[1] Schachtman, Communism and the Negro

[2] Malcolm X, remarks at Militant Labor Forum Symposium, May 29, 1964; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tug8RJyLoz0; Martin Luther King Jr., Beyond Vietnam: Breaking the Silence

[3] http://www.alternet.org/story/94703/exploited%3A_the_plight_of_the_undocumented_worker

[4] Maass, The Case for Socialism

The Bereshit (Jesus in Genesis) Argument Has No Merit

On New Year’s Eve 2016, a friend introduced me to the term bereshit, Hebrew for “in the beginning.” It is the first word of the bible, and is believed by some to contain a secret message concerning the crucifixion of Christ. The bereshit argument is therefore also called the “Jesus in Genesis 1:1” theory.

The theory goes like this: Hebrew letters have special meanings, and when you examine the meanings of the six letters in bereshit (beyt-resh-aleph-shin-yud-tav) they form a sentence: “The Son of God is destroyed by his own hand on the cross.”

I told my friend I was skeptical but would research it, and later came across this graphic and this video (minutes 10:00 to 17:00). Both assert the following meanings or associations of the letters: beyt (house, tent), resh (first person, head), aleph (God), shin (consume, destroy, teeth), yud (hand, arm, works), and tav (covenant, mark, cross). Beyt and resh, when combined, make the word “son.” So the bereshit sequence can be read “son-God-destroy-hand-cross,” or “The Son of God is destroyed by his own hand on the cross.”

I reached out to some of today’s most respected and renowned Old Testament scholars to determine the merits of the bereshit theory. I also spoke to John E. Kostik, a well-traveled Christian speaker, who created the video. He informed me that proving bereshit theory was as simple as looking up the meanings of Hebrew letters, which have matching Hebrew words. “Bereshit begins with the letter beyt. The Hebrew word for ‘house’ is beyt!”

I remembered a question John Goldingay, professor of Old Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, posited to me earlier that day: “Why would no one have seen it for thousands of years?” So I asked Kostik why web information on it is relatively sparse and why many pastors and believers don’t know about it. He said that because the original language of Hebrew is not widely known, and because Jewish scholars do not view Christ as the messiah and therefore do not have open eyes, the spread of this knowledge has been limited. I asked for sources on the topic, and Kostik directed me to Jeff A. Benner’s work.

Like Kostik (and myself), Benner is not a professional scholar. He works for an engineering company and lives in a log cabin, but like Kostik studying ancient Hebrew is his passion. He documents his studies on his website, which he dubbed the Ancient Hebrew Research Center. While disappointed not to find a university professor with findings published in peer-reviewed journals, that was the source I was given so I pressed on.

The first task was to see if the ancient Hebrew word for “house” indeed had the same name as the first letter in bereshit.

I looked up these words in Benner’s dictionary of commonly used ancient Hebrew words in the bible, and consulted Strong’s Concordance to ensure they were accurate, which they were.

The definitions below with ancient Hebrew lettering are from Benner, with a Strong’s Concordance number to crosscheck. Definitions without ancient Hebrew lettering are from Strong’s Concordance alone. Hebrew words are read right to left.

 (ba-yit): House. (The structure or the family, as a household that resides within the house. A housing. Within). Strong’s 1004.

 (rosh): Head. (The top of the body. A person in authority or role of leader. The top, beginning, or first of something.) Strong’s 7218.

 (a-luph): Chief. (Accorded highest rank or office; of greatest importance, significance, or influence. One who is yoked to another to lead and teach.) Strong’s 441.

Not pictured. (shen): Tooth. Strong’s 8127/8128.

 (yad): Hand. (The terminal, functional part of the forelimb. Hand with the ability to work, throw and give thanks.) Strong’s 3027.

Not pictured. (tav): Frowardness (perverse thing) or mark (from tavah, Strong’s 8427). Strong’s 8420/8420a.

These then needed to be compared to the letters themselves. Here are Benner’s descriptions of the early Hebrew letters:

 (beyt, today ב): image of a house, tent

 (resh, today ר): image of a man’s head

 (aleph, today א): image of an ox’s head

 (shin, today ש): image of two front teeth

 (yud, today י): image of arm and hand

 (tav, today ת): image of crossed sticks

You will notice the names of these Hebrew letters are indeed virtually the same as the Hebrew words above. We will get back to this.

Initial problems with the bereshit argument become evident fairly quickly. First, assuming these letters represent what’s asserted, bereshit reads “house-head-chief-tooth-hand-mark.” Benner himself does not include “God,” “consume,” “destroy,” “works,” “covenant,” or “cross” as definitions.

If we open the scope of the meanings to include Strong’s, that gives us:

  • House (court, door, dungeon, family, forth of, great as would contain, hangings)
  • Head (band, captain, company)
  • Chief (captain, duke, chief friend, governor, guide, ox; chief is actually not listed)
  • Tooth (crag, forefront, ivory, sharp)
  • Hand (be able, about, armholes, at, axletree, because of, beside, border)
  • Mark (very froward thing, perverse thing, desire, signature)

And still the key words are missing. “House-head-chief-tooth-hand-mark” is not all that close to the original bereshit claim. Even skipping Strong’s translations and using only Benner’s, a wide range of secret messages can be conjured. “Family-leader-yoked teacher-tooth-hand-perverse thing” is an equally valid secret message in the first word of the bible!

Key words necessary for the bereshit argument are simply assumed without basis. Aleph, while having to do with leader, has nothing to do with God, as confirmed by my scholars. Notice a noun is transformed into a verb in the conversion of “tooth” to “destroy”! It’s merely “inferring a verb,” says John J. Collins, professor of Old Testament Criticism and Interpretation at Yale Divinity School.

When I raised to John Kostik the fact that these words were missing, he sent me an image that depicted shin standing for destruction in another word, but could not provide a source. “Maybe common sense is to be employed,” he said, adding, “God doesn’t have to source everything through man. God is the source.” I pointed out common sense could also make shin stand for dental hygiene. I did not receive a reply.

You’ll notice “son” is missing here. As explained above, one must combine the first two letters to create “son.” Beyt and resh can join to form the word bar, son (Strong’s 1247). Thus, bereshit can at best be read “son-chief-tooth-hand-mark,” according to Benner and Strong. Or “son-most important-tooth-hand-perverse thing” if you prefer.

Of course, opening the door to letter combinations, rather than moving bereshit closer to validation, can move it farther away. As before, many combinations and words, and thus secret messages, are possible. Beyt-resh-aleph could form bara’ (choose, Strong’s 1254). Resh-aleph could be used for the name Ra. We could combine shin-yud-tav to create shith (to put or set, Strong’s 7896). Yud-tav could form yath (whom, Strong’s 3487). Therefore, “The house of Ra is set” is an equally valid secret message in the first word of the bible, if not superior.

“I actually find this use of the Bible scary,” says Mark S. Smith, professor of Old Testament Language and Exegesis at Princeton Theological Seminary, “because it ends [up] being made into meanings that its creators want, and not what the Bible really says.” A similar sentiment was expressed to me by Michael V. Fox, professor emeritus at the Center for Jewish Studies at the University of Wisconsin, John Goldingay (“One can prove almost anything by this method”), and Walter Brueggemann, professor emeritus at Columbia Theological Seminary (“Sound[s] more like nonsense to me, pressing to [see] what is not there”).

Further, we must be sure to note there are no prepositions with bereshit. My example at best could be “house-Ra-set.” There is no “the,” “of,” or “is.” Where do bereshit believers get any pieces beyond “son-chief-tooth-hand-mark”? Even if we had “son-god-destroyed-hand-cross” there would still be room to create other narratives, for instance: “My son god destroyed when his hands formed a cross.” Additionally, even if prepositions formed a complete “The Son of God is destroyed by his own hand on the cross” there would remain the possibility that this was first discovered by some first-century A.D. scribe who invented a story of Jesus to “fulfill the prophesy.” But no matter. While “son-god-destroyed-hand-cross” would be intriguing indeed, “son-chief-tooth-hand-mark” is the best we have.

I reached out to ask Benner if he was a bereshit believer. He replied, “I personally do not believe that secret messages are encoded in specific words of the Bible.”

However, Benner’s website does associate letters with certain meanings. The scholars I spoke to were adamant that ancient Hebrew letters should not be viewed as “standing for” something. Ron Hendel, professor of Hebrew Bible and Jewish Studies at UC-Berkeley, says of shin, “It’s just a letter of the alphabet. It doesn’t stand for anything except the sound ‘sh.'” This is because ancient Hebrew was never pictographic (where symbols represent things), it was phonetic (where symbols — letters — represent sounds).

Early Hebrew letters (Paleo-Hebrew) came from the older Phoenician alphabet (“phonetic” is not a coincidence), which had 22 letters, all consonants, just like its Hebrew offspring. The Phoenicians lived along the Syrian, Lebanese, and northern Israeli coast, and spread their alphabet across the Mediterranean regions, setting the stage for the development of Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, Latin, and later English.

In the phonetic Hebrew language the crossed sticks symbol, tav, represented only the “t” sound, as in “toy.” In a similar way, the Greek letter tau makes the “t” sound. English doesn’t generally spell out its letter names, but one could say the English tee makes the “t” sound. There is no evidence that the ox head, the crossed sticks, the man’s head, nor the others were actually used by the Hebrews in a pictographic way, where if one wanted to write the word house one would draw beyt. You had to use letters to form words, like  (ba-yit) above. And no one thought the word “house” contained the secret code of “house-arm-mark.”

“The letters never really ‘meant’ those things” to the Hebrews, says Molly Zahn, associate professor of Religious Studies at the University of Kansas, “because the whole point of an alphabet of only a limited number of letters (22 in the case of Hebrew) is to represent sounds, not ideas.” Pictographic languages like hieroglyphics require hundreds — thousands — of signs to be useful.

Other societies, such as the Egyptians and Sumerians, did use pictographic language for a time (think hieroglyphics and cuneiform), but there is no evidence the Hebrews did. The best evidence points to the first Hebrew writing system being an offshoot of the Phoenician script, which aligns neatly with the evidence that the Hebrew people themselves were an offshoot of the Canaanites, a group that included the Phoenicians.

Now, that does not mean the symbols used by the Hebrews were never used in a pictographic way — they were just never used in a pictographic way by the Hebrews. There is no evidence (“None whatsoever,” emphasized Victor H. Matthews, dean of Religious Studies at Missouri State University) that the Hebrews as an independent people used a pictographic language; they were likely already armed with a Canaanite phonetic language upon their formation. We thus arrive at this question of how it is the names of these Hebrew letters are essentially the same as the words of the everyday objects they were modeled on. This phenomenon has certainly made the bereshit argument seem plausible to some.

If we were to look back in time, before the Hebrews existed, before Phoenicia developed its groundbreaking alphabet, we would likely see the people of the region using pictograms of objects. As Zahn explains, they used the image of an ox’s head to mean an alpu (ox) and a little house drawing to represent a ba-yit. These were eventually used by the first phonetic thinkers to represent sounds, specifically these words’ first syllables, the “ah” and “b” sounds. Alpu evolved into different forms — aleph (Phoenician, Hebrew), alpha (Greek), alif (Arabic); so did ba-yit — beth (Phoenician), beyt (Hebrew), beta (Greek, today more vita), ba (Arabic), and so on. So it should not be surprising that objects and letters modeled off those objects should have nearly the same names. This is not unique to Hebrew, either. The Arabic word for tooth (sini) looks like سن and sounds, and appears, remarkably like the letter س (sin). The Arabic word for hand (yd) looks like يد and is somewhat close to the letter ي (ya). Other examples in Arabic and other tongues are not difficult to find.

Some will of course argue that the Hebrews, being “God’s chosen people,” invented the pictographs (and/or phonetics) themselves and disseminated them to other peoples. Or that regardless of how biblical Hebrew came about God nevertheless orchestrated events so that whoever wrote Genesis unwittingly put a secret message of Christ’s story in “in the beginning.” But given the evidence it must be concluded that the message could at best be “son-chief-tooth-hand-mark,” which itself is an arbitrary arrangement, word choice made by Christians wishing to construct what is not there.

The final verdict on bereshit? To quote Tremper Longman III, professor of Biblical Studies at Westmont College, “It’s bull.”

The Socialists

“My socialism was natural to me and not adopted from any books. It came out of my unshakable belief in non-violence. No man could be actively non-violent and not rise against social injustice, no matter where it occurred.”

India of My Dreams (1947), Gandhi

 

“I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave [capitalistic] evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an education system which would be oriented toward social goals.”

Why Socialism? (1949), Albert Einstein

 

“How did I become a socialist? By reading.”

How I Became a Socialist (1912), Helen Keller

 

“If we are to achieve a real equality, the U.S. will have to adopt a modified form of socialism.”

Letter from the Selma, Alabama jail (1965), Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

“I was already It, whatever It was, and by aid of the books I discovered that It was a Socialist. Since that day I have opened many books, but no economic argument, no lucid demonstration of the logic and inevitableness of Socialism affects me as profoundly and convincingly as I was affected on the day when I first saw the walls of the Social Pit rise around me and felt myself slipping down, down, into the shambles at the bottom.”

How I Became a Socialist (1905), Jack London

 

“Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it.”

Why I Write (1946), George Orwell

 

“Doesn’t anything socialistic make you want to throw up? Like great public schools or health insurance for all?”

A Man Without A Country (2005), Kurt Vonnegut

 

“It is true, as I have already stated, that I have been influenced by Marxist thought. But this is also true of many of the leaders of the new independent States. Such widely different persons as Gandhi, Nehru, Nkrumah, and Nasser all acknowledge this fact. We all accept the need for some form of socialism to enable our people to catch up with the advanced countries of this world and to overcome their legacy of extreme poverty.”

In His Own Words (2003), Nelson Mandela

 

“Socialism is the preparation for that higher Anarchism; painfully, laboriously we mean to destroy false ideas of property and self, eliminate unjust laws and poisonous and hateful suggestions and prejudices, create a system of social right-dealing and a tradition of right-feeling and action. Socialism is the schoolroom of true and noble Anarchism, wherein by training and restraint we shall make free men.”

New Worlds for Old (1908), H.G. Wells

 

“I have become a Communist because our party strives more than any other to know and to build a better world, to make men clearer thinkers, more free and more happy.”

Why I Joined the Communist Party (1944), Pablo Picasso

 

“If being a communist or being a capitalist or being a socialist is a crime, first you have to study which of those systems is the most criminal. And then you’ll be slow to say which one should be in jail.”

Malcolm X Speaks (1965), Malcolm X

 

“I am too artistic to deal with money in any way, basically. I am a socialist who just happens to be getting this money.”

The Playboy interviews (1981), John Lennon

 

“The American People will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label. I certainly proved it…running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to ‘End Poverty in California’ I got 879,000.”

Letter to Norman Thomas (1951), Upton Sinclair

 

“Disobedience, in the eyes of any one who has read history, is man’s original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion.”

The Soul of Man Under Socialism (1895), Oscar Wilde

 

“Socialism was reason.”

Timebends: A Life (1987), Arthur Miller

 

“The Revolution evaporates, and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy. The chains of tormented mankind are made out of red tape.”

To Gustav Janouch in Conversations with Kafka (1971), Franz Kafka

 

“A completely socialistic result depends on who does the planning and for what ends. A state socialism planned by the rich for their own survival is quite possible, but it is far from the state where the rule rests in the hands of those who produce wealth and services and whose aim is the welfare of the mass of the people.”

If Eugene Debs Returned (1956), W.E.B Du Bois

On Homeschooling

While citizens should have the freedom to homeschool their children, in the same way they should be free to choose private schools over public schools, that does not mean there are no disadvantages to such a choice, to individuals and society at large.

There are some 2 million homeschooled children in the United States today, roughly 3% of students. Parents cite several reasons for homeschooling their children, including the desire to provide “religious and moral instruction,” a “concern about the school environment,” and “dissatisfaction with the academic instruction” at schools. A 2009 Department of Education report revealed 83% of homeschool parents held providing religious and moral instruction as one of their reasons for partaking in this practice. Almost 70% of homeschool families are white, and the National Home Education Research Institute believes about 70% are evangelical Christians. This is still largely the white, conservative Christian movement it was when it launched in the 1980s, though we can happily say it is becoming more diverse: there are more minority families now, more people choosing this route not because of religion but because of factors like racism in schools or the sad state of many poorly-funded city school districts. However, the words of President Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council still explain why conservative evangelicals homeschool:

As a homeschooling parent myself, I understand the desire to give children an environment that affirms traditional values. The government has eliminated God from the classroom and too often replaced Him with an anti-life, anti-family curriculum that misses life’s deepest meaning.

Again, parents have the right to think this way and keep their children at home. Nevertheless, the central disadvantage of homeschooling lies in its very purpose. The true danger isn’t that kids will be isolated or socially inept; a few may, but most homeschool children participate in sports, organizations, and other social outlets (though it’s not as extensive as being among peers 8 hours a day or having instant access to a broad array of free clubs, societies, and teams). Children being homeschooled against their will is dangerous, as it can breed resentment against parents, but that is not universal. The real problem is that children are primarily exposed to a single worldview. And of course that is the whole point.

It’s a disappointing state of affairs. Consider how many teachers one has in a public K-12 education in the suburbs or the cities: perhaps 50-60. Each of these teachers has his or her own worldview and life experience, family background, job history, travels, religion, political beliefs, ethnicity, sexual orientation, income level, and, perhaps most importantly, degree in education. No reasonable person would suggest one or two parents, no matter how well-educated, could provide the depth of knowledge that 60 people with specialized degrees and experience could in physics, mathematics, the arts, history, English, and so on.

There is a reason we have multiple teachers from 6th grade up, rather than just one: it is a task no one person should have or could possibly be qualified for. This is not to say homeschool education can’t be successful (homeschool students often excel in college and have higher state test scores, as any child receiving one-on-one, individualized instruction should), but I believe that education will not be as strong or as well-rounded if coming from a single person with a single worldview and life experience. What a shame that homeschooled students have nearly no chance of learning about Islam from a Muslim, evolution from a trained biologist, or communism from a Marxist. To me it’s a shame, to others it’s the point. Instead, students are limited to a narrow perspective, which will at best provide instruction from a parent less qualified than someone with an actual degree in a particular subject, and at worst outright lies about the world (anti-evolution, anti-climate change) and intolerance toward certain people (homosexuals, trans Americans).

One might make the same point about the social value of having more extensive interaction with diverse students. Instead of primary interaction with siblings or other homeschooled children who hold the same religious, conservative ideas, wouldn’t it better prepare students for a diverse world, and help them think critically from multiple viewpoints, if they interacted daily with Hindus, atheists, and African Americans? This is not to say homeschooled students don’t meet and befriend such kids at scouts, ballet, or football, but public school classrooms provide much longer, broader interactions, in an academic environment. There is value in that.

We value the integration and interaction of public schooling over homeschooling for the same reason we value integration and interaction over racially segregated classrooms. As I write in my book:

Integration is our hope because it is only through interaction that we come to know the Other. Separation and isolation is a breeding ground for misunderstanding, misjudgment, fear, and hostility. Interaction is diminishing arrogance and eradicating hatred at every moment. White soldiers of the Civil War forsook prejudice and assisted their black comrades to relocate when the cannons finally quieted because they had served with and befriended those men of color. Religious fundamentalists come to accept homosexuals when they find themselves sitting next to each other and conversing. Young students’ fear of special needs children fades away the longer they share a classroom. Integration serves a moral and social purpose.

The public school classroom provides the most direct interaction of diverse students, encouraging acceptance and understanding. The primary reason to reject homeschooling is the primary reason to support public schooling.

Public schooling is a precious creation. Our tax dollars should provide equally and adequately funded schools that are free and open to the public, contingent only on geographic location. Geographic location is not perfect, as our living arrangements and thus our schools are still very much divided by race and class, but it provides the best opportunity for students to learn with and from others of all political persuasions, religions, sexual orientations, races, income levels, and dietary preferences. Interaction and integration will breed peace and understanding, as it always does. That is what I want my tax dollars to build and what I think students need to experience, not private, corporate-controlled, or home education. There are still many other challenges in the world of education, such as eliminating high-stakes testing or expanding democratic control of standards, but public education is worth preserving if we desire a more tolerant society.

Is Relative Morality More Dangerous Than Objective Morality?

“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.”

Psalm 14:1 neatly summarizes the anti-atheist stereotype held by many people around the world, and further laid the foundation thousands of years ago for this modern Christian belief. It says so in the bible, thus it must be true. While some people of faith trust that the nonreligious are just as moral as they, others believe atheism makes one more likely to commit unethical acts or even that no one can be good without God.

Having already examined how deities are not necessary to explain morality nor to justify moral decisions, and having cleared up confusion concerning objective morality versus objective truth, it seems relevant to address the idea that relative morality (humans alone deciding what is right and wrong) is so much more dangerous than objective morality (right and wrong as allegedly dictated by God and outlined in holy books).

First we will look at theists’ “relative morality in practice” argument and then move on to the theoretical or philosophical question of which is preferable, relative or objective morality.

The “in practice” argument of course centers around the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, and other mass killers. “These atheists were responsible for the worst genocides in human history,” thus any morality devoid of gods is dangerous prima facie. 

This falls apart for several reasons.

First, one notes the personal views of the worst despots are sometimes misconstrued. Hitler repeatedly professed his Christianity in his books and speeches, often to explicitly justify oppressing the Jews; he also publicly criticized the “atheist movement” of the Bolsheviks. Privately, however, he made clear he was an enemy of Christianity, calling it an “absurdity” based on “lies” (Bormann, Hitler’s Table Talk). “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity,” he said, because it led to Bolshevism. “Both are inventions of the Jew.” Christianity would be “worn away” by science, as all “myths crumble.”

However, anti-Christian is not necessarily atheist. Joseph Goebbels wrote that while Hitler “hates” Christianity, “the Fuhrer is deeply religious” (Goebbels Diaries). Hitler said in private that

An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows before the unknowable. An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal) as soon as he perceives that the State, in sheer opportunism, is making use of false ideas in the matter of religion… (Bormann)

Hitler said to companions, “Christianity is the most insane thing that a human brain in its delusion has ever brought forth, a mockery of everything divine,” suggesting a belief in higher powers.

And while some of Hitler’s policies attacked the Catholic Church and German Christianity in general, only those who stood up to the Nazis, like some church leaders and Jehovah’s Witnesses, were in danger of extermination. And Hitler also persecuted atheists, banning most atheist groups, such as the German Freethinkers League. Again, fear of the link between atheism and Bolshevism was a factor.

With no real evidence Hitler was an atheist, what of Stalin?

The Soviet dictator’s case is more straightforward. He became an atheist as a youth, while studying to become a priest (also what a young Hitler wanted to do). “They are fooling us,” he said of his teachers. “There is no god” (Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin). “God’s not unjust, he doesn’t actually exist. We’ve been deceived” (Montefiore, Young Stalin). Later, he explained that “all religion is something opposite to science,” and oversaw “anti-religious propaganda” to eradicate “religious prejudices” (Pravda interview, September 15, 1927). Such efforts were meant to “convince the peasant of the nonexistence of God” (Stalin, “The Party’s Immediate Tasks in the Countryside” speech, October 22, 1924). As implied above, Communism in the Soviet Union typically embraced science and secularism.

Stalin thought religion was “opium for the people,” an exercise in “futility” that wrought “evil” (Hoxha, With Stalin). “The introduction of religious elements into socialism,” he wrote, “is unscientific and therefore harmful for the proletariat” (Stalin, “Party News,” August 2, 1909). He favored the “struggle” against religion. He also said he did not believe in fate, calling it a “relic of mythology” (Stalin, interview with Emil Ludwig, December 13, 1931). In terms of policy, Stalin shifted from a relative tolerance of religious freedom to a reign of terror against the Russian Orthodox Church and other faith organizations in the 1920s and 1930s. Countless priests, monks, and nuns were exterminated (100,000 between 1937-1938 alone; Yakovlev, A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia).

We could go on, digging into the views of other tyrants. But moving forward to the second point, can it be reasoned that, all other factors remaining the same, Stalin would not have harmed anyone had he believed in God? If Hitler had been a Christian? It is logical to posit Stalin’s disbelief was a contributing factor to his holocaust against his own people, even the primary factor in his massacres of religious leaders, but considering what believers in God (and Christ) have been capable of throughout history it is difficult to conclude piety would have stopped Hitler’s war, the Holocaust of Jews, Roma, and homosexuals, or Stalin’s mass murder of political enemies, kulaks (wealthy peasants), and ethnic minorities (such as the Poles). Would faith really have cured the imperial ambitions, extreme racism, fanatical patriotism, authoritarianism, lack of empathy, and power lust of these men? This is the problem with arguing that atheism was anything more than a contributing factor, at best, to (some) of the worst crimes of the 20th century. There are countless other examples of horrific violence committed by men who were unquestionably religious yet exhibited the same evil, and whose actions had a much stronger connection to their faiths than Stalin or Hitler’s actions had to their more secular views (that is, faith was the primary factor, not a contributing factor).

The crimes of the sincerely religious are vast and unspeakable, stretching not merely a few decades but rather millennia. If we could step back and witness the graveyard of all who were killed in the name of God, what would that look like? How many millions have been oppressed, tortured, maimed, and killed because “God said so”? To please the gods? To spread the faith?

Look to the atrocities that no thinking person believes divorced from faith. The 700-year Inquisition, the torture and mass murder of anyone who questioned Christian doctrine in Europe or refused to convert in the Americas and parts of Asia. The 400-year witch hunts of Europe and North America, the execution of women supposedly in league with and copulating with the devil. The 1,900-year campaign of terror against the Jews in Europe, the “Christ-killers.” The Crusades, bloody Christian-Muslim wars for control of the Holy Land that spanned two centuries and killed millions. The European Wars of Religion during the Reformation that lasted a century (Thirty Years’ War, Eighty Years’ War, French Wars of Religion, etc.), killing millions. And these are just the major wars and crimes against humanity of Christians from Europe! (See “When Christianity Was as Violent as Islam.”)

We could look at Arabian Islam, from the bloody conquest to establish a caliphate across the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain to the murder of infidels, from the Shia-Sunni wars to the terrorist attacks of the modern era. We could examine the appalling executions and genocide conducted by the Hebrews, according to their holy book. We could study the human sacrifices to the gods in South American and other societies. We could investigate today’s Christian-Muslim wars and the destruction of accused witches in sub-Saharan Africa. The scope of all this so large, encompassing all people who believed in a higher power in all cultures throughout all human history. The crimes of 20th century tyrants were horrific, but is there really a strong case that they could not have occurred on just as large a scale had the tyrants been more religious?

You will notice that all these atrocities were more closely connected to the faiths of the perpetrators than the atrocities of Hitler and Stalin were to their anti-Christian or secular views. The Jews were not killed in the name of atheism. Hitler’s attempt to conquer Europe was not an anti-Christian campaign. Stalin wanted to destroy religion, but few would suggest that was his primary goal, ahead of eradicating capitalism, establishing Communism, and modernizing Russia into a world power. Secular beliefs may have contributed to atrocities, but unlike these other examples they were not the primary factors. If belief or non-belief only need be contributing factors to credit them for crimes, we could also look at religious persons who committed crimes against humanity that weren’t closely motivated by or connected to faith.

Doing so makes faith guilty of any crime committed by a person of faith. And why not? If the False Cause Fallacy can be applied to atheists it can just as easily be applied to theists! (Same with the Poisoning the Well Fallacy: these atheists were evil, so atheism is evil; these people of faith were evil, so faith is evil.)

The Ottomans committed genocide against the Armenians from 1915-1922, killing 1.5 million, 75% of the Armenian population. Prime Minister Mehmed Talaat was its principle architect, and because he was a Shia Muslim it must have been a belief in a higher power that enabled him to carry out this act. The Rwanda genocide of 1994 was not a religious conflict, but some Catholic faith leaders participated — a crime the Pope apologized for this year. Their belief in a god must be credited. Radovan Karadžić, president of Republika Srpska and a Serb, orchestrated the genocide of Muslims and Croats in 1995, during the Bosnian War. He saw his deeds as part of a “holy war” between Christianity and Islam. Would he have refrained from mass murder had he been an atheist? Would the old butcher Christopher Columbus? Would King Leopold II of Belgium? This Catholic monarch was responsible for the deaths of perhaps 10 million people in Congo. “I die in the Catholic religion,” he wrote in his last testament, “and I ask pardon for the faults I have or may have committed.” This game can be played with anyone in human history, from the Christian kings, queens, traders, and owners who enslaved 12-20 million Africans (which killed millions; see Harman, A People’s History of the World) to the Christian presidents of the United States who intentionally bombed millions of civilians in Vietnam.

One could make the embarrassing argument that those who committed such evils were not actually believers in God (a “secret atheist theory”). Yes, it is difficult to know an historical figure’s true thoughts. But one could just as easily pretend Stalin and others were secretly believers. We have to use the evidence we have.

So you can see how the legitimacy of casual connections is highly important. One who doesn’t care about the strength of such connections could easily attribute Hitler’s crimes to his belief in a higher power! (One could then argue Hitler’s belief was far more dangerous than Stalin’s atheism, as Hitler oversaw the deaths of 11 million noncombatants, versus Stalin’s 6 million — in the decades since the fall of the Soviet Union, researchers have determined the death toll estimate typically associated with Stalin, 20 million, is grossly inaccurate.) It is illogical to blame secularism for being anything more than a contributing factor to Stalin and Hitler’s actions in the same way it is illogical to blame faith for being anything more than a contributing factor to the Armenian, Congolese, or other genocides committed by religious persons. There are many events in history with faith as a primary cause, like the Inquisition, but it cannot be said the Holocaust and the Russian purges were primarily caused by atheism.

Third and finally, one could refute the notion atheists are worse people using scientific research. Children from nonreligious homes were actually found in a 2015 study to be more generous than those from religious homes. A “Good Samaritan” study found religiosity does not determine how likely people are to lend a helping hand. A study on cheating found that faith does not make one less likely to cheat. A 2014 study showed secular and religious people commit immoral acts equally. Some atheists trumpet the fact they are underrepresented in U.S. prisons, but shouldn’t due to the fact atheists are predominantly educated, middle-to-upper class whites, a group that is itself underrepresented. Similarly, some point out nations like the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Japan, and others have some of the highest rates of atheism and lowest rates of crime in the world, but this should be avoided as a False Cause Fallacy as well. These nations are likewise disproportionately wealthy and educated — low crime rates and atheism are byproducts; they likely do not have a cause-effect relationship (but at least those worried about society falling into chaos and crime as atheism spreads can rest easy).

So is the belief in relative, godless morality so much more dangerous than the belief in objective, God-given morality? In practice, it appears not. The capacity for horrific actions in secular and religious people seems equivalent. Same with kindness and other positive actions.

From a theoretical standpoint, however, there are two facts that make relative morality better. They help explain why atheists are not worse people than believers.

First, objective morality has a glaring flaw: it cannot be known. Just as one cannot prove the existence of the Christian deity, there is no way to definitively prove that Christian right and wrong is the objective standard humanity is meant to follow. Why not Islamic right and wrong? Because one can’t prove which set of ethics is actually objective and god-decreed, each simply becomes one option among many and thus we have to choose among them (it’s quite relative!). Even if you believe in objective morality, there’s no way to actually know what it is. The person of (any) faith thinks he knows but might easily be wrong. “I’ve looked at her with lust in my heart, I’ve done wrong.” Well, perhaps not. It could be the higher power that actually exists doesn’t believe in thought crimes. Therefore, saying we should try to follow an objective morality, offered by a particular religion, is not particularly compelling. Relative ethics are of course known because we create them for ourselves.

Second, relativity allows us the freedom to make our ethics better. I understand why people of faith see a risk in humans deciding what’s right and wrong, but religion clearly isn’t any better in terms of danger to others (if you ask me why it’s because religion is man-made, so it all makes sense). We have gods saying all sorts of things are right: killing homosexuals, those who engage in extramarital sex, and people who work on the Sabbath (Old Testament); enslaving people and oppressing women (New Testament); waging Jihad on nonbelievers and cutting off body parts for crimes (Qur’an). Well, perhaps humans would like to base what’s wrong on what actually causes harm to others, not what insults a deity, which makes all that killing and maiming wrong and makes things like working on the Sabbath, homosexuality, and sex outside marriage (and porn, masturbation, smoking weed, etc.) ethically permissible. We have the ability to continue to improve our ethics to a point where fewer people get killed for nonviolent “crimes.” Relative morality allows us to move past the absurdities and barbarism of ancient desert tribes. We’ve been very successful at this.

Yes, it also allows us to return to barbarism, with no thoughts of angry higher beings to stop us. Faith-based appeals can prevent barbarism too (“I can’t kill, I’ll go to hell”). But at least we’re free to move in a more positive direction if we choose. Religion doesn’t really offer that. God’s word is perfect and is not to be altered or deviated from; it has been set for thousands of years. Being paralyzed by religious ethics keeps us stuck in the dark ages, from oppressive Islamic societies in the Middle East and Asia to the lingering hysteria in the United States over homosexuality, which is a very natural trait of the human species and other lifeforms. Progress on such matters requires putting aside ancient faith-based ideas of right and wrong (Americans were no longer allowed to execute homosexuals after 1786). The more humanity does so the more safe and free each of us becomes.

Ben Carson Does Not Do Unto Others

Ben Carson said in September 2015, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation,” suspicious of any faith that is “inconsistent with the values and principles of America.” These words exploded in his face, plunging his presidential campaign into a firestorm of criticism from liberals and conservatives alike.

He quickly amended his comments, explaining that he meant he couldn’t support a Muslim candidate who hadn’t “renounced the central [tenet] of Islam: Sharia Law,” under which “homosexuals–men and women alike–must be killed. Women must be subservient. And people following other religions must be killed.” But he acknowledged “that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs” he could support if they repudiated these edicts.

The plot thickened on October 3, when, after the nonprofit Council on American-Islamic Relations called for him to pull out of the presidential race, Carson sought revenge by pushing the I.R.S. to rescind the nonprofit’s tax-exempt status, claiming it violated rules about interfering in a campaign.

Come on, Ben. Your position can be dismissed as absurd the moment you remember that to be an ethical person, you must hold yourself to the same standards you hold others. You must give others the freedom you desire for yourself. The Golden Rule, some call it, a simple idea that is found in virtually all major world religions.

In Christianity, it’s found in the book of Matthew: “Do to others what you would have them do to you.” In Islam, it’s in the Hadith: “Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself.” Far older than either of these are the words of Confucius, who said in the Analects, “Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.”

If one were to suggest a Christian shouldn’t be president, or a black man shouldn’t be president, Carson would call this what it is: bigotry, hatred, ignorance. It’s amazing a black man is saying something like this. How long ago was it that whites could openly say a black man shouldn’t be president?

And if Christians, most of whom don’t take these laws seriously anymore, do not have to publicly renounce the Old Testament before getting Ben Carson’s support, why should Muslims who don’t take the Koran’s nastiest laws seriously have to?

The fact that extremist Islam is a much greater threat to humanity today makes no difference in terms of ethics. If more Muslims take primitive laws seriously than do Christians, the Golden Rule remains unchanged. Were Christian oppression and terror a greater threat, and Islam the main religion in the United States, peaceful Christians would still wish to run for office without fear of a witch hunt, of Islamic politicians trying to weed out Christian candidates like Ben Carson who have yet to condemn the Old Testament.

Also, one wonders if Carson would approve of a Muslim candidate fighting to see a Christian nonprofit taxed because the nonprofit called for the candidate’s withdraw after anti-Christian remarks.

Simple role reversal is not difficult. Neither is a cursory examination of U.S. laws specifically designed to protect people from the kind of discrimination Carson envisions.

When asked if he thought Islam was compatible with the Constitution, Carson said, “No.” True, edicts about killing non-believers and homosexuals and such would violate Constitutional law, but so would any requirement of religious confession or renunciation. Article VI of the Constitution notes, using several absolutes, that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office.” True, Carson was simply speaking of who he would personally support, not explicitly calling for such an official test. Yet if one can recognize when someone else’s views do not reflect the spirit, and letter, of the Constitution, one should just as easily be able to recognize when one’s own views make the same mistake.

Snowden

Edward Snowden wants to come home.

The former National Security Agency analyst says he has volunteered “many times” to cut a deal with the U.S. government that would allow him to return to the U.S. from Russia in exchange for a reduced prison sentence. “So far, they’ve said they won’t torture me,” Snowden said, “but we haven’t gotten much further than that.”

Snowden faces up to 30 years in prison for exposing details of the NSA’s massive domestic spying program two years ago. The intelligence files he leaked to the press revealed the government was keeping records of nearly 2 billion phone calls, text messages, and emails every day. The Patriot Act of 2001 opened the door to this sort of program.

Despite the fact that some Americans labeled Snowden a “traitor,” a massive public uproar against the government spurred by Snowden’s revelations pushed President Obama to terminate the spying program in June 2015.

Yet the charges against Snowden remain, charges filed under the old Espionage Act, used in World War I to throw critics of the war in prison.

The U.S. is willing to cut a deal with Snowden, but it remains to be seen what sort of reduced sentence the government will accept.

U.S. to Russia: Bombing the Middle East Only Creates More Terrorists

On October 2, 2015, Russia began dropping bombs in Syria, which has been engulfed in civil war since an uprising against brutal Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad began in 2011. Over 210,000 have died, and millions of refugees are fleeing to Europe.

Russia claimed to be targeting the Islamic State (ISIS), the extremist group that’s taken over large parts of Syria and Iraq, but the U.S. quickly accused Russia of focusing more on anti-Assad forces (which the U.S. is supporting) than ISIS (which the U.S. is bombing). Russia supports Assad, in the same way the U.S. has spent a century aiding the most murderous dictators in the Middle East and around the globe.

In reality, ISIS is an anti-Assad force, just one the U.S. doesn’t fund and arm. ISIS policy is to overthrow Assad and take the rest of Syria. So the Obama administration is both supporting and bombing anti-Assad forces, insisting it supports only “moderate” rebels.

But a classified Pentagon report from August 2012, exposed this past May, revealed the U.S. supported AQI, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other extremist groups in their fight against Assad (this was later acknowledged by the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency). The report predicted these extremists would combine to form something like the Islamic State, helpful in “unifying the jihad” against Assad, but warning it could “create grave danger” to the region. The military decided to continue supporting the extremists despite this risk.

The U.S. instantly condemned Russia for getting involved, declaring the deaths of civilians under Russian bombs “will only fuel more extremism and radicalization.”

The Air Force deputy chief of staff for intelligence, while insisting U.S. drones were far more accurate than Russia bombers and thus didn’t kill as many innocents, said, “We believe if you inadvertently kill innocent men, women and children, then there’s a backlash from that…. We might kill three and create 10 terrorists. It really goes back to the question of are we killing more than we’re making?”

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said Russia was “pouring gasoline on the fire,” warning the bombings would “backfire.”

These were all said with straight faces. If only they were honest warnings against making the same mistakes as the U.S., rather than an unhealthy mix of hypocrisy, historical amnesia, and nationalist lust to control global events. Everything the officials said was true, they just don’t believe it applies to the U.S.

Yet without question violent U.S. foreign policy creates new terror groups. The bloody U.S. bombing and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, which killed over 1 million people, attracted terrorists from throughout the Arab world, some of whom formed Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which later formed ISIS.

After September 11, 2001, intelligence officials warned the Bush administration that violence would breed more enemies. According to foreign policy intellectual Noam Chomsky (Hopes and Prospects), a Pentagon advisory panel, referring to a quote from Bush, said, “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather they hate our policies.” A CIA official in charge of tracking Osama bin Laden called the U.S. “bin Laden’s only indispensable ally” because how our wars fueled extremism.

Abu Musab Al-Suri, an Al-Qaeda strategist, said “the war in Iraq almost single-handedly rescued the jihadi movement.” Acting CIA director Mike Morell said in last month that Al-Qaeda’s “great victory” was the spread of its ideology in the last 14 years.

Looking back even further, bin Laden, originally waging jihad against the Soviets occupying Afghanistan in the 1980s, declared war on the U.S. after U.S. military interventions in the Middle East in the 1980s and 90s.

In his 1996 “Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places” and his 2002 “Letter to America,” bin Laden gave his justifications for violence: U.S. military bases near Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia, U.S. support for Israel, the massive death toll of innocent Muslim civilians in Somalia, Lebanon, and especially Iraq during and after the 1991 Gulf War (over 500,000 Iraqi children under age 5 died as a result of economic sanctions imposed on Iraq after the Iraqi army was driven from Kuwait; U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeline Albright infamously said, “We think the price is worth it”).

Bin Laden wrote in 2002, “Why are we fighting and opposing you? …Because you attacked us and continue to attack us…. [Y]our forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them.”

The rest of the story is easy enough for Americans to remember: Al-Qaeda bombing the World Trade Center, American embassies, and an American warship in the 1990s, and finally the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001.

This backstory does not serve to justify the atrocities committed by Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the like. It illustrates the cause-and-effect relationship of foreign military intervention and terrorism, how violence creates more violence.

Bombing Middle East nations, supporting brutal dictators, and aiding certain factions in a civil war could very well lead to Russia’s own 9/11.

And as for the U.S.? The day after it condemned Russia’s attacks, the U.S. bombed a hospital in Afghanistan, killing 22 people, including three children.

Getting to Know China

Ask most Americans what they know about China and the response would probably be fairly simple: “Biggest population…run by a Communist Party…the Great Wall…China creates products we use…we owe them a ton of money.”

But as China appears in more and more newspaper headlines, there is a new interest in learning more about the growing superpower across the Pacific. If you’re one of those wanting to study deeper, here are 9 incredible facts about our Chinese friends to get you started.

 

1. CHINA WAS THE MOST ADVANCED SOCIETY FOR ALMOST ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY.

Chinese emperors ruled over more people than the Roman Empire, and constructed a larger road system as well, according to historian Chris Harman (A People’s History of the World). Building the Great Wall was a feat unparalleled in the ancient world, a structure at least 6,000 miles long, possibly 13,000 miles at its prime…that’s half the circumference of the Earth!

The Chinese were the first to invent iron in early 5th century B.C., then steel during the Northern Wei Dynasty (A.D. 386-557), modern paper during the Western Han Dynasty (202 B.C.-A.D. 9), the mechanical clock and moveable-type printing during the Tang Dynasty (618-907), the compass during the Song Dynasty (960-1279), and gunpowder in the 9th century. They were the first society to use gunpowder-based weapons.

2. FAMOUS CHINESE EXPLORERS PUT EUROPEAN EXPLORERS TO SHAME.

True, in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue, to cross the Atlantic and make it to Asia. His first journey was with three ships and fewer than 90 men. But Zheng He set sail to explore the Pacific in 1405 with 62 ships and 27,800 men. Over several voyages, he explored the waters of Southeast Asia, India, east Africa, the Persian Gulf, and made it all the way to Mecca in Saudi Arabia. Zheng He came from a Muslim family.

 

3. CHINA ONLY HAS ABOUT 7 MORE YEARS AS THE WORLD’S MOST POPULOUS NATION.

China currently has a population of 1.4 billion, yet since the 1951 the population growth rate fell from 2.8% to 0.6% today. India, which currently has 1.3 billion people, is estimated to pass China in population in 2022.

 

4. CHINA’S ECONOMY WILL SURPASS THE U.S. ECONOMY AS THE LARGEST IN THE WORLD IN 11 YEARS.

China already has the largest economy in terms of purchasing power (it has more people spending more money than the U.S. does, adjusting for currency value and cost of living). But by 2026, Chinese productive output will surpass that of the U.S. as well.

 

5. ISLAM IS THE MOST POPULAR RELIGION AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE IN CHINA.

According to research at Renmin University in Beijing, Islam has the largest proportion of followers (22.4%) under 30 than any other religion. Currently, China has some 23 million Muslims, more than some nations in the Middle East.

 

6. CHINA HAS HIGHWAYS THAT ARE 50 LANES ACROSS. 50!

And yet traffic jams are still a problem. On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, thousands of cars were delayed for hours on the G4 Beijing-Hong-Kong-Macau Expressway. Drivers were forced to merge from 50 lanes down to 20. Still not as bad as a traffic jam in 2010, which lasted 11 days and stretched back 60 miles.

 

7. AN ESTIMATED 1.6 MILLION CHINESE DIE EACH YEAR FROM POLLUTED AIR.

That’s about 4,400 people a day. As pollution from Chinese industry and energy use poisons and clouds their cities, China serves as an example of what will happen globally if carbon dioxide emissions go unchecked.

 

8. CHINA BUILDS MASSIVE CITIES WHERE NO ONE LIVES.

China constructs huge “ghost cities,” to meet the needs and interests of construction companies and keep their economy surging, but also to prepare for the 300 million Chinese expected to move from rural areas into cities by 2030.

 

9. YET CHINA HAS SOME OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPES ON EARTH.

Not only is the northern slope of Mount Everest in China, and the Great Wall and Forbidden City as stunning as they are famous, this massive nation is home to many incredible lesser-known landscapes, such as the Yangshou region.

Mike Rowe Attacks Sanders

On Sunday afternoon, December 13, 2015, Bernie Sanders posted on Facebook:

At the end of the day, providing a path to go to college is a helluva lot cheaper than putting people on a path to jail.

He included a graphic reading, “$80 billion: the amount we spend every year to lock up 2.2 million fellow Americans. Share if you support investing in education rather than incarceration.”

When Sanders tweeted a similar statement, without the graphic, on Sunday evening, it caught the eye of television host Mike Rowe, who criticized Sanders on Facebook.

Rowe perceived that Sanders sought to “imply that a path to prison is the most likely alternative to a path to college.” He questions “the increasingly dangerous idea that a college education is the best path for the most people,” lambasting “misguided parents” and others who perpetuate the idea that work that doesn’t require a college degree is inferior.

As if the fear of falling into an inferior career wasn’t bad enough, Rowe writes,

…it seems the proponents of “college for all” need something even more frightening than the prospect of a career in the trades to frighten the next class into signing on the dotted line. According to Senator Sanders, that “something,” is a path to jail.

Rowe implies Sanders is a “knucklehead” showcasing “arrogance and elitism,” reminds Sanders of “the number of college graduates with criminal records” and people in vocational careers without a degree who do not go to jail, insists Sanders’ post implies there is “no hope” for you if you don’t go to college, and that it

…will encourage more kids who are better suited for an alternative path to borrow vast sums of money they’ll never be able to pay back in order to pay for a degree that won’t get them a job.

To his credit, Rowe shares his thoughts in a mostly respectful, thoughtful manner, even acknowledging that “Maybe the 140 character limit has doomed [Sanders] to be misunderstood or taken out of context. Certainly, it’s happened to me.”

He speaks rightly of the need to dispel the idea that vocational, physical, or trade work is somehow inferior, a “consolation prize.” Further, there is truth in his claim that a college degree is not a surefire way to gainful employment.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, unemployment for young college graduates is 7.2% (14.9% work part-time but want full-time work) and their wages have fallen 2.5% since 2000. In 2014, a massive 46% of employed college graduates under 27 were working in a job that did not require a college degree. Further, a “non college” job is more likely, compared to 2000, to be cashier, server, or bartender than electrician, dental hygienist, or mechanic, a reflection of “a decline in the demand for ‘cognitive skills.’”

This is something Rowe should keep in mind: while the demand for “college jobs” may weaken, so can the demand for jobs he favors that require vocational training, leaving an army of young people in fast food or otherwise unskilled jobs they neither desire nor enjoy.

Sadly, Rowe doesn’t seem to understand what Bernie Sanders means when he writes about “providing a path to college.” Sanders wants to make public colleges and universities tuition free, saying elsewhere:

It is a national disgrace that hundreds of thousands of young Americans today do not go to college, not because they are unqualified, but because they cannot afford it… We have got to make sure that every qualified American in this country who wants to go to college can go to college—regardless of income.

Either Rowe didn’t know this, which is surely the case, or his post is full of contradictions. Remember, he writes that Sanders and others should not encourage young people to take on vast sums of debt; he rightly calls the $1.3 trillion in student loans an “obscenity.”

But of course, where Sanders is concerned, “college for all” is not a call for everyone to go to college because any alternative is inferior. It is a call to use the vast wealth of the nation to end the massive waste of human talent, potential, and freedom inherent in a system where Americans who want to go to college cannot because of finances or the fear of the huge loans Rowe condemns. Hence, college as a right offered free of cost, like K-12 public school education. In other words, it should be available for those who desire it.

Though the graphic Sanders included on Facebook was not on the Twitter post Rowe saw, it clarifies his point: the U.S. spends huge sums to lock people up, which could be used to cover the cost of college, which implies Sanders sees a need for prison reform. Anyone who knows anything about Sanders, for example, knows he opposes the mass imprisonment of nonviolent offenders, supporting the legalization of marijuana. He says:

Too many Americans have seen their lives destroyed because they have criminal records as a result of marijuana use. That’s wrong. That has got to change.

States tend to spend more on housing inmates than educating K-12 students, and some spend more on prisons than colleges and universities. In recent decades, expenses on prisons have skyrocketed, largely to make room for drug offenders.

One study found that while 48.8% of the U.S. population had some college credits or a degree, only 12.7% of the incarcerated population had the same. This is largely because high school dropouts are far more likely to end up in prison than high school graduates; the large majority of prisoners tend to have no high school diploma. Factors that lead students to drop out of school, mostly overly harsh punishments and barriers to re-entering school, are called the “school to prison pipeline.”

Rowe is correct that prison isn’t the most likely alternative to college, something Sanders did not say, though we can understand why Rowe thought he implied it. And of course, not graduating high school is a much larger part of the problem than not going to college, to a greater degree perpetuating poverty, which breeds crime. Sanders is likely alluding to the fact so many of our prisoners are poor and uneducated, factors closely bound together.

Still, there is no reason to not seek to widen opportunities and make improvements in both K-12 schools and colleges, and ease social conditions for those who attend both. Despite the fact that there is, as Rowe says, vocational work that can make people happy and financially secure, Americans with college degrees still earn higher incomes, are more likely to have a pension and health insurance provided by an employer, and are less likely to be unemployed.

It might be wise to listen to Sanders for a way to broaden opportunities for lower- and middle-income people and eliminate crippling student debt, by using resources for free college, not to lock up nonviolent people. It might be wise to listen to Rowe to end stigmatization surrounding workers without college degrees: they are not inferior, lazy, foolish, or any other harmful descriptor.

Talking to Dead People (and Other Candidate Oddities)

We all have skeletons in the closet, but some skeletons are scarier than others. Here are 8 weird stories about the 2016 presidential candidates. It’s as they say, the truth is stranger than fiction.

 

1. WHEN BERNIE SANDERS WROTE BAD SEX FICTION

In his 1972 article “Man — and woman,” Bernie Sanders wrote about a men masturbating to thoughts of abused and bound women, and women fantasizing about being gang raped while having sex with their husbands.

A spokesperson for Sanders said it was “a dumb attempt at dark satire…attacking gender stereotypes in the 1970s.”

Sanders himself said, “It was very poorly written and if you read it, what it was dealing with was gender stereotypes, why some men like to oppress women, why other women like to be submissive, you know, something like ‘Fifty Shades of Grey.’”

Gives “Feel the Bern” a whole new meaning, doesn’t it?

 

2. WHEN JOHN KASICH WENT TO WAR WITH BLOCKBUSTER OVER A SINGLE MOVIE

Something went very wrong when John Kasich and his wife made an oopsie at Blockbuster in the late 1990s.

“[We] thought, What the heck are we watching here? It was billed as a comedy, but it wasn’t funny. It was graphic, and brutal, and completely unnecessary, and it rubbed us in so many wrong ways we had to shut the thing off right there in the middle.”

The movie? Fargo.

Finding the infamous “woodchipper” scene disturbing, Kasich had found his crusade. “I got on the phone to Blockbuster and demanded that they take the movie off their shelves.” He apparently worked out a “deal” with the manager, who agreed to label the movie “graphic content.” Kasich “took his business elsewhere.”

But when he caught wind the manager wasn’t keeping his end of the deal, Kasich pulled out the big guns: another phone call. “Karen had to tell me to back off because I was driving everyone crazy,” he said. He later regretted his “rantings of a wild man.”

 

3. WHEN DONALD TRUMP APPOINTED HIMSELF JUDGE, JURY, AND EXECUTIONER

Donald Trump has referred to African Americans as “the blacks,” said “laziness is a trait in blacks,” worried over “black guys counting my money” (according to the former president of Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino), and he was sued by the Justice Department for not renting to blacks, a case that ended in a settlement.

But nothing “trumps” the time in 1989 when he rushed to judgement about the rape of a white female jogger in Central Park. Trump took out full-page newspaper ads calling for the execution of the suspects, who were African American teenagers. Blacks and whites alike were outraged. The suspects were later exonerated.

Apparently, Trump dislikes the idea of “innocent until proven guilty.”

Also, black people.

 

4. WHEN HILLARY CLINTON TALKED TO IMAGINARY FRIENDS IN THE WHITE HOUSE

While she was the first lady, Hillary Clinton used to pretend to talk to Eleanor Roosevelt. Apparently, when Clinton told her about times getting tough, Eleanor would “usually respond by telling me to buck up or at least to grow skin as thick as a rhinoceros.”

Clinton was encouraged to do this “reflective meditation” by a New Age spiritual counselor named Jean Houston in 1996.

According to Bob Woodward (The Choice), she also talked to Gandhi.

Bill Clinton said in 2012, during the dedication of Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park:

A special thanks to the members of the Roosevelt family who are here. And the one who is not, Eleanor, who made sure that the four freedoms were included in the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. I know that because, as all of you famously learned when I served as president, my wife, now the secretary of state, was known to commune with Eleanor on a regular basis. And so she called me last night on her way home from Peru to remind me to say that. That Eleanor had talked to her and reminded her that I should say that.

5. WHEN TED CRUZ WANTED TO GET BIG GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR TOILETS

Say what you will about Ted Cruz, he is the only politician brave enough to take a stand for toilet freedom.

In 2012, he said on Glenn Beck’s radio show:

The federal government’s already shown that they believe they can control every aspect of our life. I mean, right now Congress is trying to tell us what kind of light bulbs to buy and what kind of toilets. Right now you are prevented from buying a toilet that actually flushes because the bureaucrats in Washington know better than you do.

In 2013, he condemned the “federal government that thinks they have the authority to regulate our toilet seats.”

The regulations have to do with sanitation and common courtesy for disabled people in public facilities: toilets must have a hinged lid and an adequate supply of toilet paper, there must be one toilet seat and one urinal per 40 workers, and most restrooms must have one toilet that is accessible for disabled persons.

Thank God Ted Cruz is around to stand up for justice.

 

6. WHEN BEN CARSON INSISTED THAT JOSEPH, NOT THE EGYPTIAN PHARAOHS, BUILT THE PYRAMIDS

In his quest to convince the American people one doesn’t actually have to be that smart to be a brain surgeon, Ben Carson confirmed in November 2015 that he still believes the ancient pyramids were built to store grain, not as tombs for Egyptian rulers.

In a 1998 speech that included, of all things, ignorance, history, and science, Carson said:

My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain. Now all the archeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs’ graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully big if you stop and think about it. And I don’t think it’d just disappear over the course of time to store that much grain.

And when you look at the way that the pyramids are made, with many chambers that are hermetically sealed, they’d have to be that way for various reasons. And various of scientists have said, “Well, you know there were alien beings that came down and they have special knowledge and that’s how — ” you know, it doesn’t require an alien being when God is with you.

In other words, no need to trust decades of archaeological discoveries. If the Bible said Joseph had to store grain, well, why not assume, without a shred of evidence, it was in the pyramids? Just don’t go too far with your superstition. That alien stuff is cray.

 

7. WHEN MIKE HUCKABEE’S SON BUTCHERED A DOG AND HUCKABEE COVERED FOR HIM

In 1998, 17 year old David Huckabee participated in the torture and hanging of a stray dog at a Boy Scout camp in Arkansas, a misdemeanor but not a felony. Animal rights groups were enraged. A local prosecuting attorney requested the Arkansas state police help in the investigation.

But Mike Huckabee, the governor of Arkansas, worked to keep that from happening.

John Bailey, then the director of Arkansas’s state police, tells NEWSWEEK that Governor Huckabee’s chief of staff and personal lawyer both leaned on him to write a letter officially denying the local prosecutor’s request. Bailey, a career officer who had been appointed chief by Huckabee’s Democratic predecessor, said he viewed the lawyer’s intervention as improper and terminated the conversation. Seven months later, he was called into Huckabee’s office and fired. “I’ve lost confidence in your ability to do your job,” Bailey says Huckabee told him. One reason Huckabee cited was “I couldn’t get you to help me with my son when I had that problem,” according to Bailey. “Without question, [Huckabee] was making a conscious attempt to keep the state police from investigating his son,” says I. C. Smith, the former FBI chief in Little Rock…

The state police did not grant the request. No charges were ever filed against David Huckabee.

 

8. WHEN LINDSEY GRAHAM DIDN’T SEND AN EMAIL…EVER

Lindsey Graham spent 8 years as a representative and 12 years as a senator, yet somehow he’s found a way to grandma his way out of the 21st century.

In 2015 he said to Chuck Todd on NBC, “I don’t email. No, you can have every email I’ve ever sent. I’ve never sent one.”

Sanders Asks Youth to ‘Prove Them Wrong’

On January 13, 2016, the Bernie Sanders campaign launched its Prove Them Wrong website, which calls on young people, especially any 17 year old Iowan who will turn 18 by November 8, to pledge to “caucus” (vote) for Bernie Sanders in the Iowa caucus on February 1.

To participate in the Iowa Democratic caucus, students and Iowans in general must register as a Democrat and determine their voting location.

Prove Them Wrong declares:

They say you don’t care

They say you won’t caucus

They say Bernie can’t win

Prove them wrong

“They” refers to Americans who believe youth are apathetic about politics and voting. In a video to Iowa students, Sanders said the caucus

…gives you a unique opportunity to play a very big role in national politics… What your job is about is to raise the issues that are on your mind… Are we doing enough in terms of social justice in this country, combating racism and sexism and homophobia? How do we move forward to make sure the United States leads the world in combating climate change? What do we do about the high rate of childhood poverty in this country?

Sanders has a knack for attracting young potential voters, who support his progressive liberal platform that includes higher taxes on the extremely wealthy to pay for free college tuition, jobs programs, and universal health care; he also favors a higher minimum wage and fewer wars overseas.

The senator from Vermont is most popular among 18-29 year olds, according to The Guardian, amassing an enormous following of passionate supporters that flood the Internet with hashtags like #FeelTheBern and #BabesForBernie. In fact,

Of all those running for president, Sanders has the highest-level engagement on his individual Facebook posts, according to social media monitor CrowdTangle. He has the largest number of people liking his messages, sharing his thoughts, and commenting on his plans.

Sanders has 2.3 million likes on his presidential campaign Facebook page (2.8 million on his U.S. senator page), more than his closest rival Hillary Clinton. He is consistently the most-searched-for candidate on the web during the Democratic debates.

Sanders reached 2.5 million campaign donations faster than any presidential candidate in U.S. history, raised a fortune from ordinary Americans while refusing money from corporations and billionaires, and has attracted far more enormous crowds than Clinton and other candidates. He was voted the most popular senator in the nation.

Yesterday Sanders pulled ahead of Clinton in Iowa polls. As Barack Obama did in 2008, Sanders may garner a huge youth turnout that could help him win the state and propel him toward the White House.

Supreme Court to Rule on Obama’s Immigration Order

The U.S. Supreme Court will determine in 2016 the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s recent executive action on immigration.

Obama’s 2014 Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program would allow up to 5 million illegal immigrants, parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents here for five years, to remain in the U.S. on work permits. They would not have legal status, but they would be exempt from deportation (thus the “deferred action” status).

26 states, all with Republican governors, have challenged the executive order on legal grounds. So far, a district court in Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District sided with the Republicans, and Obama’s Justice Department filed with the Supreme Court to reverse the decisions of the lower courts.

Texas not only argues the executive action violated federal law and the Constitution, it opposes having to spend millions to issue drivers licenses to half a million Texas parents that would be eligible. The Obama administration declared Texas would not be forced to do this.

The decisions of the lower court halted Obama’s plan. The president would have the remaining months of his term to implement the program if the Supreme Court sides with him in June.

Obama’s earlier and similar executive action on immigration has not been challenged. The 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals protected children brought illegally to the U.S. Over 720,000 have thus far been shielded from deportation through the order. Obama’s 2016 order would also expand this program.

Obama wants to give the undocumented immigrants the opportunity to “come out of the shadows” and have access to legal work. The conservative states have successfully argued in the lower courts that access to legal work also gives illegal immigrants access to “Social Security, Medicare, tax credits, and unemployment benefits,” though of course through legal work the undocumented would also be paying into those systems.

The summer decision will arrive in the middle of the 2016 presidential race, which has already generated fierce debate over the solution to illegal immigration.

Human Rights Campaign Endorses Clinton, Internet Explodes

On Tuesday, January 19, 2016, the Human Rights Campaign, the most prominent LGBTQ civil rights organization in the U.S., announced which Democratic candidate it was endorsing in the 2016 campaign.

The organization declared on Facebook, just after 6:00 in the morning (CST): “Senator to Secretary of State to Presidential Candidate, Hillary Clinton is a proven champion for LGBT equality. HRC is proud to announce its support for Hillary Clinton for President.”

At about 6 p.m., the post had about 5,600 likes and 2,440 shares. The comments section, on the other hand, was subject to a relentless assault by invading Bernie Sanders supporters.

There were 6,600 comments at 6 p.m., the vast majority displeased with the announcement.

A sample of 402 comments posted between 1:18 and 1:44 p.m. revealed near-unanimous opposition to the endorsement, with most writers supporting Sanders. 16 comments either supported the Clinton endorsement or objected to Bernie Sanders (4% of the sample). 7 comments (under 2%) were too vague or strange to determine an opinion. 379 comments, or 94%, condemned the endorsement and/or declared support for Sanders. The top comment, expressing disappointment and praising Sanders, had 5,870 likes.

Many visitors declared their donations to the organization would immediately cease. A typical comment read: “And this is what will make me stop my monthly contribution to HRC. Nice to see your organization is purely corporate and has no interest in the candidate’s integrity or history when it comes to LGBT issues.”

Criticisms included Clinton’s support for anti-gay rights legislation such as the Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in the 1990s, her opposition to gay marriage until 2013, her relationship with Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, who worked as a junior aide in Bill Clinton’s White House, and both her and the Human Rights Campaign’s support from large corporations (corporations Sanders is constantly attacking).

These were compared with Sanders’ call for the end of laws against homosexual behavior in Vermont while running for governor in 1972, his support for Burlington’s first gay pride march and gay pride day, his attack on anti-gay housing discrimination, his vote against DOMA and DADT, and his backing of the first legal civil unions in the nation in Vermont in 2000. Sanders approved publicly of gay marriage in 2009.

A spokesman for the Sanders campaign said, “It’s understandable and consistent with the establishment organizations voting for the establishment candidate, but it’s an endorsement that cannot possibly be based on the facts and the record.”

A petition pushing for the Human Rights Campaign to retract its endorsement and give it to Sanders quickly appeared on Change.org.

Why Iowa?

Iowa is the first state to vote for its Democratic and Republican presidential nominees by simple chance. It’s only been first since 1972, when Iowa officials planning the state convention had to reschedule the event on an earlier date because there were no hotel rooms available in Des Moines on the weekend in June they had selected.

Moving the state convention up meant moving the district conventions, county conventions, and caucus up as well, and thus the caucus ended up in January, ahead of New Hampshire’s primary. Very little time was spent campaigning in Iowa in 1972, but in 1976, Jimmy Carter invested time there and built momentum that helped him eventually win the White House.

Iowa has been guarding its privileged position ever since, and candidates compete fiercely for that momentum Carter tapped. If a state tries to move up its caucus or primary, Iowa moves its up even further. Iowa’s first vote is often criticized because it is a rural state that is very white: it doesn’t reflect the demographics or lifestyle of the country as a whole.

At the Toss of a Coin

In possibly the most exciting Iowa Democratic caucus in U.S. history, Hillary Clinton took Iowa with 49.9% of the vote to Bernie Sanders’ 49.6%. Iowa Democratic Party chairman Andy McGuire called it “the closest in Iowa Democratic history.”

Even more incredible, six Iowa precincts were decided by coin flip Monday night, February 1, 2016. Who knew that Iowa law stipulates that should a precinct have an odd number of delegates voters are trying to win for their candidate, and the votes are a virtual tie, the final delegate must be decided via coin toss.

In an amazing stroke of luck, Hillary Clinton won all six coin tosses. One has a 1.6% chance to win 6 coin tosses in a row.

One of the coin tosses was rife with controversy. The Des Moines Register reports:

A total of 484 eligible caucus attendees were initially recorded at the site. But when each candidate’s preference group was counted, Clinton had 240 supporters, Sanders had 179 and Martin O’Malley had five (causing him to be declared non-viable).

Those figures add up to just 424 participants, leaving 60 apparently missing. When those numbers were plugged into the formula that determines delegate allocations, Clinton received four delegates and Sanders received three — leaving one delegate unassigned.

Unable to account for that numerical discrepancy and the orphan delegate it produced, the Sanders campaign challenged the results and precinct leaders called a Democratic Party hot line set up to advise on such situations.

Party officials recommended they settle the dispute with a coin toss.

Clinton declared victory Monday night with 95% of the votes tallied and a 0.2% lead. “Thank you all so much,” she said to a cheering crowd. “What a night. What a great campaign this has been.” She promised, “I am a progressive who gets things done for the people.”

Sanders’ reply? “The political revolution is just starting. Tonight we accomplished what the corporate media and political establishment once believed was impossible. Don’t underestimate us.” Indeed, Sanders was polling in single digits in Iowa not too long ago.

The race moves on to New Hampshire, which hosts its primary on February 9. Sanders holds a colossal lead over Clinton, 61% to 30%.

Republican candidate Ted Cruz came out on top in Iowa with 27.9% of the vote. His closest rival, Donald Trump, got 24.3%, followed by Marco Rubio with 23.1%. The latest New Hampshire polls for Republicans? “Trump with 30 percent, followed by Cruz, 12 percent; Rubio, 11 percent,” according to the Washington Post.

Norovirus Hits Kansas City

600 Kansas Citians grew ill in mid-January 2016 when the New Theatre Restaurant in Overland Park, Kansas was hit by norovirus.

Norovirus is commonly called “food poisoning” or “stomach flu,” its symptoms being stomach pain, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. It is often spread quickly due to improper hand washing, contaminating people, food, drinks, and surfaces.

The event garnered national media attention, from The Guardian and ABC News, for example.

On Friday, January 29, 2016 a disinfecting and decontamination company cleaned New Theatre for a massive $40,000. Stomach flu outbreaks can of course potentially cost businesses customers on top of the cleaning costs, though the New Theatre vice president for sales and marketing claims New Theatre continues to see “full houses.”

On Monday, KCTV 5 reported a Buffalo Wild Wings at 105th Street and Metcalf Avenue saw 10 sick patrons and staffers. Samples are under examination to determine if this is also norovirus; the Kansas Department of Agriculture recently cited the restaurant with 18 food safety violations. The restaurant is temporarily closed for cleaning.

Dr. Dana Hawkinson, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Kansas Hospital, says there is a possibility the two outbreaks linked.

“Certainly there’s always a possibility that there could be a link, especially since they are so close in proximity. That would be reasonable,” Hawkinson said.

Bernie Rising

With New Hampshire residents poised to flock to the voting booths this Tuesday, February 9, 2016, polls show Bernie Sanders should win by a landslide.

After the near-tie in the Iowa caucus (Clinton won 49.9% to Sanders’ 49.6%), a February 3 poll by NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist showed Sanders crushing Clinton 58% to 38% among likely Democratic voters in New Hampshire.

A February 4 poll from the University of Massachusetts-Lowell/7 News showed Sanders with an even more massive lead, 63% to Clinton’s 30%.

Clinton has lost much support since last spring, when she dominated New Hampshire polls. A writer for Mother Jones suggests this draws into question the idea Sanders is only winning because the state neighbors his home state of Vermont, as does the fact that New Hampshire tends to vote for more “establishment” candidates, not progressive outsiders. In other words, his support grows due to his ideas, not home field advantage.

Sanders’ insurgent campaign made similar gains before the closest result in Iowa history (coin tosses were involved), and has now eroded Clinton’s national lead as well. Formerly up by 31 points nationally, Clinton now leads Sanders by just 2 points (44%-42%), according to a Quinnipiac poll released Friday. A margin of error makes it neck and neck.

New Hampshire’s primary on Tuesday comes after last night’s tense, heated Democratic presidential debate, during which Clinton lambasted Sanders for his “artful smear” campaign insinuating “anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought” and that politicians who take “donations from Wall Street,” like Barack Obama and herself, are not “progressive.”

Clinton found it “quite amusing” that Sanders would call her part of the “establishment,” because “a woman running to be the first woman president” could not be part of the establishment.

Sanders countered:

What being part of the establishment is…is in the last quarter, having a super-PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one’s life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests. To my mind, if we do not get a handle on money in politics and the degree to which big money controls the political process in this country, nobody is going to bring about the changes that is needed in this country for the middle class and working families.

This exchange is common in the race thus far, and will likely be repeated. Sanders refuses donations from corporations and the wealthy, instead building a grassroots campaign on small donations from individuals and unions. Clinton’s top donors are big banks and corporations, and despite her challenge to critics like Sanders to “just name one” instance where money influenced her vote, her quid pro quo relationship with corporate power is so well-documented other senators talk about it openly.

Even so, Sanders raised $20 million in January, to Clinton’s $15 million.

For the Glory of the City

Perhaps the news will break in The Kansas City Star some day that the Kansas City council, or a secret independent body, dispatched moles to the nation’s top magazines, newspapers, and websites.

Their mission was clear: find work in staff and editorial positions and begin a propaganda campaign. The glorification of Kansas City would lead to a mass migration of people and businesses, an economic and cultural renaissance, fame and fortune!

Hmmm, or maybe more Kansas Citians are simply finding national media jobs–completely devoid of conspiracy. Or perhaps the explanation for all this talk of Kansas City is even better. Perhaps this city, the geographic heart of America, really is that awesome.

Either way, let’s consider either how awesome Kansas City is or how well natives are peddling Kansas City propaganda. Up to you which one.

(Full list of KC honors here.)

 

HUFFINGTON POST

  • Named Kansas City the #1 “coolest” city in the U.S. to “visit right now.” We’re an “it” city with “hip” neighborhoods. (2014)
  • Put KC at #10 of the top cities for creatives. Called it “a creative hub to rival those in the northeast and on the West Coast,” cited 70 art galleries in the Crossroads Art District alone, the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, and the Kemper Museum of Contemporary Art. But we ranked below Des Moines and @&#$ing Kalamazoo. Thanks, moles. (2015)
  • Ranked KC #4 among the “most cultured cities.” That’s better. We don’t mind losing to New York. (2015)
  • Other honors over the past few years include #4 for best cities for newlyweds, #7 for college grads, and more. (2012)

 

FORBES

  • Forbes put Kansas City on its list of “Best Places for Business and Careers.” And who would know better than they? (2012)
  • Named us one of the 10 best cities to buy a home. (2012)
  • Called downtown one of America’s best. Forbes doesn’t seem to like specific rankings these days. (2011)
  • Things used to be different. #9 in “Top 10 Best Cities to Get Ahead,” #8 for commuters, #6 for couples, #16 for the outdoors, #7 for pet-friendly cities, #7 for volunteering. (2007-2009)

TRAVEL+LEISURE

  • Named KC #2 among “America’s Best Beer Cities.” Thank you, Boulevard. (2015)
  • Honestly, the agents at Travel + Leisure need to chill out or they’re gonna get made. Between March 3 and April 24 of 2015, they included Kansas City in “America’s Most Charming Cities,” “America’s Best Cities for Sweet Tooths,” “American’s Best Music Scenes,” “America’s Best Cities for Foodies,” and “20 Quirkiest Cities in America.” Wow.
  • Kansas City was America’s #3 favorite city. This one was by popular vote. We were voted #1 for good drivers, Christmas lights, affordability, flea markets, and BBQ. Hahaha, “good drivers.” They’ve been undercover too long. (2014)
  • #7 for coffee. #9 for picnics. (2014, 2015)

 

BUZZFEED

  • Some of what you find on Buzzfeed relating to Kansas City are “community member” posts–some random people made them, not the Buzzfeed staff. Still, the popular website is starting to take notice of the Paris of the Plains. Kansas City was included in their “29 Cities All Twentysomethings Should Pick Up and Move To” (admittedly, also determined by popular vote). Though KC was listed #1 (admittedly, they did use the phrase “in no particular order”). Still, we know why it was on top. Wink. (2015)
  • I won’t name names, but it’s clear who the mole at Buzzfeed is. He wrote “An Open Letter to Kansas City” during the Royals’ World Series run. (2014)
  • He also wrote “28 Signs You Grew Up in Kansas City.” Buzzfeed labeled it a “Top Post,” as it got over 367,000 views. (2013)
  • His name is Dan Oshinsky.

 

EXTRA AWESOMENESS

  • USA Today published Yelp’s ranking of the Nelson-Atkins as the #1 museum in the United States of America–it was the highest rated and most praised by visitors. #5 was the National World War I Museum. (2015)
  • #2 for “Up-and-Coming Downtowns” by Fortune. (2014)
  • #6 for friendliest cities by Men’s Health. (2014)
  • #8 among best burger cities by USA Today. (2012)
  • #5 among “Underrated Gay-Friendly Cities” by About.com. (2009)
  • #3 for best NFL stadiums by Fox Sports. (2006)
  • #2 for best NFL fan loyalty by American City Business Journal. Go Chiefs! (2006)

The Racism of Dr. Seuss

In the 1920s through the 1940s, Dr. Theodor Seuss Geisel worked as a political and advertisement cartoonist, his work appearing in publications such as Life, PM, Judge, and Vanity Fair. He started writing and illustrating children’s books in 1936, but most of the popular works we know today, like The Cat in the Hat and Green Eggs and Ham, weren’t created until the 1950s and 60s.

While such books are beloved, Dr. Seuss’ cartoons in the newspapers often contained vilely racist imagery. Depictions of black Americans and Africans played on white notions of black savagery, inferiority, and animalism. His drawings of the Japanese and Japanese Americans served propaganda functions important to the United States, namely presenting them as treacherous and evil to stoke support for the war effort and justify discriminatory barbarism like the illegal imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans in what U.S. officials called “concentration camps.”

To his credit, Dr. Seuss did change his tone over time–it is believed he looked back on his racist fear-mongering with regret. His cartoons about blacks changed first, transforming during World War II to encourage the eradication of anti-black prejudice and support for equal opportunity in the workplace, to unite the nation in its fight against racist, fascist regimes abroad.

Yet at the same time, he was creating cartoons featuring Japanese monsters you see. He wrote to readers that complained:

Right now, when the Japs are planting their hatchets in our skulls, it seems like a hell of a time for us to smile and warble: “Brothers!” It is a rather flabby battlecry. If we want to win, we’ve got to kill Japs… We can get palsy-walsy afterward with those that are left.

Dr. Seuss visited Japan in 1953 to study the effects of the war on Japanese children, an experience that changed him. He dedicated Horton Hears a Who! to Mitsugi Nakamura, a university dean he befriended there. Horton and books like The Sneetches are widely viewed today as apologies for past racist sentiments and artwork.

One example of his early anti-black racism were ads for Flit, a bug spray. Dr. Seuss’ drawings of Africans strongly resembled apes, a popular comparison of that era–not to mention earlier and later ones.

Another example was a cartoon playing on popular American figures of speech. The setting is a store. Shoppers are looking to buy things one would never buy: a needle for a haystack, a fly for your ointment, a wrench to throw in your machine to make it stop. In the final panel, with their massive red lips, are “n—–s for your woodpile” (a saying that meant something seemed suspicious, likely derived from escaped slaves hiding at Underground Railroad locations). A white sales clerk shows off his black merchandise to a white buyer.

During World War II, the Japanese were widely considered racially inferior, unintelligent, treacherous, savage, and murderous. The majority of the American populace, media, and governmental bodies characterized them as mad dogs, yellow monkeys, cockroaches, vipers, and vermin. Dr. Seuss did his part to feed the bigotry and fear, portraying the Japanese as monsters, as pig-nosed, squinty-eyed, devilish little fiends. Dr. Seuss’ “Japs” were an infestation of street cats, large insects, or terrorists waiting for word from Tokyo to begin blowing up Americans.

Successes of U.S. Government Planning

We often hear that, from the schools to the mail, the government cannot be trusted to successfully run anything. The prevailing attitude seems to be that government initiatives fail because it is the nature of government initiatives to fail.

While there are many government efforts that need to be purged of corruption and inefficiency, this attitude ignores how successfully the U.S. and other advanced nations have used indicative planning, the hiring of citizens or corporations, to help achieve their goals. Indicative planning means investing tax dollars in specific industries. When government projects are successfully funded and run by skilled people, the results can be astounding.

For example, Ralph Nader writes in The Seventeen Solutions, “Few people know that much of the modern pharmaceutical, aerospace, biotechnology, agronomy, computer, containerization, and detection industries flow from R&D [government research and development], enabled and funded by the taxpayer.” The government poured money into these industries, contracting with companies, universities, organizations, and individuals to research, design, and build for them everything from computer systems to drugs to cruise missiles. Today, we lead the world in these fields.

Does anyone find it a coincidence that our nation spends more money on its military than any other and has the most powerful and advanced bombs, planes, tanks, and ships? Is it coincidence that poorly-funded urban public school districts struggle while well-funded suburban public school districts thrive? Could it be that government-run projects can actually be quite successful if prioritized?

The truth is most advanced capitalist governments plan, investing in key industries (such as computers, pharmaceuticals, energy, or weapons) and infrastructure development (highways, roads, bridges, dams, public transportation). This is accomplished by “working with, rather than against, the private sector.” Governments use a carrot (such as subsidies) and stick (regulations) approach to achieve their goals.

During the Great Depression, President Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration, Civil Works Administration, and Civilian Conservation Corps hired some 15.5 million people to build roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, museums, and zoos; to garden, plant trees, fight fires, reseed land, save wildlife, and sew; to undertake art, music, drama, education, writing, and literacy projects. Similar federal initiatives have occurred since, such as the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of the 1970s, which employed 750,000 people by 1978. In countless other programs, like the Public Works Administration of the 1930s, the U.S. government indirectly created jobs by paying businesses to tackle huge projects. Construction of the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s and 60s entailed the federal government funding the states, which either expanded their public workforces or contracted with private companies.

Economist Ha-Joon Chang writes, “Planning in certain forms is not incompatible with capitalism and may even promote capitalist development very well.” Free-market ideologues are misguided in thinking any planning whatsoever slows economic growth. Even bureaucratic central planning can be “successful,” meaning accomplishing what the planners intended. Planning worked well in the first stages of Soviet industrialization, “where the main task was to produce a relatively small number of key products in large quantities (steel, tractors, wheat, potatoes, etc.)” and unemployment was eliminated.

Harman writes, “For 30 years Stalinist methods produced more rapid rates of economic growth than those experienced anywhere else in the world—except perhaps Japan.”[1] Russia saw success advancing militarily, unsurprising considering the vast resources and manpower wasted on such efforts. One of the most backward, rural nations on earth became a superpower in a very short period of time through central planning. In fact, the Soviet model was based on the war economies of Germany, Britain, the U.S., and others, whose governments planned virtually all economic activity during World War II. Doing so was crucial to the Allied victory.

In the early 1950s, the Chinese copied Stalinist methods, controlling all resources and workers, and from 1954-1957 had a growth rate of 12% a year—in 1958-1959 it was nearly 30%.[2] It is not that bureaucratically planning the economy is impossible; it’s that State power is too dangerous. Authoritarian bureaucracy wiped out human freedoms, oppressed foreign peoples, slaughtered armies of innocent people, and bred widespread poverty. Had the planners aimed to eradicate disease, hunger, and homelessness, they could have done so. But money spent on nuclear bombs and space programs cannot be spent on food and homes. The Cuban government knew that it could not hope to compete with the United States militarily, so its central planners had the resources to pour into health care. Today, Cuba has high-quality universal health care and is a global leader in biochemical and pharmaceutical research.[3]

Indicative planning has also been quite successful in other nations. The world’s rich nations did not grow rich despite planning, but in many ways because of it. France overtook Britain as Europe’s second most powerful industrial nation by promoting investment and technological innovation in the 1950s and 60s. Finland, Norway, and Austria used careful indicative planning to boost their economies between 1950 and 1970. In the 1950s through the 80s, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan followed suit.[4]

Large U.S. government investment in research and development gave us a technological lead internationally in military and tech fields; we invest more in R&D than most other capitalist nations, making us one of the most planned on earth. Capitalist economies have greatly benefited from government planning in certain sectors when goals are clear, simple, and contracted voluntarily.

Nader writes in The Seventeen Solutions of a powerful instance of planning in action:

One telling example comes out of the Vietnam War, when the second cause of hospitalization for U.S. soldiers was malaria. The Department of Defense could not interest the drug companies in doing research to develop more effective pharmaceuticals against this debilitating disease; there simply wasn’t much profit in such an effort. So the Pentagon started what in effect was its own drug company at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda Naval Hospital. With minuscule budgets, officers with PhDs and MDs went to work on the problem. Their productivity was remarkable, their results published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. By 2000, three of the four most widely used antimalarial drugs used in the world had come out of this Pentagon unit, along with other important, clinically-tested medicines.

Investment and planning spark innovation and build up private industries. The government demands, the market supplies. With an appropriate social goal, committed and qualified experts, and (sometimes even minuscule) funds, the U.S. produced medicines that saved lives. In the same way, the government funded a group of scientists and engineers to construct an atom bomb to destroy lives during the Manhattan Project; the goal was planned and executed in brilliant and terrifying fashion.

In an interview with The Atlantic, Bill Gates called the free market “in general inept” when it comes to developing clean energy because “energy moves very slowly.”

For energy as a whole, the incentive to invest is quite limited, because unlike digital products—where you get very rapid adoption and so, within the period that your trade secret stays secret or your patent gives you a 20-year exclusive, you can reap incredible returns—almost everything that’s been invented in energy was invented more than 20 years before it got scaled usage. So if you go back to various energy innovators, actually, they didn’t do that well financially. The rewards to society of these energy advances—not much of that is captured by the individual innovator, because it’s a very conservative market.

Thus it is useful for the government to step in and spur development through indicative planning. Gates said since “there’s no fortune to be made…without a substantial carbon tax, there’s no incentive for innovators or plant buyers to switch” to clean energy. He recommended “tripling” “government-funded energy R&D.” “Since World War II, U.S.-government R&D has defined the state of the art in almost every area” of energy development, and “the overall record for the United States on government R&D is very, very good”; here Gates cites the Manhattan Project, pharmaceutical research, cancer research, Internet and computer chip technology, and so on.[5]

 

 

Notes

[1] Harman, People’s History of the World, 560

[2] Harman, People’s History of the World, 573

[3] Imagine, 185-186

[4] Ha-Joong Chang, 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

[5] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/we-need-an-energy-miracle/407881/

Bernie Sanders Can Still Win

On Super Tuesday 2016, Hillary Clinton dominated 6 Southern states and won one New England state, Massachusetts, with a 1% margin. Bernie Sanders won 4 states soundly: Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Vermont.

The delegate count now stands at Clinton’s 577 to Sanders’ 386 (superdelegates aside).

Despite the scoreboard–and immediate establishment media talk of his doom–Sanders still has an opportunity to win the Democratic nomination, should his popularity continue to grow and his supporters charge the polls in the next primaries and caucuses.

Consider that on Super Tuesday,

Even in the states where Clinton won handily, like Texas, Virginia, and Georgia, Sanders still won handily with his core constituencies–voters aged 18 to 29, first-time primary voters, and independents. According to NBC News’ exit polls, Sanders won young voters by a 30-point margin in Texas, 39 points in Virginia, 13 points in Georgia, and even captured the youth vote in Clinton’s home state of Arkansas, where Bill Clinton served as governor, by 24 points.

Among first-time primary voters, Sanders won by, again, 30 points in Texas and 8 points in Virginia. And Sanders captured independent voters by 16 points in both Texas and Virginia, 3 points in Georgia, 13 points in Tennessee, and 17 points in Arkansas.

Only 15 of the 50 states have voted. As Melissa Cruz writes, “Taking into account both delegates and superdelegates, about 75 percent of delegates are still up for grabs. If superdelegates are not accounted for, roughly 64 percent of delegates are left within the Democratic primary election.”

Though it will be a battle, Bernie Sanders can still win.

Importantly, Clinton’s national lead over Sanders has disappeared, and in some polls he’s beating her by a slim margin. That balance of support–made obvious in the first three Democratic contests–will likely become evident again as the race moves forward, out of the South and into states with the largest offerings of delegates.

Even before the crucial Super Tuesday victories, Sanders proved he could do well in blue collar, Midwestern states like Iowa (where he lost by less than 1%), New England states like New Hampshire (where he crushed Clinton), and in the Southwest (he lost Nevada by just a few percentage points).

Cruz writes, “Sanders still has a strong chance in many of the blue collar states coming up, such as Michigan, Illinois, and Pennsylvania,” which offer 147, 182, and 210 delegates respectively. Ohio has 159 delegates, Indiana 92, and the highly progressive Wisconsin 96.

Even a Mother Jones writer who thinks “Bernie Sanders is in a whole lot of trouble” admits:

If he can roll with the punches, he just might make it to the sweet spot of the schedule, a four-week, 15-state stretch that represents his last best shot to turn things around, starting with Idaho, Utah, and Arizona on March 22.

This four-week stretch not only includes Southwestern states Sanders showed he can compete in but also the very liberal Washington, with its 118 delegates. Tom Cahill agrees that

…he faces a much more favorable electorate in states voting after March 15. If Sanders stays within 150 delegates by that benchmark, he can potentially narrow Clinton’s lead in the spring and overtake her in the summer as Sanders-favorable coastal states take to the polls.

Coastal states (Washington included) like the very liberal California, with its whopping 546 delegates awarded in June, could swing Sanders’ way and send him toward the White House. He has a good chance to win New England states like Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Delaware.

Like his passionate fan base, Sanders’ war chest is only continuing to grow. He’s raised $137 million in the campaign so far, and as the Mother Jones writer notes,

Sanders raised an absurd $42 million in February—$6 million of it on the Monday after the South Carolina blowout. Because he relies so heavily on small-dollar donors who haven’t hit the $2,700 limit, he can in theory keep circling back for more money to buy ads and build organizations in every state that comes up.

Jeffrey Lord Defends Belief the KKK is a “Leftist” Group With “Progressive Agenda”

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016, Donald Trump supporter and former Reagan administration official Jeffrey Lord shared a tense and heated exchange with CNN political analyst Van Jones for the second day in a row.

The previous day’s quarrel, sparked as the Super Tuesday election results rolled in, saw Jones criticize Trump for being slow to disavow supporters who belong to white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan (Lord insisted Trump disavowed them “many, many, many times.”)

Trump, Jones said, “is whipping up and tapping into and pushing buttons that are very, very frightening to me and frightening to a lot of people. Number one, when he is playing funny with the Klan, that is not cool.”

Lord quickly called the Klan “a leftist terrorist organization.”

Jones at first steered away from “playing that game,” but Lord persisted, saying, “It’s wrong to understand that these are not leftists…they were the military arm, the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party, according to historians. For God’s sake, read your history.”

Jones countered, “I don’t care how they voted 50 years ago. I care about who they killed.”

Lord then attempted to connect the Klan’s association with southern Democrats in U.S. history to liberalism today. After Jones pointed out offensive things Trump said of minorities, Lord replied: “Van, but what you’re doing right here is dividing people. We’re all Americans here, Van. You are dividing people. This is what liberals do. You’re dividing people by race.”

“The Klan kill people by race,” Jones said.

“And they did it–they did it to further the progressive agenda. Hello?” Lord exclaimed.

An incredulous Jones called that idea “absurd.”

On Wednesday, Lord and Jones were back on CNN for more.

Jones said:

You know, I don’t understand why the right wing is so obsessed with trying to point out that the Ku Klux Klan, you know, 50, 60, 70 years was a part of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party in that time was a racist party and there were violent elements. That is true because, obviously, the Republicans at that time were the party of Lincoln, who ended slavery. But we’ve had a reversal over these past 50 [years]–my entire lifetime.

Lord doubled down on his Tuesday comments:

My point is that race fuels the progressive movement and has always fueled the progressive movement. Whether it was slavery, segregation, lynching, the Ku Klux Klan, to today’s racial quotas, illegal immigration by skin color. You know, groups like La Raza, the Black Panthers, Black Lives Matter, et. cetera, it’s always about let’s divide people by race and then here is the progressive agenda that we want to enact.

Jones quickly asked if “you are going to say that the people who are dividing America by race were progressives, were liberals?”

“Yes.”

“It was not progressives that were trying to keep slavery in place,” Jones insisted. “It was not progressives that were trying to keep segregation in place… There is this weird strain now on the right that tries to pretend that their hands are completely clean when it comes to race.”

After much bickering and crosstalk, Lord said, “The reason we needed those civil rights laws in the 1960s is because the Democratic Party went out of their way to undermine the civil rights laws.”

Jones drew a distinction between the southern Democrats of decades past and the Democratic Party today, echoing his previous comment on a “reversal” of ideology between the two major political parties:

There is something wrong with this particular view that because horrible racist Dixiecrats in the South did horrible racist things–and they did horrible racist things for a long time. In fact–

“For political reasons,” Lord interjected.

Jones continued:

Let me finish. For a long time they did horrible racist things. 50, 60 years ago. I say that is horrible. But guess what, those people left the Democratic Party and they joined your party. That is the problem. No, they literally left your party–

“No. That is simply not true,” Lord countered.

 

Alabama Bill Seeks Castration for Male and Female Sex Offenders

On Thursday, March 3, 2016, Alabama State Representative Steve Hurst, a Republican, introduced legislation to the Alabama House that would require castration for some convicted sex offenders, male or female, before leaving state custody.

Sex offenders over 21 years old, who committed currently unspecified sex acts on victims 12 years old or younger, would be subject to surgical castration.

For men, this involves removing the testicles, in an attempt to eradicate testosterone and curb sexual appetites. For women, this means female genital mutilation or circumcision, the removal of external genitalia, a practice still seen in some Central African, Middle Eastern, and Asian nations to ensure women don’t have sex outside marriage.

“The punishment should fit the crime,” Hurst told reporters.

California, Texas, Wisconsin, Oregon, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Montana have laws regarding castration. Generally, repeat sex offenders in these states must undergo chemical castration prior to release. Artificial female hormone treatment is used to reduce testosterone levels.

Some states perform the surgical procedure on males if they desire it; a handful of sex offenders have undergone the surgery to reduce their prison time.

The Alabama proposal is unique in that it requires the surgery and addresses female convicts.

Studies suggest castration does prevent future molestation and rape, but opponents of the surgery, such as the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, argue medical treatment is just as effective, castration only addresses sex drive and not mental health issues, castration constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment,” which the U.S. Constitution bans in Amendment VIII, and that the falsely convicted will also be castrated.

Hurst has introduced this sort of legislation twice before, without success.

The Youth, the Latino, and the Independent

Beware the Ides of March.

So said a fortune teller to Julius Caesar in William Shakespeare’s play, predicting Caesar’s impending doom.

While Hillary Clinton supporters and media pundits may view the results of the March 15, 2016, primaries as predicting doom for Bernie Sanders, events will likely play out quite differently.

Last night Sanders lost Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio by large margins, and lost Illinois by 2% and Missouri by 0.2% (about 1,600 votes). The delegate count now stands at Clinton’s 1,132 to Sanders’ 818. About half the states have yet to vote, and plenty of delegates are up for grabs.

Bernie Sanders fans can take heart: Clinton’s lead is not insurmountable, particularly since the states where Sanders is most likely to win come in the last half of this race — and offer huge delegate counts. One telling fact: most of the 10 largest cities in the U.S. that gave the most money to Sanders per capita thus far are in states about to vote, like Washington State, Oregon, New Mexico, California, and Arizona.

Sanders crushed Hillary by 20 percentage points in two-thirds of his victories: New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado, Vermont, Kansas, and Maine. This was not a fluke. He will likely have more big wins if young people, independents, and Latino voters register and cast their ballots.

Southwest and Western states with large Latino populations will likely flock to Sanders. He barely lost Illinois, but surveys the week before saw him with 64% of Latino support in the state, compared to 30% for Clinton. (Nearly half of Latino voters are millennials.) Of the 20 Iowa counties that have the largest Latino population, Sanders won 15 of them. He also may have won the Latino vote in Nevada, far better than expected, and Democracy Now reported after Colorado: “Latino vote helps Bernie Sanders surge to victory in massive Democratic caucus turnout.”

Upcoming states like New Mexico, Washington, Arizona, and California (with its whopping 546 delegates) with big Hispanic populations could cause Clinton’s lead to evaporate.

Now consider independent voters. 43% of Americans are independents, a steadily rising voting bloc.

Sanders is hugely favored by independents, for example winning 71% of the independent vote in Michigan, 73% in New Hampshire. He doubled Clinton’s support from independents in Massachusetts. He even won the majority of independent votes in states he lost: “Sanders captured independent voters by 16 points in both Texas and Virginia, 3 points in Georgia, 13 points in Tennessee, and 17 points in Arkansas.” Of the first 15 states that voted, 30-50% of the people who voted for Sanders were independents, according to The Washington Post, and of those contests it is likely Sanders won New Hampshire, Michigan, and Oklahoma because independent liberals swarmed the polls.

Many of the remaining states have large independent voting blocs. In two states that have more registered independents than registered Republicans or Democrats, Iowa and Massachusetts, Bernie lost by just 0.3% and 2%, respectively, but in Colorado, Maine, and New Hampshire, which also have more independents, Sanders had resounding victories. The remaining states with this registration pattern — Alaska, Idaho, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Rhode Island — are coming up fast.

Finally, it should be no surprise to anyone that younger voters support Sanders over Clinton. On Super Tuesday,

Even in the states where Clinton won handily, like Texas, Virginia, and Georgia, Sanders still won handily with his core constituencies — voters aged 18 to 29, first-time primary voters, and independents. According to NBC News’ exit polls, Sanders won young voters by a 30-point margin in Texas, 39 points in Virginia, 13 points in Georgia, and even captured the youth vote in Clinton’s home state of Arkansas, where Bill Clinton served as governor, by 24 points.

Among first-time primary voters, Sanders won by, again, 30 points in Texas and 8 points in Virginia.

Voters under 45 certainly propelled Sanders to victory in New Hampshire (83% of 18-29 year olds, 66% of 30-44 year olds), helped him tie in Iowa (84% of 18-29 year olds, 58% of 30-44 year olds), and so on. In Illinois last night, Sanders won an astonishing 70% of Democratic voters under 45.

The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University pointed to 10 states this year that would have a “disproportionately high electoral impact in 2016.” While Clinton has won 6 of these and Sanders only 2, young voters could still deliver Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to Sanders, fairly significant prizes. Voters under 45 will have an impact in every contest, however, and may make more of an impact on certain states than others. Some key upcoming contests in the Southwest and West have younger populations.

What will be key for Bernie Sanders is not only that likely Latino, independent, or 18-44 year old Americans will vote in their states when the time comes, but also the ability to increase the number of likely voters — to turn unlikely voters into likely ones. Latinos make up only 16% of the U.S. population, many states have more party voters than independents, and younger citizens are still less likely to vote than older folks. Mobilizing those not planning to register and cast a ballot is necessary to strengthen Sanders’ advantages with those groups.

According to a respected pollster whose calculations have proven fairly accurate thus far, Sanders is poised to see a long stretch of victories.

New York Times writer points out Sanders has had enormous success in caucus states:

He’s a strong favorite in the caucuses in Idaho, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington and Wyoming. Barack Obama won an average of 72 percent of the vote in these contests in 2008, and so far Mr. Sanders is running an average of four points behind Mr. Obama’s showing in caucus states. Mr. Sanders is also a strong favorite in the Utah primary.

Further, “He could win big in North Dakota, Oregon and Montana, or maybe in a few mostly white working-class states like Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky.” But Wisconsin, Arizona, and New Mexico will be close, while California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and the District of Columbia will be challenges.