Verizon Just Got Berned

It's a sign that we're heading into a new era of reining in corporate excess, and an era where labor is taking a more assertive stance. That's what we can see when the Communications Workers of America and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers called the strike. Verizon is starting to get heat from the growing support for the strikers, especially when many of the workers are not paid very well, or when they're in agreement with the unions over expanding their Verizon fios broadband service. The fact is that the expansion has never happened and that's partly contributing to why both unions went on strike.

What's really interesting is the recent war of words between Bernie Sanders and Lowell McAdam, Verizon's CEO. Apparently McAdam hated the fact that Bernie called out Verizon's stashing profits off-shore to avoid (really to evade) paying US taxes. Just to be clear Verizon's pre-tax profits between 2008 and 2012 were $19.3 billion, and they got a rebate back of $535 million. This comes at a time when Verizon pays many of its employees starvation wages and provides them with very poor benefits. This comes out of a report by Americans for Tax Fairness published in 2013. Going back to the war of words, Bernie made the case fairly clear that Verizon's not adhering to its responsibilities as a corporate citizen by not paying any form of federal taxes and to make the point of saying that Verizon is only 1 of many bad actors executing loopholes in our Federal Tax Code. The icing on the cake is that Bernie channeled FDR when he said on Twitter that he welcomed the contempt of McAdam, and other CEOs of large corporations. Here's the Tweet in its entirety. Enjoy!

I don’t want the support of McAdam, Immelt and their friends in the billionaire class. I welcome their contempt. https://t.co/OIiykGeHQT

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) April 13, 2016

Jgsf1987

Why The Dynamic Of 1972 Is The Wrong One For 2016 And Why 1968 Is The Right One

As I mentioned previously on here that 1968 is the real dynamic that this year's election mirrors, I realize that I forgot to add in how 1972's dynamic is absolutely wrong. There are a a couple of factors as to how that's the case and I'll describe them here.

First off, we need to understand that Bernie Sanders' campaign today does not mirror George McGovern's campaign in 1972, it mirrors Eugene McCarthy's in 1968. When McCarthy ran well to Lyndon Johnson's left on the issue of the Vietnam War, it gave him the propulsion necessary to bring him within striking distance of capturing The Democrats' nomination that year. What happened? The Democratic establishment in a swift, though reactive, move placed the incumbent Vice President at the time, Hubert Humphrey, on the top of the ticket which really infuriated and demoralized the Democratic base (Humphrey, as an important side-note, never campaigned for the nomination). Many felt that their vote had been robbed from them, and as such, either sat out the election, or voted for third parties. The Democrats would manage to pick up on their mistake 4 years later, but by the time they did, it was too late.

Which leads to the next point: how was it that George McGovern was so badly blown out in 1972? That's actually very simple, the Democrats caught the message of 1968 and campaigned on it 4 years after the fact, when it was no longer in people's minds. McGovern's platform was unable to gain any traction from the message no longer having any real relevance. The electorate was tired of liberal activism that year, and they saw Richard Nixon as having finally restored some sense of order following the chaos of the late 1960s. The prevailing wisdom at that time was that "Democrats can't govern," and that only the GOP could be entrusted to do so. That wisdom had a lot of traction up until about 2006 or so, when the electorate finally understood that Republicans don't govern. That came on full display again in 2015-6.

That leads to the final point of saying that nominating Hillary Clinton is guaranteeing a lost opportunity. I know, that on paper, Hillary has an impressive resume that's worth considering, but that's not a good enough reason to give her the nomination. Hillary's judgment on several past decisions were off target (Iraq War, Libya, Syria no-fly zone, etc.), and resulted in people getting hurt or killed. Now, the problem with nominating Hillary, in my eyes, is that it will depress voter turnout in the general election, or worse, give us united government under the Republicans. If you think I'm off target, I'd suggest looking at polls on 270ToWin's website. In just about every election between 1968 and 2012 (with some notable exceptions like 1992 and 2008) we've a seen a continual drop in voter-turn out. With more and more people failing to turn out, it makes our democracy that much more susceptible to corrosive corruption by big-moneyed interests and hijacking by extreme voices. None of this is good for us, not at a pivotal moment such as this.

Keeping these points in mind, now you can see how comparing today's political dynamic to 1972 if we nominate Bernie is wrong, and how 1968 is actually the right comparison.

How Bernie Is Another Step Closer To Potentially Overtaking Hillary

Bernie Sanders just got a big win in Wisconsin (there were 96 delegates up for grabs), and this has increased his campaign's momentum onto the nomination. How this is significant is that he's won 7 of the last 8 primary/caucus contests, and that may change the way the race goes. So far Hillary Clinton has been on the defensive, along with The Democrats' establishment, looking for ways to woo Bernie's voters and falling all over themselves.

Face it, people are tired of establishment politics, especially several segments of the Democratic base. We're ready to go big and bold, even if it challenges conventional wisdom. There's too much at stake with corporate fat-cats controlling both party establishments. 

The Need To Repeal The Anti-BDS Law ASAP

Barack Obama has done us no favors by signing the anti-BDS bill into law. This law does not delegitimize Israel, as Benjamin Netanyahu's government would like us to believe. This is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment and also the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments. I certainly hope that when Bernie Sanders becomes President that he will repeal this odious law immediately.

What Israel is doing to the Palestinians does not reflect the values as ascribed by the Talmud. Nowhere in the Jewish faith is there any means to condone this type of suffering. This is racism and moreover ethnic hatred at its core. Demonizing the Palestinians, many of whom are suffering from the worst human rights abuses. Think about this, this is an example of our tax dollars being wasted. We should not be subsidizing the Israeli War Machine. Here's a look at how much we've wasted courtesy of Haaretz.

This law does not reflect who we are as Americans. We don't root against the underdog. As an American Jew I may get a lot of heat for saying this, as someone who has no sympathy for the people who suffered the worst of the Holocaust, but it needs to be said. We should not be emulating the worst of our historic oppressors, the Nazis. We're behaving just like them. I can cite numerous examples of this, such as this video for starters:

In this video, we get a glimpse of how hatred of Arabs and Palestinians starts in Israeli education (much like how the madrassas operate in Saudi Arabia and other places under the control of the Wahabist sect of Sunni Islam). Think about how this may be coming from our tax dollars. Why should we be funding this? It makes little sense to me.

That's the whole point behind BDS, it says that allowing this type of separation and repression should end now. If Israel wants to be treated as a respected member of the community of nations, then it better adhere to its responsibilities and the basic rules of the road. What is it going to take to get that into the Israeli Government's head? The kind of pressure BDS brings.

What Pisses Me Off About Hillary Clinton

I know that I've written extensively on here about how I have severe misgivings about Hillary Clinton being elected President, but what's pissing me off even more is how dirty she's getting and how desparate she comes across as. I can't vote for someone who's only paying me lip service. How stupid does she think I am? I can see right through her, and I know damn well that she doesn't have my best interest at heart, only what lines her pockets. She's pulling the same stunts that she did with Barack Obama back in 2008, and look at what happened. That's not even the least of my gripes. What has me even more floored is the fact that she, along with The Democrats (Democratic National Committee) are basically engaging in election fraud wherever they can during the primaries just so that she can be nominated, even when the base is largely rejecting her. I never signed up for this!

I'm pissed as hell that if she's nominated I'll either vote in Bernie Sanders as a write-in, or if John Kasich get's the GOP's nomination, I'll end up voting for him. Hillary is untrustworthy, and nominating her is a big mistake in my eyes! If she thinks that telling Millennials, such as myself, that we can't have anything to help us out, because we have to subsidize big business, then she deserves to lose to the Republicans in November. Let the Republicans run us into the ground, we'll boot them out after 2 years (Congress and across the states) and 4 years (Presidency) anyway. This is how fed up people are with all the excuses and the lies. We know how tough it is to govern 320 million of us, but that's no excuse to ignore us when we're calling for help and/or some relief. No way are we going to let Corporate America (specifically big business and the very wealthy) call the shots. No way in hell! 

What Older Generations Don't Get About Us Millennials

There's nothing more obnoxious than hearing false stories about the choice we face in November. I say this as a young American, the one group who the media trumpets as the least invested in our country's future. I'd beg to differ, as we're just as invested, but we're tired of being ignored until just before election. Not to mention we really detest being overly criticized about everything, or being projected on as to how we should feel, think, etc. Honestly, the way things are currently are not working for us. For what reason is it right for us to be working between 1 or more jobs to pay down massive debts from getting our education? And they have the right to be lecturing us on the necessity of having an investment portfolio or a mortgage? AS IF! How throwing us a bone here as we're drowning in debt?

And they think identity or dog-whistle politics is what drives us to vote? They've got to be smoking some bad weed. Identity politics, like dog-whistle politics, is the easiest way to make us tune older generations out. We know about the struggles previous generations made to get rid of racism, and we're thankful for that, but let us have our go at it. What's so absurd about all the projections that the Silent and Baby Boom generations make onto Millennials is that we don't have any respect for tradition, or for that matter traditional hierarcy, or that we don't protest against it enough. Let me say this to both generations, that's because the Millennial generation has the same type of mindset as the G.I. Generation (the generation that fought in WWII and then made this country a superpower). This means that we're turned off by both forms of politics. We're a more collaborative generation where labels really don't hold a lot of water, and that means working from all angles.

We've come to realize that all this overly hyperbolic politicking is tearing this country to pieces, and that it's our place to rein in those who lead us. Our realization of how our institutions have failed us comes from the fact that we haven't had our voices heard. Are we surprised by this? Hardly. What more can we expect when older generations are not willing to listen to us? It's no secret we're frustrated, but we're willing to channel that frustration in a way that will force a response. Is the reason that most Milennials are not willing to entertain the notion of Hillary Clinton because they're sexist? Of course it's not, we'd love to see a woman as President, but not Hillary. Our reason: identity politics primarily, but also because she has no real plan to help us. Add in 1 other factor, foreign policy. How can we be sure that Hillary won't start another war and call upon us to fight it? We're tired of war! I know I'm tired of it as well.

More News From North Korea

It seems as if America and its partners have thrown down the gauntlet on North Korea, hitting with the heaviest sanctions to date passed by the Security Council. Apparently North Korea's continued threats of pre-eminent nuclear war has worn thin both Russia and China's patience. To have Russia warn the North that an invasion by the Americans and the South may be jusitifiable is really telling of how close the Korean peninsula is to having war break out. Originally I heard the story from Alex Jones, who has a history with the truth at times, and apparently he was spot on about the Russian response. The Guardian was the first to break this story, and there's no question that if there's a war that starts in that part of Asia, it'll be sanctioned by the Security Council.

It's also telling about how thin China's patience has worn, especially when they really don't want more American military hardware so close to their border. Now whether they'll back international military action is a whole different question, but I'm fairly sure they'll do so if the North Korean nuclear threats don't abate. Like the Russians, the Chinese also are warning the North that if these threats continue then there will be a real justification for invasion. 

New Supreme Court Pick

Having heard that Barack Obama's nominated a new Supreme Court justice, Merrick Garland, to succeed Antonin Scalia, I'm not at all surprised to hear the Senate GOP's squawking about how they won't do their job as described by the Constitution.

Now I can think of one major reason why they won't do it: their base. The base wants to make sure an ultra-conservative succeeds Scalia.  To put it in another way, they want someone on the court who will rule in favor of their beliefs and views. These include a return to Jim Crow and overt racism, denying non-Whites their constitutional rights, belief that Whites are superior to all and that only White lives matter, etc. The bottom line is that these are strongly held convictions in many parts of the country, and many of the people who hold these views want them enacted into law.

After feeding their base racism, and the need to enact it into law, the GOP's now answering for whipping up that same racial prejudice in the forms of Donald Trump & Ted Cruz . What did they think would happen, that someone wouldn't break through and grab the ability to enact such views? Now they have to look to the Democrats to stop Trump, if he is their nominee, which will be unlikely if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. The last person who should be the one to pick a successor for Scalia is Trump. Guaranteed he'll pick someone who's a strong opponent of racial justice.

That's why there's the campaign telling Senate Republicans to Do Your Job. We need to hold their feet to the fire, by telling them that their scorched-earth obstructionism will cost them the Senate and the Presidency in November.

How 2016 Is A Mirror Image Of 1968

If anyone remembers the break-down of the New Deal Coalition back in 1968, then get ready for a rebooted version this year. Think of Donald Trump as the fill-in for George Wallace, Ted Cruz as Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon, Bernie Sanders as Eugene McCarthy and Hillary Clinton as Hubert Humphrey.

Now suppose that Cruz were the GOP's nominee, just like Hillary would be for the Democrats, and Trump ran, via as an independent or 3rd-party. Think of the outcome, we'd have Ted in the White House succeeding Barack Obama. The reason I'm saying that Cruz could end up being our President is that Trump would only be successful in potentially syphoning off would be votes for Hillary or Cruz all across the country.

In this analogy, we can see why Donald Trump will not cease to use overt bigotry as a campaign strategy as it's absolutely working for him. Trump's tapped into a very deep White rage that's been simmering under the surface since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, especially in many parts of the South, Great Plains and both the Mountain & Pacific West. This White rage is much worse than the Black rage we've seen over the past couple of years. These folks want to be free enough to shout out their bigotry at the top of their lungs and feel vindicated that they don't have to hide their true beliefs.

It's also easy to see why Ted Cruz's holding his cards close to him. He knows that he can pose as the savior of the state from all the violence and lawlessness caused by both Trump and the Democrats (the same as the Law and Order platform Richard Nixon ran on 1968). But remember, Cruz would like nothing more than to implement Law and Order, via racial conservatism.

In Bernie Sanders' case, it's real easy to see how he's a reincarnation of Eugene McCarthy. Bernie's been crusading against the sheer inequality of opportunity for everyone regardless of background (be it race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc.), and also excoriating the recklessness of both the political and economic establishment. Like McCarthy, Bernie's calling for a dramatic overhawl of many governmental policies and also blasting the establishment's disregard for the real costs of war.

As for Hillary Clinton, she's the re-embodiment of Hubert Humphrey, who has the support of the establishment, but no support from the base. Many of the same voters who would likely turnout for the Democrats would end up staying home. That's exactly what happened in 1968, and what's about to happen if Hillary's nominated now in 2016.

There's one thing we need to bear in mind, unless we want a new version of Kissinger-esque offensive realism, we're better off not repeating the same mistake we made 48 years go.

Donald Trump Getting A Full Pounding For Campaigning On Overt Racism

If it seems like there's a strange alignment of the Earth with both the sun and moon, then you know there's trouble bounding for one Presidential campaign: Donald Trump's. Seems as if the Donald's managed to draw the ire of both The Democrats and the GOP for openly calling for violent White Supremacy and it seems as if those calls are falling on open ears. From the violence at his rallies and campaign events to threats of violence against rival campaigns on both sides of the aisle, it looks like he's about to experience the ultimate form of karma: lost support, at least in the form of minority voters. The fact remains that his call to violence is also having the adverse affect of losing the American electorate, especially those who remember the violence of the mid-to-late 1960s all the way through to the early-to-mid 1990s.

Let me be very clear, we don't need a repeat. Which is why both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, together with the other Republicans running for President, are right to condemn the Trump campaign's violent rhetoric and incitement to violence against anyone who disagrees with him. It seems almost laughable on Donald's part to pin the blame almost entirely on Bernie, when it's clear that Sanders has given no instructions to his supporters to protest at Trump events; it's entirely their decision. While it's heartening to hear the other Republican candidates (Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich) condemn Donald and distance themselves from his violent hate-filled campaign, it's important to remember that they also harbor many of those same hateful views and willingness to legislate on them (with the exception of Kasich). With Cruz, that's completely obvious, as he's actually more hateful and extreme than Trump is. Rubio's not too much different. Kasich, on the other hand, is someone I could think of backing if Hillary gets the nomination. This is because of his platform on a couple of issues: immigration and justice/police reform. On both these issues he's calling for pragmatism and moderation. Add 1 more issue to that: climate change. Now whether to leave regulations to the EPA or the states is a necessary debate to have and one that I'd wish would take place, but with the others largely denying the existence of climate change, that's not likely to happen. On a final note, while he is opposed to "non-traditional" (aka LGBT) marriage, he sees any further fighting to ban it as a lost cause. Which makes me think that if he is President, he may push for further legal protections of LGBT Americans.

Aside from that rant about why Kasich may be a better alternative, the fact remains that if the Donald doesn't end his campaign of hate, he's going to answer for it in the same way George Wallace did back in 1968. This may mean that while Donald does especially well in many parts of the South, he may face a world of trouble trying to win the vote elsewhere in November. Be it in places as hard-right Idaho and Wyoming to center-right Kansas and Nebraska. Bernie's argument about the need for a dramatic change in the political culture in Washington, that's actually responsive to all the people, may cut into Donald's support among Republicans. Imagine if Donald has to fight for those states due to many Republicans largely backing Bernie (especially conservative Republicans) that are turned off by all the hate-filled dog-whistles. Think about what happened to Mitt Romney when he faced Barack Obama in 2012, or when Obama faced John McCain in 2008. The fact remains simple, the Republicans' coalition of both the overwhelming majority of the White South together with the Great Plains and Mountain states (along with both Alaska and Indiana), it's not a coalition that will remain cohesive for very long.

If anything, the American people don't want a Southern-styled form of conservatism, (i.e., racial conservatism or put more plainly: hate-filled corporatism). We largely want to move past the era of racial hatred and Social Darwinism. It also means that we need to end this bankrupt status quo of simply keeping our heads in the sand. This is the type of conservatism being served to us a la Donald Trump and the Republican Party.