Political, social and economic issues we are all sensitive to and wish to be heard and to hear from others in the wide spectrum.
Catching Elephant is a theme by Andy Taylor
SLAVES OF IGNORANCE
Slaves remain slaves as long as they choose to be slaves. The same is true with the ignorant who are slaves to ineptitude and worthlessness. The desire to learn must be present to start with and should be nurtured so it can be inspired to grow. There is no excuse not to learn at all because now more than ever in the history of civilization have resources been in abundance and access to these unobstructed. The problem that confronts those of us who have access to this wealth of information is if we ever exercise our power of discernment so that we can choose which information will sustain us or poison us.
In the mid-1850s, the United States was being torn apart over the issue of slavery. The abolitionist movement was becoming increasingly vocal, and enormous controversy focused on whether new states admitted to the Union would allow slavery.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 established the idea that residents of states could decide for themselves the issue of slavery, and that led to violent encounters in Kansas beginning in 1855. While blood was being spilled in Kansas, another violent attack shocked the nation, especially as it took place on the floor of the United States Senate. Senator Charles Sumner Delivers a Fiery Senate Speech Denouncing Slavery On May 19, 1856, Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, a prominent voice in the anti-slavery movement, delivered an impassioned speech denouncing the compromises that helped perpetuate slavery and led to the current confrontations in Kansas. Sumner began by denouncing the Missouri Compromise, theKansas-Nebraska Act, and the concept of popular sovereignty, in which residents of new states could decide whether to make slavery legal. Continuing his speech the next day, Sumner, singled out three men in particular: Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois, a major proponent of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Senator James Mason of Virginia, and Senator Andrew Pickens Butler of South Carolina. Butler, who had recently been incapacitated by a stroke and was recuperating in South Carolina, was held to particular ridicule by Sumner. Sumner said that Butler had taken as his mistress “the harlot, slavery.” Sumner also referred to the South as an immoral place for allowing slavery, and he mocked South Carolina. Listening from the back of the Senate chamber, Stephen Douglas reportedly said, “that damned fool will get himself killed by some other damned fool.” Sumner’s impassioned case for a free Kansas was met with approval by northern newspapers, but many in Washington criticized the bitter and mocking tone of his speech. A Southern Congressman Takes Offense One southerner, Preston Brooks, a member of the House of Representatives from South Carolina, was particularly incensed. Not only had the fiery Sumner ridiculed his home state, but Brooks was the nephew of Andrew Butler, one of Sumner’s targets. In the mind of Brooks, Sumner had violated some code of honor which should be avenged by fighting a duel. But Brooks felt that Sumner, by attacking Butler when he was home recuperating and not present in the Senate, had shown himself not to be a gentlemen deserving of the honor of dueling. Brooks thus reasoned that the proper response was for Sumner to be beaten, with a whip or a cane. On the morning of May 21, Preston Brooks arrived at the Capitol, carrying a walking stick. He hoped to attack Sumner, but did not locate him. The following day, May 22, proved fateful. After trying to find Sumner outside the Capitol, Brooks entered the building and walked into the Senate chamber. Sumner sat at his desk, writing letters. Violence on the Floor of the Senate Brooks hesitated before approaching Sumner, as several women were present in the Senate gallery. After the women left, Brooks walked to Sumner’s desk, and reportedly said: “You have libeled my state and slandered my relation, who is aged and absent. And I feel it to be my duty to punish you.” With that, Brooks struck the seated Sumner across the head with his heavy cane. Sumner, who was quite tall, could not get to his feet as his legs were trapped under his Senate desk, which was bolted to the floor. Brooks continued raining blows with the cane upon Sumner, who tried to fend them off with his arms. Sumner finally was able to break the desk free with his thighs, and staggered down the aisle of the Senate. Brooks followed him, breaking the cane over Sumner’s head and continuing to strike him with pieces of the cane. The entire attack probably lasted for a full minute, and left Sumner dazed and bleeding. Carried into a Capitol anteroom, Sumner was attended by a doctor, who administered stitches to close wounds on his head. Brooks was soon arrested on a charge of assault, and was quickly released on bail. Reaction to Brooks Beating Sumner As might be expected, northern newspapers responded to the violent attack on the Senate floor with horror. A New York Times editorial proposed sending Tommy Hyer to Congress to represent northern interests. Hyer was a celebrity of the day, the champion bare knuckles boxer. Southern newspapers published editorials lauding Brooks, claiming that the attack was a justified defense of the south and slavery. Supporters sent Brooks new canes, and Brooks claimed that people wanted pieces of the cane he used to beat Sumner as “holy relics.” The speech Sumner had given, of course, had been about Kansas. And in Kansas, news of the savage beating on the Senate floor arrived by telegraph and inflamed passions even more. It is believed that abolitionist firebrand John Brown and his supporters were inspired by the beating of Sumner to attack pro-slavery settlers. Preston Brooks was expelled from the House of Representatives, and in the criminal courts he was fined $300 for assault. He returned to South Carolina, where banquets were held in his honor and more canes were presented to him. The voters returned him to Congress but he died suddenly in a Washington hotel in January 1857, less than a year after he attacked Sumner. Charles Sumner took three years to recover from the beating. During that time, his Senate desk sat empty, a symbol of the acrimonious split in the nation. After returning to his Senate duties Sumner continued his anti-slavery activities. In 1860, he delivered another fiery Senate speech, titled “The Barbarism of Slavery.” He was again criticized and threatened, but no one resorted to a physical attack on him. Sumner continued his work in the Senate and died in 1874. While the attack on Sumner in May 1856 was shocking, much more violence was to come. In 1859 John Brown, who had gained a bloody reputation in Kansas, would attack the federal armory at Harper’s Ferry. And of course, the issue of slavery would only be settled by a very costly Civil War.Brooks Beat Sumner: Another Lesson to be Learned From History
Charles Sumner, leader of the Radical Republicans in the US Senate 1865–1871
“Give me the money that has been spent in war and I will clothe every man, woman, and child in an attire of which kings and queens will be proud. I will build a schoolhouse in every valley over the whole earth. I will crown every hillside with a place of worship consecrated to peace.”
Charles Sumner (January 6, 1811 – March 11, 1874) was an American politician and statesman from Massachusetts. An academic lawyer and a powerful orator, Sumner was the leader of the antislavery forces in Massachusetts and a leader of the Radical Republicans in the United States Senate during the American Civil War and Reconstruction, and the counterpart to Thaddeus Stevens in the United States House of Representatives. He jumped from party to party, gaining fame as a Republican. One of the most learned statesmen of the era, he specialized in foreign affairs, working closely with Abraham Lincoln. He devoted his enormous energies to the destruction of what he considered the Slave Power, that is the scheme of slave owners to take control of the federal government and block the progress of liberty. His severe beating in 1856 by South Carolina Representative Preston Brooks on the floor of the United States Senate helped escalate the tensions that led to war. After years of therapy Sumner returned to the Senate to help lead the Civil War. Sumner was a leading proponent of abolishing slavery to weaken the Confederacy. Although he kept on good terms with Abraham Lincoln, he was a leader of the hard-lineRadical Republicans.
Scholars consider Sumner and Stevens to be among America’s foremost champions of black rights before and after the Civil War; one historian says he was “perhaps the least racist man in America in his day.” Sumner’s friend Senator Carl Schurz praised Sumner’s integrity, his “moral courage,” the “sincerity of his convictions,” and the “disinterestedness of his motives.” However, Sumner’s Pulitzer-prize-winning biographer, David Donald, presents Sumner as an insufferably arrogant moralist; an egoist bloated with pride; pontifical and Olympian, and unable to distinguish between large issues and small ones. What’s more, concludes Donald, Sumner was a coward who avoided confrontations with his many enemies, whom he routinely insulted in prepared speeches.
Sumner took his seat in the United States Senate in late 1851, as a Democrat. For the first few sessions, the abolitionist-democratic and reformist Sumner did not push for any of his controversial causes, but observed the workings of the Senate. On August 26, 1852, Sumner, in spite of strenuous efforts to prevent it, delivered his first major speech. Entitled “Freedom National; Slavery Sectional” (a popular abolitionist motto), Sumner attacked the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act and called for its repeal.
Sumner was the scholar in politics. He could never be induced to suit his action to the political expediency of the moment. “The slave of principles, I call no party master,” was the proud avowal with which he began his service in the Senate. For the tasks of Reconstruction he showed little aptitude. He was less a builder than a prophet. His was the first clear program proposed in Congress for the reform of the civil service. It was his dauntless courage in denouncing compromise, in demanding the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, and in insisting upon emancipation, that made him the chief initiating force in the struggle that put an end to slavery.
Article source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sumner
Scholars consider Sumner and Stevens to be among America’s foremost champions of black rights before and after the Civil War; one historian says he was “perhaps the least racist man in America in his day.” Sumner’s friend Senator Carl Schurz praised Sumner’s integrity, his “moral courage,” the “sincerity of his convictions,” and the “disinterestedness of his motives.” However, Sumner’s Pulitzer-prize-winning biographer, David Donald, presents Sumner as an insufferably arrogant moralist; an egoist bloated with pride; pontifical and Olympian, and unable to distinguish between large issues and small ones. What’s more, concludes Donald, Sumner was a coward who avoided confrontations with his many enemies, whom he routinely insulted in prepared speeches.
Sumner took his seat in the United States Senate in late 1851, as a Democrat. For the first few sessions, the abolitionist-democratic and reformist Sumner did not push for any of his controversial causes, but observed the workings of the Senate. On August 26, 1852, Sumner, in spite of strenuous efforts to prevent it, delivered his first major speech. Entitled “Freedom National; Slavery Sectional” (a popular abolitionist motto), Sumner attacked the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act and called for its repeal.
Sumner was the scholar in politics. He could never be induced to suit his action to the political expediency of the moment. “The slave of principles, I call no party master,” was the proud avowal with which he began his service in the Senate. For the tasks of Reconstruction he showed little aptitude. He was less a builder than a prophet. His was the first clear program proposed in Congress for the reform of the civil service. It was his dauntless courage in denouncing compromise, in demanding the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, and in insisting upon emancipation, that made him the chief initiating force in the struggle that put an end to slavery.
Article source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sumner
Serendipity is one of the hardest words in the English language to translate. “It is true that the discovery of LSD was a chance discovery, but it was the outcome of planned experiments and these experiments took place in the framework of systematic pharmaceutical, chemical research. It could better be described as serendipity.” ~ Albert Hofmann, the Swiss chemist who discovered LSD. More illustrations of serendipity are illustrated below: I am sure you are all wondering where this is all leading to. Serendipity was coined byHorace Walpole (1717-92) from the Persian fairy tale “The Three Princes of Serendip,” whose heroes “were always making discoveries, by accidents and sagacity, of things they were not in quest of.” (Key words are “accidents and sagacity”.) William Boyd coined the term zemblanity to mean somewhat the opposite of serendipity: “making unhappy, unlucky and expected discoveries occurring by design”. (Key words are “expected and unhappy, unlucky”). To illustrate zemblanity, read the entry below: Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SerendipitySerendipity, Zemblanity, the GOP and The Tea Party
Robert Reich: Why Obama Is Proposing Whopping Corporate Tax Cuts, and Why He's Wrong
President Obama reportedly will propose two big corporate tax cuts this week.
One would expand and make permanent the research and experimentation tax credit, at a cost of about $100 billion over the next ten years. The other would allow companies to write off 100 percent of their new…
Robert Reich: The Real Lesson of Labor Day
Welcome to the worst Labor Day in the memory of most Americans. Organized labor is down to about 7 percent of the private work force. Members of non-organized labor — most of the rest of us — are unemployed, underemployed or underwater. The Labor Department reported on Friday that just 67,000 new…
THE PRESIDENT I VOTED FOR by Robert Kuttner
Robert Kuttner’s editorial at the Huffington Post speaks volumes about how most progressives feel about what they expect from Obama and his administration. Is it too late?
My Fellow Americans,
You and I have been hearing a great deal of advice about the importance of cutting the federal deficit. As part of the challenge of restoring America to a condition of economic soundness, we do need to lower the deficit and bring down the national debt relative to our total economic output.
But a lot of the Cassandra voices have the sequence backwards. Right now, we have more urgent business than cutting the deficit.
Thirteen million Americans are out of work, half of them for six months or more. Twelve million more Americans are working part time but want full time jobs, or have given up even looking because there are so few job openings to be had—five people seeking work for every available job vacancy. Even the official unemployment rate is stuck near ten percent.
The last few months have been disappointing. The private sector has begun generating some jobs, but not nearly enough. In May, there were more than 400,000 jobs created, but nearly all of them were temporary jobs with the U.S. Census Bureau. Just 41,000 were private sector jobs. We are never going to put America back to work at this pace.
The private sector is not generating enough jobs because private business isn’t entirely confident that this recession is fully over. Businesses are not willing to invest enough or to hire enough. And who can blame them? With nearly ten percent of America’s workforce unemployment and anxious, families are watching every penny.
We averted a Great Depression, but this is not good enough. Workers idle, businesses hesitant to invest and hire, consumers deferring spending—that’s a recipe for a Great Stagnation.
If America found itself in an all-out war, we would spend whatever it took to be victorious, as our grandparents did during World War II, and our parents did during the Cold War. In those years, we bought a lot of prosperity as an incidental byproduct of our military buildup. If we can spend what it takes to defeat a foreign enemy, surely we can spend what’s needed to vanquish the risks of permanent recession.
In many ways, our current economic situation is as dire a threat to our way of life as a war. We face the risk of a stunted generation: Young people who feel like failures before their adult lives have really begun, because they were born at the wrong time. Elderly people who have lost much of their home equity, and their 401 k savings, and either have no pensions or face financial threats to the ones they have. People in the prime of life who are losing everything they have struggled for, including their self respect—all through no fault of their own.
In these circumstances, you have to have a heart of stone to be calling for cuts in Social Security and Medicare, or new taxes on the struggling middle class, as the cure for deficits that are mainly the result of the recession itself. But there are billionaires who lead lives of ease who want struggling Americans to tighten their belts as the solution to a deep jobs recession created by excesses on Wall Street.
I reject their values and I reject their counsel, even as I embrace a better strategy to return America to fiscal and economic health.
Today I am sending Congress legislation that will spend an additional $500 billion in this fiscal year and $500 billion next year, to put America back to work; to refinance mortgages at affordable monthly payments so that housing values stabilize; and to stop the hemorrhage in state and local finances that are leading to cuts in services and layoffs of workers. The money will also finance an emergency Reclamation Corps along the Gulf Coast.
Virtually all Republicans, and even some members of my own party, have refused to approve the smaller sums that I have asked Congress to authorize—money to extend unemployment insurance, and emergency COBRA coverage for people who’ve lost their health insurance; and to keep 300,000 schoolteachers from being laid off. They block this urgently needed help, either because they are ideologically opposed to government playing its necessary role in a national emergency, or because of concerns about the deficit—concerns that never bothered Republicans when they were increasing deficits to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest, or needless wars of choice.
Some of these legislators represent America’s hardest hit communities. If they vote against this bill, let them explain themselves to America’s unemployed workers and their families; and to breadwinners losing their healthcare; and children losing their teachers. I may not succeed in getting Congress to appropriate every nickel of this request, but I am going to fight for this recovery package like I have never fought before.
There are those who say that we need to cut the deficit to reassure financial markets that are worried about inflation. I wonder if these people read the financial pages. Today, the money markets are willing to lend the U.S. government money, by buying government bonds, for thirty years at about four percent. A normal rate of return is around 3 percent. That means markets believe that the next thirty years will be almost inflation-free.
When markets behave like this, it means inflation is the furthest thing from their minds. And, there is not much inflationary pressure when the economy is becalmed. As chief executive, it would be irresponsible of me not to take advantage of this borrowing climate to invest in the jobs America needs at very low borrowing costs to the taxpayer.
Now, what about that deficit? Yes, it is too big. But the best and least painful way to get it under control is to put America back to work, so that more workers and businesses are paying taxes again.
The previous administration dug us quite a hole. And even a full recovery will not quite solve all of the long term deficit and debt problem. But it would be insane and perverse to tackle the deficit before we achieve the recovery. We will need to increase some taxes, but I pledge to you that they will not be taxes on the middle class.
And although we need to run an efficient government as possible, I further pledge to you that we will not balance the budget on the backs of Social Security or Medicare. If my Republican friends think that course necessary policy or smart politics, let’s have that debate.
Now, the fiscal commission that was jointly appointed by the Congressional leadership and by me is charged with recommending a long term plan to get the budget back to near-balance, after we achieve a full economic recovery. I support that goal. And I expect the commission to produce a plan that does not tamper with social security or raise taxes on the middle class. Otherwise, it goes straight into my waste-basket.
I also expect the Commission to recognize that recovery comes first. I will look forward to a report that proposes a plan to fiscal stability built on a strong recovery. I will reject one that is built on austerity.
Recently, people as different as David Walker of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, and Lawrence Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute have agreed that we need more deficit spending in the short term so that we can create more jobs now and get to eventual budget discipline in the future without further needless economic sacrifice on the part of American working families.
To those who commend belt tightening, I remind you that for three years now, working Americans have been tightening their belts—and worse. Why is it always those with ample waistlines who want others to make sacrifices? Let them lead the way, by stepping aside and not resisting tax reform, or financial reform, or adequate public investment to put America back to work.
We need to be focusing on possibility, not on austerity. That will be the great cause of my presidency.
Robert Kuttner’s new book is A Presidency in Peril. He is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos
Netherlands to Close Prisons: Not Enough Criminals
For years prohibitionists, including our own Drug Enforcement Administration, have claimed — falsely — that the tolerant marijuana policies of the Netherlands have made that nation a nest of crime and drug abuse. They may have trouble wrapping their little brains around this:
The Dutch government is getting ready to close eight prisons because they don’t have enough criminals to fill them. Officials attribute the shortage of prisoners to a declining crime rate.
Just for fun, let’s compare the Netherlands to California. With a population of 16.6 million, the Dutch prison population is about 12,000. With its population of 36.7 million, California should have a bit more than double the Dutch prison population. California’s actual prison population is 171,000.
So, whose drug policies are keeping the streets safer?
(via adailyriot)
The Triumvirate That Still Needs to Answer for Their War Crimes
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are all still at large and have not been issued subpoenas yet for their unwarranted invasion of another country. Under the Principles of Just War:
- A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
- A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
- A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient—see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
- A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
- The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
- The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
- The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
The War on Iraq started by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld is a Crime.
