Yesterday, Obama spoke in New Orleans at the 10 year anniversary of Katrina. I'm not quite sure why we celebrate disasters' anniversaries, but it was a chance for Obama to take a victory lap and show how things had improved since the horrific tragedy. Katrina helped derail George W. Bush's presidency as we realized en masse that here was a man content to fly over the disaster in a private jet and claim that his unqualified FEMA head was doing a "heckuva job."
Soured on Bush, we sought the opposite in our next presidential election. Instead of a Texas oil man ready to start a war in any country with a redneck's "Don't fuck with us" attitude--even towards Iraq which never even fucked with us--we chose a totally different type of man as our next president. A mixed race guy from the Midwest who educated, charming and was one of the few who did not support the Iraq war. We thought he would take us in a totally different direction. And listening to Obama joke about getting grease stains on his suit after feasting on a New Orleans' incredible cuisine, I was reminded of the man I voted for and even donated money to.
Then Obama started talking about the jobs and opportunities that had been added as New Orleans had bounced back. And I recognized the man who Obama has become in office. Still handsome, still charming and still able to deliver a joke like no president I can remember. But Obama has proved that he has no interest in creating jobs. He is actively seeking to destroy jobs with the Trans Pacific Partnership, a trade deal written by corporate lobbyists governing 40% of the world's trade. It would lead to a frenzy of outsourcing of American jobs, as we'd be forced to compete with workforces in countries like Vietnam where the minimum wage is well under $1 an hour. The deal has been called "NAFTA on steroids", referring to the NAFTA trade deal which another Democrat Bill Clinton signed--killing 1 million good manufacturing jobs in this country. So you see, it isn't only the Republicans' failed policies like trickle down economics which fail the American people in their quest for prosperity. It's corporate Democrats like Obama who would rather destroy tons of jobs in order to do whatever the multi-national corporations have paid him to do. And they'd much rather use someone making less than $1 an hour than any greedy American demanding 8 times that amount. In fact, the narrative that we're fed by the media is that obstructionist Republicans in Congress have blocked all of Obama's good ideas. Not the TPP--Republicans overwhelmingly joined Obama on this rotten deal as members of the president's own party broke ranks with him and scratched their heads over how he could be so corrupt and the opposite of his public persona.
You probably won't have heard much about the TPP. Not only because it's secret, so Congressmen can't even take notes on it or make a copy and take that copy out of the room it sits in so that they could openly discuss it. Which is why Obama desperately put his efforts into fast-tracking the vote, meaning they vote on it with very little debate. Which raises the question: If the TPP were as good for American as Obama claims, why the secrecy? And you won't hear much about the TPP on the news, because our "liberal" news MSNBC is so busy being a cheering squad for even the awful stuff Obama is doing that they fired Ed Schultz, the one union-supporting anchor who dared to hold the president's feet to the fire on this issue. And say nightly: THIS DOES NOT JIVE WITH THE MAN OF THE PEOPLE YOU CLAIM YOU ARE, MR. PRESIDENT. And more establishment news channels all back the TPP, so he'll get no flack from them.
But Obama, like everyone who supports the TPP, is pulling a fast one. He knows we'd be horrified by what the TPP would mean for us in terms of job loss, in terms of giving big pharma drug monopolies and even diminishing the sovereignty of the country so that the US could be side by a corporation. Oh yes, your photo-op yesterday presented you as the first president of color who went down to New Orleans after a semblance of order had been restored after 10 years and ate some soul food. Yeah, that means you really care. Obama doesn't care about anyone who hasn't bribed him. Minorities hardest hit by the recession will be hardest hit by the jobs we'll lose if the TPP is passed. And guess what? Hillary Clinton, who called the TPP the "gold standard" of trade agreements a few years ago, is more of the same if not worse. Corporate democrats work for corporations, not the people. There is one presidential candidate who isn't even taking large donations and who is attracting larger crowds than even media magnet Donald Trump. But let's not talk about him. No, let's keep this cycle of politicians from both parties who represent greed and the 1% going unchallenged because it's easier to form an opinion about Caitlyn Jenner and anchor babies.
DONALD TRUMP: BEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO DEMS
Democrats should be thrilled that Trump is soaring above his GOP competitors. The latest Quinnipiac poll has the odious Trump losing to Hillary, Joe Biden (who isn't even running) and Bernie Sanders should The Donald receive the Republican nomination. This info should make it a once-in-a-lifetime chance for Democrats to vote their conscience and support a true progressive like Bernie Sanders rather than the corporate hawk Hillary who's simply stealing Bernie's ideas on income inequality. So deride Trump all you want--he's actually a magical gift to Democrats. Even to the timid Democrats who say that they like Bernie's policies, but they just don't see him winning. If Trump keeps up his shenanigans and this poll is correct with future polls reflecting the same statistics, we can actually go for a candidate whose vision isn't borrowed and who's been pushing the same agenda for decades without the constant policy waffling of Hillary. And unless we get a candidate like Bernie representing the welfare of the 99%, we'll continue to see the same hard times and shift of wealth up to the 1% which happened under two Bush terms and two Obama terms. Or you can go with bank-funded Hillary to ensure that nothing changes. Want to go for 5 terms of Republican and Democratic presidents who do nothing for the little people even though we're told that the recession is over and unemployment is down while few are feeling any improvements? Then vote Hillary.
After Sandy Hook, everyone was horrified and glued to their televisions watching details of the carnage emerge. I'd say especially horrified because this particular mass shooting involved kids. Several news shows on MSNBC were pointing out that this was the perfect time to reform gun laws. Not just because the nation was gripped by the gruesome tragedy, but because the NRA had just financially backed many candidates in the last election and their candidates had mostly lost despite their hefty campaign donations. I believe it was Rachel Maddow who claimed that while once extremely influential, these election losses proved that the NRA had lost much of it's power and was now a "paper tiger" not to be feared any longer. That moment in 2012 passed. Many other mass shootings, which other countries miraculously don't seem to have, have happened since then.
Last night I heard a statistic on Chris Hayes' MSNBC show that 90% of the country wants gun laws reformed. But somehow, what was a mere "paper tiger" years ago, still controls enough of our legislators to ensure that no reforms are made. This is a central theme in our government--our legislators refuse to enact policies which we the people want. We give them our votes and they give us nothing.Trust me, 90% of us rarely agree on anything. But a huge percentage of us want to leave Social Security alone, yet there are Republicans who want to privatize it and even Obama proposed--in a move which proved he is no champion of the 99%--chained CPI cuts to the very popular program. Americans have said that they're weary of war, but that doesn't stop us from jumping into every conflict we can. Everyone in both parties agree that we need to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and that mom & pop businesses are the backbone of the American economy which need help now. Yet nothing is done to help either.
But there's always money for new weapons and new wars. Right now, the US-backed Saudi attacks on Yemen have been called war crimes by Amnesty International, but we don't hear much about that. The US is selling and giving the Saudis weapons, just as we've distributed so many weapons that many have fallen into hands of ISIS who are now using our own weapons against us! If our foreign policy is murder, bullying and arming brutal countries so they can commit war crimes, why should we expect freedom from mass shootings here at home? Kids shot down at school? Nothing done. Gunmen spraying bullets on military bases in Chattanooga, DC's Navy Yard and at Fort Hood? Well, we support the troops but not enough to keep guns from lunatics. Blacks gunned down in church by a white supremacist? Nothing done. Blacks routinely gunned down by the very agency which is supposed to protect us--the police. Nothing done. And now, live, on air murders of news anchors. Is that twisted enough to be a catalyst for clearly needed change?
We're a sick, violent nation to permit this. But the US makes a fortune from manufacturing weapons. Both at home and abroad. It's almost foolish to expect that anything will be done to reform gun laws because weapon sales make too much money and a lot of that goes to our legislators. It's time for our legislators to do what we want, rather than do whatever lobbyists bribe them to do. I don't think that the average US citizen wants a country or a world in which death reigns, but our "leaders" certainly do.
For the past two days, the top news story was Trump using the term "anchor babies" and refusing to walk it back. I've never heard this term. Apparently, it refers to a baby whose mom enters the country and in order to give birth so that her child can have a better life than the one they'd have if they remained in the country of origin. And one newscast described it as a pregnant woman waiting until she's just about to give birth, crossing the border and giving birth in the US. This gives the kid automatic citizenship, free education and health care, and all the rights of an American citizen. Even though the mom may be deported.
Let's be real--when Trump and co are discussing anchor babies, they're referring to hispanics coming from the southern border. I don't think Canadian immigrants bother them as much. So I called a friend from Texas and asked if "anchor babies" were actually a problem. Were there hundreds or thousands of women engaging in this activity? She laughed and said "I've never heard of such stupidity." I may look pregnant, but I'm actually not. So I was trying to imagine how difficult it would be to go into labor, sprint across the border and continue running with a newborn dangling from my umbilical cord. If this is actually happening en masse, I'd love to see video footage of it.
Kudos to our news for bringing us every latest update on a term that a lunatic has used to describe a possibly non-existent problem. But that lunatic knows how to stay in the press by making outrageous claims, whether it's calling immigrants rapists and murderers or continuing to use slurs like anchor babies. Why has no one in the news been debunking Trump's claim that anchor babies are an epidemic which must be stop? There is little analysis of his actual claim, only whether or not the term is offensive. And how Jeb Bush used it in an attempt to keep up with frontrunner Trump. At one point, some news anchor suggested that 7% of births are from undocumented moms. Now if you're a conservative and wanted to debate the billions that this 7% of kids born to undocumented moms costs, go ahead. Whether I agree with you or not, it's a valid concern if you want smaller government spending less. (Many of the American people have forgotten that anyone white in this country descended from immigrants.) Instead, we are debating how Jeb Bush is now now using the slur anchor babies even though he once chaired the Hispanic Leadership Network which sent out a 2013 memo asking candidates not to use this loaded description. Trump claims that a hypocritical Bush signed it, yet there were no actual signatures on the memo.
Can we dispense with the loaded terms and cut through to what is really happening? Many Republicans hate latinos, regardless of what terms they're using. They're often racist bigots who also hate blacks, gays and women's right to choose and receive equal pay--but let's stick with latinos right now. In the last presidential election, the GOP lost badly. In their soul-searching afterwards, they determined that they would have to court latinos if they are to remain a viable party. Latinos are one of the fastest-growing voting blocks and few support Republicans. The GOP also determined that they lost badly in 2012 with women, after many candidates made outrageous claims about legitimate rape and forcing rape victims to give birth to the kids of their attackers--even if they were related! Though Mitt lost to Obama, the GOP did win a majority in Congress. They had campaigned on a platform of jobs, jobs, jobs. Yet when they got in, they focused on introducing dozens of anti-abortion bills. So even when the GOP realizes that they have an issue with attracting voters like latinos or women, their policies never change to reflect their low popularity among problem sectors of voters. Because their old, racist white base will flock to the candidate who is using the most racist buzz words. Creating "epidemics" like anchor babies to stir up working class white people who can't understand why their jobs are gone. So in their ignorance, they blame people with jobs who come from a different country. Regardless of the fact that whites wouldn't take many of these jobs if offered to them.
And no one in the news media wants to examine the reason many good-paying jobs which whites and everyone else used to accept are disappearing--often because of trade deals like NAFTA, which Bill Clinton passed and which killed 1 million manufacturing jobs, and the TPP, the secret trade deal affecting 40% of the world's economy with which Obama is trying to outsource many more US jobs. These deals are put forth by Democratic presidents and backed by Republican in Congress.
Ed Shultz was recently fired from MSNBC for slamming Obama and the TPP, because the establishment must silence any criticism of the president which cares more about corporate profits than good-paying jobs. But rather than pinpoint why we're losing jobs and stopping Obama from losing us many more, MSNBC is fired the only anchor routinely bringing the disastrous secret TPP to light. However, they adore giving hourly updates to how offensive the term anchor babies is and who used it when and whether or not who is prepared to walk it back or whether or not someone who is now saying it once signed a memo to the suggesting the term not be used. Good work, news media! You have become a tabloid junkfest regurgitating and analyzing slurs from idiots rather than analyzing how the current administration is screwing us. We can't rely on news like that to keep us informed on vital issues which should inform our voting. And I think everyone who agrees that this country is a mess and would like to exit that mess would prefer actual news over dissections of inflammatory words.
Obama has decided that addressing climate change is one of his top three goals of his second term. To his credit, he has put forward an "historic" plan to reduce carbon emissions. It's "historic" because it goes further than other presidents. At least he's addressing it--the GOP can't even admit that climate change exists because as long as the problem doesn't exist, no solution is required. So if Obama is leading on climate change, and most scientists agree that 75% of fossil fuels need to stay in the ground to avoid the worst effects of climate change , why did he pair this slashing of carbon emissions with green lighting drilling in the Arctic? He's talking out of both sides of his mouth. The Department of Interiors has concluded that there's a 75% chance of a spill if drilling in the Arctic. And unlike the BP spill in the Gulf, there's no base of land nearby to even launch a clean-up effort from. And the same oil company, Royal Dutch Shell, had their drilling permit revoked in 2012 after a series of screw-ups in the Arctic. So Obama approves drilling for a company with a bad record in an area with a 75% chance of a spill and very limited ways to clean up the seemingly imminent spill? What a climate change champ!
I am sick of the narrative that the press has been handing us--that Obama is trying his best to overcome an obstructionist, racist Congress full of Republicans who hate him. Well, Republicans don't hate him on this drilling permit. And they gladly joined the president they swore to defeat on everything on his secret, job-killing TPP trade deal which he's still trying to ram through Congress. Obama is reaching across the aisle to join with Republicans despite all Democratic presidential candidates rejecting Arctic drilling. Even Hillary! Obama has also approved the 1st ever drilling in the Atlantic on an enormous corridor of the eastern seaboard from Florida all the way to Virginia. This is not a man concerned about the environment in any way.
Check out this exchange from the video embedded below. A representative from the Sierra Club is desperately, politely trying to understand why Obama, who is concerned about climate change, would do such a thing in the Arctic. I'm not affiliated with any organization so I can cut through the bullshit and tell you exactly why Obama is touting a reduction of carbon emissions while green lighting dangerous drilling. Someone's paid him to push policies which contradict his stated goals. Policies which are bad for the environment. The press has picked up on this dichotomy a little bit, and soon Obama will head to the Arctic for a press release. Rachel Maddow mentioned last night that this is a very awkward time for Obama to be visiting the Arctic for a climate change announcement, after giving his blessing to what may well destroy parts of the region. But for most, we'll just see a photo-op. and get this message. "Oh, there's Obama in Arctic. Oh, he's the first president to ever visit there. He must really care about climate change." And protesters seeking to protest his hypocrisy probably won't even be covered by the mainstream news media.
AMYGOODMAN: Why has the Obama administration given approval to Shell?
ATHANMANUEL: Well, we can’t really figure that out. There’s no logical reason why this kind of president, one who cares about climate, one who inherited this problem from a Republican president, wouldn’t step in and say this is a terrible idea. It’s bad for our climate. It’s bad for the ecosystem there. It’s bad for marine mammals and fish. It’s bad for Alaskan natives who depend on the Arctic Ocean for their way of life and for subsistence. So it’s really a head scratcher. We can’t understand it. It’s completely inconsistent with what he’s done recently, when you look at the clean power plant rule, when you look—you talked about the methane regs that are going to come out today. This president has clearly attacked climate change and has made it a signature issue of his. And this decision to just not reconsider Shell’s drilling record and not consider how this drilling would impact the climate negatively really makes no sense. We can’t figure it out.
Hi all! I am just surfacing from Wistock's cruise. Totally lost my voice and couldn't even make it to the after-party. (Which I heard was fun.) To be honest with you, I had no idea whether Wigstock on a boat was going to work or not. We had changed boats when the first one sold out and ended up with one with a much better stage. However, the dressing room was completely surrounded by observation deck with windows. But on the other boat, the dressing room was in the kitchen! I'd love to know your feedback because I didn't experience the event as a guest so I don't know if bartenders, boarding or whatever was problematic. For example, one friend said that either the stage should be higher--or that he should be taller. Was this an issue for others? Could you hear everything from both levels? If you have suggestions, please inbox me. If we do it again next year, we wanna it to be perfect
Performances ranged from electrifying to just plain insane, which is exactly how I like it. So much thanks to all the performers for their hard work: Princess Diandra, David Ilku, David Burgess aka Sugga Pie Koko, Sweetie Nyc, Linda Simpson, Kevin Aviance, Flloyd, Flotilla Debarge, Sister Dimension and DJs Johnny Dynell and Ed Bailey. It felt like Wigstock to me and I've been to every one of them. One thing I noticed were all the times I heard "I love you" from the performers, who have all worked together for decades. Too often we're presented with images of drag queens as bitchy divas. And don't get me wrong--most of the gurls love to dish the dirt and our humor can be hateful. But most queens I know get along fine and feel a camaraderie because we happen to do the same job. Honestly, I feel like the typical drag queen is more likely to compare notes with other queens on which promoter ripped who off or who makes the best costumes than they are to sabotage another act. So the sisterhood of Wigstock seemed in tact. Or should that be the misterhood?
What I loved the most is that a great mix of people in the audience came dressed up. It makes for a carnival atmosphere and there were tons of great looks. (I'll be uploading pics soon.) I really miss partying with real women, transsexuals, all age groups and ethnicities. I'm not sure what happened to change this, but there was a club culture where you truly saw every kind of people--at clubs like Pyramid, Jackie 60, Limelight, Palladium, Tunnel, Roxy, etc. There is something about wearing a wig that makes you want to act a fool and foolishness is essential at any version of Pigstock. And no Linda, I know it looks like I gained weight but I haven't. There was a life pre sever under my dress, you bitch!
My Wigstock partner Scott Lifshutz deserves a special thanks--along with our "crew" Lauren Pine, Dany Johnson and Pia Guccione. And promoters Dougie Meyer and Michael Fesco. And Odyssey New York, our media sponsor.
We didn't really promote this cruise as a fundraiser, but it was. Wigstock is a corporation and I own 51% of it's worthless shares. When your corporation makes $0 in revenue because you've had no festivals in 10 years, you still have to pay a corporate accountant a fortune to do your taxes every one of those years and we also have to pay a lawyer and sometimes a trademark lawyer. But the good news is, I think we erased all of our debt with a little to spare. So we can now begin work on creating a book of photographs from all the years, update our website and edit some video footage to use as a part of our proposal to bring Wigstock to outdoor festivals. Why can't we have a day at Summerstage or a tent at Coachella or Glastonbury? After a 10 year hiatus, our wigs didn't "curl up and dye." We just needed a break and now we are ready to bust back out! And your enthusiasm gave us the boost that we needed--so thank you all! Wigstock is officially back!
Hi all! Thanks again for all the birthday wishes. I will respond to all when I am less crazy with work. In lieu of any birthday party, I'm inviting everyone in the NYC area to come party with me on board Wigstock: The Cruise. We have a fantastic line-up of talent both on stage and in the dj booths and are doing everything we can to make this a memorable event for both those who've attended previous Wigstock festivals to those who never made it.
For those of you who are either attending or thinking of attending the cruise, here are a few pointers.
There's plenty of tickets still available now that we've moved to a bigger boat. You can either get them online for $40 at SeaTea.com or get them day of for $50. If you get them in advance, tickets $10 little cheaper, but the online service does charge a $3 transaction fee. So far, 800 people are coming. But day of tickets will still be available day of for cash purchases at the ship--unless you see a status update before then saying that we've sold out.
We've added an after-party at the nearby Monster. We figured that some folks may want to keep the party going past 10PM when the cruise ends. DJ Duke Todd may not be well-known, but I wouldn't have hired him if he wasn't excellent. So keep your ticket stubs for free admission to The Monster after 10PM.
What I loved about Wigstock is that the audience as well as the performers got dolled up. It's not essential to wear a costume, but if you do--PLEASE WEAR SOMEWHAT SENSIBLE HEELS. Granny Bunny will have on her sturdy lucite wedges. The boat does rock and there is considerable walking around now that we have a bigger boat. If you do want to work a look, please know that the boat is fully air-conditioned. So you won't be a sweaty mess. But if you go up on the top deck even just to enjoy a cigarette--any delicate coiffure will be destroyed instantly by the strong winds.
We have 2 great djs with their own areas playing everything from disco to 90s house to a few of the best from today. If you love to dance, get there early! We have 9 performers, so once the show starts it'll run with only a short intermission until we dock. So board at 6PM if you plan to boogie.
There are no comps available. That includes you, mom! This isn't a night club or huge outdoor space where we have an extensive guest list. There's a finite number of passengers permitted on board and if you're on board and haven't bought a ticket, then Wigstock will in effect be paying for you to glide around the Hudson. We have 10 performers and 2 djs to pay. Wigstock is in debt and this cruise is essentially a fundraiser to try and get us back on our feet with the hopes of getting back to doing outdoor festivals. Someone in a younger generation might have launched a kickstarter to erase their debt, but we chose to throw a party with a cover charge instead. Many people performed at Wigstock annually and I'm unable to comp even them. So I can't comp you, no matter how close we are or how many times we've had sex or how many things you've invited me to. Sorry, but that's the gig this time!
Cell reception on the boat is poor, particularly after we've left the dock.
Drinks are about $8.
The forecast for Sunday is a mostly sunny 92 degrees with only a 10% chance of rain.
There's a good bit of walking just to get to the boat. We leave from Pier 40 a few blocks south of the Christopher Street pier. I was on the boat earlier this summer and it was unclear exactly where the approved place to get dropped of in a cab (or car) was. It was quite confusing and I ended up jumping out the cab with the driver and the traffic attendant screaming at me. I was blowing my driver, so that may have contributed to the confusion. Maybe it's best to get out of the cab across the street. There are signs pointing to the boats and we're on the large one called the Infinity.
About leaving the cruise: at 10PM, 3 different boats dock and release hundreds of passengers simultaneously. So getting a cab on the West Side Highway is extremely competitive. It's actually more like a nightmare. So you may want to devise a game plan, whether that's prearranging a car service (we dock at 10PM on the dot) or simply walking up Christopher Street to after-party at The Monster. There will probably be a motley crew of us straggling toward The Monster and I'm wish someone could videotape the startled reactions of the area's new stroller-pushing residents as the neighborhood become gay again, if only for a short, unofficial parade.
I'm very excited and hope to see ya there! Thanks for your support in helping us to bring back that ol' Wigstock magic!
This would explain why Taylor Swift's "feud" with Nicki Minaj makes more of a splash than their actual music. Music is now marketing enjoyed through feuds and how slutty the artists are prepared to dress to shock.
BOB GUCCIONE JR: “The commodification of music is so complete that artists these days create songs thinking they would make a good car commercial,” Guccione says. “And they’re more fixated on their social-media strategy than they are on their music."
“The problem now is that nobody’s blowing the lid off anything,” he says. And it’s not just music that’s in the ditch — it’s pop culture, too. “TV ads aimed at kids all have a perfectly diverse group of perfectly attractive people jumping up and down, appearing to be perfectly happy.”
This over-the-top political correctness, as he calls it, comes at a price. “It’s the exact opposite of rebellion and innovation,” he explains. And it has ceded so much control to Corporate America that even Occupy Wall Street was a joke: “There was no agenda there other than rich people are bad, and yoga is good. At the end of the day, how useful is that?”
Fascinating article about how Bernie Sanders has shocked everyone by surging after being written off as a fringe candidate by the political establishment. And I'm glad it mentions this shocking trend of how badly average Americans are doing despite the establishment press telling us the recession's over, unemployment is down and how many are now covered under a slightly improved but still shitty health care reform. I'm glad the author threw in a mention of how Obama tried to cut or "curtail" Social Security. You can't evaluate Hillary without discussing what a disappointment Obama was, because their establishment policies are very similar. Shafting American workers has gone on for decades and a vote for Hillary is a vote to continue that trend. Very interesting how the anti-establishment candidate is an older, white, jewish guy. And the establishment candidate, bloated with donations from the very financial institutions which Bernie vows to reform, is a woman known for her ties to Israel.
HUFFPO: "The "experts," in their typical blinkered way, overlooked or grossly underestimated some stark truths. Most Americans are poorer today than they were 45 years ago. Stagnant salaries may have left them on a par with or very slightly ahead of where they were in 1970 in absolute terms, but they have lost all purchase on the kind of lives led by those who are infinitely better off in relative terms. In America's status society where well-being is measured in life style terms, that counts for a lot. Especially so, when the outlook for your children is a struggle even to keep up with their parents. Moreover, tens of millions of earnest workers have seen themselves degraded and downgraded as "temps" and part-timers, shorn of job security and benefits, in the name of "productivity" and "efficiency." They are marooned in a limbo just a layer above migrant agricultural workers. This is taken by their leaders to be the inescapable price to pay in order to keep up with the Malaysians and the Chinese. Democratic President Barack Obama rubs their noses in it by promoting the Trans-Pacific commercial Pact, largely written by big business, which will undercut the authority of the United States government to alleviate their condition.
For the cognoscenti of the political class, this blunt reality is a revelation - ignored for decades and now filed away under the label "inequality." For them and for the candidates they promote, "inequality" is just another abstraction about which nothing practical will be done - like the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process." So long as they themselves are comfortably off, all is more-or-less right with the world.
Consider this: Apple and GE, two of America's most profitable corporations, are paying Zero federal taxes. Their aggregate taxes paid to governments worldwide is 0% and 3%. Apple -- always the most innovative -- declares itself headquartered somewhere in cyber space where no tax laws apply. That assertion is uncontested by Washington. President Obama has ignored this scandalous tax evasion, his administration has taken no Executive initiatives and proposed no legislative remedy. Democrat leaders in Congress are equally inert. Candidate Clinton ignores it.
Selling out means a number of things: actively allying with the vested Establishment interests; staying mute due to dependence on big money's campaign contributions; concentrating on cosmetic reform and minimal steps in a progressive direction (e.g. Dodd-Franks and its non-implementation). This has been institutionalized during the Clinton and Obama administrations in concert with Democratic Congressional leaders. An historic landmark of incalculable importance was the sequester initiative of President Obama whereby all federal spending was cut substantially across the board (with the notable exception of off-the-books military spending on the global wars against terror). This reckless action gave the Republicans a long dreamt of boon: a weakening of government programs in line with their laissez-faire ideology. Those cuts are now the baseline for the fights over further reductions."
GIZMODO.COM: "But don’t boycott bottled water because of this drought specifically. Or because Nestlé or any other company is profiting from water that actually belongs to fish or almonds or other humans—although to be honest, we actually don’t know how much water they’re stuffing into those ribbed sleeves because that information is protected by the state’s government.
The reason you should boycott bottled water is because it enables a bullshit, backwards vision for society.
Boycotting bottled water means you support the idea that public access to clean, safe water is not only a basic human right, but that it’s a goddamn technological triumph worth protecting. It means you believe that ensuring public access to this resource is the only way to guarantee it will be around in a few more years.
Clean, safe drinking water that flows freely out of our faucets is a feat of engineering that humans have been been perfecting for two millennia. It is a cornerstone of civilization. It is what our cities are built upon. And over the years the scientists and hydrologists and technicians who help get water to our houses have also become our environmental stewards, our infrastructural watchdogs, our urban visionaries. Drinking the water these people supply to our homes is the best possible way to protect future access to water worldwide.
Companies that package water in a single-use bottle are not concerned with the future. They are not invested in the long-term effects of climate change on an endangered watershed, nor are they working to prepare a megacity for an inevitable natural disaster. What they are interested in is their bottom line: Marketing a “healthy” product to compensate for the fact that people are buying less of their other products that are known to case obesity and diabetes—and selling it for at prices that are 240 to 10,000 times higher than what you pay for tap water.
Drinking municipal tap water means connecting yourself to your local water system, where the goals are to think holistically about the conservation of natural resources, replenish local aquifers, and build a resilient infrastructure to distribute water to the public.
Drinking bottled water means colluding with a corporation which is not required to release any public information about how it plans to cut costs, exploit workers, dig wells, or employ a fossil-fueled supply chain in its quest to get a bottle of overpriced water into your hands.
Not that our current water system doesn’t need an upgrade. Drinking fountains, for example, are the great neglected infrastructure of our cities. Once an amenity found on every corner, these miracles of modern life lapsed into disrepair. It’s not just in parks and other public areas—many schools decided it was too expensive to replace old pipes, so they ripped out their drinking fountains instead, forcing kids to buy bottled water."
One GOP presidential candidate made misogynist comments about Fox's Megyn Kelly in the recent debate.They're still talking about this? What's one more nasty comment from Trump when all GOP candidates support misogynist polices like banning abortion and not pushing for equal pay for women? As this article says, Fox's entire audience is misogynist. So if Megyn Kelly wants to become suddenly sensitive to the crap she's been pushing for years as a Fox newsmodel, she's more of a fool than I imagined.
The trend of all the wealth going to the top 1% continues under both Democratic and Republican nominations. The income inequality shift has continued under Obama both Bushes and dare I say both Clintons. Definitely under any GOP candidates who don't even pretend to pay lip service to addressing the issue. There'll be no POWER TO THE PEOPLE until the people demand it. The first step is to wake up to how royally we peasants are being screwed by those we continue to elect.
"Consider that in 1965, CEOs of America's largest corporations were paid, on average, 20 times the pay of average workers.
Now, the ratio is over 300 to 1.
Not only has CEO pay exploded, so has the pay of top executives just below them.
The share of corporate income devoted to compensating the five highest-paid executives of large corporations ballooned from an average of 5 percent in 1993 to more than 15 percent by 2005 (the latest data available).
Corporations might otherwise have devoted this sizable sum to research and development, additional jobs, higher wages for average workers, or dividends to shareholders - who, not incidentally, are supposed to be the owners of the firm.
Corporate apologists say CEOs and other top executives are worth these amounts because their corporations have performed so well over the last three decades that CEOs are like star baseball players or movie stars.
Baloney. Most CEOs haven't done anything special. The entire stock market surged over this time.
Even if a company's CEO simply played online solitaire for thirty years, the company's stock would have ridden the wave.
Besides, that stock market surge has had less to do with widespread economic gains that with changes in market rules favoring big companies and major banks over average employees, consumers, and taxpayers."
THE BAD NEWS: Wigstock: The Cruise on has completely sold out.
THE GOOD NEWS: So we're moving it to a bigger ship with 1200 capacity and a much bigger stage and much better sight lines. So you can see HRH Princess Diandra, Linda Simpson, Flotilla Debarge, Floyd, Sweetie, David Ilku, Sister Dimension, Sugga Pie Koko and Kevin Aviance on a stage fit for a queen in concert! With DJs Johnny Dynell and Ed Bailey from DC.
Thanks from Scott Lifshutz and I to everyone who is coming for the enthusiastic response. And to Odyssey New York magazine for being our media sponsor. This Sunday 8/16 from 6-10PM. More Info/tickets at SEATEA.COM
Obama to Iran: You can't make any nuclear weapons.
Obama to the US: Let's spend a fortune on more nuclear weapons because we haven't even used the ones we've got. In 70 years. We don't want Iran to use any. But WE need to spend $1 trillion on new ones for some bizarre reason.
Oh, we need to defend ourselves, do we? WE are the country that has military bases stationed all over the world. Seems more like other countries need to be defended from us.
Who are the voters who want to spend $1 trillion on weapons we're telling other countries they can't use? Show yourselves. Voters in both parties want money to be spent on our crumbling infrastructure, reasonable education and health care for veterans. Voters with brains want to spend money on desperately needed job creation, switching to green energy and expanding Medicaid because health costs in this country are criminal even with Obamacare. I don't care if you think everything I'm claiming is on the US government's shopping list is wrong. The only bunch who wants to spend $1 trillion on weapons of mass destruction to kill people in other countries rather than helping people in THIS country are in the government which is supposedly representing us.
Voters in both parties say they're weary of war. Admit it--most of us know more about Cailtyn Jenner or Bill Cosby's date rape allegations than you even comprehend what battles we're currently fighting in. Yet you're quick to say "Support the troops" once or twice a year. There's never enough money for what we agree that we need. There's always a fortune to be spent on weapons which we say other countries shouldn't be using. Obama works for the defense industry and any other industry big enough to influence him. Not you. And Hillary and most Republicans are worse than he is. Now you have real a nice day!
It's so easy to laugh at the joke candidates running for president on the Republican side. I wish we were as willing to look at the laughable Democratic presidential frontrunner who has already lost once, seems untrustworthy, has taken money from the financial institutions she claims she'll reform and who actually expected us to believe that she was on a listening tour to hear what voters wanted before she developed her strategy--um, I mean policies. Hillary is better on social issues like abortion and gay rights than any of the GOP candidates. But she represents the same DC establishment which we're all sick of and which we know is corrupt to it's core. Our government benefits corporations, not average workers. I don't care how many of his talking points Hillary borrows, Bernie Sanders is the one promising the far-reaching change that we need. Which Obama failed to deliver and never planned to or even tried to deliver. That's why Bernie's message is resonating with even some GOP voters who sense his honesty. And it's been reaching people with a fraction of Hillary's campaign dollars. Call Bernie a socialist, a democratic socialist or whatever you want. But there's been a transfer of wealth towards the 1% for decades and it carried on under Obama just as it did under two terms of Bush. The recession didn't stop the CEOs from making record profits under either president--especially the ones who struggling taxpayers were forced to bail out and those which pay a fraction of their taxes or none at all. So if you're a member of the 1% who wants business as usual and no change, DON'T vote for Bernie Sanders. If you aren't, he supports you. Please support him!
FROM HUFFPO by H. A. GOODMAN:
"Ironically, there are certain liberal voters in America today more interested in sharing memes on social media (mocking their political rivals), than in actually rallying around a politician who is a genuine and authentic embodiment of their acknowledged value system. To these people, Bernie Sanders can't possibly win, even though he championed gay rights when others needed to "evolve," and even though he voted against Iraq, when others deemed their vote a "mistake."
Luckily, there are a great many other voters willing to imagine a future without Wall Street greed and rampant income inequality. Fortunately, "Bernie Sanders Can Become President" has replaced "I like him but he can't win."
Democrats who are proud of their progressive values are filling arenas to hear Sanders speak in a direct manner (while others dodge questions) on contentious issues like Keystone XL and the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement. While the FBI is currently investigating the email security of one candidate, Bernie Sanders is narrowing Clinton's lead nationally and defeating Republicans in other polls. Like Brent Budowsky writes in The Hill:
The fact that Sanders beats Walker by six to seven points, depending on whether all voters or likely voters are counted -- a near-landslide margin in a general election -- makes it clear that the Sanders surge is more than a surge against Donald Trump, but move that makes him competitive with all Republican candidates.
Polls once extolling Hillary Clinton's enormous lead over Sanders are now dwindling for the same reason Sanders beats Republicans in various other polls: Americans have had enough of dynasties, scandals, wars, and Wall Street corruption. I will be voting for Bernie Sanders because I too have had enough of endless wars, and Bernie says "I'll be damned" if more Americans are sent back to fight in the Middle East. I'll also be voting for Sanders because like the polls illustrating his lightning fast surge, more and more Americans have had enough with a two-party system that doesn't give people a choice. I want my Democratic nominee to vote against counterinsurgency wars and vehemently oppose environmental disasters in the making like Keystone XL, not evolve towards the most politically expedient position available at the time."
Tons of clips of Leslie Uggams, Barbara Eden, Dina Shore, Boney M, Donna Summer, Ethel Merman, Carol Burnet and all the crazies from the forgotten variety hour age, when people tuned into TV to see talent instead of train wrecks. Though sometimes the train wrecks were unintentional! With vintage commercials, too!
