Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Paisley. Dead. Contemptible creature.

I was born into a small farmer family in Donegal. It had strong belief in the Orange Order. My uncle who brought me up was what was termed at a "Worshipful District Master" of this organization. I was being groomed to follow in his footsteps but that did not work out. However that is another story. As part of this grooming when I was around 12 years old  I found myself in the home of a well off Protestant farmer and merchant. My uncle was collecting a donation from him for a new banner for his Orange Lodge. The farmer merchant was not a member of the Orange Order. He let others do his dirty work for him. Without hesitation he handed over a check for the new banner. I did not realize then I was watching one class finance an organization to represent its interests. Anyway this man asked my uncle had he seen what was going on in the US. He said:"have you seen what is going on over in America, W. Them black boys,(these were his words) they are trying to get up. If they ever get up they will never get them put down again." This was a conscious member of the upper class. He then went on: "And if they get up W. these boys here of ours might want up too. And not only them Catholics but our own kind as well. That is the importance of your organization W. of the Order. It teaches the Protestant worker, our own kind his place. If they were ever to get the notion that they could run things this would be bad. That is why your organization is so important. To keep the Protestant worker in his place" These words live with me to this day.

I remembered them again when Paisley died.  What a contemptible creature and enemy of the working class and especially the Protestant working class. He saw his job as to keep them down, keep them subservient to the sectarian capitalist system that ruled and exploited them. Take one example. When the civil rights movement developed one of its aims was to end the situation in the North where the more property you had the more votes you had in local elections. This was clear discrimination against the Catholic working class in particular as they had less property. But it was also discrimination against the Protestant working class. The Protestant working class who had no proper were also discriminated against by this system. You never heard Paisley saying anything about that. The mass civil rights movement ended this unequal voting system. It won one person one vote for all. If my memory serves me right this resulted in up to 150,000 Protestants

Climate and Capitalism: Interview with Naomi Klein

This blog has always stressed that the environmental crisis is perhaps the most pressing issue facing the working class today.  This is an interview with Naomi Klein about her latest book and we share it for our readers' interest.

 Interview BY
SEPTEMBER 12, 2014

The fact that global warming is man-made and poses a grave threat to our future is widely accepted by progressives. Yet, the most commonly proposed solutions emphasize either personal responsibility for a global emergency (buy energy-efficient light bulbs, purchase a Prius), or rely on market-based schemes like cap-and-trade. These responses are not only inadequate, says best-selling author Naomi Klein, but represent a lost opportunity to confront climate change’s root cause: capitalism.

This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, Klein’s much-anticipated new book, is both surprisingly hopeful and deeply personal as she deftly weaves in her story of struggling to conceive her first child while researching the potential collapse of the natural world. In the book, Klein challenges everyone who cares about climate change to strive for a seemingly impossible redistribution of political and economic power. This, she argues, is both necessary and offers the prospect of living in a more just and humane society than the one we know today.

John Tarleton: When it comes to the climate crisis, capitalism is often the elephant in the room that goes unacknowledged. Yet you zero in on it, starting with the title of your book. Why?
Naomi Klein: I put the connection between capitalism and climate change up front because the fact that the life support systems of the planet are being destabilized is telling us that there is something fundamentally wrong with our economic system. What our economy needs to function in a capitalist system is continuous growth and continuous depletion of resources, including finite resources. What our planet needs in order to avoid catastrophic warming and other dangerous tipping points is for humans to contract our use of material resources.

The science of climate change has made this fundamental conflict blindingly obvious. By putting that conflict up front, it breaks a taboo. And sometimes when you break a taboo, there’s sort of a relief in just saying it. And that’s what I’ve found so far: This is something that people know. And it’s giving permission to just name it. It’s a good starting point, so now we can have a real discussion.

Why has that taboo of talking about capitalism and climate change in the same breath become so entrenched here in the United States?
I think it’s primarily because capitalism is a religion in the United States. But also because the Left in the United States is extremely Keynesian, though Keynes himself questioned economic growth. But the translation of Keynesian thought we are seeing in this historical moment is a debate about the distribution of the spoils of economic growth. It’s not about some of the core facts about blanket economic growth. 

In the book I talk about selective de-growth. There are schools of thought on the Left that dismiss all forms of growth. What I’m talking about is managing the economy. There are parts of our economy that we want to expand that have a minimal environmental impact, such as the care-giving professions, education, the arts. Expanding those sectors creates jobs, well-being and more equal societies. At the same time we have to shrink the growth-for-growth’s-sake parts of our economy, including the financial sector, which plays a large role in feeding consumption.

You say that the Left needs its own project for addressing climate change in a systematic and transformative manner that breaks with free-market orthodoxy. What would that look like?
The industrialized nations have to start cutting their emissions by about 8 to 10 percent per year, which is incompatible with capitalism. You cannot reconcile that level of emission reduction with an economic system that needs continual growth. The only time we have seen emissions reductions on that level was during the Great Depression of the 1930s. How we transition from our current status quo sets the parameters for how we want to organize society. A healthy transition would entail huge investments in the public sphere, public transit, housing, all kinds of infrastructure and services in order to prepare for the extreme weather that’s already locked in and also to lower our emissions.
Progressives should seize the reins of this project because it’s an opportunity to make this transition equitable and to have a better economy on the other side. You could also allow your economy to crash and burn, which is a terrible idea and would hurt enormous numbers of people.

The latter option would make a good starting point for a Hollywood movie.
It’s striking to me that when we envision the future it’s just a more brutally cleaved world between haves and have-nots than the one we have now. This is so much a part of our culture that we think all we’re capable of doing is becoming like the societies portrayed in Snowpiercer, Elysium or The Hunger Games. It’s actually not controversial to say this is where we are headed. The question is, can we imagine another way of responding to crisis other than one of deepening inequality, brutal disaster capitalism and mangled techno-fixes, because that seems to be where people agree we’re headed.

The alternative project you have in mind envisions a large role for the state. Yet, many on the Left have deep qualms about holding power of any kind, much less “seizing the reins,” as you say, to affect systemic changes.
There has been a backlash in our generation of leftists against the centralized state socialism of previous generations. This is for obvious and understandable reasons. Since the 2008 economic crash, I see more appetite among the younger generation to engage with policy and to try to change power. You see it with the Indignados movement in Spain forming its own party and running in elections, in Iceland post-crisis, with outsiders going inside on their own terms. You see it at the municipal level with the minimum wage in Seattle.

Where the pendulum swung really hard against any sort of engagement with formal politics, I see it swinging back where it’s like, “No, we’re not going to replicate those centralized structures but things are too urgent and too dire to ignore institutions of various kinds, including lawmaking. But we’re going to try to change it and build our belief in decentralization into the way we engage.“

Has this approach made a significant impact anywhere on energy and climate-related policies?
A really great example is the energy transformation that has been going on in Germany. Thirty percent of the electricity produced there is now coming from renewable resources, mostly wind and solar and mostly through decentralized, community-controlled ventures of various kinds, including hundreds of energy co-ops. You also have large cities like Munich voting to reverse their electricity privatizations and become part of this energy revolution.

What’s interesting about Germany is it really shows how you need strong policy to make a transition like that happen. It’s not about, “Hey, let’s start an energy co-op.” No. That kind of fetish for very small-scale initiatives won’t get us where we need to go. What Germany has is a bold national policy. That’s how you get to 30 percent renewable electricity in such a short time, and they may very well get to 50 to 60 percent by 2030. It also shows you can design smart policy to systematically decentralize.

What got you started on this book? Was there a specific moment when you realized you wanted to write a book on climate change?
I decided that I was going to immerse myself in this subject in 2009 when I was covering a U.N. antiracism conference in Geneva. An earlier conference held in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001 saw a growing debate about whether the United States and Europe should pay reparations to African nations for the harm done by the slave trade and colonialism. The issue vanished from public discussion after 9/11 and it was clear by 2009 how much ground had been lost.

At that 2009 conference I met Angélica Navarro, a trade negotiator from Bolivia who was doing some really interesting work about climate and reparations and how to really push the concept of climate debt within the U.N. climate negotiations. And I had a moment in which I realized that the science is so clear on the historical responsibility for climate change that it could be used as a tool for realizing justice goals for which social movements had been fighting for a very long time.
Your book strikes a hopeful note on what can be a grim topic. 

I find it really hard to write when I feel hopeless. It took me five years to write this book in part because initially I didn’t feel so hopeful. Then, there really started to be an explosion of resistance to extractive projects such as fracking and oil pipelines and coal export terminals. It’s being done in a truly global and networked manner that reminds me of the early days of the so-called anti-globalization movement.

That shift made me really excited that there is a growing movement and that the book can be part of that movement. I feel like we’re on the verge of a coming together of economic justice movements and a new sort of kick-ass grassroots anti-extractivism movement. When people are fighting fracking or they’re fighting a big pipeline, generally they’re not driven by concerns about climate, they’re driven by a love of place. Often the protection of water is the primary motivation, as well as concerns about the health of their kids. But climate change definitely adds another layer of urgency to keeping carbon in the ground and not putting it into the atmosphere.

You became a parent for the first time a couple of years ago. How did that experience affect the way you see climate change? Did the prospect of dire climate change taking effect in this century cause you to be hesitant about becoming a parent?
I was 38 when I decided I wanted to have kids and to start trying. That’s pretty late. I would have this conversation with my husband where I’d say that the more I read about climate change, the more I felt that having a child was condemning this kid to a Mad Maxian future of fighting with their friends for food and water. This was the sort of dystopic future that I was imagining. And I was having trouble imagining anything else.

I think that seeing some of these signs of hope were part of the process of me deciding to become a parent: being able to imagine other futures than the one playing on repeat at the moment. But I’m really wary of this sort of, “I care more about the future because I have a baby” thing. As somebody who didn’t have kids for a long time and had trouble getting pregnant, I really hated when people did that, because it felt really exclusionary to me. I understand, as a parent, why people say that, because when you hear that we’ll be at x degrees warmer by 2050, you can’t help but do these mental calculations of, “Okay, how old will he be then?” But I cared about the future before my son Toma was born just as some of the most caring people that I know don’t have kids. So I want to be careful about that.

There’s a tremendous organizing effort taking place here in New York for the People’s Climate March. Why do you think this particular protest matters, and what are the chances it will have an enduring impact?
Climate change has gone from being an issue that will affect our grandchildren to a right-now issue. The difference over the past few years is that the climate movement has jettisoned its astronaut’s “eye in the sky” view of a shimmering blue-and-white dot set against the darkness of space in which no people are visible, and it has come down to earth.

It’s connecting with people who are driven by basic justice demands such as clean air for their kids and water they can drink. The People’s Climate March will be much more diverse and it’s going to be angrier than previous climate protests. That anger is a really important and powerful tool. So I think we’re going to see a different kind of climate movement. It’s already there. I think Seattle 1999 was a coming-out party for the global justice movement, and I think this will be a coming-out party of sorts for a new climate movement.

There have been other moments over the past two decades, from the Rio Earth Summit to Al Gore’s movie to Hurricane Sandy, that have seen climate change briefly capture the public imagination only to fade out again. 
In the past the climate movement was incredibly elitist. There really was a belief that you did not need a grassroots movement if you had all the celebrities and the billionaires and a former vice president like Al Gore on your side. I think that is what has made the issue so ephemeral. If your strategy is just to get a bunch of celebrities and billionaires on your side, guess what? They change their minds, and they move on to other things. Vanity Fair launches their annual green issue and it lasts for two years. Fashions change.

This is the first time climate change has had a grassroots movement behind it in North America. And that’s what is going to give it staying power. The whole point is that it has roots now. The problem with the top-down strategy is that it has no roots. And when you don’t have roots, you can blow away.

|The Indypendent is a New York City-based newspaper that publishes 13 times a year. To subscribe, click here. To make a donation, click here

Strike Victory: No more two-tier at Lear

Reprinted from Fightback News

Auto parts strike achieves major victory - no more two-tier wages at Lear Corporation

By J Burger |
September 15, 2014
Read more articles in
Enter a descriptive sentence about the photo here.
UAW defeats two tier wage structure at Lear Corporation. (FightBack!News/Staff)

Hammond, IN - By 4:00 p.m. Sept. 14, the negotiating committee from UAW Local 2335 had reached a tentative agreement with Lear Corporation. Over 700 workers walked off the job Sept. 13 demanding an end to the two-tier wage structure. In a major victory in the auto industry, the employer agreed to abolish the double standard in wages. Workers will return to work on Sept. 15 and have yet to ratify the agreement.

Fight Back!
caught up with Mike Elliot, the chair of the Union Solidarity Committee of UAW Local 551 at the Ford assembly plant in Chicago. His local is the only local in the UAW that has a standing committee like this. Its mission is to build solidarity with other unions and social justice groups and mobilize members from the plant to picket lines, fights for justice, for women’s rights, human rights and even anti-eviction campaigns.

“Without solidarity, none of this would be possible. We set up shifts and brought out a great number of our members to the pickets lines at Lear,” Elliot said. “It was announced this afternoon that Lear Corporation agreed to abolish the two-tier wage structure and increase workers at the top by 1.5%”. The details of the agreement have not been made public yet, but workers on the picket lines were celebrating their fight today.

Elliot expressed how important this is to the 4500 workers at the assembly plant. “Our contract expires next year on Sept. 15, 2015. This is a major blow to what divides the workers: a two-tiered wage structure. You cannot survive long if you have people working next to one another doing the same work and one person is paid half of the other person.” Members of UAW Local 551 will be carefully building for their fight next year to dump the two-tier system there, he added.

Sunday, September 14, 2014

Can I be a socialist and have things that work?

The evidence that I sold out
by Richard Mellor
Afscme Local 444, retired

It's no fun being a damn socialist in America.  I was down the pub tonight, or this afternoon and part of the early evening and was enjoying a nice pint and listening to a local musician ply his trade.

As readers might be aware, I am a retired public sector worker.  We, or most of us, tend to have better working conditions, wages and benefits when compared to our private sector comrades.  This is why we are under attack.  Individuals that earn $5 billion a year clipping coupons, selling currencies or laying off workers and the like are given hero worship status but public sector workers, or any worker,  that might have a pension that we can live on, are demonized, are blamed for destroying the American way of life along with Muslims and Arabs and foreigners of all sorts.

So someone noticed my glasses.  My wife is still working and she is also a public sector worker so I still have the benefits that this type of work gives married couples. My glasses are new, only a week old.  Apparently, some Italian guys name is on the side of the frame. His name is Giorgio Armani.

Man, did I take some crap.

"Oh, designer glasses are they"  said one friend who shall go unnamed.

"What's a socialist doing wearing Giorgio Armani glasses" says another derisively.

"I'll bet you never put that on your blog do you?" says a third.

"I dare you, go on, put that on your commie blog."  another guy who I thought was a friend told me.

Well, here it is.  Now I know they were all teasing me, and I did make the point that this Italian never
There's no way this guy made anything
made my glasses some Cambodian or Vietnamese worker probably did, someone who can't even afford to buy the glasses she's making. The Italian just signed his name on the frames and took all the money.

Now these may be good glasses and they may not be. They seem pretty good to me and they do fulfill the criteria I asked of the woman that sold them to me, they make me more handsome. Coupled with the handsome pills I take, I think I'm on a roll.

But the most important thing, and what irritates the 1% the most, is that an ordinary worker can have a wage they can live on, a retirement they can live on and glasses that do the job.

As my friend said to me tonight, as I tried to defend my new glasses, and he was  mocking me really, "Richard will just say we all should have these glasses."

He's right about that I guess.

World economy: getting back to trend?

by Michael Roberts

The latest high frequency indicators of economic activity in the major economies suggest that global economic growth picked up a little in the summer. Based on my measures of the so-called purchasing managers indexes (PMIs), business activity in both the advanced capitalist economies and the so-called emerging economies is up from a weaker first quarter.
Business activity indexes
This would suggest a global annualised growth rate of about 3.0-3.5% for 2014. That’s better than the first quarter by some way, but still below the rate achieved in the recovery from the Great Recession in 2010.
Global PMI
And, as has been documented in this blog and in many other places, the economic recovery from the Great Recession has been the weakest of all recoveries from slumps since the second world war. Since the end of the Great Recession, world industrial production growth has averaged only 40% of the rate achieved before the Great Recession and only 60% of the long-term average. The productive sectors of world capitalism are crawling along.

And that conclusion also applies to the US, the economy that has achieved the best recovery of the all major capitalist economies (G7) since 2009. The US GDP is still 5% pts below its ‘full potential’, even though it has been the US economy that has led the way in this ‘recovery’. The last set of US GDP and employment figures, as I outlined in a previous post (https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/the-us-recovery-the-long-depression-and-pax-americana/), suggest that the US economy is expanding at little more than about 2% a year, well below the post-war average of 3.3% and even more behind the pre-crisis rate.

However, there is more talk among mainstream economists that the US, at least, is now on a path of sustainable ‘normal’ growth, something I questioned in a recent post

Gavyn Davies, former chief economist at Goldman Sachs and now a columnist for the FT, reckons that the US recovery now looks sustainable. Davies recognises that global financial crashes and slumps combine to limit and delay economic recovery, but: “such recoveries are slower than normal in their early phases, and they therefore take much longer to bump into supply constraints. On average, such shocks are followed by economic recoveries that last for 8-9 years, as compared to 5 years for the present US recovery. At about the current stage of the recovery, they actually tend to speed up a bit.” http://blogs.ft.com/gavyndavies/. And he quotes the work of his old employer, Goldman Sachs, which shows that the US economy could at last be about to head back to the trend growth rate of the past (see graph below).
Wolrd recovery cycle
The evidence of the weekly US economic indicator ECRI would also suggest that the US economy might be reaching a lift-off point.
But these activity surveys are the only evidence that I can find for Davies’ assertion. US business investment shows little sign of a significant pick-up and corporate profits have actually stopped rising.
US business investment level
Employment growth remains lacklustre and real wages for average Americans are flat at best. Indeed, the latest Federal Reserve survey of household finances shows that median family incomes in the US have dropped so much in real terms since the Great Recession that they are now no higher than they were 16 years ago!
US median family income
So a Keynesian-style demand boost for the US economy from household spending looks unlikely. If consumption and business investment remain in the doldrums, so will the US economy.

The United Nations Commission for Trade and Development (UNCTAD) just released its annual report on the global economy. UNCTAD remains gloomy about a return to normal (http://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=981). UNCTAD concludes “six years after the onset of the global economic and financial crisis, the world economy has not yet established a new sustainable growth regime. With an expected growth between 2.5 and 3 per cent in 2014, the recovery of global output remains weak.” It points out that “international trade remains lacklustre. Merchandise trade grew at close to 2 per cent in volume in 2012−2013 and the first few months of 2014, which is below the growth of global output. Trade in services increased somewhat faster, at around 5 per cent in 2013, without significantly changing the overall picture. This lack of dynamism contrasts sharply with the two decades preceding the crisis, when global trade in goods and services expanded more than twice as fast as global output (at annual averages of 6.8 per cent and 3per cent respectively).

UNCTAD, being an institution that is somewhat ‘off message’ compared to the IMF and the World Bank, calls for coordinated global action by governments to reverse ‘market liberalism’, reduce inequality and follow the prescriptions of Pope Francis (see my post, http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/ayn-rand-pope-francis-and-the-philosophy-of-greed/)!

Don’t hold your breath.

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Oscar Pistorius murdered a real person, she had a name.

From Janine Booth.
RIP Reeva Steenkamp

Her Name Is Reeva

Her name is Reeva
Reeva Steenkamp
Not 'Oscar Pistorius' girlfriend'
Not 'model'
Not 'reality TV star'
Her name is Reeva

Her name is Reeva
She was not just a model
But also a law graduate
She was not just a reality TV star
But also a campaigner against violence

The story is about her killing
Not about his fame
Or it ought to be
Her name is Reeva

His name is Oscar
Oscar Pistorius
And every news report calls him that
Her name is Reeva
Sometimes mentioned
But only after 'his model girlfriend'

He slept with guns
She is one of fifty victims of homicide every day in South Africa

Her name is Reeva
She is a woman, a person in her own right,
Not an appendage of the celebrity who killed her
Even now she is dead
She still has a name
Use it please

Friday, September 12, 2014

Video: Ironworkers wildcat strike in San Francisco.

The Ironworkers wildcat strike in San Francisco is taking place as the Carpenters wildcat strike did in 1999 in a booming economy.  The worker says it so clearly in this video, that the cranes are all over the place, there's a boom, the hall is empty etc. It places workers in a stronger position.

A building trades worker once said to me he knew nothing about economics.  But then, he knew if the union hall was empty the economy was good, if it was full, the economy was bad. We know about economics in our own way, not in an academic abstract way, but in a concrete way.

But we have to reject this idea that any one or any group of us are more important than the other.  The worker talks about how the ironworkers are the foundation, are the most important part of the project.  But we cannot beat the bosses alone.  The UAW didn't the steel unions didn't, no union alone can.  The main problem as a worker commented in this video is that the union leadership has the same world view as the bosses.  They support capitalism, they worship the market, they stress competition.  But unions were built to protect us from the market not facilitate competition between us.

But more important than this failure of our own leadership, their collaboration with the bosses, is that we must build a generalized movement, a united front of struggle.  Not just union workers but all workers, the unemployed and the unorganized and our communities and the youth who have no future as things are. This is how the unions were built in the first place along with defying and violating the bosses' anti-union laws. This is what will turn this tide.

Missionaries and land.

I like that one by Bishop Tutu. "When the missionaries came to Africa they had the bible and we had the land. They said let us pray and we closed our eyes. When we opened them again we had the bible and they had the land." Sounds about right. And we could add the missionaries brought with them all the homophobic bigotry, the sexist bigotry, the special oppression of women, private property.


CNN airs another video on Michael Brown Shooting

CNN publishes another video with new witnesses corroborating others who said Brown was shot at from behind and also had his hands up.

Kissinger's contempt for the soldier is held by all of his class.

left: We all know this picture, she had Napalm poured on her.*  This was made possible with US taxpayer funds supporting a corrupt regime that couldn't get elected by its own people. The culprits that authorized this live in the US, are wealthy and have never been brought to trial for their crimes.

by Richard Mellor
Afscme Local 444, retired

We have pointed out many times on this blog that the US harbors many war criminals, many individuals that are “not” dragged through the media and the World Court as committing “crimes Against Humanity”. 

It is never British or American mass murders like Blair, Kissinger or Rumsfeld that are brought to answer for their horrendous crimes.  It was a working class white woman who grew up in a trailer park who was dragged through the mud as the face of a culture of violence in the US military, the epitomy of what was wrong, after pictures of her surfaced in the Abu Ghraib horrors.

It is always working class people that fight the 1%’s wars in the global struggle for profits and market share of whatever commodity or raw material profits them most. The ruling class organizes all the patriotic parades and flag waving when our youth are needed to defend the profits of the global corporations that they control.  The condition of soldiers on their return is of less concern, after all, repairing the physical and mental damage that real (not Hollywood) combat inflicts on people is “money out” , is a public service and we all know how much the 1% resents any form of public service except that which might help line their pockets like when the taxpayer subsides business like sports stadiums or bails out banks.

No, the love of the military grunt is all one-way.  Let’s consider how the phraseology describes our sons and daughters who are driven in to military service to get an education, a job or just to have some security.  The vast majority of young people don’t join the military because they are looking for a good conflict zone to visit.  Unemployment is very good for military recruitment.

Our children are referred to as “Boots on the Ground” That’s it, they’re simply “boots” to be counted. In Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward’s book, The Final Days they give a sampling of the war criminal Henry Kissinger’s view of military personnel:
“[Haig] tolerated with superhuman strength the abuse that Kissinger heaped on him.   ‘Only someone schooled in taking shit could put up with it,’ Hicks observed to his colleagues.  In Haig’s presence, Kissinger referred pointedly to military men as ‘dumb, stupid animals to be used’ as pawns for foreign policy. Kissinger often took up a post outside the doorway to Haig’s office and dressed him down in front of the secretaries for alleged acts of incompetence with which Haig was not even remotely involved.” (my added emphasis) 

and further:

Phi Beta Iota:  Kissinger was a protege of David Rockefeller, and can be considered the arch-type for the intersection of New York money and “the German disease” as well as the Nazi hydra co-existing with the Zionist “anything goes, USA is a shicksa” culture.  This is not the kind of individual that should be given power by the people, and this is precisely the kind of individual that has helped spawn multiple generations of psychopaths in power.  All the checks and balances have been systematically neutralized by money — not just corruption, but money spent to create information pathologies that confuse, obscure, and enable great crimes against humanity — including the US middle class, blue collar masters, and poor without a hope in the USA.

As we pointed out in a commentaries (here and here)  we are being conned yet again as the architects of war want more money to go after some of their former pals.  As the disaster called US foreign policy takes the world from one catastrophe to another we are supposed to believe that the beheading of two American journalists is the motive behind their actions.  They are liars. We have no say in foreign policy like we have no say in the deals made in Congress about domestic policy.  We are only expected to pay in the form of declining living standards and substandard social services when the bill comes due.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that the rotten capitalist system was dragged form the edge of the abyss by public funds. They socialize losses but privatize profits.

Kissinger is a war criminal and should be treated as such, just like Bush, Rumsfeld, Blair, Obama; they have nothing but contempt for working class people. It’s not enough to hate or distrust them and remove ourselves from politics. The victims of US foreign policy both domestic and foreign deserve justice. It is politics that can change this situation. Our greatest enemies are closer than you think

Woodward and Bernstein quoted at the: Public Intelligence Blog
* Napalm is a mixture of a thickening/gelling agent and petroleum or a similar fuel for use in an incendiary device.The US military supplied it to its stooges ion Vietnam and both military's poured this nasty stuff on humans.