Here's the thing about exploiters: without those whom they exploit, they wouldn't be successful. And that's why they oppose unions and any regulations that protect workers. They have no moral qualms about what they do because they perceive themselves to be superior human beings. When in fact their lack of morality makes them inferior.
Here's the thing about exploiters: without those whom they exploit, they wouldn't be successful. And that's why they oppose unions and any regulations that protect workers. They have no moral qualms about what they do because they perceive themselves to be superior human beings. When in fact their lack of morality makes them inferior.
Indeed. Also why they abhor regulation. Short-term profit is all they are interested in. Destroying the environment and endangering the next generation (or the current generation of workers) is just fine if it increases quarterly profit . .
тАЬPower always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing GodтАЩs service when it is violating all his laws.тАЭ
тАУ John Adams
Some money is made by fair trade, some by controlling money, and some by extorting it. Not every dollar is the same.
Hi JL, I like this quote from John Adams very much! It's interesting that he was aware of the arrogance of power but didn't see himself as violating god's laws when, in response to Abigail's entreaty that he "remember the ladies," he laughingly replied, "We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems."
Madeline, I like both John's & Abigail's quotes. Abigail Adams' letters to Jefferson are a rich source of post Revolution writings.
I have posted before that John Adams is the Founder of diligent criminal defense & due process before there was even a United States. Of course, John had a brilliant "jury consultant" Abigail.
He was likely right at the time, as women didnтАЩt exist as a political entity. They barely existed as human, needed only for what women have always been needed for.
Sickening and still true. And there are SOME men who will point and blame and announce "the woman made me do it." And with that Adam granted all cowardly men a scapegoat for their errors.
May we all have the courage of Lincoln, and Anita Hill.
A modern business scapegoat for a failure to get something done is the manager that blames their administrative assistant. If in doubt blame someone one else. Works until it doesn't.
In the Sun, Sept 12, 2005 Chump said " You never blame yourself. You have to blame something else. If you do something bad,, never, ever blame yourself." My Momma should have gotten hold of him. She would have tanned his hide.
But John Adams should not be imagined as a preemptive patriarch. He was extraordinarily uxorious. He disapproved of Ben Franklin's extramarital friendships with women. Adams not only habitually listened to Abigail, he quoted her; and their correspondence shows a personal relationship with her which is about as far away from patriarchal and authoritarian as you could get in the 18th-century West.
Agreed, William, yet he still refused to "consider the ladies" as citizens with the right to participate in the making of laws with which they were required to comply. They had just fought a war over "taxation without representation" yet they were keeping half the population in the position of having no right to be represented when decisions were being made that would profoundly affect their lives. I'm not condemning him, I'm just saying...
Remember тАЬBe fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.тАЭ When the Hebrew sages wrote that they were trying to be sure humans didnтАЩt die off. And only women could bear children. How do we now persuade men that if we bear more of their children they will only die of starvation? How do we persuade them that we must adopt and care for the millions of orphans who are dying of starvation because with man-caused climate change (greed), the environment will no longer nurture well food for the eight billion to eat? Are we humans capable of reversing accepted wisdom that no longer serves us?
Thank you for all the hearts. I feel very strongly about this, thinking it is the measure of who we are as humans, the measure of what we are capable of achieving.
"Women didn't exist," from whose perspective? I would caution against losing one's own if one is a woman, or committing the same error of arrogance if one is a man.
Remembering, too, that when John Adams wrote the first constitution of the Commonwealth (Republic) of Massachusetts during the Revolutionary War, he included clauses prescribing property ownership not only for different public offices, but also for voters. Like all women, propertyless men were disqualified from voting in the West before the 1780s. And although women voting was specifically questioned by Abigail (and others) at the time, the idea of propertyless men voting (which had been quite conceivable for some during the Puritan Revolution and Commonwealth (republic) of England in the 1640s), was a matter of unquestioned law in every state in revolutionary America (except Vermont, which did not join the union until 1791). Give John some credit, though. He, like all the American Framers, was a militant republican (note the small-r) who would not brook monarchy, i.e. rule by one person, male or female. Trump and many other current political leaders are not.
I bring these issues up not to discredit John Adams in any way, but to remind us all that missing from the origins of just about every arena of life in our society are the robust voices of women with our different ways of knowing, thinking, feeling, valuing, and creating. Ours has not been a culture organized around the needs of women and children..
We are grateful that there were men like the enlightened founders who framed a democratic-republic and courageously fought the mighty British Empire to bring it into being. Adams et.al. made sure we didn't have a monarch anymore but men were still allowed to be tyrants in their own homes. Absent from the table were the needs and preferences, not to mention the intellects, of half the population who were birthing and educating children while running households, farms and businesses sometimes single-handedly.
Today we're in a climate crisis, land and oceans are becoming more and more toxic, species are dying off, there are fingers close to nuclear buttons, and in probably half the countries on Earth, women don't have a say in much of anything of general consequence. We need planetary cooperation on a large scale and we need people in decision-making positions who know how to cooperate to protect life on Earth. Certainly some of these people are men, and god-bless nurturing men! But I also advocate for the inclusion of more women, young people of all genders, people of color, and indigenous people because all of us are affected and all of us are needed for creative problem-solving.
We are doing a little better over my lifetime to tap the huge resources of women and people of color. I like to point out that somewhat over half the talent on this earth is female. We still have a long long way to go and the human race is running out of time.
Adams couldnтАЩt have been THAT smartтАжbut it sure has taken us a long time to allow those often rather smart ladies to gain some control. I still mourn the fact that Hillary didnтАЩt make the Presidency. Guess I always will. And, Elizabeth Warren is another smart woman. WeтАЩve a long way yet to goтАж.Sarah Scott
At the time God had not yet been heard to speak about the equality of women, even by acute listeners. On the contrary. But there are exceptions for war leadership (Deborah) and righteous violence (Judith), names still conferred by hopeful mothers (and fathers).
And Adams well knew that he often did and said things that would fit the charge of "arrogant" not to mention bad-tempered. His diaries and journals show that like a good post-Puritan he was hard on himself, regretting such sins rather than trying to act as if he had not committed them. And he hated hypocrites. As for "fool" I think it's a foolish charge. As a one-man traveling state department in the 1770s-80s, Adams secured the first of the alliances (with the Netherlands) that made the Revolution winnable. His correspondence with Jefferson shows that he was a skilled thinker and no less learned than the celebrated TJ (though not as good a writer as TJ, as Adams himself told Jefferson when he quite un-arrogantly urged TJ to be the sole writer of the Declaration of Independence.
You're nice to ask a retired History teacher. I guess I'd start my answer by saying that almost all the Founders were extraordinary. Our politics managed to throw up an exceptional and surprising number of politicians who were intellectually gifted, purposeful, practical, and republican-minded. This has long been noticed.
Favorites? I prefer honest John Adams to Thomas Jefferson who did not quite live up to his rhetoric. I am no fan of Pierce Butler who nearly sank the Constitution in 1787 over slavery and the slave trade, or of James Wilson who is credited with inventing the presidency in 1787 which has threatened in the last twenty years to become constitutionally uncontrollable. I'm a very big fan of Connecticut's delegate Roger Sherman who rose from a rather low estate to serve in every founding U.S. legislative and constitutive body and propose the compromises necessary to U.S. survival. This despite the fact that so many of us now would dearly love to do those compromises overтАФlike two Senators per state regardless of population and the ever less democratic Electoral College. I could go on, but will only add that we weak humans continue to care less about the Several who make our law, than about the One who executes it, whom we now routinely call the "commander-in-chief" though the Constitution makes him or her the "commander-in-chief" of the armed forces only when Congress has declared war.
And I very much regret that great and unsilent Founders like Abigail Adams, Mercy Warren, and other women could not vote or hold office in those times.
I think most of us here have read some history and well understand the many blind spots of the Founding Fathers. (Would that Abigail had had a seat attention table! She would have been a mighty Founding Mother!) Given that, they did a pretty good job of setting goals for us in the Declaration of Independence, and creating a basic framework for governing 13 unruly Colonies that were attempting to form a free nation.
One of my good friends is a direct descendent of John & Abigail Adams. All of the women in her family keep their maiden names. I can assure you that Abigail AdamsтАЩ spirit & strength continues on to this day!
The enduring power of our founding documents is not in the so called "originalist" claim of divining the founder's frame of mind but in the practical principles they identified that deliver freedom and justice. Like science, they should, if properly applied, work in anyone's hands, adjusted to ongoing circumstances.
I think it is not so much a matter of one taking precedence over the other as that the Declaration was aspirational and an explanation of why we felt rebellion against the Crown was necessary. The Constitution was more of a nuts and bolts effort to structure a government, and as it was made by white men of property, it of course favored their interests.
It is up to us to remedy the shortcomings and blindness built into the Constitution as we ourselves awaken to its shortcomings. As we have done, to some extent, in the Amendments.
Bringing the Constitution up to actually attempting to achieve the goals stated in the Declaration is a very difficult proposition, especially since our current system is very much purposely skewed toward keeping those already in power right where they are.
I would argue that the rise in popularity of fascism among a certain segment of the population makes needed changes more difficult because that segment seeks to suppress the voting power of those of us who seek equality and justice for all.
Things like getting rid of the Electoral College, which isn't even in the Constitution, could help. And enforcing existing laws against white collar criminals, and corrupt government officials would also do wonders.
A large part of our troubles comes from the longterm corruption in the use of prosecution against the poor and marginalized while refusing to prosecute the rich and powerful.
Exactly. And I give the founders credit of providing a living, amendable charter, not some claim of holy writ. Alas, too many of the founders rebelled again inheritable titles and feudalism yet retained feudalism is a more pernicious form as slavery, but I think that the principles they enunciated undermined racism and sexism as they were passed on to be reanimated by succeeding generations (and still the battle rages).
I wonder to what degree the icon of the Revolutionary War (the details of which seem of little interest to most) feeds the unhealthy culture that glorifies violence as legitimate all-purpose response to discord (such as "Stand Your Ground") beyond repelling violence-enforced subjugation or survival necessity. The devil is in the details.
Thank you, Joseph. Spot on! Thanks largely to the corrupt members of the Supreme Court, the Constitution, even with its built-in weaknesses is being further perverted to meet the ends of ideologues who have abandoned interpreting the Constitution in favor of twisting it into weird co ntortious to achieve the results they want.
Our checks and balances are being severely challenged as well. Trump and his GOP are doing their best to wipe out the checks and balances by discrediting the legislative and judicial branches as much as possible while trying to vest all power in the executive. Remember GWB and the "unitary executive" theory? Well, here it is again! And that means: strongman rule, i.e., authoritarian rule.
Exactly. Monopolies of money and political power are the enemy of "liberty and justice for all. Overly concentrated power tends to corrupt, even with assumed good intentions, let alone malicious greed and hubris.
I think that you may be trying to shrink History here. We weren't a democracy in 1787 (except Vermont for propertyless men and New Jersey for propertied women until 1807) and for just those reasons you mention. The many democratic changes since are thought instead to be original and immemorial,
But many aristocratic institutions remain, and as long as the Electoral College and the two-Senators- per-state composition of the Senate (which decides our judges) continue, the Constitution limits democracy even now. Try imagining what unexceptionable things we do now will be considered horrible breaches of some basic ethic in the future.
Adams quote needs to reflect the need for leaders that insert accountability and a soul/conscience with power. I have worked at state levels of power. We do a poor job as society in cultivating ethical leaders. In fact, as former elected official, who in retirement, created a couple of bi-partisan leadership institutes for emerging young leaders in govt. But, that was before the Gingrich era inaugurated slash and burn politics and the Democrats sat on their hands.
There is a strange degree of vicarious identification we feel with selected celebrities, I think myself included, but I try not to let it go weird. I think for people who might literally fight in response to criticism of "their" sport team, that they only have seen on TV, or perhaps from a grandstand. It's mostly pure fantasy.
It appears to me that Democrats have been on the defensive since Reagan. Perhaps that is changing.
Thanks Susan. I served on Ethics Committees for 12 years in the legislature, then led our state in civil rights investigation. For many, I realize ethics and esthetics are in the eyes of the beholder. Given today's environment of false lies and false news, there are still ethical public figures and I do want to support those.
My background may help explain how I applied my experience. I served as a St. Rep for 9 years and St. Sen. for 4 years. During those years, I served on the legislative Ethics Committees, normally a committee noone wants to serve on. However, we had to address 2 of the biggest scandals facing the legislature and Iowa in the 80's and 90's. Later, I was Director of our state Civil Rights Commission, and was its lobbyist, as I was leading statewide environmental and child and family groups. During 1994, along with key R's, we formed the Institute for Public Leadership and held trainings for several years. Ethics training was a key component. We brought in the creater of Character Counts who challenged Iowans --almost all of our attendees believed they had never done anything unethical. Later, I taught NonProfits at Iowa State University. From law school to the legislature to my NFP work to grad students at ISU, ethics was a subject of a smirk. However, most people lamented the inethical behavior in public officials. I concluded early we needed to train, not just to teach ethics. I think legislators these days receive a couple of hours of one-time introduction to ethics when they are elected. In contrast, lawyers in Iowa have to comply with bi-annual ethical requirements. If you wish, we could communicate on FB messenger or other more private means.
Ethics confused with esthetics? Esthetic theories of ethics (and the contrary) do exist on the outskirts of philosophy, especially in the Romantic Period, but they don't hold much water among modern philosophers.
Should our government protect people of property as they exploit the majority so they can accumulate wealth and move society forward as they wish? Or should we protect the right of ordinary Americans to build their own lives, making sure that no one can monopolize the countryтАЩs money and resources, with the expectation that their efforts will build society from the ground up?
I agree Michael, protect and not allow the exploitation of labor. Financially and safety. OSHA and good unions like SEIU are the Checks and Balances of Salary and Safety. Especially now with the high increase of immigrants with limited or no English. Limited skills. Workers that are exploited today.
I say yes to Professor RichardsonтАЩs second question above and bring back and understand why a federal holiday was created for the workers, not the owners.
Happy Labor Day folks. And there are good owners and companies out there.
Why did you feel the need to say this: "And there are good owners and companies out there." That is irrelevant to the topic of Labor Day or to this essay.
Monica get your head out of your butt. Without workers, indeed Labor Day would not be needed however, where would a workers aggregate but under Simone, or who could all do all of the negotiations to obtain some money and wealth, shared with workers both are needed тАУ but ethics and morals in the work environment and maintaining those ethics is principle.
Hammond warned, " it was only a matter of time before workers took over northern cities and began slaughtering men of property."
Could we back up a bit and acknowledge that the "property" these men of means claimed as their own was in fact stolen from prior inhabitants who may have been compensated now and then by pennies and trinkets and more often than not were driven from the sacred lands they had known as home for ages - murdered, raped or enslaved if they did not willingly comply?! Is it not true that American prosperity has it's roots not only in uncompensated labor, but also in the 'real estate' comprised of these stolen lands?
Many moneyed Americans complain that progressive change constitutes a "transfer of wealth." Is this not The American Way from the get-go?
So, who has a right to the wealth of this nation?
If someone steals your car do you have a right to reclaim it, or must you simply let it go and 'get a horse' ...?
Thank you for this post, Kathleen. I have long argued that I could make a case that the US was built on slavery, genocide, and stolen land. Now the Rs are trying to hide that history. The current arrogant moneyed Americans can thank St. Ray Gun for helping along the current transfer of wealth upwards. This is one of the reasons Rs continue to stir the culture wars pot so that those who have lost and are angry can have someone to blame. He also left us with a housing and mental health mess which people here and I am sure elsewhere continually whine about.
Thank you too Michele. It looks to me like not only are they trying to hide that history, they also are amping it up in so many ways, I question if anyone realizes how many are counted among the unworthy lessers by entities accelerating the process. We are but ants at a picnic for those promoting the grand vision of a perfect world with no wrinkles ... as hard as folks on the ground work to secure justice and integrity in health and sanity, the deadly beat goes on ... check this out:
From Robert B. Hubbell's Substack site - (9/2/2023)
Judge Ho takes control of nuclear safety in the US.
"You may remember that federal court of appeals judge James Ho recently filed a concurring opinion in which he described the тАЬaesthetic injuryтАЭ caused by abortion to doctors who are denied the experience of delivering babies. That same judge issued a decision in which three judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals essentially appointed themselves the arbiters of the disposal of nuclear waste in the US."
See Vox, Texas v. NRC: AmericaтАЩs Trumpiest court just put itself in charge of nuclear safety.
"Judge James Ho is not a nuclear scientist, an expert in energy policy, an atomic engineer, or anyone else with any specialized knowledge whatsoever on how to store and dispose of nuclear waste.
"Nevertheless, Ho and two of his far-right colleagues on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit just put themselves in charge of much of AmericaтАЩs nuclear safety regime тАФ invalidating the power of actual nuclear policy regulators to decide how to deal with nuclear waste in the process."
"Judge HoтАЩs opinion is a dumpster fire of anti-regulatory broadsides on тАЬthe administrative state.тАЭ Judge Ho (and his fellow Federalist Society judges) may hate the administrative state, but the US will soon have 200,000 metric tons of nuclear waste on its hands. Congress has ordered the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine how and where nuclear waste should be stored. Under Judge HoтАЩs decision, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit gets to make those decisions.
"While disposing of nuclear waste is no oneтАЩs favorite topic, it is one that should be left to scientists and engineers whose charge is to protect public health and safety. While much of Judge HoтАЩs decision is nonsense, two paragraphs invoke the тАЬmajor questions doctrine,тАЭ in which the reactionary majority on the Supreme Court granted itself the right to overrule congressional judgments delegating regulatory authority to federal agencies.
"The Supreme CourtтАЩs reactionary majority may soon find itself struggling with the question of where to store 200,000 tons of nuclear waste if it rejects the judgments of the NRC and EPA. Is that a decision we should leave up to Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito?
Whenever I read something like this....judges making decisions like this.....I want first to vomit. Then I give thanks for being as old as I am without children. Then I feel rage because I do have very young relatives and I also love the natural world. We have noticed fewer swallows and the apple guy at the Saturday Market reported no bats and many fewer swallows....key species for insect control. I thought I might not live to see some of the climate change events we are seeing. We had our own fire apocalypse in the fall of 2020 when the Santiam Canyon east of us burned as well as other places in Oregon. Today there was an article in the local rag about three fires in three years in the south Salem hill area. Lots of wooded lots and also in the West Salem hills. They have been lucky. The latest one was caused by some ATV dopes riding over very dry grass....but it sounds like nothing will happen to them. So we have nitwits in high places and not so high places. So, the courts are in charge of wetlands, nuclear power, abortion, destroying the wall between church and state, voting rights, polluting the vote with money and more. Btw, thanks for all the cites to various articles about Judge Ho and his fellow regressives.
"So we have nitwits in high places and not so high places." That is worth quoting again and again: a) because the nitwits may never know it, and b) because nitwits may be defined as those who cannot be convinced by non-nitwits.
Indeed - changing times ... hard to believe wee people have any influence - got to do what we can ... me too on age and children (73/0) - I find I still feel concern for the children even though they did not come from my womb ... how can we not care?! Yes, thanks to Robert B. Hubbell for providing the links - he is a reservoir of relevant perspectives!
In addition to really younger relatives, several greats and about a dozen great greats, three of whom started school this year, I was an educator and I do care about kids. Many of ex-students have children and some of them are grandparents. Here 80/0. It also fries me to see nature destroyed.
You can find current status and concerns about high level radioactive contamination at Hanford nuclear waste dump in Washington State on the Energy Matters Substack site:
That is just plain scary Michele. I just finished posting the latest info about Hanford on the "Energy Matters" page today - along with Robert B. Hubbell's review with links - will send to Gerry Pollet at Heart of America NW and post on their Facebook page. I tuned in to an online conference recently - women from the Yakima Nation who are working on this are strong and positive - not giving up - that gives me hope ... for what, I am not sure, but the positive spirit nourishes the soul ... taking it one breath at a time ....
See The New Jim Crow. With measure 110 we in Oregon tried to lessen the penalty for some harder drugs. Unfortunately, we now have open drug use in downtown Portland for example. I think there will be some changes to the law the next election.
"On top are the Haves with power, money, food, security, and luxury. They suffocate in their surpluses while the Have-Nots starve. Numerically the Haves have always been the fewest. The Haves want to keep things as they are and are opposed to change. Thermopolitically they are cold and determined to freeze the status quo."
However, the political class is currently shifting to the Haves, to be among the few who would always want to monopolise land, money, and the means of production to curtai those whom they see as revolutionaries. In America, it seems Republican is keen on carving out an economic model that's based on dishing out tax breaks to the wealth and building economy around the few with an assumption that the country's economy will move forward.
This trend has been more pronounced in Africa where those in power marshall resources and monopolise almost every means of production so to consolidate power and cling for as long as they found another power-hungry individual whom they will keep their "acquired" wealth. From Niger, DRC, Libya, Sudan, South Sudan to Chad, their trickle-down economic model is breeding a recipe for chaos as has been evident.
The middle class - popularly known as Have a little, Want Mores - currently represents the highest number of population in the US. "Torn between upholding the status quo to protect the little they have, yet wanting change so they can get more, they become split personalities. They could be described as social, economic, and political schizoids. Generally, they seek the safe way, where they can profit by change and yet not risk losing the little they have. They insist on a minimum of three aces before playing a hand in the poker game of revolution. Thermopolitically they are tepid and rooted in inertia."
However, in the past, the middle class has produced creative leaders who have been keen on protecting against the exploitation of the working class or labourers. Martin Luther, Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and Mahatma Gandhi.
Currently, it seems big corporations are fighting with the labor unions. While they don't want anything to do with labor unions, they own the means of production and want to maximize profit. AI has been a disruption and it is a threat to modern employer-worker relationships and most of the tech workers have been dismissed. From Facebook to Google, AI has replaced workers. Inside, some Republicans receive donations from corporations to protect their interests.
Enjoyed? I welcome you to subscribe to my newsletter. It is free to be my subscriber. I only rely on donations.
Sorry, you managed to list several of history's great monsters on the "good guys" list. I refer to Napoleon, whose wars killed proportionately as many Europeans as World War I did after he declared himself Emperor (dictator). Mao Tse Tung killed at least 90 million of his fellow Chinese, 50 million of them in his "great leap forward." Lenin led to Stalin who killed a good 40 million in the USSR, and Lenin did a pretty good job himself in the civil war. Danton was the author of The Terror which was the overthrow of the French Revolution. So I think you might want to re-think how you classify the good guys.
And losing his own head very shortly afterwards. And to think it began with a peaceful walk to admire the palace... It was all that American's fault, with his Rights of Man stuff.
They were among the leading legislators of the First French Republic, a democratic republic, which Napoleon put an end to by becoming sole ruler. The debate about who was best for France, or worst, was continuing robustly when I presented a paper in the Bicentennial Conference on the French Revolution in 1989. It's still on now, though somewhat muted. Bienvenu a` l'histoire de France.
They all should be on the "enemies of the people list." I was actually low on Mao's score. 50 million dead from famine in the "great leap forward" and another 30-35 million in the "cultural revolution." Plus all the "incidentals" from the civil war.
Not all tyrants are murderous. And I know that President Lincoln, responsible for more deaths than Napoleon, was called a "murderous tyrant" in some rebellious quarters.
TCinLA may find that Historians might buy your Napoleon, but not your Danton. Both were elected by the very novel method of manhood suffrage (one man one vote whether propertied or propertyless). The system was called "democracy" a system that the brand-new United States of America had disallowed in every state but Vermont. Napoleon was a military dictator, but an elected one whom most historians regard as an extraordinary statesman, and don't call a monster. Danton was a member of the sovereign legislature of the republic that Napoleon overthrew, and as such was only one of the authors of the Terror, a cabinet which extended and enforced the Revolution rather than "overthrowing" it. Another more important Terror-ist, Robespierre, got that same legislature to agree to Danton's execution. Republics are polyarchic.
Reaganomics claims that massive tribute delivered to the very richest creates jobs, while both in logic and actuality, consolidators want to shed as many jobs as possible. I agree, that like climate abuse, we are not taking AI automation seriously, in terms of it's potential impact on both the landscape of employment, and potential Orwellian control.
тАЬтАж makes them inferior.тАЭ By declaring a group of people to be inferior, you accept the same societal construct as Hammond. Your point would have been just as powerful without the last sentence.
The have and the have nots. Among the тАЬworking classтАЭ a system evolved wherein some workers were chosen to supervise others and thus a third class was formed and persevered. Of course, men regarded themselves as set apart from all women because they were stronger, bigger and/or more aggressive than women. Additionally, religious distinctions arose early in this process to create many multiple subgroups of workers which discriminated against one another. And then, to add another distinction, white workers believed they were superior to Black workers, thereby adding another series of subclasses. So unions were formed but they were тАЬwhiteтАЭ only to start (and some still remain so in practice while not officially). So, racism and discrimination of all sorts exists and in some circumstances, flourishes. Mr. LincolnтАЩs example has gotten far more complicated in reality.
So how does a pluralistic and democratic society prevail, grow, and expand with all these тАЬpowerтАЭ enablers exercising their will against others? It seems to me that the great leverlers of power to sort out at least some of these discriminatory practices must be the political institutions and the political parties. At least they can establish and enforce laws which bridge the discriminatory gaps in society. Democratic politicians and local, state and federalтАФfor the most partтАФ Democratic party institutions perform that function! There are so many examples currently in play. But we are faced with a different set of choices now and in next November because this Republican Party at virtually all levels has bee overtaken by a discriminatory and hateful class which cannot be allowed to govern at the risk of losing our pluralistic society! So the eternal societal battle continues at a much greater level.
Will each of us on this Substack pledge to make a real and effective difference from now to November 2024? One way is to generously support the brilliant Harvard students at www.TurnUp.us/ which is tremendously effective in registering online 18 to 29s and then to encourage and motivate them to vote! We have a job to do, each of us, as it is not an exaggeration to state that our small d democracy is at risk! Please help! Thank you, each and every one and I apologize for this overly long diatribe!
Here's the thing about exploiters: without those whom they exploit, they wouldn't be successful. And that's why they oppose unions and any regulations that protect workers. They have no moral qualms about what they do because they perceive themselves to be superior human beings. When in fact their lack of morality makes them inferior.
Indeed. Also why they abhor regulation. Short-term profit is all they are interested in. Destroying the environment and endangering the next generation (or the current generation of workers) is just fine if it increases quarterly profit . .
SPOT ON ! George ! ,,,,, " The GOTTA' HAVE IT , YESTERDAY !!! , MAMMONITES !"
тАЬPower always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing GodтАЩs service when it is violating all his laws.тАЭ
тАУ John Adams
Some money is made by fair trade, some by controlling money, and some by extorting it. Not every dollar is the same.
Hi JL, I like this quote from John Adams very much! It's interesting that he was aware of the arrogance of power but didn't see himself as violating god's laws when, in response to Abigail's entreaty that he "remember the ladies," he laughingly replied, "We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems."
Madeline, I like both John's & Abigail's quotes. Abigail Adams' letters to Jefferson are a rich source of post Revolution writings.
I have posted before that John Adams is the Founder of diligent criminal defense & due process before there was even a United States. Of course, John had a brilliant "jury consultant" Abigail.
He was likely right at the time, as women didnтАЩt exist as a political entity. They barely existed as human, needed only for what women have always been needed for.
Sickening and still true. And there are SOME men who will point and blame and announce "the woman made me do it." And with that Adam granted all cowardly men a scapegoat for their errors.
May we all have the courage of Lincoln, and Anita Hill.
A modern business scapegoat for a failure to get something done is the manager that blames their administrative assistant. If in doubt blame someone one else. Works until it doesn't.
In the Sun, Sept 12, 2005 Chump said " You never blame yourself. You have to blame something else. If you do something bad,, never, ever blame yourself." My Momma should have gotten hold of him. She would have tanned his hide.
And this is the failure for many modern businesses. Accountability counts.
I don't mean to be annoying, but again, "It works until it doesn't," for whom?
But John Adams should not be imagined as a preemptive patriarch. He was extraordinarily uxorious. He disapproved of Ben Franklin's extramarital friendships with women. Adams not only habitually listened to Abigail, he quoted her; and their correspondence shows a personal relationship with her which is about as far away from patriarchal and authoritarian as you could get in the 18th-century West.
That's what I remember.
I took his quote to mean we men like being in charge too much to offer women equality.
But he knew himself that Abigail was his equal and partner. She ran the farm while he was in Europe. How many years was that?
Agreed, William, yet he still refused to "consider the ladies" as citizens with the right to participate in the making of laws with which they were required to comply. They had just fought a war over "taxation without representation" yet they were keeping half the population in the position of having no right to be represented when decisions were being made that would profoundly affect their lives. I'm not condemning him, I'm just saying...
Remember тАЬBe fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.тАЭ When the Hebrew sages wrote that they were trying to be sure humans didnтАЩt die off. And only women could bear children. How do we now persuade men that if we bear more of their children they will only die of starvation? How do we persuade them that we must adopt and care for the millions of orphans who are dying of starvation because with man-caused climate change (greed), the environment will no longer nurture well food for the eight billion to eat? Are we humans capable of reversing accepted wisdom that no longer serves us?
тЭдя╕ПтЭдя╕ПтЭдя╕ПтЭдя╕ПтЭдя╕ПтЭдя╕ПтЭдя╕ПтЭдя╕ПтЭдя╕П
Thank you for all the hearts. I feel very strongly about this, thinking it is the measure of who we are as humans, the measure of what we are capable of achieving.
"Women didn't exist," from whose perspective? I would caution against losing one's own if one is a woman, or committing the same error of arrogance if one is a man.
I think I said as a political entity way back there
You're right, Jeri...sorry to have been nit-picky. :(
Remembering, too, that when John Adams wrote the first constitution of the Commonwealth (Republic) of Massachusetts during the Revolutionary War, he included clauses prescribing property ownership not only for different public offices, but also for voters. Like all women, propertyless men were disqualified from voting in the West before the 1780s. And although women voting was specifically questioned by Abigail (and others) at the time, the idea of propertyless men voting (which had been quite conceivable for some during the Puritan Revolution and Commonwealth (republic) of England in the 1640s), was a matter of unquestioned law in every state in revolutionary America (except Vermont, which did not join the union until 1791). Give John some credit, though. He, like all the American Framers, was a militant republican (note the small-r) who would not brook monarchy, i.e. rule by one person, male or female. Trump and many other current political leaders are not.
Thanks for this great history lesson William!
I bring these issues up not to discredit John Adams in any way, but to remind us all that missing from the origins of just about every arena of life in our society are the robust voices of women with our different ways of knowing, thinking, feeling, valuing, and creating. Ours has not been a culture organized around the needs of women and children..
We are grateful that there were men like the enlightened founders who framed a democratic-republic and courageously fought the mighty British Empire to bring it into being. Adams et.al. made sure we didn't have a monarch anymore but men were still allowed to be tyrants in their own homes. Absent from the table were the needs and preferences, not to mention the intellects, of half the population who were birthing and educating children while running households, farms and businesses sometimes single-handedly.
Today we're in a climate crisis, land and oceans are becoming more and more toxic, species are dying off, there are fingers close to nuclear buttons, and in probably half the countries on Earth, women don't have a say in much of anything of general consequence. We need planetary cooperation on a large scale and we need people in decision-making positions who know how to cooperate to protect life on Earth. Certainly some of these people are men, and god-bless nurturing men! But I also advocate for the inclusion of more women, young people of all genders, people of color, and indigenous people because all of us are affected and all of us are needed for creative problem-solving.
We are doing a little better over my lifetime to tap the huge resources of women and people of color. I like to point out that somewhat over half the talent on this earth is female. We still have a long long way to go and the human race is running out of time.
Adams couldnтАЩt have been THAT smartтАжbut it sure has taken us a long time to allow those often rather smart ladies to gain some control. I still mourn the fact that Hillary didnтАЩt make the Presidency. Guess I always will. And, Elizabeth Warren is another smart woman. WeтАЩve a long way yet to goтАж.Sarah Scott
Yes, I always thought of him as an A number one elitist. The above quote piqued my interest to research more into the man.
At the time God had not yet been heard to speak about the equality of women, even by acute listeners. On the contrary. But there are exceptions for war leadership (Deborah) and righteous violence (Judith), names still conferred by hopeful mothers (and fathers).
JL,
John Adams is my favorite founding father! Thanks for the quote.
Not at all mine . Hypocritical arrogant fool in my view.
And Adams well knew that he often did and said things that would fit the charge of "arrogant" not to mention bad-tempered. His diaries and journals show that like a good post-Puritan he was hard on himself, regretting such sins rather than trying to act as if he had not committed them. And he hated hypocrites. As for "fool" I think it's a foolish charge. As a one-man traveling state department in the 1770s-80s, Adams secured the first of the alliances (with the Netherlands) that made the Revolution winnable. His correspondence with Jefferson shows that he was a skilled thinker and no less learned than the celebrated TJ (though not as good a writer as TJ, as Adams himself told Jefferson when he quite un-arrogantly urged TJ to be the sole writer of the Declaration of Independence.
What do you think of the rest of the founding fathers?
You're nice to ask a retired History teacher. I guess I'd start my answer by saying that almost all the Founders were extraordinary. Our politics managed to throw up an exceptional and surprising number of politicians who were intellectually gifted, purposeful, practical, and republican-minded. This has long been noticed.
Favorites? I prefer honest John Adams to Thomas Jefferson who did not quite live up to his rhetoric. I am no fan of Pierce Butler who nearly sank the Constitution in 1787 over slavery and the slave trade, or of James Wilson who is credited with inventing the presidency in 1787 which has threatened in the last twenty years to become constitutionally uncontrollable. I'm a very big fan of Connecticut's delegate Roger Sherman who rose from a rather low estate to serve in every founding U.S. legislative and constitutive body and propose the compromises necessary to U.S. survival. This despite the fact that so many of us now would dearly love to do those compromises overтАФlike two Senators per state regardless of population and the ever less democratic Electoral College. I could go on, but will only add that we weak humans continue to care less about the Several who make our law, than about the One who executes it, whom we now routinely call the "commander-in-chief" though the Constitution makes him or her the "commander-in-chief" of the armed forces only when Congress has declared war.
And I very much regret that great and unsilent Founders like Abigail Adams, Mercy Warren, and other women could not vote or hold office in those times.
Thanks, William, for your response. I will use it as a jumping off point for further research. Sometimes I try to imagine living back then.
I think most of us here have read some history and well understand the many blind spots of the Founding Fathers. (Would that Abigail had had a seat attention table! She would have been a mighty Founding Mother!) Given that, they did a pretty good job of setting goals for us in the Declaration of Independence, and creating a basic framework for governing 13 unruly Colonies that were attempting to form a free nation.
One of my good friends is a direct descendent of John & Abigail Adams. All of the women in her family keep their maiden names. I can assure you that Abigail AdamsтАЩ spirit & strength continues on to this day!
YES!!!
The enduring power of our founding documents is not in the so called "originalist" claim of divining the founder's frame of mind but in the practical principles they identified that deliver freedom and justice. Like science, they should, if properly applied, work in anyone's hands, adjusted to ongoing circumstances.
I think it is not so much a matter of one taking precedence over the other as that the Declaration was aspirational and an explanation of why we felt rebellion against the Crown was necessary. The Constitution was more of a nuts and bolts effort to structure a government, and as it was made by white men of property, it of course favored their interests.
It is up to us to remedy the shortcomings and blindness built into the Constitution as we ourselves awaken to its shortcomings. As we have done, to some extent, in the Amendments.
Bringing the Constitution up to actually attempting to achieve the goals stated in the Declaration is a very difficult proposition, especially since our current system is very much purposely skewed toward keeping those already in power right where they are.
I would argue that the rise in popularity of fascism among a certain segment of the population makes needed changes more difficult because that segment seeks to suppress the voting power of those of us who seek equality and justice for all.
Things like getting rid of the Electoral College, which isn't even in the Constitution, could help. And enforcing existing laws against white collar criminals, and corrupt government officials would also do wonders.
A large part of our troubles comes from the longterm corruption in the use of prosecution against the poor and marginalized while refusing to prosecute the rich and powerful.
Exactly. And I give the founders credit of providing a living, amendable charter, not some claim of holy writ. Alas, too many of the founders rebelled again inheritable titles and feudalism yet retained feudalism is a more pernicious form as slavery, but I think that the principles they enunciated undermined racism and sexism as they were passed on to be reanimated by succeeding generations (and still the battle rages).
I wonder to what degree the icon of the Revolutionary War (the details of which seem of little interest to most) feeds the unhealthy culture that glorifies violence as legitimate all-purpose response to discord (such as "Stand Your Ground") beyond repelling violence-enforced subjugation or survival necessity. The devil is in the details.
Yes. Cherry picking history, just like the so-called Christians Cherrypick from the Bible.
Feeding the NRA with all the fodder it needs to sell ever more and sophisticated weapons to everyone!
Thank you, Joseph. Spot on! Thanks largely to the corrupt members of the Supreme Court, the Constitution, even with its built-in weaknesses is being further perverted to meet the ends of ideologues who have abandoned interpreting the Constitution in favor of twisting it into weird co ntortious to achieve the results they want.
Our checks and balances are being severely challenged as well. Trump and his GOP are doing their best to wipe out the checks and balances by discrediting the legislative and judicial branches as much as possible while trying to vest all power in the executive. Remember GWB and the "unitary executive" theory? Well, here it is again! And that means: strongman rule, i.e., authoritarian rule.
Yes, we do have TONS of work to do!
Exactly. Monopolies of money and political power are the enemy of "liberty and justice for all. Overly concentrated power tends to corrupt, even with assumed good intentions, let alone malicious greed and hubris.
I think that you may be trying to shrink History here. We weren't a democracy in 1787 (except Vermont for propertyless men and New Jersey for propertied women until 1807) and for just those reasons you mention. The many democratic changes since are thought instead to be original and immemorial,
But many aristocratic institutions remain, and as long as the Electoral College and the two-Senators- per-state composition of the Senate (which decides our judges) continue, the Constitution limits democracy even now. Try imagining what unexceptionable things we do now will be considered horrible breaches of some basic ethic in the future.
Adams quote needs to reflect the need for leaders that insert accountability and a soul/conscience with power. I have worked at state levels of power. We do a poor job as society in cultivating ethical leaders. In fact, as former elected official, who in retirement, created a couple of bi-partisan leadership institutes for emerging young leaders in govt. But, that was before the Gingrich era inaugurated slash and burn politics and the Democrats sat on their hands.
There is a strange degree of vicarious identification we feel with selected celebrities, I think myself included, but I try not to let it go weird. I think for people who might literally fight in response to criticism of "their" sport team, that they only have seen on TV, or perhaps from a grandstand. It's mostly pure fantasy.
It appears to me that Democrats have been on the defensive since Reagan. Perhaps that is changing.
Once D's acknowledge this defensive nature, that will change. Over 40 years of being on one's political heels causes political cramps and clumsiness.
Be adults, but Give 'Em Hell.
There's that word "ethics" again.
I hear it every five years or so...it has an odd ring to it. Most people confuse it with esthetics, and end up in a confusing conversation...
Thanks Susan. I served on Ethics Committees for 12 years in the legislature, then led our state in civil rights investigation. For many, I realize ethics and esthetics are in the eyes of the beholder. Given today's environment of false lies and false news, there are still ethical public figures and I do want to support those.
Hi Ralph,
Thanks for your note. I'd like to hear more about the study of ethics and it's application. Any suggestions?
My background may help explain how I applied my experience. I served as a St. Rep for 9 years and St. Sen. for 4 years. During those years, I served on the legislative Ethics Committees, normally a committee noone wants to serve on. However, we had to address 2 of the biggest scandals facing the legislature and Iowa in the 80's and 90's. Later, I was Director of our state Civil Rights Commission, and was its lobbyist, as I was leading statewide environmental and child and family groups. During 1994, along with key R's, we formed the Institute for Public Leadership and held trainings for several years. Ethics training was a key component. We brought in the creater of Character Counts who challenged Iowans --almost all of our attendees believed they had never done anything unethical. Later, I taught NonProfits at Iowa State University. From law school to the legislature to my NFP work to grad students at ISU, ethics was a subject of a smirk. However, most people lamented the inethical behavior in public officials. I concluded early we needed to train, not just to teach ethics. I think legislators these days receive a couple of hours of one-time introduction to ethics when they are elected. In contrast, lawyers in Iowa have to comply with bi-annual ethical requirements. If you wish, we could communicate on FB messenger or other more private means.
Ethics confused with esthetics? Esthetic theories of ethics (and the contrary) do exist on the outskirts of philosophy, especially in the Romantic Period, but they don't hold much water among modern philosophers.
I prefer content over form. Saramago. Mark Twain....
Beautiful
Should our government protect people of property as they exploit the majority so they can accumulate wealth and move society forward as they wish? Or should we protect the right of ordinary Americans to build their own lives, making sure that no one can monopolize the countryтАЩs money and resources, with the expectation that their efforts will build society from the ground up?
I agree Michael, protect and not allow the exploitation of labor. Financially and safety. OSHA and good unions like SEIU are the Checks and Balances of Salary and Safety. Especially now with the high increase of immigrants with limited or no English. Limited skills. Workers that are exploited today.
I say yes to Professor RichardsonтАЩs second question above and bring back and understand why a federal holiday was created for the workers, not the owners.
Happy Labor Day folks. And there are good owners and companies out there.
JB
Why did you feel the need to say this: "And there are good owners and companies out there." That is irrelevant to the topic of Labor Day or to this essay.
Hi Monica, thanks for commenting,
There are companies like AT&T that I retired from. Unions and safety practices.
Today, it is now тАЬLabor Day SalesтАЭ, open resteraunts, sporting events, travel, etc.
ItтАЩs a day off without reason now.
Monica get your head out of your butt. Without workers, indeed Labor Day would not be needed however, where would a workers aggregate but under Simone, or who could all do all of the negotiations to obtain some money and wealth, shared with workers both are needed тАУ but ethics and morals in the work environment and maintaining those ethics is principle.
The Heritage Foundation thinks so.
The Heritage Foundation has really turned into a factory for creating fascist rule in America!ЁЯШб
My question is whether it can be identified for what it is and disavowed or prosecuted.
Indeed, Michael.
Hammond warned, " it was only a matter of time before workers took over northern cities and began slaughtering men of property."
Could we back up a bit and acknowledge that the "property" these men of means claimed as their own was in fact stolen from prior inhabitants who may have been compensated now and then by pennies and trinkets and more often than not were driven from the sacred lands they had known as home for ages - murdered, raped or enslaved if they did not willingly comply?! Is it not true that American prosperity has it's roots not only in uncompensated labor, but also in the 'real estate' comprised of these stolen lands?
Many moneyed Americans complain that progressive change constitutes a "transfer of wealth." Is this not The American Way from the get-go?
So, who has a right to the wealth of this nation?
If someone steals your car do you have a right to reclaim it, or must you simply let it go and 'get a horse' ...?
Thank you for this post, Kathleen. I have long argued that I could make a case that the US was built on slavery, genocide, and stolen land. Now the Rs are trying to hide that history. The current arrogant moneyed Americans can thank St. Ray Gun for helping along the current transfer of wealth upwards. This is one of the reasons Rs continue to stir the culture wars pot so that those who have lost and are angry can have someone to blame. He also left us with a housing and mental health mess which people here and I am sure elsewhere continually whine about.
Thank you too Michele. It looks to me like not only are they trying to hide that history, they also are amping it up in so many ways, I question if anyone realizes how many are counted among the unworthy lessers by entities accelerating the process. We are but ants at a picnic for those promoting the grand vision of a perfect world with no wrinkles ... as hard as folks on the ground work to secure justice and integrity in health and sanity, the deadly beat goes on ... check this out:
From Robert B. Hubbell's Substack site - (9/2/2023)
https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/impeach-ready-aim!
Judge Ho takes control of nuclear safety in the US.
"You may remember that federal court of appeals judge James Ho recently filed a concurring opinion in which he described the тАЬaesthetic injuryтАЭ caused by abortion to doctors who are denied the experience of delivering babies. That same judge issued a decision in which three judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals essentially appointed themselves the arbiters of the disposal of nuclear waste in the US."
See Vox, Texas v. NRC: AmericaтАЩs Trumpiest court just put itself in charge of nuclear safety.
https://www.vox.com/2023/8/29/23849054/supreme-court-nuclear-safety-fifth-circuit-james-ho-radioactive-texas-commission
"Per Vox,
"Judge James Ho is not a nuclear scientist, an expert in energy policy, an atomic engineer, or anyone else with any specialized knowledge whatsoever on how to store and dispose of nuclear waste.
"Nevertheless, Ho and two of his far-right colleagues on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit just put themselves in charge of much of AmericaтАЩs nuclear safety regime тАФ invalidating the power of actual nuclear policy regulators to decide how to deal with nuclear waste in the process."
"Judge HoтАЩs opinion is a dumpster fire of anti-regulatory broadsides on тАЬthe administrative state.тАЭ Judge Ho (and his fellow Federalist Society judges) may hate the administrative state, but the US will soon have 200,000 metric tons of nuclear waste on its hands. Congress has ordered the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine how and where nuclear waste should be stored. Under Judge HoтАЩs decision, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit gets to make those decisions.
"While disposing of nuclear waste is no oneтАЩs favorite topic, it is one that should be left to scientists and engineers whose charge is to protect public health and safety. While much of Judge HoтАЩs decision is nonsense, two paragraphs invoke the тАЬmajor questions doctrine,тАЭ in which the reactionary majority on the Supreme Court granted itself the right to overrule congressional judgments delegating regulatory authority to federal agencies.
"The Supreme CourtтАЩs reactionary majority may soon find itself struggling with the question of where to store 200,000 tons of nuclear waste if it rejects the judgments of the NRC and EPA. Is that a decision we should leave up to Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito?
I vote no!!"
*****
Also, see:
From Ian Millhiser at Vox.com:
The edgelord of the federal judiciary
"Imagine a Breitbart comments forum come to life and given immense power over innocent people. ThatтАЩs Judge James Ho."
https://www.vox.com/scotus/23841718/edgelord-federal-judiciary-james-ho-fifth-circuit-abortion-guns
*****
More on Judge James Ho
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-16-2023
(Last 6 paragraphs at end of letter)
Whenever I read something like this....judges making decisions like this.....I want first to vomit. Then I give thanks for being as old as I am without children. Then I feel rage because I do have very young relatives and I also love the natural world. We have noticed fewer swallows and the apple guy at the Saturday Market reported no bats and many fewer swallows....key species for insect control. I thought I might not live to see some of the climate change events we are seeing. We had our own fire apocalypse in the fall of 2020 when the Santiam Canyon east of us burned as well as other places in Oregon. Today there was an article in the local rag about three fires in three years in the south Salem hill area. Lots of wooded lots and also in the West Salem hills. They have been lucky. The latest one was caused by some ATV dopes riding over very dry grass....but it sounds like nothing will happen to them. So we have nitwits in high places and not so high places. So, the courts are in charge of wetlands, nuclear power, abortion, destroying the wall between church and state, voting rights, polluting the vote with money and more. Btw, thanks for all the cites to various articles about Judge Ho and his fellow regressives.
"So we have nitwits in high places and not so high places." That is worth quoting again and again: a) because the nitwits may never know it, and b) because nitwits may be defined as those who cannot be convinced by non-nitwits.
Thank you....I am smiling.
Indeed - changing times ... hard to believe wee people have any influence - got to do what we can ... me too on age and children (73/0) - I find I still feel concern for the children even though they did not come from my womb ... how can we not care?! Yes, thanks to Robert B. Hubbell for providing the links - he is a reservoir of relevant perspectives!
In addition to really younger relatives, several greats and about a dozen great greats, three of whom started school this year, I was an educator and I do care about kids. Many of ex-students have children and some of them are grandparents. Here 80/0. It also fries me to see nature destroyed.
You can find current status and concerns about high level radioactive contamination at Hanford nuclear waste dump in Washington State on the Energy Matters Substack site:
https://kathleenallen.substack.com/p/of-all-the-many-issues-hitting-the?sort=top
Yes, we are in that neighborhood as it is near the Columbia.
That is just plain scary Michele. I just finished posting the latest info about Hanford on the "Energy Matters" page today - along with Robert B. Hubbell's review with links - will send to Gerry Pollet at Heart of America NW and post on their Facebook page. I tuned in to an online conference recently - women from the Yakima Nation who are working on this are strong and positive - not giving up - that gives me hope ... for what, I am not sure, but the positive spirit nourishes the soul ... taking it one breath at a time ....
Brilliant reference to Reagan! Thank you, Michele!! And let us not forget the тАЬwar on drugsтАЭ
that he so malevolently established. Millions are incarcerated still on that basis, for no reason.
See The New Jim Crow. With measure 110 we in Oregon tried to lessen the penalty for some harder drugs. Unfortunately, we now have open drug use in downtown Portland for example. I think there will be some changes to the law the next election.
"On top are the Haves with power, money, food, security, and luxury. They suffocate in their surpluses while the Have-Nots starve. Numerically the Haves have always been the fewest. The Haves want to keep things as they are and are opposed to change. Thermopolitically they are cold and determined to freeze the status quo."
However, the political class is currently shifting to the Haves, to be among the few who would always want to monopolise land, money, and the means of production to curtai those whom they see as revolutionaries. In America, it seems Republican is keen on carving out an economic model that's based on dishing out tax breaks to the wealth and building economy around the few with an assumption that the country's economy will move forward.
This trend has been more pronounced in Africa where those in power marshall resources and monopolise almost every means of production so to consolidate power and cling for as long as they found another power-hungry individual whom they will keep their "acquired" wealth. From Niger, DRC, Libya, Sudan, South Sudan to Chad, their trickle-down economic model is breeding a recipe for chaos as has been evident.
The middle class - popularly known as Have a little, Want Mores - currently represents the highest number of population in the US. "Torn between upholding the status quo to protect the little they have, yet wanting change so they can get more, they become split personalities. They could be described as social, economic, and political schizoids. Generally, they seek the safe way, where they can profit by change and yet not risk losing the little they have. They insist on a minimum of three aces before playing a hand in the poker game of revolution. Thermopolitically they are tepid and rooted in inertia."
However, in the past, the middle class has produced creative leaders who have been keen on protecting against the exploitation of the working class or labourers. Martin Luther, Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and Mahatma Gandhi.
Currently, it seems big corporations are fighting with the labor unions. While they don't want anything to do with labor unions, they own the means of production and want to maximize profit. AI has been a disruption and it is a threat to modern employer-worker relationships and most of the tech workers have been dismissed. From Facebook to Google, AI has replaced workers. Inside, some Republicans receive donations from corporations to protect their interests.
Enjoyed? I welcome you to subscribe to my newsletter. It is free to be my subscriber. I only rely on donations.
Sorry, you managed to list several of history's great monsters on the "good guys" list. I refer to Napoleon, whose wars killed proportionately as many Europeans as World War I did after he declared himself Emperor (dictator). Mao Tse Tung killed at least 90 million of his fellow Chinese, 50 million of them in his "great leap forward." Lenin led to Stalin who killed a good 40 million in the USSR, and Lenin did a pretty good job himself in the civil war. Danton was the author of The Terror which was the overthrow of the French Revolution. So I think you might want to re-think how you classify the good guys.
Danton? Robespierre!
Both of them start ed The Terror, with Robespierre killing Danton
And losing his own head very shortly afterwards. And to think it began with a peaceful walk to admire the palace... It was all that American's fault, with his Rights of Man stuff.
Don't forget Jean-Paul Marat, that diseased monster.
Yet the French have become the most civilized country in so many ways. Living there I could see our adolescence quite clearly.
They were among the leading legislators of the First French Republic, a democratic republic, which Napoleon put an end to by becoming sole ruler. The debate about who was best for France, or worst, was continuing robustly when I presented a paper in the Bicentennial Conference on the French Revolution in 1989. It's still on now, though somewhat muted. Bienvenu a` l'histoire de France.
Sorry, I forgot to add extra information about each of those guys. ЁЯЩП for reminding me.
They all should be on the "enemies of the people list." I was actually low on Mao's score. 50 million dead from famine in the "great leap forward" and another 30-35 million in the "cultural revolution." Plus all the "incidentals" from the civil war.
Not all tyrants are murderous. And I know that President Lincoln, responsible for more deaths than Napoleon, was called a "murderous tyrant" in some rebellious quarters.
TCinLA may find that Historians might buy your Napoleon, but not your Danton. Both were elected by the very novel method of manhood suffrage (one man one vote whether propertied or propertyless). The system was called "democracy" a system that the brand-new United States of America had disallowed in every state but Vermont. Napoleon was a military dictator, but an elected one whom most historians regard as an extraordinary statesman, and don't call a monster. Danton was a member of the sovereign legislature of the republic that Napoleon overthrew, and as such was only one of the authors of the Terror, a cabinet which extended and enforced the Revolution rather than "overthrowing" it. Another more important Terror-ist, Robespierre, got that same legislature to agree to Danton's execution. Republics are polyarchic.
Reaganomics claims that massive tribute delivered to the very richest creates jobs, while both in logic and actuality, consolidators want to shed as many jobs as possible. I agree, that like climate abuse, we are not taking AI automation seriously, in terms of it's potential impact on both the landscape of employment, and potential Orwellian control.
тАЬтАж makes them inferior.тАЭ By declaring a group of people to be inferior, you accept the same societal construct as Hammond. Your point would have been just as powerful without the last sentence.
Certainly not my intent. Morally bankrupt?
Well said!
Thank w Mr. Bales. So well put and in such few words.
Thank you!
The have and the have nots. Among the тАЬworking classтАЭ a system evolved wherein some workers were chosen to supervise others and thus a third class was formed and persevered. Of course, men regarded themselves as set apart from all women because they were stronger, bigger and/or more aggressive than women. Additionally, religious distinctions arose early in this process to create many multiple subgroups of workers which discriminated against one another. And then, to add another distinction, white workers believed they were superior to Black workers, thereby adding another series of subclasses. So unions were formed but they were тАЬwhiteтАЭ only to start (and some still remain so in practice while not officially). So, racism and discrimination of all sorts exists and in some circumstances, flourishes. Mr. LincolnтАЩs example has gotten far more complicated in reality.
So how does a pluralistic and democratic society prevail, grow, and expand with all these тАЬpowerтАЭ enablers exercising their will against others? It seems to me that the great leverlers of power to sort out at least some of these discriminatory practices must be the political institutions and the political parties. At least they can establish and enforce laws which bridge the discriminatory gaps in society. Democratic politicians and local, state and federalтАФfor the most partтАФ Democratic party institutions perform that function! There are so many examples currently in play. But we are faced with a different set of choices now and in next November because this Republican Party at virtually all levels has bee overtaken by a discriminatory and hateful class which cannot be allowed to govern at the risk of losing our pluralistic society! So the eternal societal battle continues at a much greater level.
Will each of us on this Substack pledge to make a real and effective difference from now to November 2024? One way is to generously support the brilliant Harvard students at www.TurnUp.us/ which is tremendously effective in registering online 18 to 29s and then to encourage and motivate them to vote! We have a job to do, each of us, as it is not an exaggeration to state that our small d democracy is at risk! Please help! Thank you, each and every one and I apologize for this overly long diatribe!
YAY! Michael.
L&B&L
L&B&L?