HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » 99th_Monkey » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1 2 Next »

99th_Monkey

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Current location: Potlandia
Member since: Fri Sep 28, 2007, 04:39 PM
Number of posts: 9,406

Journal Archives

Jacob Appelbaum on Democracy Now: How to avoid the NSA Surveillance State's spying

Jacob Appelbaum, Developer of the Tor Project, which provides a
buffering browser service, effectively erecting an impenetrable shield
between you the citizen, and your nosy NSA Surveillance State.

He's one of several guests on Democracy Now, and the whole tape
is well worth watching but to find out a new resource -- a data filter
and browser service specifically designed to shield and rendering any
data being gathering on you the user to be totally useless and
indecipherable.

Jacob Appelbaum, who talks about the TOR PROJECT, is on mostly
from 14 minutes --to-->18 minutes of this video. Very bright young
fellow.

Get real. Let's face it. We are DOOMED. But are we really?

At the end of the day, it matters not which political or social "issue" is nearest and most
dear to your heart.

Whether we're talking about out-of-control global warming, organized labor, corporate
"personhood", foreign policy, gun control (or lack thereof), or Wall St. corruption & it's
inordinate and nefarious influence on the economy .. with ALL of these issues, BIG MONEY
is now -- and will always be able to-- BUY more and better lawyers, BUY the very shrewdest
and highly skilled lobbyists, create louder think tanks, embed and bribe more convincing
"journalists" and pundits onto M$M airwaves, bribe more judges, steal more votes
on election day, etc. than the "Left". the 99% and poor could ever hope to do. And as if this
were not enough game-rigging to prop up the 1%'s vampiric stranglehold on America,
there is always an even Darker Side, of paid assassins at-the-ready, who are experts
in manufacturing "apparent suicides", untimely car crashes, false-flags, etc.

Lady Liberty, ACLU, Democracy Now, Anonymous, the labor movement, Occupy, et. al. all
notwithstanding, we are in the middle of a gunfight, holding a proverbially dull knife. If
you doubt this analysis, see Harry Reid cave-in on US Senate filibuster reform, etc. This
one betrayal of democracy, will ham-string the Obama Administration from doing ANY
thing meaningful during his second term. Add to that the radical "unprecedented" court
decision retroactively stripping President Obama, in one stroke, of his power to appoint labor
commissioners, judges --and many other appointees-- installed the only way possible anymore,
via recess appointments. Just these two developments spell big trouble for Obama's second
term, and especially for him doing ANY thing contrary to the will of the 1%.

At the same time, we seem to have reached some kind of awareness tipping point, signaled
most pointedly by Occupy Wall St., but also reflected by various public opinion polls, all showing
that a growing majority of Americans are actually starting to "get it", and are waking up to a
clearer understanding of the nature of this struggle, and many of these newly awakened are
willing to take action. But what action(s) will it ultimately take for us to salvage what's left of
our great nation?

This is a genuine question. Ironically enough, if there were a good answer to it, I doubt anyone
would have the gonads (or be naive enough?) to post it in plane sight on DU. But that reality
aside, does anyone have any light to shed on this?




It's high time that Richard Wolff, et. al. got an audience with Obama & the Sec. of Treasury

&feature=player_embedded

Mr. Wolff is a powerful advocate for self-directed (worker-owned) democratic workplaces where
the workers own the business as a collective or cooperative. This idea has been around for awhile,
ever since was birthed by the early US labor movement in the 1800s in fact, yet there is a very
compelling case to be made for democratizing the workplace as a strategy for "reforming" capitalism
from the ground up. I believe this a classic case of "an idea whose time has finally come".

There ARE ways -- whether by congress or executive order -- for the US Government to encourage
and incentivize both start-ups of, and conversions to, worker-owned enterprises. Many of these
measures could be enacted without any significant cost to taxpayers, yet the benefits (especially
given the current post-Occupy zeitgeist) could be many and very far reaching in terms of the long
term prospects for resuscitating the American Dream.

HISTORY OF WORKER COOPERATIVES
From Wikipedia: "Historically, worker cooperatives rose to prominence during the industrial revolution as part of the labour movement. As employment moved to industrial areas and job sectors declined, workers began organizing and controlling businesses for themselves. Workers cooperative were originally sparked by "critical reaction to industrial capitalism and the excesses of the industrial revolution." (Adams et al. 1993: 11) The formation of some workers cooperatives, such as those of the Knights of Labor in 19th century America, were designed to "cope with the evils of unbridled capitalism and the insecurities of wage labor".

Most early worker co-ops did not adhere to clear cooperative structures or ideologies. Starting in the 1830s, worker cooperatives were formed by hat makers, bakers, and garment workers.

In the United States there is no coherent legislation regarding worker cooperatives nationally, much less Federal laws, so most worker cooperatives make use of traditional consumer cooperative law and try to fine-tune it for their purposes. In some cases the members (workers) of the cooperative in fact "own" the enterprise by buying a share that represents a fraction of the market value of the cooperative.

When the current cooperative movement resurfaced in the 1960s it developed mostly on a new system of "collective ownership" where par value shares were issued as symbolic of egalitarian voting rights. Typically, a member may only own one share to maintain the egalitarian ethos. Once brought in as a member, after a period of time on probation usually so the new candidate can be evaluated, he or she was given power to manage the coop, without "ownership" in the traditional sense. In the UK this system is known as common ownership.

Some of these early cooperatives still exist and most new worker cooperatives follow their lead and develop a relationship to capital that is more radical than the previous system of equity share ownership.

In Britain this type of cooperative was traditionally known as a producer cooperative, and, while it was overshadowed by the consumer and agricultural types, made up a small section of its own within the national apex body, the Cooperative Union. The 'new wave' of worker cooperatives that took off in Britain in the mid-1970s joined the Industrial Common Ownership Movement (ICOM) as a separate federation. Buoyed up by the alternative and ecological movements and by the political drive to create jobs, the sector peaked at around 2,000 enterprises. However the growth rate slowed, the sector contracted, and in 2001 ICOM merged with the Co-operative Union (which was the federal body for consumer cooperatives) to create Co-operatives UK, thus reunifying the cooperative sector.

In 2008 Co-operatives UK launched The Worker Co-operative Code of Governance. An attempt to implement the ICA approved World Declaration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

Worker ownership was the focus of my graduate work at the University of Oregon, as well as my Masters Thesis; which I was doing during the late 1980s. So this is a subject that is near and dear to my heart. I know full well there is no one-size-fits-all panecea to "fix" the mess we call our "economy" right now. However -- call me a dreamer, but I do still firmly believe that this one strategy could become a contageous grass-roots bloodless rEvolutionary tidal wave to right many of the wrongs from which we are suffering as a nation. Sometimes, maybe all the time, it's "all about the timing".

FOR MORE ON RICHARD WOLFF'S WORK:
http://truth-out.org/news/item/9191-occupy-the-economy-author-richard-wolff-on-how-his-new-interview-collection-challenges-capitalism
http://rdwolff.com/
http://rdwolff.com/content/democracy-work-cure-capitalism
http://rdwolff.com/content/corporate-america-has-messed-wrong-people

That sound you hear is Reich Wing heads exploding

.. when they learn that a CUBAN priest is Obama's "Pastor of
the President's" at inauguration, PLUS he's also one of those
"latino immigrants" ... hat's off to Obama for his pick on this.

Inauguration Prayer: Latino Episcopal Priest Luis Leon Becomes 'Pastor Of The Presidents'
The Huffington Post | 01/18/2013 5:23 pm EST
At the age of 12 -- with only $3, the clothes on his back, and no parents -- Luis León arrived to the United States from Guantanamo, Cuba. But today, after making his religious faith a lifestyle, the Latino Episcopal priest has become the "Pastor of the Presidents of the United States."

As the minister of the St. John's Episcopal Church in Washington, León has been chosen to deliver the closing prayer at President Barack Obama’s presidential inaugural ceremony on Monday, January 21 in Washington DC.

"It is an honor to be part of a milestone in American history," said Leon to El Nuevo Herald. "It is a special honor to be an immigrant in this country, the only country where an event like this can happen ... I feel that in some way I am representing the U.S. Hispanic community. We are an important part of this country."
This year's inauguration, to be held at the National Mall at 11:30 am (ET), will be witnessed buy a number of Hispanic figures. Obama chose Cuban-American Richard Blanco to recite an allegorical poem, making him the first Latino, the first openly gay, and the youngest poet to read on the historic day.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/inauguration-prayer-latino-episcopal-priest-luis-leon_n_2506743.html?ir=Miami&ref=topbar

How many Preppers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Four. One to insert & screw in bulb, and three to stand guard with AR-15s.

Gun-Nuttery Gone Wild: "gun party" goes horribly wrong

Mark Bornino, R. Daniel Volpone, Ohio Men, Drank Alcohol, Fired AK-47, Hit Neighbors' Houses: Police

Police in Montville Township, Ohio, arrested two men, Mark Bornino and R. Daniel Volpone, after they allegedly drank alcohol and fired off guns, including an AK-47 assault weapon, during target practice Wednesday.

Unbeknownst to the men, police said, the bullets ripped through their paper marks and hit houses 500 yards away, narrowly missing families in their homes. In once instance, bullets tore through the walls of a house and hit a microwave, reportedly moments after a woman exited her kitchen, according to NBC local news station WKYC.

Startled residents called 911 after hearing rapid gunfire, but according to ABC's WEWS in Montville Township, responding officers were soon dodging bullets themselves as they traced additional shots. “When I get about a half mile back in the field up on a hill, gunfire started again, and started hearing rounds go over my head,” Montville Police Sgt. Matt Neil said to WEWS.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/mark-bornino-daniel-volpone-ohio-alcohol-ak-47_n_2496990.html

Bradley Manning's prosecutor MUST prove he intended to "aid the enemy".

This is great news, or seems so on the face of it. This sounds like a VERY
tall order for the prosecutor to PROVE what was or wasn't going on in
Manning's mind in the first place, much less prove that Manning INTENDED
to be helping some "enemy" of USA's over-reaching Imperialistic Military and
Intelligence Forces, whoever the fuck that might be.

Isn't this great news for Bradley Manning's chances at the end of the day to
be found "not guilty"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/bradley-manning-judge-prosecutors-must-prove-he-knew-he-was-aiding-the-enemy/2013/01/16/934a8568-6018-11e2-a389-ee565c81c565_story.html

What is happening B4 our eyes to the mythical 2nd Term "more progressive" President Obama?

BEFORE the election it was ALL about the massive "progressive muscle"
Obama was just itching to unleash on the nation, once re-elected to
a second term, about how once re-elected he'd supposedly be free
to let his progressive freak flag fly a bit more, and set things right.

Right.

Hell, Obama won't even tell my US Senator (Wyden-OR) what
qualifies a US citizen to get put onto the CIA Drone / Special Ops
"kill list" to be summarily executed without arrest, trial, due process,
and as near as anyone can tell, no opportunity to even surrender and
stand trial. ...and it's all secret: this power is from the pit of Hell.

Democrats need to unite in support of Obama to stand up to the
powerful interests that have apparently captured him, and must be holding
him hostage in the WH. The man I voted for must have a gun to his head
to be doing this shit.

Exhibit A: Now he's appointing that arrogant thug BRENNAN to head up
the CIA? http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/wyden-brennan/

This is NOT what I signed up for in supporting Obama's re-election;
rather it is what I thought I was voting against: oppressive constitutionally
questionable abuse of authority against our very own citizens, following
secret guidelines unknown and unknowable "by law" to those citizens, so
US citizens may now be secretly murdered for reasons we will never be
privy to? This is ludicrous on its face.

What's the difference between this kind of "security state policy", and
how the The Mob operates?

Other Related Wired News articles:

Leaks! Torture! Drones! Obama’s CIA Pick Faces Skeptical Senators
BY SPENCER ACKERMAN AND NOAH SHACHTMAN01.09.132
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/brennan-nomination/?utm_source=Contextly&utm_medium=RelatedLinks&utm_campaign=Previous

If You Thought Obama’s Drone Godfather Was Powerful, Wait ‘Til He’s at the CIA
BY SPENCER ACKERMAN AND NOAH SHACHTMAN01.07.137:18 PM
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/brennan-2/?utm_source=Contextly&utm_medium=RelatedLinks&utm_campaign=Previous

John Cusak, J. Turley & K. McCabe re: civil liberties under Obama

This exchange may or may not have occurred before the 2012 election, since the references to
the election are not entirely clear on that point. However it is clearly quite relevant in either case,
since Obama won and that is the reality we as Democrats are going to inaugurate on Jan 20th.

______*______*______*______*______*______*______*______*______*______*______*______*______*______*______*


John Cusack: It's so bizarre, because even when we talk about civil liberties, it sounds sort of like a very fringy issue -- kind of a kitsch, kind of like a thing that collectors of small trinkets do. I like my little Chinese boxes, I like my civil liberty.

What I don't understand is -- and that's why I think maybe it's just racism -- perhaps since it hasn't happened to anyone that we know yet, just those Arabs or brown skinned people from failed states. Fuck em .. It doesn't matter if they can throw Bradley Manning in jail. Doesn't matter if they can throw any Arab in jail or murder them, or their families at a wedding -- If the government can simply say -- we suspect this or these people are terrorists, we can pulverize them -- obliterate them from the face of earth.

Jonathan Turley: Or, more importantly you're going to have the same division. People are still not going to feel that they can oppose Obama, when the Republicans are even further to the right.

And so you're going to have the same dynamic. It's the same echo chamber that exists today. And that's why Obama's been so disastrous for the civil liberties movement. I wrote a column a few years ago, about the death of the civil liberties movement, for the LA Times. And it details how devastating Obama has been to the movement. I don't think his re-election will help, but rather hinder a meaningful movement to crystallize. It's not going to come together.

I think it could have come together if Romney were elected, ironically. I think it would've come together if McCain had been elected because you would have the removal of this very divisive figure, which is Barack Obama. Because many people just cannot fight on these civil liberties issues when they're fighting against this iconic figure.

John Cusack: Kevin, how do you see it playing out politically? Do you see any good news coming down the pike, or is it really just we have the obligation to tell the truth and take the beatings? Or rather watch on as others do -- in reality..

Kevin McCabe: I think we have too many problems at the same time: One. the Congress -- regardless of whether it's Democrat or Republican, the Congress, both the House and the Senate, are bought and paid for by "POLITICS/GOV. Inc. who control it. The commercial, professional consultants/lobbyists/fundraisers/operatives -- they run the business of Washington, DC now. So you have very few openings for anything creative, any alternative, any solution and the public at large is looking for solutions.

Two, Jon makes a great point that I hadn't thought about before. The fact is that there's no 50-50 split. There's a different kind of split. And the reason that Obama has not been as good as he could've been is because he's being enabled. And every day, there's this silent enabling of people who are afraid of being viewed as disloyal -- ooh, don't say that, you can't say that, you can't say that. He's our guy.

Well, the fact of the matter is, politically, if you don't have your supporters pushing you towards an agenda, pushing you to be better, pushing you to a higher plane...you leave it to the ego -- or to Obama's ego, or his vanity, or his narcissism, whatever you want to call it -- we will not benefit. The people at large will not benefit, it is about him, not the people.

So there's this, I believe, unintended, or well-intended, silent enabling by giving him a pass. And it's not just civil liberties.


What scares me the most is that so many of the people that are on the sidelines, that would have to be activated -- motivated and activated to make a movement, are taking it for granted.

John Cusack: I will see Assange soon and report back...

The above exchange consists of the last few paragraphs of this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/what-is-an-assange-part-2_b_2402236.html

Why does this nearly 24-hour old OP appear as No. 2 under "Latest Threads"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022178391

I've noticed this before, and I don't know why DU calls it "Latest Threads"
if it really is NOT the latest threads.

Can anyone enlighten me?
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »