The Nimzo-Indian Defence

By Charles Cullen

Chess nerds will recognize the “Nimzo-Indian Defence” as an effective, if rudimentary, opening when playing as black. For those not fortunate enough to be chess nerds, here's a brief description of the opening by Tony Kosten. Kosten writes “When Nimzowitsch introduced his defence in the 1920's, his idea was that Black would fight for control of the centre […] with pieces other than pawns. His concept, the Nimzo-Indian Defence rapidly became one of Black's most popular defences and established a reputation for offering a wide range of strategically rich possibilities.”

After participating in a nationwide Organizing for Action call with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel and Chief Economist and Cabinet member Austan Goolsbee, I am more certain than ever that there were sophisticated political undertones to President Obama's State of the Union address; suggesting that he is playing political chess, while the Republicans wait for him at the checkers board. Particularly relevant seems his decision to single out Georgia and Oklahoma as beacons of hope when it comes to effective, productive, early education.

A big part of the Nimzo-Indian defence is forcing your will upon your opponent by offering choices that seem impossible to pass up. And this is essentially what Obama is doing by focusing on red states and forcing Republican leaders to either stand against the education reforms they themselves had a part in creating (and doing so simply because the President says he likes them) or going along with the President and his desire to see every child enrolled in high quality early education.

The focus of this Organizing for Action call was supposed to be jobs, but time and time again both Goolsbee and Emmanuel returned to the issue of early and available education, making it a point to single out red states for praise. Things like this don't happen by accident, and my ears perked up when Mayor Emmanuel pivoted a jobs question into a discussion of the interesting early education programs in (you guessed it) Georgia, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Emmanuel argued for the necessity of a “race to the top,” reiterated the President's call for “full-day pre-K,” and expanded on the President's plan by suggesting the idea of teaching “parent's how to be parents” as a part of the administration's overall education initiative.

Emmanuel accused the Republican Congress of governing “from the outside in.” Suggesting that they are not only out of touch, but would do well to govern from the inside ... by accepting the President's plans for early education. Goolsbee echoed many of Emmanuel's sentiments regarding education while also getting a dig in at the Republicans for our current, ridiculous sequester boondoggle. He also promised that “courageous votes” would be taken -- over, of course, Republican objection--on “gun control,” and “immigration.”

Anyone who's ever lost a game of Chess knows how the Republicans must be feeling in private. For all their posturing and ridiculous filibustering, they don't really know what they're doing. Heads in hands they find themselves in the shocked stasis of defeat — a splintered, weak, directionless party wondering helplessly where it all went wrong.

350.org and Daryl Hannah

From the Heartland, Margot McMillen writes: Here are four words I never thought I’d write: “Thank you, Daryl Hannah!” Without her arrest, thousands of protestors outside the White House might not have gotten a line of print in the media. There has been, as far as I can tell, a mainstream media blackout. Only the bloggers covered the “Forward on Climate” protest that brought an estimated 40,000 people to Washington DC today. As Jamie Henn, a writer for Huffington Post put it, “It's a movement that has united nearly every environmental group in the country, from grassroots coalitions like the Indigenous Environmental Network to big green groups like the Sierra Club to a new generation of upstarts like 350.org. But it's also a movement that extends far beyond "traditional environmentalists" -- last Wednesday, civil rights leader Julian Bond, the president emeritus of the NAACP was arrested at the White House in a sit-in against Keystone XL.” Julian Bond, of course, recognizes that the fingers of injustice are long and mean. If a company is willing to create injustice on the earth, stealing land and resources from farmers and indigenous peoples, that same company is willing to create injustice on humankind. 40,000 people. That’s hardly a number that can be ignored. Mass arrests, including Daryl Hannah and Robert Kennedy, Jr. are the way this administration has chosen to send their message. Mass arrests will, they think, stop the protestors. For some folks, that will work. Nobody wants to be arrested time after time, pay a fine, do some time, miss the bus back home. But I think the movement has gone past the stage where people are scared of the police. Indeed, being arrested in DC can become a badge of honor. Protestors, including Sierra Club members, are choosing Civil Disobedience as a tactic to get attention. And, if the media doesn’t cover this, it’s another win for the protestors. They’ll become investigators on their own, and learn what’s been happening behind the curtains of big business and bought-off government. This is how revolutions begin. This is what democracy looks like if the peaceful messages are ignored. Obama can step up to the plate and defuse the anger. He can talk to the protestors, stop the pipeline, make his climate change promises real.

Lessons from the bare ground

From the Heartland, Margot McMillen writes: What a gorgeous day! We’re enjoying the last little shiver of winter, 15 degrees when I went out to feed, and next week it could be 70 again. I took a long walk, picked up a few bits of trash in the pasture—-glass bottles, plastic lids, a big old iron wheel that we can use some time for something. I put them on the pile of recycleables. Last week, I lost a lamb to a predator. That morning, on my walk across the bare ground, I saw a streak of blood on the path but not a trace of the lamb. It was one of our biggest, so this predator is large and choosy. It left the little ones. And I couldn’t see any hair on the fence, indicating the predator might have jumped with it. A big cat? One of our neighbors photographed a mountain lion playing in her pond. Or, could an eagle swoop away a lamb? I saw an eagle in another neighbor’s pasture a couple of weeks ago. And what, pray tell, were my guard donkeys doing on that morning? Obviously, they were playing a game that didn’t include guarding sheep. So I moved the female donkey away from the male and so far so good. I’m also locking everyone up at night, which is not my preferred strategy. Would rather let them stay out. But today is bright and chilly, and the baby lambs are having a blast running around. They make me think about the future. My kids. Grandkids. The world we’re leaving them isn’t the world we inherited 50 or 60 years ago. A lot of what’s here is stuff we put down and it ain’t good. Trashy old wheel hubs. Chemical stuff designed to kill weeds or bugs or rodents or whatever. We kept the yards and fields tidy, but we’ve left stuff with side effects that hurt every living thing. So I see my daughter and her friends spending all their money buying organic, trying to find time and space to keep gardens, wearing themselves out with worry, as if there’s not enough to be worn out about when you have kids. Tomorrow, there will be a protest in Washington DC to demonstrate that citizens are sick of waiting for action on environmental problems. I hope the media is there and the message gets out.

Obama urges a fair start for youngsters with pre-K programs

By Charles Cullen

DECATUR, Ga. — President Obama chose Valentine's Day to give a speech misleading and confusing a generation of schoolchildren. Impressionable young minds were subjected to the idea that Commanders in Chief really do care about education and the task of elevating youngsters to a level playing field on which they may be judged by talent and drive, instead of prenatal economic circumstance.

I am, of course, joking, but it was striking to see the President act upon his State of the Union nod to Georgia and Oklahoma as models for opportunity to set a solid groundwork for success later in life. Advancement, in other words, through high quality pre-K programs.

Before an enthusiastic crowd in Decatur, Ga., President Obama on Thursday briefly outlined his plans to turn every city into a hotbed of exceptional early education. In attendance were Congressman Hank Johnson, newly elected Decatur Mayor Jim Baskett, and the Mayor of Atlanta, Kasim Reed. Obama acknowledged them all and then asked them to role up their sleeves to “make this a national priority,” laying out a case for the immediate necessity of his plans.

Echoing the sentiment of the State of the Union, Obama referred to education as the “true engine of American growth,” and was careful to point out that “fewer than three in ten four year olds” are enrolled in high quality early education programs.

For its brevity, Obama's speech was striking in its passion and specificity. This wasn't just a stopover in a red state. Taking issue with the idea that early education exists mostly as a way for parents to deposit their children under the watchful eye of an adult during work hours, he reminded the crowd that “this is not babysitting, this is teaching.” He also made the case that those children deprived of effective early education would suffer from it; partially because they would know that they were beginning the academic race already behind their peers. “They know they're behind at a certain point,” the President argued, “and they start pulling back.”

President Obama cited the need to train 100,000 new teachers in disciplines like science and technology. In an effort to further level the playing field — for all students — he asked that children with disabilities not be separated from non-disabled children. He also mentioned his administration's newly released “college scorecard” as a useful tool for students and parents as they continue the shared academic journey of the American student.

He acknowledged that teaching is a labor of love, noting that “behind every child who's doing great, there's a great teacher,” and “you don't go into teaching to get rich.” And he continued to argue for the universal benefit of this undertaking. Children's prosperity will benefit all of us, he reminded the crowd, “we'll all prosper that way.”

Those who've followed Obama will point out (rightly so) that his enthusiasm for excellent teachers and the value of education is nothing new. But there does seem to be a new or perhaps renewed urgency to his insistence that the United States accept education reform as a real and essential part of our efforts to move forward as a nation. Inaction, he seems to be saying, is unacceptable. And leaving things as they are is not an option.

Charles Cullen is a writer in Atlanta, Ga.

State of the climate, revisited

From the Heartland, Margot McMillen writes: A reader comments regarding my blog entry, “State of the Climate”, which refers to scientists that apologize for the corporations. Her comment reads: Wow, Margot - what scientists are you reading/listening to? Apparently just a very small sliver, and none of the better thinkers. What sort of scientist would "believe that it doesn't matter if species die, or even entire oceans"? Certainly not the conservation scientists/biologists I've read or worked with! Or that "meat from obese, corn-fed cows and hogs can make healthy food for people"? Is it possible you're confusing the statements of people obsessed with corporate profits and year-end bonuses for those of the true researchers and innovators on which the future of our overburdened planet may well depend? Of course the scientists I refer to are “people obsessed with corporate profits and year-end bonuses” as she puts it. And they work in our universities today. At this very moment, they’re working on ways to make crops immune to 2,4D so that farmers can use more of it. 2,4D, you remember, is part of Agent Orange used to defoliate jungles so that soldiers could find them. It’s a poison that poisons people as well as plants. To greenwash the 2,4D story, they’ve pulled The Nature Conservancy in. TNC will evaluate the benefits of plantings around a Texas 2,4D manufacturing factory. Never mind that 2,4D will be carefully controlled in this factory, but then released to be sprayed in fields all over the planet. TNC, who we would hope are the “true researchers and innovators on which the future of our overburdened planet may well depend” opines: “Nature provides benefits, often called ecosystem services, which we all depend on.” Other ag scientists are convincing the media and politicians, at this very minute, that meat raised in Confined Animal Feeding Operations, fed on corn and other grains, is the only way to feed a growing population. Here’s their carefully worked statement about Bowman v. Monsanto: “The Supreme Court will decide a case this term that has the potential to jeopardize some of the most innovative biotechnology research in the country and alter U.S. patent law in a way that would have profound consequences for a range of industries — from agriculture to medicine to environmental science — that rely on the patent system to make their R&D investments economically viable.” That’s how corporations confuse science. Check out www.innovationatstake.com/

Editorial: Save the Postal Service

The announcement that Postmaster General Patrick Donahue plans to stop delivery of first class mail on Saturdays, starting in August, marks the latest turn in a long-term scheme to privatize the US Postal Service and break its unions.

The cutback to five-day-a-week delivery is supposed to save $2 billion but it is only one of a series of cuts being pushed by right wingers who are hoping to degrade the Postal Service so they can carve it up and let private carriers such as UPS and FedEx take over the profitable package delivery and overnight mail services.

The “austerians” also propose closures or cuts in hours at rural postal offices, closure of processing centers where mail is sorted and privatization of postal truck routes, with plans to slash as many as 220,000 of the Postal Service’s 650,000 employees. Among the targets for job losses are members of four major unions — the American Postal Workers, Letter Carriers, Rural Letter Carriers and Mail Handlers, all of whom are resisting the cuts even as they have cooperated with efficiency measures.

Although the Postal Service’s financial woes are popularly blamed on the loss of first-class mail volume due to competition from email (see the cover story by Andrew Leonard), a closer look reveals that the financial troubles have much to do with extortion by Congress.

In December 2006, the lame-duck Republican Congress passed HR 6407, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. The bill required the Postal Service to make payments of $5.5 billion per year between 2007 and 2016 to pre-fund postal retirees’ health benefits 75 years into the future. No other agency or company is required to pre-fund such obligations that far into the future, the postal unions have noted. The Postal Service not only was forced to use its limited borrowing authority to make those payments to the US Treasury, but it also effectively uses postal workers’ retirement funds to subsidize the national debt in a manner similar to the raiding of Social Security trust funds.

The same law also prohibits the Postal Service from raising its rates to cover the actual cost of delivery, or seeking new revenue streams. A recent 1-cent increase in first-class stamps only covers the increase in inflation. A nickel increase might erase the deficit.

Before the bill was passed in 2006, the USPS was profitable and debt-free. From 2007 to 2012, the Postal Service reported losses of $31.8 billion, with 85% of those deficits a direct result of the pre-funding mandate, the Delivering For America coalition reported. Pre-funding of retiree health benefits accounted for 94% of the Postal Service losses in the first half of fiscal year 2012.

In fact, USPS reported a $100 million operational profit during the first quarter of FY 2013 (ending Dec. 31). It earned $17.7 billion in revenue and had $17.6 billion in expenses, excluding $1.4 billion in payments for health benefits for future retirees. The decline in first-class mail was more than offset by gains in standard mail and in package deliveries.

We agree with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who worked to pass a bipartisan bill in the Senate last year that would have allowed reforms without cuts in postal service. “The postmaster general cannot save the Postal Service by ending one of its major competitive advantages,” Sanders said. “Cutting six-day delivery is not a viable plan for the future. It will lead to a death spiral that will harm rural America while doing very little to improve the financial condition of the Postal Service. Providing fewer services and less quality will cause more customers to seek other options. Rural Americans, businesses, senior citizens and veterans will be hurt by ending Saturday mail,” Sanders added.

David Morris of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in Minneapolis wrote at Truthout.org that closing local post offices and ending next-day first-class mail delivery to local areas could place a significant burden on the most vulnerable of our citizens. William C. Snodgrass, owner of a pharmacy in North Platte, Neb., told Morris his store mails hundreds of prescriptions a week to residents in mostly rural areas of the state that lack local pharmacies. If first-class delivery were delayed to three days and Saturday mail service also were suspended, a resident whose medicine was mailed on Wednesday might not get it until the following week. “A lot of people in these communities are 65 or 70 years old, and transportation is an issue for them,” said Snodgrass. “It’s impossible for many of my customers to drive 100 miles, especially in the winter, to get the medications they need.”

The Senate passed the bill last year that would update the Postal Service’s business model, allow it to ship beer and wine, recoup more than $11 billion it overpaid into pension funds and protect rural post offices. But the House has resisted action. The Republican platform calls for privatization of the Postal Service and Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has proposed HR 2309, which would set up a new authority with a mandate to restructure the Postal Service and reduce costs “in order to bring the institution back to fiscal solvency.” That is, break the unions.

In March 2012, a USPS witness at the Postal Regulatory Commission acknowledged that a study ordered (but later stopped) by the Postal Service indicated that the combined effects of all the service cuts under consideration, including elimination of Saturday delivery, would reduce mail volume by 10.3%. “The practical effect of such a drastic reduction in mail volume would mean that the lost revenue from customers could actually EXCEED the projected savings,” Delivering For America noted.

“USPS executives cannot save the Postal Service by tearing it apart,” said Cliff Guffey, president of the American Postal Workers Union. “These across-the-board cutbacks will weaken the nation’s mail system and put it on a path to privatization.”

Bob Sloan of the Voters Legislative Transparency Project noted that the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), with the support of right-wing “think tanks” financed by the Koch brothers and other right-wing billionaires, had been pushing for privatization since the 1990s and the “point man” behind the Postal Accountability bill was John McHugh (R-N.Y.), who had been promoting “postal reform” legislation since 1996. He was the sponsor of HR 6407 in 2006.

From 2003 through passage of HR 6407 in 2006, the right-wing cabal worked diligently, getting articles published in favor of privatizing the USPS.

A trio of independent studies by actuarial companies in 2010 found that the Postal Service had a surplus of between $50 billion and $75 billion in its Civil Service Retirement System pension account and up to $7 billion in its Federal Employees Retirement System account.

Rather than shrinking the Postal Service by cutting services and degrading the delivery network, the Postal Service should develop a new business model that looks for new revenue streams.

As more American order products online, there is tremendous potential for boosting USPS revenues from parcel deliveries.

Congress also should relax the constraints on the types of products and services the Postal Service can provide.

Congress also should give the Postal Service more flexibility in pricing its products to reflect the actual cost of providing services.

Remember that providing postal services is a constitutional responsibility. Article 1, Section 8, directs Congress “To establish Post Offices and post Roads.” Nothing about subsidizing oil companies.

President Obama just delivered his State of the Union speech, and he had some great proposals that don’t stand a chance of getting through the teabagger House. We will have more on that in the next issue, but in the meantime, as Congress enters another round of negotiating over budget cuts to stave off the “sequester,” don’t forget to make it clear to your member of Congress and senators that any vote to reduce Social Security benefits, including the “chained CPI,” will get them a primary challenger who will get your vote, regardless of whether President Obama signed off on it. — JMC

From The Progressive Populist, March 1, 2013

---

Populist.com
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us

---

Copyright © 2013 The Progressive Populist
PO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652

Selections from the March 1, 2013 issue

COVER/Andrew Leonard 

Did I kill the post office?

EDITORIAL
Save the Postal Service

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

DISPATCHES
Tea Party puts brakes on immigration reform;
Naturalization helps everybody;
Move to overturn ‘Citizens United’;
D.C. Circuit loses fourth judge;
Move to legalize marijuana;
Bad faith behind Benghazi inquiries;
No drones over Charlottesville ...
BOB BURNETT
Chuck Hagel: Obama’s hatchet man?

NORMAN SOLOMON
Verbal tics and political routines

DON ROLLINS
Obama, race and a moment in time

ROGER BYBEE
Discounting votes via redistricting

WENONAH HAUTER
The nuclear family is about to get radioactive
HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
Obamacare spurs hospital quality

SAM URETSKY
New retirees depend on Social Security
WAYNE O’LEARY
Tax policy flimflam

JOHN BUELL
Liberalism’s uncertain future

MARK ANDERSON
‘Anti-union’ machine targets middle class

BOOK REVIEW/Seth Sandronsky
Locked up and locked out

ROB PATTERSON
Golden age of imported TV

POPULIST PICKS
‘Ted’; ‘Magic Mike’; ‘The Invention of Lying’

and more ...

Bowman vs. Monsanto

From the Heartland, Margot McMillen writes: Today, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear Bowman v. Monsanto, a case that tests the patenting law. That’s about all you can say for it, because unless the Supremes overturn the entire history of Monsanto’s carefully-built legal structure, the decision will bring no changes to family farmers. The structure unfolded over roughly two decades, sort of like this: 1. Monsanto developed a soybean variety that could survive repeated drenching with Roundup, a powerful herbicide that killed every green thing in its path. Monsanto patented the seed, arguing that it was innovative. Then they sold it to farmers and, eventually, food processors, arguing that it was the same as normal soybeans. Indeed, if you buy non-organic soy milk, soy sauce, chocolate made with soy lecithin or any other soy products you are eating this innovative patented soybean. 2. Monsanto’s bean wiped out the ordinary beans all over North America. The first year they were out, farmers stopped cleaning their own seeds and saving them to re-plant. This changed centuries of tradition overnight. 3. Monsanto tested the strength of their patent in court. Many, many times. In 2002, the Supremes ruled that any seed could be patented, whether or not it was “innovative.” Now, Monsanto sees a new chance to test their legal structure, using a case against an old bean farmer from Indiana. As NPR began their story, “Why do so many people hate Monsanto? Is it because this multinational corporation pioneered some enormously successful genetically engineered crops, including corn, soybeans and cotton? Maybe, but I suspect that much of the passion is inspired by Monsanto's hard-line approach to ownership of those crops. Monsanto claims those seeds — and all offspring of those seeds — as its intellectual property. Farmers aren't allowed to save and replant any part of their harvest; if they do, Monsanto takes them to courtand demands large damages. Critics call the company bullying and ruthless.” So what this farmer, Bowman, did, is buy some cheap seeds that were not covered by Monsanto’s label. No patent fee, see? But, since all the beans in Indiana—94%--are Roundup-Ready, patented seeds, he knew they’d have the GMO trait. He sprayed them with Roundup, they survived, he took them to market and then refused to pay the patent fee. Monsanto sued. There ya go. It could be argued that one gene does not a patent make. Sort of like patenting a note on the scale and demanding a fee every time someone plays, say, a G. Or like patenting a color and demanding a fee from artists when they use, say, red. But the law has become so corrupt that an argument for patenting a G or the color red just might fly. Obviously, we need new strategies to kill this legal GMO monster. Farmers need to sue on the basis of side effects of this system, like cotton farmers needing to hand weed half the cotton crop because weeds can’t be killed by Roundup any more. Or folks with allergies should sue on the basis of not being able to kill ragweed with normal herbicides any more. Or farmers with cancer should sue on the basis of exposure to 2,4D or other known carcinogens that USDA has approved for our fields.

Paterno family implements a flawed PR strategy flawlessly

By Marc Jampole

The family of Joe Paterno engaged in a media blitz this week in an effort to convince people that the Penn State sexual abuse report by ex-FBI director Louis Freeh was inaccurate when it said that Joe-Pa was part of the cover-up.  First the family released its own report, titled “Critique of the Freeh Report: The Rush to Injustice Regarding Joe Paterno,” which lambasts the Freeh report and its accusations against the venerated Penn State football coach. Next, Paterno family members signed themselves up for as many media television and radio talk shows as they could. I heard Jay Paterno several times and found him to be articulate, very sympathetic and earnest about what he called the facts.  For a few days, Paterno once again was one of the two or three news stories dominating media coverage.

All in all, the Paternos and their attorneys and public relations counselors did a stellar job of implementing their PR plan.  From the technical standpoint of controlling the media and articulating a set of messages, it was a flawless execution of strategy.

Too bad they didn’t think through the strategy first, because it was wrong.

First of all, it was wrong from the ethical standpoint. The Paternos created another news cycle of stories, thereby inflicting another cycle of pain on the dozens of damaged boys and men victimized by the monster Sandusky.

Let’s assume, though, we’re talking about a business decision only, and not an ethical one. A business decision focuses solely on what’s best for the business (and not the collateral damage that might be inflicted on others). In this case the business is the Joe Paterno legacy and the money that the Paterno family can make from it. From the business standpoint, it was a terrible decision, ranking among the worst since the chairman of BP pretended not to have facts about a disastrous oil spill that as head of the company he should have had or when the chairman of Mylan Inc. claimed that a Federal Drug Administration (FDA) investigation was completed even after the FDA said it wasn’t.

It was just plain stupid for the Paternos to think that releasing an obviously partisan report would move people to exonerate Paterno. If the Paternos had engaged me as their PR counsel, I would have told them to shut up and do nothing for the time being because whatever they said would only make people believe more ardently what they currently believe about the scandal. We won’t know for certain until someone does a legitimate survey, but early reaction in the media suggests that the Paterno plan did fail:  While ardent Paterno supporters have rallied behind the report, those convinced by the Freeh report are criticizing the Paternos, although always with a great deal of respect.

It’s something I call the “mirror” effect, when the new facts or new point of view do nothing but convince people of what they already believed. The new information in a sense holds a mirror up to the people consuming the information. What people see in the mirror is themselves—or to be more specific, their point of view.

Unless the Paternos’ report had showed that Freeh lied or neglected to include exonerating facts, it was bound to have a mirror effect on the public. Too much has already been written and opined on the subject.  Media saturation has already cast in stone both the facts and the way that most people are reacting.

Not only did the Paternos’ PR campaign probably not convince anyone  (or convinced very few) of Joe-Pa’s innocence, it created an additional news cycle, so for one more time, the news media preoccupied itself with the horrible scandal. That can’t help Joe-Pa’s reputation or Penn State’s (even if we forget about the victims).

In any crisis situation, we look for a key fact that pretty much sums up the argument the client wants to make. For example, years ago we had to close down a large factory in a small town and expected trouble from elected officials and problems with the workers. As it turned out, if all the employees of the division had worked for free during the prior two years, the company would have still lost money. That was the key fact we told everyone, and what could have been harsh criticism disappeared. Everyone had the common sense to understand that the business was just not viable. 

In the Penn State child abuse situation, the key fact is the conversation that Joe-Pa had with his assistant Mike McQueary in which McQueary told the head coach he caught Sandusky with a boy in the showers. Paterno kicked the matter to the administration and then neglected to follow-up aggressively to see what was being done.

No matter how hard the Paterno family tries, they can’t get away from that key fact, which establishes that Joe-Pa was culpable.  But that key fact also limits the extent of Paterno’s culpability. No matter what the truth really was, his guilt is tied to the one act (really several acts bundled into one) of not following up on the McQueary accusation.

As time goes by, the public is going to remember fewer of the details of the Sandusky scandal. Paterno’s involvement, tied up as it is in the one action, will seem less terrible, especially when compared to Sandusky’s and perhaps several high-ranking Penn State administrators.  Over time, the football-loving public would weigh Joe-Pa’s legendary reputation and won-loss record against this one (terrible) mistake. Paterno would (and probably still will) end up to be revered as a great, if flawed man. That may not help the current Paterno business franchise today, but nothing can help the current reputation of Joe Paterno except time. 

The impatient and seemingly insensitive Paterno family would have been better off letting the sleeping dog lie.

State of the Climate

From the Heartland, Margot McMillen writes: Attaboy, President Obama! You mentioned Global Climate Change in the State of the Nation address last night. I didn’t stay to watch the punditry or the response, too busy thinking. If there’s any hope we should be hoping, it’s that the scientists are wrong about global warming. They’re wrong about so many things. They believe, for example, that we can pour poisons on the farmland year after year and still raise good, healthy crops. They believe, for example, that the meat from obese, corn-fed cows and hogs can make healthy food for people. They believe that it doesn’t matter if species die, or even entire oceans. So let’s hope that the planet’s climate isn’t changing and that they’re wrong about this. Of course, for me, as one that farms and lives outside much of the time, the proof is indisputable. We have, for example, armadillos in mid-Missouri. This was a species that we excitedly pointed out in Texas when the kids were little, 30 years ago. And we have consistent 105-plus degree days in the summer, too hot to bother watering the tomato plants. This weekend, busloads of college kids will gather for marches in several major cities. One march is in Washington, D.C. and another in Chicago. When I heard “Grant Park” it reminded me of the Vietnam protest days. It took ten years, but we stopped the war. Global climate change—not immigration, abortion, drones, nor even gun control--is the issue of this new generation of activists and kids. Good luck and safe travel to all of them.

Products of the Year a pay-for-play PR trick parading as “People’s Choice” for art of selling

By Marc Jampole

This week’s Parade magazine, in the Sunday issue of virtually every daily newspaper across the country, dedicated its cover and feature story to Products of the Year, which is an annual award given to new consumer products. 

Supposedly the American people vote on these awards, but in fact, the final voters comprise 50,000 shoppers across the country, making the awards more of a survey than anything else. This year, 26 companies were honored in a variety of categories, e.g., food, beverages, personal care and household care. Parade found six trends in the products that won Product of the Year awards:

1. We’re nostalgic, meaning we (the American people as incarnated in the 50,000 fortunate survey participants) like reintroduction of old products.
2. We want no-hassle healthy food.
3. We’re spending more time outside.
4. People are interested in products for menopause
5. We see the value in green, meaning we want environmentally friendly products and packaging.
6. We’re sensitive about our mouths. In other words, there are a lot of new products for our mouths that the 50,000 liked.

As the Parade article notes, these are the awards that marketing mangers want because they can proudly display them on product labels. An award for the industry, perhaps, but our corrupt fascination with the process of process of buying—grand sacrament of the religion of consumerism—convinced Parade editors to make the centerpiece of one of its 52 issues. But then again, most music, movies and television shows are carefully crafted (sometimes with the help of computers) products meant to be consumed as entertainment, and we seem to have an unending thirst for Grammies, Emmys, Oscars and dozens of other imitator awards that have popped over the past few decades.

And thus Parade asks us to stand proudly with the product manager of the 26 winners. Except for one thing: A trip through the instructions for nominating a new product for the prestigious award reveals that finalists have to make a payment of $7,000 and winners are expected to fork over $63,000 for the rights to use the Product of the Year logo.  

In mentioning these payments, the Products of the Year organization reminds us that “Considering that all Finalists receive the results of the nation’s largest study on innovation (an $80,000 value) and all Winners are included in the PR campaign (over $3Million of media exposure), entering for your chance to win the nation’s vote is, to put it bluntly, a no-brainer.” Rarely has the naked sell about a naked sell been so overtly—well—naked.  

Let’s say that there are four finalists for each winner (we never find out), that’s a total kitty of about $2.33 million for the Product of the Year organization, unless it is getting some bucks from Parade; it wouldn’t surprise me which way the funds were flowing on this scam.

How can these people promise a $3.0 million PR campaign when their gross may be as little as $2.3 million? Don’t lose any sleep—these guys will make their car payments. When PR people say, “$3.0 million in media exposure," they usually mean the equivalent of placing $3.0 million in advertising which: 1) isn’t a lot; and 2) you can get with a $50,000 PR program with ease. As it seems these folks have done.

That this kind of organization preys on the ego needs of marketing managers and large companies is not surprising. Even if they have to pay for it, these large companies can smugly trot these awards out to Boards of Directors, securities analysts and shareholders. Perhaps the award can get them more shelf space in supermarkets and other retail outlets, a growing challenge for consumer goods companies.  They can also tell their customers, but why the consumer should care is beyond me.

And what do these companies do about the consumers who go to the Products of the Year website and see that it’s 100% dedicated to selling consumer companies on making an application for a pay-for-play PR opportunity. It seems to matter little that many people know the award is a pay-for-play that is little more than a survey by an entrepreneurial marketing company.

Pretty soon we’ll be able to have an entire calendar of holidays that are totally focused on shopping. Including those holidays created to sell more consumer products, we have a pretty full calendar:

• Product of the Year celebration
• Mother’s Day
• Father’s Day
• Back-to-School Saturday   
• Black Friday Eve (AKA Thanksgiving)
• Black Friday
• Small Business Saturday
• Cyber Monday
• Super Saturday
• Day After Christmas

That’s 10 holidays dedicated to shopping, which aren’t quite as many days as the Catholics dedicate to saints, but remember that the American religion of consumerism is only about a century old. Give us time.

Clarification about drones: they should be used only on a real battlefield

By Marc Jampole

One of my Twitter followers asked a rhetorical question on Twitter and the OpEdge blogsite in response to my recent blog on drones being used to kill American citizens.   The question: Terrorism = war? If so, drone kill is ok.

My response is that even if terrorism is war, that definition in itself doesn’t make it legal or moral to use drones in civilian populations or to hunt down U.S. citizens.

Terrorism is a type of warfare that takes advantage of one of the loopholes in conventional warfare in the 21st century: Don’t attack civilians if you can avoid it and don’t invade countries that are not parties to the dispute. By operating while concealed in civilian populations, often in peaceful countries, terrorists take advantage of these humane rules. It makes it harder to seek out a battle terrorists. On the other hand, a terrorist army is so small that the long-term damage it can do is much less than an army with an air force and bombs. If you don’t believe me, then ask the Iraqi people.

My point, which I may have not made as clearly as I could have the other day, is that drones are okay on the legitimate battle field but not to hunt people in civilian settings.  And drones are never okay against a U.S. citizen. Now if that citizen is in an airplane attacking a U.S. ally and we shoot him or her down, that’s fine. But by virtue of singling out the U.S. citizen in a non-battlefield environment, we have changed the context from hot warfare to peacetime (or wartime) crime. And when we’re talking about crime, we’re talking about due process.

My opinion may or may not have a firm basis in international law. That doesn’t matter to me. I know what’s right and fair, and hunting down U.S. citizens instead of capturing them and bringing them to trial is neither right nor fair. I‘m not willing to pervert our way of life to take out a terrorist.  It lowers us to their level—makes us no better than they are. Besides, it’s not needed: we were winning the war against Al Qaida before we started using drones.

Missouri Lawmakers on the move--Farmers, too

From the Heartland, Margot McMillen writes: One of the best things about politics is the four-day weekend. Marshall and I drove through Jefferson City Thursday evening to find our favorite restaurants closed—the lawmakers had all gone home & there was no business. We’ll find the same thing if we visit the capital on Monday. Some of the General Assembly don’t ooze back until Monday night or Tuesday. In that four-day weekend, the citizens’ e-mail boxes are full of ACTION ALERTS. The Pollution Protection Act is moving. That’s Senate Bill 41. Also, the bill to count energy from old dams as part of the Renewable Energy Standards is moving. House Bill 44. Missouri has 3 old dams, still creating electricity for the state: Keokuk, Ozark Beach and Bagnell. Since these dams have been in existence for decades, far longer than the nuclear plant or most coal-burning plants, they have proven themselves. We should use more water-produced electricity. But they should not be part of the NEW renewable energy standard (RES) count. That was created to bring NEW renewable to the state, like small dams, windmills and solar. We need new production to offset production that’s driving global warming. Final arguments against Medicaid are being heard and arguments for a law to force Missouri electrical consumers to pay the electric bills of consumers of the future. Ameren wants to make it possible to bill consumers to raise money for speculative additions to the grid, like a new nuclear plant. Today, in contrast, utilities have to raise money for new equipment by borrowing, selling bonds or issuing stock. To make our positions clear, we citizens get on the phone and rattle off a message to the legislative answering machines. We send e-mails and faxes, then we write letters to the editor and send copies to our legislators. Even though the fields are resting, this is the busiest time of year for politically active farmers. But there’s still time for fun. Next week, in Auxvasse, there’s the annual loafer’s week at the community center. Every noon, one of the groups hosts a lunch-time fundraiser and folks turn out to play cards, eat, drink coffee and complain to each other. It’s a pretty wonderful tradition. And, last weekend was the annual wagon, draft horse and mule auction in Boone County. Prices are up—way—and I saw a lot of good animals taken out of the ring without selling because the owners opted to keep them rather than take what I thought was an excellent price. I asked one of the good old boys what he thought was going on. He said he thinks demand is about the same, but fewer folks are raising draft horses and mules. So prices go up. I came home with a new harness, but the wrong size. I have to call the dealer and get a bigger one. My neighbor Barb came home with a new, shiny, four-wheeled cart. “You buying that for yourself or your grandchild?” asked the fellow sitting next to her. She said she had to think about it for a long time before answering, “for myself, I guess.” We had a great time yesterday with our equines and new equipment, just trying it out. The critters—a horse, a pony, a donkey—had as much fun as we did. Lucky we squeezed it in when we did. Today, it’s letters-to-the-editor-writing day and, again, it’s raining.

Missouri Senate Bill 41 protects polluters

From the Heartland, Margot McMillen writes: Back a couple of weeks ago, when the people had prevailed on an issue, my friend John congratulated me and I answered, “we always win.” Of course, I shoulda said, “we always win and then the cheaters come back and we win again and the cheaters come back with more money and we . . .” because that’s how it goes. They wear you down until you’re just exhausted. So, yesterday, I got the e-mail that they’re back at the legislature with “The Pollution Protection Act” that says citizens can’t sue polluters of any kind, including smelly CAFOs or garbage dumps or any nuisance that has gotten a permit. Here it is, short and sweet: 1. A person shall not maintain an action to enjoin, abate, or recover damages for a private nuisance based upon an air emission or water or solid waste discharge, other than the placement of nuclear waste, where the emission or discharge was expressly authorized by and is not in violation of a term or condition of: (1) A statute or regulation; (2) A license, permit, or order that is issued after public comment by a municipal, county, state, or federal government and subject to continuing compliance oversight, periodic review by the issuing agency, and renewal on a periodic basis; or (3) A court order or judgment. 2. The provisions of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply if the permit or order creates a condition not reasonably foreseeable at the time of issuance or if the permit holder purposefully fails to disclose facts or conditions that are relevant in the issuance of the permit or order. So I’ve been on the phone this morning, calling Senators. Vote No on Senate Bill 41. It’s pro-polluter and anti-citizen. And, hey, dear citizen! If you haven’t had this already, it’s coming to your state, too!

Bruce Willis gives perfect example of the slippery “slippery slope” argument

By Marc Jampole

The very fact that Bruce Willis has a say in the public controversy about gun control demonstrates once again that the United States suffers from the advanced stages of celebriosis, defined as excessive brain damage from focusing too much on the lives and thoughts of celebrities.

What pro-gun die-hard Willis said earlier this week is a classic in one special rhetorical device used by both sides to defend not changing a bad situation: the slippery slope.

Without using the expression, “slippery slope,” Willis caught the essence of its silliness with his statement: “I think that you can't start to pick apart anything out of the Bill of Rights without thinking that it's all going to become undone…If you take one out or change one law, then why wouldn't they take all your rights away from you?”

And why will that happen of necessity? Just because we want to run people through background checks before they buy guns, how does that lead to taking away the right to assemble or the right not to have to house soldiers (3rd amendment)? With the “slippery slope” metaphor, the first act is like taking a step off a very icy hill. The exhilaration of the moment makes you lose balance and slide all the way down the hill, into tyranny, communism, lawlessness or whatever the bête noir du jour.

 

The slippery slope is a fanciful absurdity that’s different from taking something to its extreme because the argument for the slippery slope states that we will slide of necessity by taking that first step. Obviously it’s just not so.

 

The classic slippery slope was actually a line of dominos, representing countries in Asia, all set to fall to the communists if the first one, South Viet Nam, did.  The sheer philosophical necessity of all the dominos falling once Viet Nam did haunted a generation of U.S. government officials, leading to a war of unparallelled brutality and suffering. But when we lost Viet Nam, most of the other dominos stayed standing—and in fact in recent decades Viet Nam has moved into capitalist circles. There was no domino effect and there is no slippery slope.

 

In the interest of balance, one article quoting Willis’ inanities included the opposing views of someone equally as qualified to speak publicly on the issue of gun control—since he too has used plenty of fake guns in Hollywood shoot-em-ups. It was good old slurry-voiced Rocky, AKA Sylvester Stallone, who supports a ban on assault weapons, saying “I know people get (upset) and go, ‘They're going to take away the assault weapon.’ Who needs an assault weapon? Like really, unless you're carrying out an assault. You can't hunt with it. Who's going to attack your house, a (expletive) army?”

 

Maybe that’s the problem? Maybe Bruce is confusing his filmic chimeras in which an eff-ing army could attack his house with the real world? Maybe Bruce has taken a few too many punches in his movie roles? It’s good to see that Rocky hasn’t.

Killing a U.S. citizen without due process and torture – what’s the difference?

By Marc Jampole

For about 10 years, I have been embarrassed for my country because our leaders condoned and committed torture, and even dreamed up fanciful legal justifications.

 

Perhaps the most odious of the legal arguments made by the Bush II administration for sticking someone’s head under water until near drowning and hanging them cold and naked by their arms for hours was that if the President ordered it, it could not by definition be illegal.

 

Now we see this justification used again, and this time by the administration of Barack Obama.  I am not only embarrassed for my country, but personally ashamed since I voted for the guy—twice.

 

But mostly I’m angry.

 

Obama’s legal team is essentially saying that it’s okay to murder a U.S. citizen if the president says it’s okay. What about due process? That’s a nicety that gets lost because the assumption is that we’re talking about terrorists in other countries whom we intend to take out with a clean drone hit.

 

Of course, that’s today. Tomorrow it could be in our own country. Or it could be with a bullet or strangulation. Or maybe an auto accident that kills a few innocent bystanders.  Of course, that’s all slippery slope speculation, except for those familiar with the secret history of the CIA and U.S. military. I advise readers to review the deaths of Allende or Diem. It’s not a matter of one thing leading to another, it’s a matter of publicly acknowledging something the U.S. government has done for decades, only now saying that it’s legal.

 

The drone makes it impossible to deny American involvement in state ordered assassination. At least until other nations get a hold of drone technology, which they will.

 

I have nothing against the U.S. use of drones, but only against legitimate enemies enrolled in real armies during real battles. Drones on real battlefields make a lot of sense. The problem is that all you can do with a drone is kill. If they figure out the robotics to capture and transport the accused to a military base, drones would become a wonderful tool for terrorists.

 

But U.S. citizens and non-combatants of all nationalities all deserve the due process that is denied someone by a drone killing. They deserve due process, but more importantly, so do the American people.

 

Whether by drone or bullet, killing a U.S. citizen without first giving that person a trial is illegal and un-American.  The President should take some time off from pandering to gun enthusiasts with target practice photo ops and look deep into his heart and ask himself if he really wants to be remembered with Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon and Bush II as perpetrators of illegal state violence.

Syngenta and Boonville, Missouri

From the Heartland, Margot McMillen writes: A huge shoutout to the village of Boonville, Missouri, on the check they've received from Syngenta AG for pollution of the city water system. Boonville and 88 other Missouri cities sued because Atrazine in the water was costing the citizens money. Altogether, our state gained $10 million in the suit. Atrazine is a farm chemical applied in the spring, our rainy season. It kills weeds but also washes into the creeks, river, clouds, oceans, ground water, and, of course, us. The cities that won the lawsuit were getting their drinking water from surface water--creeks and, in Boonville's case, the Missouri River. No one had done much investigation on atrazine, which has been used for decades, until 2002 when the Academy of Sciences found out that 0.1 part per billion could turn male frogs into hermaphrodites. A year later, Mizzou found the chemical contributed to poor semen quality in men. Then they found out it that along with reproductive problems, atrazine can create cardiovascular problems. Atrazine is cheap to produce and cheap to buy, which is why it is in such high use. But the side effects are expensive in terms of human health. This is the truth of most of these agricultural chemicals. We're getting them in our drinking water, and farm land (not to mention farmers) is being ruined for generations to come. The lawsuit against Syngenta is just the first step. These chemical producers and their stockholders should pay. And, in this case, they are paying. Justice at long last.

Farmers strike back

From the Heartland, Margot McMillen writes:
        If you've been reading my blogs about what's happening to farms because of the pollution of herbicides and genetically modified crops, you may be wondering what's happening with farmers. You might be thinking to yourself that if you were handling chemicals known to cause cancer and if you were fighting superweeds that cannot be killed with poisons you'd be doing things differently.
        And, add to that list--cancer and superweeds--the growing infertility of livestock and young men, the increased work load due to the failure of GMO crops, the patenting system that prevents farmers from saving the seeds they have raised on their own places, the fact that the only guy making money is the guy selling chemicals, and, quite frankly, the damn doubt about the future. Wouldn't you be doing things differently?
        Well, yes, many farmers are figuring this out. In the last couple of days, I've talked to two guys with a lot of land--probably 2200 acres each--who are transitioning to organic or to non-gmo, saved seeds. They are diversifying the number of crops they raise and looking for new markets. With consumers getting wise also, we can help each other move into a different, cleaner kind of agriculture.
        We don't have a moment to lose.

Dow and Nature Conservancy

From the Heartland, Margot McMillen writes:
        As we've seen, genetic engineering of crops to resist Roundup has resulted in Roundup-resistant weeds all over the Midwest. That is, weeds that can't be killed with this herbicide that killed everything 20 years ago.  Industry's solution is to create a new class of genetically altered crops that resist a different herbicide, and they've chosen to use 2,4 D, created by Dow Chemical and other manufacturers. It is obvious that the new poisons will follow the same route as the old poisons, creating new superweeds that will require new genetically altered solutions.
        To ramp up production of 2,4D, figuring that they'll need tons of the stuff, they're shmoozing with Texas. And, to make the new production a public relations success, they've recruited the Nature Conservancy to manage land around the plant and evaluate the effectiveness of nature in clean up.
         According to a brochure they've been distributing around Freeport, Texas, on the Brazos River, the lucky winner community will reap the investment of "more than $4 billion" and "more than 325 new jobs" after "4,500 construction jobs" to build the plants.
        The Nature Conservancy will contribute by:
        "Publishing papers in appropriate peer-reviewed scientific journals to describe the
results from the Freeport pilot; Identifying three green infrastructure projects at Dow sites where the team can determine the viability of natural infrastructure supplanting man-made engineered
solutions; Integrating ecosystem services data into Version 2 of BESTCAT, releasing the
new version, and publishing a paper on its capabilities and practical applications in scientific literature."
        So, while thousands of new acres of cropland in the Midwest are impaired and thousands of new cases of human cancer and Parkinson's are risked, Dow will be able to claim the environmental high ground around their plant in Texas.

Without humanistic, redistributive approach, we have much to fear from current automation

By Marc Jampole

The Pollyannas and Panglosses among us like to look back at past instances of the automation of production or service-delivery as proof that the economy adjusts and people find newer, better-paying and more fulfilling jobs. A recent example is Catherine Rampell’s article in yesterday’s New York Times “Sunday Review” section titled “Raging (Again) Against the Robots.”

In her rambling, Rampell trots out the usual fictional suspects: The Golem, Capek’s R.U.R., Kurt Vonnegut’s Piano Player. To these literary manifestations of the fear of robots, she adds cursory mentions of the agricultural and software revolutions. A flippant approach to this mostly fictional material trivializes the problems caused by automation. 

While it is true that people eventually did get better jobs after farming was mechanized, the argument is absurd that warnings against automation in the past proved false and therefore the current warnings will not pan out either. History does not repeat the past in the same way all the time. Just because something worked out in the past doesn’t mean it will work out again.

There are many differences between automating farming and manufacturing in the 19th and early 20th centuries and the current automating of engineering, medical, retail and teaching jobs in the early part of the 21st century:

• The jobs replaced in the industrial revolution were tedious and back-breaking physical labor. The current wave of machines replaces primarily “brain” jobs filled by middle class professionals and paraprofessionals.
• There were few limits in the world markets in the 19th century, so jobs were created by expanding markets. Now there are many limits to market expansion, including increased competition from other countries and the limits to growth imposed by the dual impact of climate disruption and resource scarcity.
• The historical means to absorb excess labor no longer exists. The citizens of western democracy and many totalitarian regimes such as China and Iran will no longer tolerate a high number of war casualties. There are few habitable wildernesses like the American West to which excess populations can move.

There is also the question: does this new technology increase the quality of life or does it merely make the process cheaper? Exhibit #1 against the mindless implementation of technology is the rush to on-line university classes.  In how many ways is a live class better? The ability to interact spontaneously off on fruitful tangents. The greater need to pay attention. The greater difficulty in cheating.  It also keeps more teachers working.

We’ve discovered that we can take technology too far in many realms, even farming, which, with the return to small, local farms and the increase in organic farming, has seen some reverse substitution of human labor and thought power for technology in recent decades.

 

We also have to ask ourselves what we can do to help the workers affected by the current wave of automation. Their jobs are never coming back, and to a large extent the jobs being created in our slowly gathering economic recovery are low-paying.

 

Either more people are going to fall out of the middle class and into poverty or we are going to have to take a look at how we split the profits resulting from the increased productivity of knowledge-based processes such as teaching, engineering and health care.  It starts with raising the minimum wage, which leads to higher wages at all levels. Instead of trying to destroy teachers unions with charter schools and pension givebacks, our public policies should foster increased unionization of other knowledge workers, since unions raise the incomes of workers. We should also start thinking seriously about lowering the hours considered full-time for a job to 30 a week without a decrease in gross pay. 

 

The other alternative is to face a U.S. economy in which virtually everyone is poor except for a handful of rich people and a sprinkling of middle class and upper middle class professionals.