No Worse

Trey Smith

Now we are told that the Newtown, Connecticut killer was unique, evil, crazed. He may have been all of those things but he was not the outlier we are told. If Adam Lanza had been wearing a police officer or soldier’s uniform, he could have killed anyone he wanted without fear of punishment. He also could have expected to have nothing but praise heaped upon him.

Lanza was no worse than the drone operators and soldiers who act on government orders. The only difference is that they have permission from the state and approval of the populace to kill at will. There will be no end to senseless violence unless Americans affirm that they want it to stop and that there should no longer be any sacrosanct killers.
~ from Freedom Rider: Killing Children by Margaret Kimberley ~

I realize that some readers may have grown weary of my continued insistence to focus on this overall topic. We get your point, they say. Why beat it into the ground?

My response is: It needs to be beaten into the ground.

Kimberley, a writer I have grown to admire, makes an astute point. We are a nation of killers. Non-sanctioned killings are met with horror and emotional angst. Sanctioned killings, too often, are met with a yawn, at best.

If you recoil in disgust and dismay at Newtown, you SHOULD experience the very same emotional response WHEREVER and to WHOMEVER it occurs. Senseless murder is senseless murder. The death of innocent babes is an atrocity, regardless of whose babes they are.

The abject sorrow wrought by families and friends knows no boundaries. Do you really think the agony felt by the parents of those 20 children senselessly slaughtered in Connecticut is deeper or more worthy than the agony felt by Afghan, Yemeni or Palestinian families who have learned that the lives of their children has been ruthlessly cut short?

I hope this is something you've thought about today amidst all the trappings of this holiday season.

Tobacco Pouch

Trey Smith

America has a long history of killing little children. Hundreds of thousands of children were taken from Africa to be enslaved in America, little children were lynching victims and children are now killed by drones, sanctions, and the other aggressions that this country meets out to the rest of the world. Israel, America’s client state, kills children in Lebanon or Gaza or wherever it feels the desire to carry out its evil intent. Entire families have been wiped out in Gaza, but the president who so solemnly mourns the loss of life in Connecticut, defends the carnage when his ally is the perpetrator.

America has a long history of state supported killing and the killings didn’t exclude children. Indian children were victimized from the moment the first Europeans arrived in their land. The British, Spanish and French all brought disease, enslavement and outright slaughter to the first American nations. On November 29, 1864, Colorado militia troops killed over 200 Arapaho and Cheyenne at Sand Creek. The victims were almost all women, children and old men. Eyewitness accounts told of children being shot, a fetus removed from its mother and scalped, and mutilations of many victims such as the Cheyenne chief White Antelope. “Besides scalping him the soldiers cut off his nose, ears, and testicles – the last for a tobacco pouch ...”

It is not only possible, but imperative that we remember all of the child victims in this country’s history. When the president goes to Aurora, Colorado or Tucson, Arizona or Newtown, Connecticut or wherever a crazed person kills en masse we cannot just allow ourselves to be drawn along with the tide of emotions. We must stop, think, and remember that indiscriminate violence made America what it is today.

~ from Freedom Rider: Killing Children by Margaret Kimberley ~

As a keen lover of the history of 19th century America, I can tell you that there are reports of the slaughter of native women and children too numerous to list. When most Americans read of these atrocities, the general sentiment is that it was a different time and place. America has grown up since then.

While it's true that our government doesn't target children in this country as much as in the past -- though blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, American Muslims and the poor, in general, might dispute that -- we have simply trained our guns predominantly on those who live outside of our borders.

Will You Let Him Get Away With It?

Trey Smith

While the president is certainly subjected to overtly racist attacks, that does not mean he should be above scrutiny and criticism. He is planning a tour “beyond the beltway” to make his case for a so-called “grand bargain” of austerity measures which will weaken the economy, cause great human suffering, and move us closer to eliminating the threadbare safety net.

The case for the grand bargain consists of two very big lies. One, that austerity will bring the country out of recession, and two, that entitlement programs played a role in creating the federal deficit. It is government spending which can bring the economy out of recession, but conservatives want none of it. They want to starve the beast as it were and kill all government spending that is not related to defense. It is hard to believe the second fact, that entitlements are not responsible for the budget deficit, when we are constantly told otherwise. If a lie is told often enough without rebuttal it is treated as fact.

Years of Democratic accommodation to corporate interests has brought us to the point where we must fight a Democratic president in order to preserve programs which came into being because of the Democratic party. Not so long ago Social Security was called “the third rail of politics” because it was politically untouchable. It was inconceivable that a Democratic president would take his entitlement cutting show on the road, loudly and publicly demanding support for making right wing fantasies come true. Steadfast support for Social Security was always the lowest hanging fruit for Democrats. Now we can’t count on the party that markets itself as protecting our interests to make even the smallest effort on our behalf.
~ from Freedom Rider: Grand Bargain is the Satan Sandwich by Margaret Kimberley ~

If you fancy yourself as a Democrat or a liberal, will you stand by while the Democrats help to eviscerate the social safety net? This is no mere rhetorical question. Our Democratic Party President desperately wants to usher in austerity for the masses, while shielding the rich from as much pain as possible.

So, the big question facing all of you Obama supporters is: Will you let him get away with it without putting up any kind of a fight?

Sadly, if we look at the past 4 years, the answer is a resounding YES! You'll wring your hands and twist in your seats, but you'll tell anyone who will listen that since "Obama is our guy, we mustn't criticize him." You'll rationalize that he wants to do the right thing, but those nasty Republicans have forced his hand. You'll come up with one hundred and one excuses to say it's not his fault.

He KNOWS you will do this for him. In fact, he's counting on it. He is like an abusive husband with a wife of low self-esteem. Every time he hits you, all he has to do is murmur a few sweet nothings in your ear and you'll take him back in a heartbeat. You'll blame yourself for his abusive behavior and you will promise him that you will be more faithful in the future.

For all the great faith you put in him, he is not going to change. He will continue to kick, hit and slap you until you -- and the rest of us -- are nothing more than a bloody pulp. Once the final deed is done, you still won't blame him for choosing to be an abuser.

What does this say about you?

A Different Sort of Racism IV

Trey Smith

I said I was going to write three of these, but I realized that the author of the third article cited made a very important point that needs to be addressed.

Mainlining Obama emboldens liberals to express their racism in the socially-acceptable way of hating another “other,” the Muslims, whose women cover up their heads and sometimes aren’t allowed to drive, things that keep white liberal women awake at night. These liberals are righteously certain that head scarves and no learner’s permits are bigger problems for Muslims than racist American goons kicking down Muslim doors at midnight and taking away adult males to be tortured and jailed for years without charge or trial, or Muslim children living in constant terror of America’s flying killer robots that circle the skies above their schools and houses. Enjoy your freedom, ladies, as you drive from your nonpaying job at home to your three/fourths-paying job at work while being carpet-bombed by the messages of “your” society, freedom central, that says you’re either good for sex or good for nothing. But, damn, those head scarves could lead to sharia law — and lawn jockeys replaced by camel jockeys in the coming Allahbama! The horror, the horror…
~ from Your Brain on Obama: Waiting for the Man by Randy Shields ~

Let's face it: Racism exists in us all. It may not be an overt racism, but it appears to be rather natural to favor those who look like we do. We often give the benefit of the doubt to people who believe like we do or wave the same flag as we do, so it shouldn't surprise us that we will behave more compassionately or judiciously to those whose skin color is the same as ours.

Liberals like to believe they have gotten past all that. They like to think they embody the "dream" of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. of judging a person by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. It is a lie, a damn lie!

They suck up to persons of color who are in power, while living in segregated communities. They salute our black President, but they still cross to the other side of the street when they see an unknown black man at night. They gush about living in a post-racial world, while they allow their racist tendencies to fixate on a new target: Arabs.

It is because white liberals are doing their damnedest not to allow their racist tendencies toward blacks accidentally to bubble to the surface that they need a new outlet for their animus. Muslims become an easy target. By despising Muslims and everything they stand for, they can channel their racism in politically correct ways.

And so, they can embrace the first President of color, a man who regular kills other people of color, and not see the rampant contradiction.

A Different Sort of Racism III

Trey Smith

This is your brain on Obama:

Smoking Obama increases apathy and reduces empathy, regardless of race, creed or color. Now blacks, as well as whites, don’t care in the least how many dark-skinned people America kills throughout the world. Before the Obama epidemic, the entire American working class had no class consciousness, but now it’s most historically progressive element (blacks) has no race consciousness either. (Blacks, like all factions of the Democrats, only have symbol consciousness — tangible improvements are never required.) For American capitalism, that Obama is some good shit.

Using Obama makes some people prone to wild mood swings and abrupt changes in personality. In their brainwashed cult-like state, Obama users have turned on friends and colleagues who kept their principles regardless of which capitalist flunky commits the crimes. What were shameful atrocities ten minutes before Obama was inaugurated suddenly became badges of “toughness” after he swore to uphold/destroy the Constitution. (Take your pick — that’s what he does.) Obama users need treatment but, unfortunately, funds have been fast and furiously diverted to buy guns for Mexican drug cartels.

Sometimes the initial Obama trip will ruin a life for years. After that first big hit of Obama on election night four years ago, liberals soon papered over their “Question Authority” bumper stickers with a smorgasbord of new ones: “War Is Oftentimes The Answer,” “Love Your Mother Drone,” “All Options Are On The Table,” “Visualize World Domination,” “Live Simply — That’s All You Can Afford Now, Assholes,” “The Earth Does Not Belong To Us — It Belongs To The US,” “Please Spy On Me And Strip Me And Check My Cavities And Make Me Safe,” and “Indefinite Detention And Execution Without Charge Or Trial: Fuck Yeah!”
~ from Your Brain on Obama: Waiting for the Man by Randy Shields ~

One of the ongoing critiques of the generalized progressive movement has been its dominant white hue. Various organizations -- the ones who fight against poverty or racial injustice, for example -- too often are led by white middle class activists. Black progressives frequently complain that the very people these groups say they represent are frozen out of meaningful leadership positions and exert little influence on the overall agenda.

From my experience, these are not unfair characterizations. Unconscious racial undertones exist in progressive groups just as much as the more overt racism of conservative groups. Consequently, many white activists have become very sensitive to these types of accusations.

Enter Barack Obama. As his 2008 presidential campaign gathered steam, white activists flocked to it. They badly wanted to show that they could get behind a person of color. To show their loyalty, a rather unconscious decision was made not to criticize their standard-bearer, even when he deserved it! They had no problems whatsoever criticizing a female candidate -- one Hillary Clinton -- but they wouldn't hold Obama to the same standard. (It was odd to see Clinton criticized for positions she held in common with Obama.)

This same rule of thumb has held up through this year's election season.

There have been many times on a plethora of issues that progressives rightly SHOULD have condemned the actions of the Obama administration, but in almost every case, that criticism was muted or, more frequently, entirely nonexistent. It is sad to say that one of the chief reasons that far too many white progressives have swallowed their tongues is that it has become a new racist-based policy not to challenge Obama BECAUSE he is black.

This new schema has been further reinforced by the overt racism of groups like the Tea Party. They detest Barack Obama for the simple reason that he IS black. Because of the color of his skin, nothing he says or does is acceptable. If the President went on TV and said, "The sky is blue, so have a nice day," Faux News, Rush Limbaugh and the conservative echo chamber would declare that Obama's greeting only proves that he is, in fact, a foreign-born Muslim Socialist!

Since diehard white conservatives hate Obama for being black, diehard white liberals love him for the same reason!! Neither side actually takes much of any time to examine the policies of this black man who happens to be President of the United States. They don't look at his actions to try to discern if they match up with his rhetoric.

On the right AND the left, the chief variable is the man's race. Both are racist; just in different ways.

A Different Sort of Racism II

Trey Smith

At our October 12 affair at Harlem's Riverside Church, Black Agenda Report's executive editor Glen Ford said that the most damning and lasting result of the Obama presidency might be that black America was losing its moral compass

Those of us, this author included, who reached adulthood in the brief eight or nine year heyday of the modern Freedom Movement got to see our elders shuck the shackles of what was proper and legal and take to the streets in defiance of evil in authority. We learned that going door to door, organizing our friends, our neighbors, our fellow workers on the job, calling meetings and demonstrations, and standing up to unjust authority, at whatever cost was the highest duty of citizenship and the only way things ever changed.

During the eight years Obama will have served in the White House, Ford observed, black youth can expect to see nothing like this. Where we learned to be skeptical of what our government, and often our elders told us, they are learning to believe, or pretend to believe whatever they're told. Where we learned the highest goal of the struggle was improving the lives of ordinary people, they are learning that the highest goals are the big house, the prestigious career, the large lifestyle of those who serve the power and unlock the mysteries of the Market.

They'll go through a period as long as the zenith of the Freedom Movement without witnessing one major instance of black defiance of unjust power, of illegitimate authority, or illegal war. And of course it's not as though injustices of class and race, or illegal and genocidal wars waged with our tax dollars and with our lives have gone away; they have not.
~ from Doing Us Proud: Black America Has Lost Its Moral Compass by Bruce A. Dixon ~

It is hard for me to imagine that the great civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would be very impressed with the first black president. I'm sure he would have been proud that a black person had been elected; I just don't think he would have been too happy it happened to be this specific individual!

King was all about speaking truth to power and Obama is far more about sucking up to power. He has set the progressive movement back by generations.

Because so many black progressives don't want to criticize someone they insanely believe is "one of their own," they have shoved a rag down their own throats! They sit idly by as Obama calculates how to destroy the last vestiges of the progressive vision.

Of course, it's not just black progressive who have gagged themselves; it's the vast majority of progressives, regardless of race or ethnicity. By voluntarily standing down, Obama and his minions fear little backlash and so they can now out-bush Bush...and few will be the wiser!

A Different Sort of Racism I

Trey Smith

For my next three posts -- this one today and two tomorrow -- I'm going to feature snippets of articles from the Black Agenda Report (BAR). The editors and writers at BAR have not drunk the Obama Kool-Aid and have been very critical of the president and his administration.

African Americans, the most politically volatile and left-oriented U.S. constituency – a people specifically targeted by Wall Street’s machinations – had an historical role to play. “The man STRUCK,” said Frederick Douglass, “is the man to cry out.” But Black folks had already been struck silly with Obama’Laid.

The rulers had, at long last, found our Achilles Heel, the weakest spot in African Americans’ political armor. Our reflexive racial solidarity (actually, an aspect of Black nationalism), which had served us so well, for so long, short-circuited our progressive political instincts. We became fodder for Obama, the slicker-than-Slick-Willie corporate guy with the brown face.

Despite his background, Obama knew enough about African Americans to pay us no attention and less respect. There would be no penalty. Black folks had convinced themselves that Obama needed our protection; it never occurred to most of us that we needed protection from him – not during the primaries, when he praised Ronald Reagan’s reaction to the “excesses” of the Sixties, or when he refused to endorse even a voluntary halt to home foreclosures (while Hillary Clinton and John Edwards endorsed “voluntary” and mandatory moratoriums, respectively); not in the last weeks before his inauguration, when Obama announced that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and all “entitlements” would be “on the table” for chopping under his administration.
~ from Victory! – for the Non-Resistance by Glen Ford ~

One of the exit polls I saw on Election Day is that 93 percent of blacks voted for Barack Obama. While blacks historically have strongly supported whoever the Democratic Party candidate happened to be, 93% still is an eye-popping number.

A number that high suggests one thing: Blacks voted en masse for the incumbent because of the color of his skin! If 93% of whites had voted for Romney, you know as well as I do that people would say this amounts to racism. The same is true if blacks vote for a candidate simply because he too is black.

IF Obama had worked diligently over the past 4 years to address issues important to black Americans, that would be one thing. But as editor Glenn Ford and others at BAR have shown, this is not the case at all. In order to appeal to white folk, Obama has gone out of his way NOT to address black themes. Most of his economic plans and initiatives negatively impact the poor and, like it or not, our racist society dictates that a significant number of blacks sadly fall into this category.

A Moral Option

Trey Smith

Progressives are protecting less and less with each election cycle. The winner-take-all electoral system makes other parties irrelevant and relegates them to spoiler status, but the argument against supporting them is weaker as the system deteriorates. The argument that voting changes nothing for the average person is a valid one, and the sight of Romney and Obama declaring agreement on the issues of empire and finance makes that point quite clearly.

We are left with a plea to honor the memories of those who sacrificed, sometimes with their lives, during the freedom struggles of the 1960s. But those people fought and died for full citizenship rights, of which voting was just a part. No one today should worry about dishonoring or dismissing their sacrifice by refusing to take part in the farce that national elections have now become.

It is acceptable not to vote at all, or to vote for someone other than Barack Obama. Some who claim to be leftists argue against particular Obama policies only to conclude at election time that he should be elected anyway. These people undercut their own arguments and make a mockery of themselves. Their pleas to stop surveillance or drone assassinations or the destruction of nations such as Libya and Syria become hollow because they refuse to acknowledge the corruption that is an integral part of the system.

Arguing for the re-election of a person who so clearly is a danger to the nation and to the world is at best illogical, and at worst is immoral. The time for defending tiny victories should end. Barack Obama and the Democrats should know that their critics mean business, and will cease supporting them. Racist statements from right wing pundits and bizarre statements about rape and pregnancy shouldn’t fool anyone into supporting policies that are wrong for this country and for the world.

On November 6th it is perfectly acceptable, morally right, and politically principled to boycott the election or to vote for a party other than the Democrats.
~ from Not Voting for Obama by Margaret Kimberley ~

I realize that many US readers feel compelled to vote for tweedledee or tweedledum. That's what we've been taught since we were knee high. Voting both is a privilege AND a responsibility. If you don't vote, the thinking goes, you have no right to complain.

There might be some truth to this axiom IF we had two or more viable candidates who represented divergent perspectives. The problem we face, however, is that the only candidates who profess divergent views aren't viable (the system is rigged against them) and the only two that are viable agree on most of the salient issues facing the nation and the world.

What it comes down to is a moral dilemma. Do you choose to participate in a system rigged to produce an outcome acceptable to the elite or do you choose not to be a party to it? I've chosen not to be participate in the farce. How about you?

Some Difference! 17/17

Trey Smith

The rabbit hole goes still deeper. We didn't have to stop at these fifteen points of Democrat-Republican agreement, but you get the idea. Just as in Frederick Douglass's day, the more Democrats and Republicans agree, the worse it is for the rest of us.

There was a time when black America had its own principles, and formed the immovable leftmost rock of the American polity. But in the 21st century, that rock has been dissolved by a tide of corporate money. With the rise of a cohort of black corporate Democrats and a right wing black Democrat in the White House there is no longer even any vaguely leftish influence on Democratic party politics. The House Progressive Caucus is the biggest in Congress, with over seventy members, but is powerless and irrelevant. Except for stylistic flourishes, the music they listen to and the color of some faces, the differences between Republicans and Democrats seem to exist mostly in political marketing campaigns and inside our own heads.
~ from Closer Than You Think: Top 15 Things Romney and Obama Agree On by Bruce A. Dixon ~

Are there differences between Democrats and Republicans? Of course there are, but surprisingly there are NOT that many differences on the issues that impact each one of us personally in our day-to-day lives. No, the chief differences are in the realm of religious/cultural issues and, even here, it is not a rigid line.

Take the issue of abortion. For one thing, there are Democrats who oppose it and Republicans who are pro-choice. But the more important issue is that abortion is NOT an issue that impacts most voters. No one is suggesting laws that would force women who oppose abortions to have them.

Take the issue of gay marriage. Just as above, there are Democrats who oppose it and Republicans who support it. No one is promoting laws or rules that would force heterosexual individuals into marrying homosexuals. If you aren't being forced or mandated to enter into a gay marriage, then this issue really doesn't affect your life.

What drives me batty is the number of people who cast their votes based on issues that don't really impact them personally, while ignoring the ones that do! So many voters will vote for the candidate who best matches up with their religious or cultural values without considering ANY OTHER meaningful criteria like supporting bailouts for corporate criminals or advancing policies that lead to the degradation of the voter's own community.

Look, if cultural or religious matters are important to you, fine. But let's work to get our nation on its economic feet again. Let's work to reverse the march towards irreversible climate change. Let's work to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. Let's work to get our communities vibrant again.

Once we get these things accomplished, then you can vote for candidates based on their cultural/religious positions all you want. In the meantime, if you keep wasting your votes on Democrats and Republicans -- two parties that agree on so much -- the United States will continue on its downward spiral toward oblivion.

Some Difference! 16/17

Trey Smith

1 The 40 year war on drugs must continue, and even mention of the prison state is unthinkable. There are 2.3 million people in US prisons and jails today, a per capita total that beats the world. Politicians of both parties wag their fingers in multiple directions. But as Michelle Alexander points out, if the US prison population were rolled back to say, only 1 million, the level it was about 1980, this would mean one million jobs, as contractors, sheriffs, cops, bailiffs, judges and functionaries of all kinds would have to go out and find real jobs.
~ from Closer Than You Think: Top 15 Things Romney and Obama Agree On by Bruce A. Dixon ~

Just like his predecessor, Obama has gone after those states who have had the temerity to legalize medical marijuana! Though both Democrats and Republicans talk about the important concept of states rights, they only defend this ideal when states pass laws that they like!

There is no logical reason for marijuana to be illegal, IF alcohol and cigarettes are legal. If you truly believe that pot is a health hazard, then you should jump on the band wagon to outlaw the consumption of liquor and the smoking/chewing of tobacco.

Of course, few "serious" politicians would recommend this because both employ powerful lobbies and contribute big money into campaign coffers. In addition, since our prison system is more and more being shifted to the private sector, the legalization of weed would mean far less inmates and this would wreck the bottom lines of the prison-industrial complex.

I mean, we can't allow a sane public policy decision to bankrupt a few well-connected corporations, can we?

Some Difference! 15/17

Trey Smith

2 No minimum wage increases for you, no right to form a union, no right to negotiate or strike if you already have a union, and no enforcement or reform of existing labor laws. Again, Republicans have always opposed minimum wage laws. Obama promised to boost the minimum wage his first two years in office, while he still had majorities in the House and Senate. But he didn't do this, or pass legislation beefing up the right to organize unions, which has been eroded under Democrat and Republican administrations alike.
~ from Closer Than You Think: Top 15 Things Romney and Obama Agree On by Bruce A. Dixon ~

If you pay attention to the news, you know that the Republican governors in Wisconsin and Ohio have led an assault against public sector unions. What has received much less attention is that the Democratic governors of California and New York have done much the same thing!!

These days both parties have seemed to settle on public sector unions as a convenient scapegoat for all the ills of our current budgetary woes. Though these unions didn't get us into this mess -- Wall Street is the culprit -- they are the ones the big wigs have decided who must pay for it!

Even worse, while banks and other Wall Street types have received bailout after bailout, average workers haven't received as much as a tiny boost. As Dixon points out, Obama said on the campaign trail that he would work to increase the federal minimum wage, but once elected, he completely "forgot" about the issue.

Today the federal minimum wage stands at a paltry $7.25 per hour. If you are paid the federal minimum wage and you work 160 hours per month, your gross pay is $1,160.00. After taxes, that ends up being about $1,000.00. In our expensive western world, it's near too impossible to survive on that. Yet, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are concerned about it!

Some Difference! 14/17

Trey Smith

3 No Medicare For All. Forget about it eliminating the Medicare age requirement so that all Americans would qualify. Republicans never wanted Medicare even for seniors, let alone everybody. Six or seven years ago Illinois State Senator Obama was telling audiences that if they elected Democrats to Congress, the Senate and the White House, they'd get single payer health care. But once in office he excluded Medicare for All from the proposals on the table, and enacted a national version of Massachusetts RomneyCare, requiring everybody to purchase private health insurance or be penalized.
~ from Closer Than You Think: Top 15 Things Romney and Obama Agree On by Bruce A. Dixon ~

I've already written much on this topic in the past, so I won't bore you with a rerun. The main point is that "Obamacare" is "Romneycare." If Romney is as serious a threat to the country as Obama supporters say he is, then why would Obama have stolen Romney's health care plan?

I mean, if you think somebody is the devil incarnate, you sure as heck don't go dancing with him, do you?

Some Difference! 13/17

Trey Smith

4 Immigrants must be jailed and deported in record numbers. To be really fair, one should note that on this issue Republicans talk a mean game about sending them all back and jailing tens or hundreds of thousands along the way. But only President Obama has walked the walk, deporting over a million immigrants in his term in office, often with little or no due process and after housing many for months in atrocious privatized immigration prisons.
~ from Closer Than You Think: Top 15 Things Romney and Obama Agree On by Bruce A. Dixon ~

It has been pointed out by MANY commentators that Obama has rounded up and deported MORE immigrants in 4 years than Bush did in 8 years. But let's not quibble over numbers. Both totals are egregious!

States that have passed stringent anti-immigrant laws are now discovering that their xenophobia is causing a serious problem that they somehow didn't factor in: It's hurting their economy! Crops are rotting in the fields and not making it to market. Farmers either are bearing increased labor costs (Americans sure as hell don't want to work for the piddly wages formerly paid to the illegals) OR some are facing bankruptcy.

And why is so much animus being laid at the feet of illegal immigrants? Because politicos need scapegoats to divert the public's attention from the real culprits who are robbing the country blind!

Some Difference! 12/17

Trey Smith

5 Of course there really ARE such things as “clean coal” and “safe nuclear energy”. Again these are things Republicans have always pretended to believe. At the 2008 Democratic convention Democrat Barack Obama joined them, declaring he intended to be the president of “clean coal and safe nuclear energy.” Obama is building a wave of 33 nuclear plants across the country, the first two in mostly black and poor communities of Georgia and South Carolina where leaky existing nukes are causing cancer epidemics. The people know these things are myths. But Republican and Democratic candidates for office, all the way down to state and county officials seem not to.
~ from Closer Than You Think: Top 15 Things Romney and Obama Agree On by Bruce A. Dixon ~

One of the things the corporate world relies on is the inability of medical science to pinpoint specifically the "smoking gun" of most maladies. Just because a chemical plant is located in a certain community and members of that community have a higher rate of certain cancers or other diseases, scientists generally cannot say definitively that the toxins spewed from the plant are THE cause of this spike and they can't say the case of Jim or Judy specifically is tied to the toxins from that specific plant. And the reason they can't make such specific pronouncements is that our world is awash in toxins! It is beyond difficult to isolate the specific trigger mechanism.

The corporate world relies on this inability for a simple reason. They don't want anything to muck up their profit margins. If it can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that their corporation is the specific and sole cause of anything, then they don't have to worry about the employment of costly safeguards that will eat into the bottom line.

Government is supposed to be different. A nation's government is supposed to look out for the welfare of its people. However, when the corporate world and government are in bed together, the latter behaves like the former. And so, it is not surprising at all that both Obama and Romney would put the desires of energy corporations before the needs of the people by steadfastly supporting and propping up two industries -- coal and nuclear -- that make people sick and lead to early death.

Some Difference! 11/17

Trey Smith

6 The FCC should not and must not regulate telecoms to ensure that poor and rural communities have access to internet, or to guarantee network neutrality. Republicans have always been in favor of digital redlining, against network neutrality. Barack Obama claimed on the campaign trail he'd take a back seat to nobody in guaranteeing network neutrality. But he appointed as FCC chair a man who helped write the infamous Telecommunications Act of 1995, which gave away the government-built internet backbone to a handful of immensely powerful telecoms like AT&T and Comcast, and flatly reversed himself on network neutrality. The Department of Justice was forced to stop the ATT-T-Mobile merger by a storm of public outrage, but approved the Comcast-NBC deal.
~ from Closer Than You Think: Top 15 Things Romney and Obama Agree On by Bruce A. Dixon ~

For years, Democrats and Republicans have been in agreement that the public airwaves aren't so public. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have been cheerleaders for allowing communications corporations to hold consumers and citizens hostage.

Even worse, while most other western industrialized nations are working to make the internet available to most or all of their residents, the US is one of the biggest foot draggers on this issue. We have the capability to get this done in a short amount of time, but the bipartisan political will is lacking.

Some Difference! 10/17

Trey Smith

7 Oil and energy companies, and other mega-polluters must be freed to drill offshore almost everywhere, and permitted to poison land and watersheds with fracking to achieve “energy independence”. The Republicans say “drill baby drill” but it seems only Democrats can chill out enough supposed “environmentalists” to make this happen. Obama campaigned on restricting offshore drilling four years ago, and reversed himself just before the BP oil disaster in the Gulf. The White House cooperated with BP in lying to the public about the extent of the disaster and has shielded BO from paying anything like the value of actual damages incurred to livelihoods, human lives and the environment.
~ from Closer Than You Think: Top 15 Things Romney and Obama Agree On by Bruce A. Dixon ~

Just like with climate change, what separates the Democrats from the Republicans is a bunch of rhetorical crap! Democrats SAY they care about the environment, but then they do very little to protect it.

President Obama's handling of the BP oil spill was downright despicable. As Dixon makes clear, Obama was far more concerned about protecting BP (and their campaign contributions) from the public rather than the other way around. Bush received a lot of rightful criticism for the way he handled the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, but it turned out that Obama used the same playbook re the oil spill.

After that calamity, Obama behaved much like a Republican president by wasting little time in opening up offshore drilling again. Even though nothing had changed -- there weren't any better safeguards in place -- he gave the oil industry a big thumbs up. With a Democratic president embracing the GOP's blueprint, how could Romney make the situation much worse?

Some Difference! 9/17

Trey Smith

8 US Presidents can kidnap citizens of their own or any nation on earth from anyplace on the planet for torture, indefinite imprisonment without trial or murder them and neighboring family and bystanders at will. To be perfectly fair, there are distinctions between Republicans and Democrats here that don't amount to differences. Republicans Cheney and Bush got their lawyers to say these things were OK and did them. Democrat Obama got Congress to enact “laws” giving these acts a veneer of fake legality, something a Republican probably could not have done.
~ from Closer Than You Think: Top 15 Things Romney and Obama Agree On by Bruce A. Dixon ~

Not only have the current and past presidents been egregiously bad in this area, but Congress hasn't been much better! We hear politicians of both parties wax eloquently about freedom, rights, security and democracy, yet, with few exceptions, members of BOTH parties end up voting FOR the draconian measures Dixon mentions above again and again. I find it sad that, while a lot of rhetoric has been thrown about in regards to reforming the so-called Patriot Act, both Bush and Obama applied enough pressure to keep this rights eviscerating piece of legislative crap fully intact!

Some Difference! 8/17

Trey Smith

9 Africa should be militarized, destabilized, plundered and where necessary, invaded by proxy armies like those of Rwanda, Ethiopia, Burundi or Kenya, or directly by Western air and ground forces, as in Libya. President Georgia Bush announced the formation of AFRICOM, the US military command for the continent which has officially swallowed all US civilian diplomatic presence. But only a black US president, even under the cover of “humanitarian war” could have invaded an African nation and openly dispatched special forces to Central Africa.
~ from Closer Than You Think: Top 15 Things Romney and Obama Agree On by Bruce A. Dixon ~

Let's see. Clinton bombed Sudan, Bush created AFRICOM and Obama has used military force in Libya, Somalia and who knows where else. Two Democrats and one Republican. Different parties, but the same basic strategy.

Go back through history and you can find much the same pattern. It doesn't seem to matter which party occupies the White House. Africa gets plundered and bloodied, nonetheless.

Some Difference! 7/17

Trey Smith

10 Palestinians should be occupied, dispossessed and ignored. Iran should be starved and threatened from all sides. Cuba should be embargoed, and Americans prohibited from going there to see what its people have done in a half century free of Yankee rule. Black and brown babies and their parents, relatives and neighbors should be bombed with drones in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and similar places. The politicians and corporate commentators have a misleading name for this. They call it “foreign policy.” The realistic term for it is global empire.
~ from Closer Than You Think: Top 15 Things Romney and Obama Agree On by Bruce A. Dixon ~

There used to be a mythical dividing line between Democrats and Republicans in regards to war and imperialism. The GOP was dominated by hawks, while the Democrats had far more doves. That dividing line has evaporated almost completely.

Many people decried Dubya as being a war-first president, but Barack Obama operates from the exact same playbook. In fact, in many ways, Obama is more pro-war than Bush ever was. Bush started two wars; Obama is administering many. The big difference is one of semantics. Bush called his wars, wars. Obama, on the other hands, uses different phraseology.

The end result is the same. The US has increased its military footprint under Obama and there is no rational reason to think this fact won't remain the same if he is reelected. There is also no rational reason to think this fact won't remain the same if Romney wins.

When it comes to subjugating others, particularly Muslims, there really isn't a substantive difference between the Dems and the GOP.

Some Difference! 6/17

Trey Smith

11 Banksters and Wall Street speculators deserve their bailouts and protection from criminal liability, but underwater and foreclosed homeowners deserve nothing. Well, maybe not exactly nothing. Republicans think underwater homeowners deserve blame for forcing banksters to offer millions of fraudulent high-interest loans were then re-sold to investors around the world. Democrats think underwater homeowners deserve empty promises of help that never quite arrives for most of the foreclosed, the about-to-be foreclosed, their families and communities. But both agree on free money for banksters and speculators but no moratorium on foreclosures and no criminal investigations of mortgage and securities fraud.
~ from Closer Than You Think: Top 15 Things Romney and Obama Agree On by Bruce A. Dixon ~

The way Barack Obama handled the foreclosure crisis of the past few years is very much the same way a Mitt Romney would do it. First, you spend a lot of time telling homeowners that you will work to protect them and you then turn around to do everything BUT that!

As usual, what we got from Obama was a watered down program that greatly benefited the banks of Wall Street, while helping very few underwater homeowners. To add insult to injury, the settlement the Obama administration browbeat state attorney generals to accept resulted in a piddly ass fine (most likely paid for with government money) and the shielding from prosecution of the criminals who illegally foreclosed on MILLIONS of Americans.

Sounds like something Bush would have done! Sadly, it was a Democrat who was leading the charge.