According to a new study conducted by the Pew Research Center, 49 percent of [people] age 18 to 29 view socialism in a favorable light, compared to 43 percent who view it unfavorably. What’s more, they like the sound of “socialism” slightly better than capitalism—46 percent have positive views of capitalism, and 47 percent have negative views. This is dramatically different from the country’s population overall: 60 percent say they have a negative view of socialism, versus just 31 percent who say they have a positive view. Young people are the only age group whose support for socialism outweighs that of capitalism.

It’s telling that the number of socialism-friendly young people is on the rise from just 20 months ago, when 43 percent of Millennials favored the word. Between now and then, Occupy Wall Street has swept the country and the headlines, and there are more unemployed teens and 20-somethings than ever. It’s not hard to figure out why our generation isn’t so gung-ho about capitalism—it has disappointed and, in some cases, straight-up failed us.

VATICAN CITY (RNS)— Noting a “rising sense of frustration” at the worldwide economic recession, Pope Benedict XVI said that a more just and peaceful world requires “adequate mechanisms for the redistribution of wealth.”

The pope’s words appeared in his message for the World Day of Peace 2012, released on Friday (Dec. 16) at the Vatican.

The message laments that “some currents of modern culture, built upon rationalist and individualist economic principles, have cut off the concept of justice from its transcendent roots, detaching it from charity and solidarity.”

Authentic education, Benedict writes, teaches the proper use of freedom with “respect for oneself and others, including those whose way of being and living differs greatly from one’s own.”

Read More: Huffington Post

The Occupy Wall Street protests have come and mostly gone, and whether they continue to have an impact or not, they have brought an astounding fact to the public’s attention: a mere 1 percent of Americans own just under half of the country’s financial assets and other investments. America, it would seem, is less equitable than ever, thanks to our no-holds-barred capitalist system.

But at another level, something different has been quietly brewing in recent decades: more and more Americans are involved in co-ops, worker-owned companies and other alternatives to the traditional capitalist model. We may, in fact, be moving toward a hybrid system, something different from both traditional capitalism and socialism, without anyone even noticing.

Some 130 million Americans, for example, now participate in the ownership of co-op businesses and credit unions. More than 13 million Americans have become worker-owners of more than 11,000 employee-owned companies, six million more than belong to private-sector unions.

And worker-owned companies make a difference …

Read More: NY Times

With the electoral breakthrough of the NDP in the federal election, attention to the nature of social democracy has returned to the political agenda. What do socialists say about the NDP and social democracy today?

There are two main views about parliamentary — or electoral — democracy in the history of the socialist movement. The social democratic view sees the liberal democratic state as a neutral body that can be peopled by delegates of the right or the left. Marxists, however, have stressed the limitations of the liberal democratic state. This view dates back to Marx’s analysis stated simply in the Communist Manifesto.

Contemporary social democratic parties, like the NDP or the Labour Party in the UK, keep a close eye on every aspect of parliamentary practice. Social movements, student activism and trade union struggles are seen as important at times. But what is considered “extra-parliamentary” work is seen as a means to influence “political” outcomes, which are narrowly defined in terms of parliamentary elections, debates or policies.

But the difference between a reformist, or social democratic, view, and a revolutionary, or Marxist, one, has not always been easy to discern.

More on Socialist Worker

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has leapfrogged to the top tier of Republican presidential candidates largely on the strength of one compelling fact: During more than a decade as governor, his state created more than 1 million jobs, while the nation as a whole lost 1.4 million jobs.

Perry says the “Texas miracle” rests on conservative pillars that he would bring to the White House: minimal regulation and government, low taxes and a determination to limit the reach of Uncle Sam.

What he does not say is that much of that job growth has come because of government, not in spite of it.

With a young and fast-growing population, a large and expanding military presence and an influx of federal stimulus money, the number of government jobs in Texas has grown at more than double the rate of private-sector employment during Perry’s tenure.

The disparity has grown sharper since the national recession hit. Between December 2007 and last June, private-sector employment in Texas declined by 0.6 percent while public-sector jobs increased by 6.4 percent, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. Overall, government employees account for about one-sixth of the workforce in Texas.

The significant role of government in Texas’s relative prosperity stands in stark contrast to the “go-it-alone” image cultivated by Perry, who credits a lack of government interference for fostering a business-friendly environment in Texas.

Read more here.

In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed – “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.

And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind.

Realizing that a healthy maritime workforce was essential to the ability of our private merchant ships to engage in foreign trade, Congress and the President resolved to do something about it. The law did a number of fascinating things.

First, it created the Marine Hospital Service, a series of hospitals built and operated by the federal government to treat injured and ailing privately employed sailors. This government provided healthcare service was to be paid for by a mandatory tax on the maritime sailors (a little more than 1% of a sailor’s wages), the same to be withheld from a sailor’s pay and turned over to the government by the ship’s owner. The payment of this tax for health care was not optional. If a sailor wanted to work, he had to pay up.

This is pretty much how it works today in the European nations that conduct socialized medical programs for its citizens – although 1% of wages doesn’t quite cut it any longer.

New Rule: With the Super Bowl only a week away, Americans must realize what makes NFL football so great: socialism. That’s right, for all the F-15 flyovers and flag waving, football is our most successful sport because the NFL takes money from the rich teams and gives it to the poor teams … just like President Obama wants to do with his secret army of ACORN volunteers. Green Bay, Wisconsin has a population of 100,000. Yet this sleepy little town on the banks of the Fuck-if-I-know River has just as much of a chance of making it to the Super Bowl as the New York Jets — who next year need to just shut the hell up and play.

Now, me personally, I haven’t watched a Super Bowl since 2004, when Janet Jackson’s nipple popped out during half time, and that split-second glimpse of an unrestrained black titty burned my eyes and offended me as a Christian. But I get it – who doesn’t love the spectacle of juiced-up millionaires giving each other brain damage on a giant flat-screen TV with a picture so realistic it feels like Ben Roethlisberger is in your living room, grabbing your sister?

It’s no surprise that some 100 million Americans will watch the Super Bowl next week — that’s 40 million more than go to church on Christmas — suck on that, Jesus! It’s also 85 million more than watched the last game of the World Series, and in that is an economic lesson for America. Because football is built on an economic model of fairness and opportunity…

Read More of Bill Maher’s New Rule on the Huffington Post

They are the real heroes of the Haitian earthquake disaster, the human catastrophe on America’s doorstep which Barack Obama pledged a monumental US humanitarian mission to alleviate. Except these heroes are from America’s arch-enemy Cuba, whose doctors and nurses have put US efforts to shame.

A medical brigade of 1,200 Cubans is operating all over earthquake-torn and cholera-infected Haiti, as part of Fidel Castro’s international medical mission which has won the socialist state many friends, but little international recognition.

Observers of the Haiti earthquake could be forgiven for thinking international aid agencies were alone in tackling the devastation that killed 250,000 people and left nearly 1.5 million homeless. In fact, Cuban healthcare workers have been in Haiti since 1998, so when the earthquake struck the 350-strong team jumped into action. And amid the fanfare and publicity surrounding the arrival of help from the US and the UK, hundreds more Cuban doctors, nurses and therapists arrived with barely a mention. Most countries were gone within two months, again leaving the Cubans and Médecins Sans Frontières as the principal healthcare providers for the impoverished Caribbean island.

Read More in the Indepedent

Signing of the Constitution. Painting by Howard Chandler Christy.

Article V is the only part of the US Constitution that tells how we can change the Constitution. The states, not Congress, propose amendments at an Article V Convention. An Article V Symposium was held at Cooley Law School on September 17, 2010 in Lansing, Michigan. Bill Walker, cofounder of Friends of the Article V Convention, shared how he filed two federal lawsuits stating that Congress was obligated to call an Article V Convention. The latter lawsuit (Walker v. the Members of Congress in 2004) was appealed to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court declared, as it had in three other separate decisions, that Congress must call for an Article V Convention. But Congress has simply refused in violation of the US Constitution.

To listen to Bill Walker’s speech and to the other scholars at the symposium, who all argue that we should want, not fear, an Article V Convention, click on this link. In all fairness, I will provide a link to the best arguments of those who fear an Article V Convention, but I do not share their beliefs.

Bill Walker has collected photographed copies of 750 applications for an Article V Convention that have been submitted to Congress from 49 states.  The Constitution mandates that an amendment proposing national convention (consisting of one delegate from each state) be called when 2/3 of the state legislatures (or 34 state legislatures) propose it.  As already mentioned, the Supreme Court has declared over the years in four separate decisions (without dissent) that Congress must call an Article V Convention, and yet Congress has never obeyed the Constitution regarding an Article V Convention. Nor has Congress compiled the applications into a single public record.

Aided by opponents of an Article V Convention and a complacent Judiciary, Congress has kept the applications buried in the congressional records and has thus deliberately and willfully vetoed the Constitution. Therefore, every member of Congress should now be held accountable for this violation. At the symposium, Bill Walker addressed four lies that are often used to support Congress in its vetoing of the Constitution.

First, is the lie that an Article V Convention would be a runaway convention like the first Constitutional Convention held in 1787. But the convention delegates in 1787 did what they were authorized to do by Congress under the Articles of Confederation.  Then their new plan of government had to be ratified by ¾ of the 13 states. It was not a runaway convention. Remember ¾ of the states must ratify any amendment proposals under our current Constitution. Would ¾ of the states, or 34 states, ratify something ridiculous?  No.

Second, is the lie of the Chief Justice Burger letter, often used by the John Birch Society; the letter warns of the dangers of this type of convention. Mr. Walker argues that the letter is bogus because Justice Burger is on record supporting such a convention.

Third, is the lie of the balanced budget amendment. It concerns the actual number of applications submitted by the States. The John Birch Society only discusses a single amendment issue (the balanced budget amendment) saying that 32 states have applied for this amendment, thus implying that these are the only applications there are. In this way, Bill Walker argues, the John Birch Society avoids mentioning all the other 718 applications.

Walker said that if you go to his website and take a look at the applications, you will find nearly 200 applications in the section called “Balanced Budget,” and the public record shows that 36 states have applied for a balanced budget, not 32. If having proposals on a singular subject were the basis for calling an Article V Convention, then on this issue alone there must be a Convention.

Fourth, is the lie that an Article V Convention is a Constitutional Convention, which it is not. A Constitutional Convention involves creating an entirely new constitution and government. If you look at Article V (it is printed here a few paragraphs down) of the US Constitution, it only discusses who (Congress or the States) can propose amendments, and how at least 3/4 of the state legislatures or state conventions, either one, must then ratify the Amendments. Bill Walker has provided proof that the public record, history, and the Constitution itself prove that Article V of the US Constitution is only about proposing and ratifying amendments, just that, and nothing more.

Since Congress can choose that proposed amendments be ratified by state conventions instead of state legislatures, some people wrongly fear that Congress, not the states themselves, would choose who actually attends the 50 state ratifying conventions.  But the people of the 50 states would rise in protest if Congress tried to do that.

The research of Walker’s two mandatory lawsuits also disproves legal experts who say that a Convention cannot be held because there are no laws addressing the exigencies that would occur when a national Amendment Convention is requested by the state legislatures. After five years of research, Walker said he found 208 Supreme Court decisions affecting and dealing with the legal aspects of an Article V Convention.

In previous articles posted at Disinformation, I argued for the more radical Constitutional Convention (not an Article V Convention). Thomas Jefferson in his beginning words of the Declaration of Independence said we have a right to abolish our government, which means we can totally rewrite the Constitution.  In other writings, Jefferson actually recommended a new constitution for every new generation, arguing that successive generations should not be bound by the mindsets of previous generations. To me, that sounds like wise advice.

The wording of Article V is tortuous to read and confusing in general. As you may know, 27 amendments have been added to our Constitution, but in every case, Congress introduced and approved the proposed amendments, but then afterward, 3/4 of the state legislatures, at their separate locations, had to ratify Congress’s proposed amendments. But the other method, which has never been tried, involves delegates from all the 50 states meeting together at a national convention to create proposals that later must be ratified by either 3/4 of the state legislatures, or 3/4 of the state conventions, whichever method of ratification Congress chooses. Article V is printed in the paragraph below.

Article V of the US Constitution

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

In a previous essay, I also proposed a Twenty-Eighth Amendment (its latest revision is included at the end of this essay) that would revise Article V. My main purpose is to show how a Constitutional Convention (to create an entirely new constitution and government) can be done in a fair, safe, and orderly way.  Regarding any amendment proposals (that would be added to the current Constitution), I also propose that 2/3, not ¾, of the state legislatures (state conventions are no longer allowed) are needed to ratify any amendment proposals of Congress or the states.

The percentage required to ratify proposed amendments is reduced because political apathy sets in if we make it too hard to change our government.  Many individuals fear that Congress might choose state conventions to ratify amendments (which it has never done before).  Not only that, they fear that Congress might even select who attends the conventions. Therefore, I propose that state legislatures only (not state conventions) can ratify amendments proposed by Congress or the states.

We the people are entitled to a Constitutional Convention when we desire it even though our current Constitution does not specifically address how it should be done. In my previous efforts of proposing a Constitutional Convention to totally rewrite the Constitution, I discovered that the far right, the far left, many in between, and various types of anarchists were very fearful of a Constitutional Convention for different reasons. Libertarians fear socialists, and vice versa. Some Americans believe our government is a Constitutional Republic (with enumerated individual rights that a mob democracy cannot take away).  Others believe we need a Bill of Rights, but, at local levels, we should engage in more participatory, face-to-face decision making—ideally consensus democracy, not just majority rule.

The second group believes our Constitution is a “living document” that changes with the times. The first group wants to follow the Constitution as it was originally intended by our founding fathers.  Originally, only white men who owned property could vote.  With the 17 amendments added to the Bill of Rights (which were the first 10 amendments), our government has changed over its 221-year history, since the Constitution was written during the summer of 1787 and implemented in 1789 when George Washington became our first president.

I have also written a new constitution called the Third Constitution of the United States (remember the Articles of Confederation was the first government and constitution that we had). My proposed constitution would implement a  downsized federal government that gives more power and self-determination to states, counties, townships, and precincts, building government from the bottom-up, which has never been tried before, not from the top-down, the usual way.

In my Third Constitution of the United States, free market capitalists in some counties could trade freely with democratic socialists in other counties. And if many Mormons, Muslims, secular humanists, and Hindus decide to congregate in particular precincts (there are about 600 precincts in Indianapolis), then the public schools in those precincts would reflect the thinking of the residents who live there. There would be neighborhood control of neighborhood schools.

I support, encourage, and want to join the individuals at FOAVC.org, TenAmendments.org, and article-V-convention.com who are working to empower the people with an Article V Convention. It is an important first step.  Congress has ignored the will of the people, so the people need to urge their state and federal lawmakers to implement an Article V Convention immediately. If out of fear we discourage Congress from calling an Article V Convention, then Congress, will its 9% approval rating, will carry on as before.

Under our current Constitution, I repeat, there is no need to be apprehensive about an Article V Convention. If Congress refuses a balanced budget amendment, for example, then the people can take matters into their own hands. I personally like the idea of requiring that the bills introduced by Congress should deal with single issues; that Congress (not lobbyists) should write the bills; and that members of Congress must read each bill in its entirety.

Many liberals (in some ways that is what I am) may not like the fact that decentralists have proposed amendments that empower state legislatures to veto legislation passed by the federal Congress.  If that is the case, then liberals (who want a strong federal government) should work to get their own proposed amendments addressed at an Article V Convention.

Though I personally like Dr. Ron Paul’s ideas about auditing the Federal Reserve, legalizing marijuana/hemp, and not intervening in the affairs of foreign countries — I noticed recently on television that he has supported Obama’s recent proposal to cut taxes for the super wealthy.  Is it right that 1% of Americans own 35% of the nation’s net worth, and that the bottom 80% of Americans own 15% of the nation’s net worth?  (Examine the research of G. William Domhoff, updated December, 2010, at this link.)

America represents 5% of the world’s population and owns 25% of the world’s wealth. (see politicalleft.blog)

I am deeply troubled that half of the world, over three billion people, lives on less than $2.50 a day, and at least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. (see globalissues.org)

When I was a libertarian, I supported the flat tax rate, and I was very critical of big government. And I am still irritated that our national debt is 13 trillion dollars. But I have learned since my retirement that there is very little “liberty” for the hard-working people who have no choice but to compete for minimum wage jobs that provide no health benefits in private companies that have dictatorial and autocratic chains of command.  I now support workplace democracy in companies that have more than 6 employees.  Corporations should be heavily taxed when they move their operations overseas where they get away with paying workers 17 cents an hour. Moreover, I am sympathetic with philosophical anarchists who are against all forms of hierarchy, whether it is found in government or the workplace.

Now I support a steep progressive income tax up to 90%, and I support the Single Payer Health Plan, which essentially would provide Medicare to all Americans. As the rich keep getting richer, and the poor, poorer — how does that solve the world’s problems? Many social problems stem from the vast disparity between the rich and the poor.  But I am just one voice.  You, the reader, are a voice too.

According to the CIA-World Factbook, in 2009 the global per capita income in US dollars was $10,400, down 2% from the previous year. That figure is the total GNP of all the countries of the world divided by the world’s population. Here is the link.

I personally would accept a $10, 400 annual income if it meant creating true peace and harmony in the world. In regards to helping the disadvantaged and exploited peoples of the world, I share the sentiment that says, “Instead of giving a person a fish, it is better to teach that person how to fish.“

Wealthy individuals and powerful corporations finance both the Republicans and the Democrats, which is why there is very little difference between the Bush and Obama administrations.  Our elections are shams, which is why many people do not even bother to vote. All average Americans should be filled with rapture about an Article V (Amendment) Convention. It levels the playing field and gives power to the people, not to elitists who have hijacked our government.

If the Twenty-Eighth Amendment that I have proposed was ratified, there would be no need to fret about a Constitutional Convention. My guess is that a lot of the activists who support an Amendment Convention are petrified about having a Constitutional Convention as everyone else seems to be. So, for right now, I am willing to join the Amendment Convention advocates.

With an Article V (Amendment) Convention, and even more so with a Constitutional Convention, more Americans would walk away from TV sports and shopping malls and start participating in the great philosophical, political, and economic debates of our day. Then our nation could truly be a light unto the world. Below is the latest edition of my amendment proposal that could be added to our current US Constitution.

The Twenty-Eighth Amendment

The United States government can be modified through amendments added to its current Constitution, or the federal government can be changed completely as the result of a Constitutional Convention.

To change the federal government by merely adding amendments to the current constitution, there are two ways that this can be done:

In the first way, both Houses of the United States Congress must pass their proposed amendment with a 2/3 majority.  Then 2/3 of the state legislatures have a year to ratify the amendment recommended by Congress.  Ratifying with a 2/3 majority, instead of the ¾ majority that was required in the past, makes it easier to change the government.  Citizens will feel helpless and hopeless, or politically alienated, if it is too difficult to change their government.

The second way to add amendments to the current constitution is for 2/3 of the state legislatures to call for a national Amendment Convention for any reason. Once a state makes a request for a convention, it cannot be rescinded. Each state legislature shall choose one person to attend the national Amendment Convention.  Then the 50 state legislatures, at their separate locations, will have a year to ratify any proposed amendments made by the national Amendment Convention. A new amendment will not be added to the current Constitution unless 2/3 of the state legislatures ratify it.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  As mentioned in the first paragraph of this Amendment, a radically new constitution and government can be formed through a Constitutional Convention.  It can be achieved in a fair, safe, and orderly way. The American people have a right to make a new government based upon a new constitution. Therefore, the decision to create a new supreme document will be considered by the American people at every presidential election. If at least 2/3 of the American voters request a constitutional convention at that time, then the Constitutional Convention will start meeting one year later. Each state will thus have less than a year to pick one delegate to attend the Constitutional Convention.

Each state shall send one delegate to participate in the Constitutional Convention based on the Instant Runoff Voting method. Voters of each state will rank 7 candidates in the order of their preferences. The seven most numerous political parties of a state will offer the voters of that state a proposed constitution and a potential constitutional delegate, who might be the one selected by the state to represent it, at the Constitutional Convention.  For example, here is how one voter from Indiana might rank her votes, based on the seven most numerous political parties in Indiana:

1. Republican Party 2. Constitution Party 3. Libertarian Party 4. Democratic Party 5, Green Party 6. Socialist Party 7. Communist Party.

If no candidate in Indiana gets a 51% majority, then before the second round of voting begins, the candidate who had the least amount of votes in Indiana would be dropped from the list of choices (making the total now 6).  If after the second round of voting, still no candidate has a 51% majority, then the candidate who had the least amount of votes would be dropped (making the list of choices now 5).  If after the third round of voting, the Republican Party (which may have proposed to not change the current Constitution) received at least 51% of the votes, then its candidate would be the delegate to represent Indiana at the national Constitutional Convention.

The 50 Constitutional Convention delegates will first meet the first Tuesday of November, one year after the previous presidential election date. The Colorado State Legislature (chosen because of its somewhat geographically central location) will choose beforehand a meeting place and the initial chairperson (who will not have voting privileges) of the Constitutional Convention.  The delegates may later choose one of the attending delegates, who would have voting privileges, to be the chairperson of the Convention. Formal discussions and debates of the Convention will use parliamentary procedure.  The 50 state legislatures will assist with the costs of the Convention, which should be kept at a minimum.  If the Colorado State Legislature does not want its designated responsibility, then it is imperative that it ask another state legislature to do the job.

The Convention delegates will work on several revisions, if necessary, of the newly proposed Constitution, in the constant effort to get 51% of the American people to accept it, as expressed in public opinion surveys. Two years after the previous presidential election, the American people will vote on the latest, proposed constitution. Without a 51% majority vote of approval by the American people, the proposed constitution will be null and void, and the current Constitution will continue as before.  In summary, there will be one year to pick delegates and another year for the actual constitutional convention.

The much greater fairness that Instant Run-Off Voting provides in the selection of Constitutional Convention delegates is why only a 51% majority is needed to ratify the newly proposed Constitution.

The spoken and written words of the delegates must be publicized, and citizens will be allowed to voice their own opinions in the process. The US Congress, the President, and the US Supreme Court will not have the right to control an Amendment Convention or a Constitutional Convention. They can, however, express their opinions and recommendations in the process.

Readers may send this essay to family members and friends, to lawmakers, and to other websites. Disinformation is the only website I have found that freely allows me to share my ideas for which I am very grateful.

Roger Copple retired at age 60, in May 2010, from teaching third grade in a public school in Indianapolis. He has been trying to integrate the Libertarian, Green, Socialist, and Anarchist political theories. His political essays can be found at www.NowSaveTheWorld.com. He can be reached by email at rogc77@att.net.

'The First Thanksgiving' by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris

This ought to get conversation at your dinner table fired up! Kate Zernike fuels that fire in the New York Times:

Ah, Thanksgiving. A celebration regardless of creed; a time for all Americans to come together after a divisive election year.

But why take a holiday from argument? In these fractious times, even the meaning of Thanksgiving is subject to political debate.

Forget what you learned about the first Thanksgiving being a celebration of a bountiful harvest, or an expression of gratitude to the Indians who helped the Pilgrims through those harsh first months in an unfamiliar land. In the Tea Party view of the holiday, the first settlers were actually early socialists. They realized the error of their collectivist ways and embraced capitalism, producing a bumper year, upon which they decided that it was only right to celebrate the glory of the free market and private property.

Historians quibble with this interpretation. But the story, related by libertarians and conservatives for years, has taken on new life over the last year among Tea Party audiences, who revere early American history, and hunger for any argument against what they believe is the big-government takeover of the United States.

It has made Thanksgiving another proxy in the debate over health care and entitlement spending, and placed it alongside the New Deal and the Constitution on the platter of historical items picked apart by competing narratives.

There are other debates about Thanksgiving — whether the first was in Jamestown, Va., or Plymouth, Mass.; whether it was intended as a religious holiday or not. But broadly, the version passed on to generations of American schoolchildren holds that the settlers who had arrived in the New World on the Mayflower in 1620 were celebrating the next year’s good harvest, sharing in the bounty with Squanto and their other Indian friends, who had taught them how to hunt and farm on new terrain.

All very kumbaya, say Tea Party historians, but missing the economics lesson within.

In one common telling, the pilgrims who came to Plymouth established a communal system, where all had to pool whatever they hunted or grew on their lands. Because they could not reap the fruits of their labors, no one had any incentive to work, and the system failed — confusion, thievery and famine ensued.

Finally, the governor of the colony, William Bradford, abolished this system and gave each household a parcel of land. With private property to call their own, the Pilgrims were suddenly very industrious and found themselves with more corn than they knew what to do with. So they invited the Indians over to celebrate. (In some other versions, the first Thanksgiving is not a feast but a brief respite from famine. But the moral is always the same: socialism doesn’t work.) The same commune-to-capitalism, famine-to-feast story is told of Jamestown, the first English settlement, in 1607. Dick Armey, the former House majority leader and Texas congressman who has become a Tea Party promoter, related it as a cautionary tale in a speech to the National Press Club earlier this year.

Rush Limbaugh repeats the Thanksgiving story of Plymouth every year…

[continues in the New York Times]

Photo courtesy of punkpatriot on Etsy

I saw the man in question, Gene Cranick, interviewed on Countdown with Keith Olbermann earlier in the week. Seems a bit insane to not just collect the fee (plus some penalty) after putting out the fire. Via MSNBC:

Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground last week because the homeowner hadn’t paid a $75 fee. Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in the Sept. 29 fire, along with three dogs and a cat.

“They could have been saved if they had put water on it, but they didn’t do it,” Cranick told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. The fire started when the Cranicks’ grandson was burning trash near the family home. As it grew out of control, the Cranicks called 911, but the fire department from the nearby city of South Fulton would not respond.

“We wasn’t on their list,” he said the operators told him. Cranick, who lives outside the city limits, admits he “forgot” to pay the annual $75 fee. The county does not have a county-wide firefighting service, but South Fulton offers fire coverage to rural residents for a fee.

Cranick says he told the operator he would pay whatever is necessary to have the fire put out. His offer wasn’t accepted, he said. The fire fee policy dates back 20 or so years.

More on MSNBC

"Plunder" Filmmaker Danny Schechter

From Nick Pell at Red Star Times:

In a just world Michael Moore’s Capitalism would have been released on DVD for a niche crowd of professional weirdos and malcontents while Plunder would have made millions and garnered Academy Awards. Unlike the former which relied on the pulling of emotional heartstrings, sucking up to Barack Obama and Mr. Moore’s usual shenanigans, Plunder: The Crime of Our Time revolves around hard analysis. Plunder provides a detailed summary of the Rube Goldberg machine that collapsed the American economy.

Indeed, the investors who robbed America blind are only one part of the equation. They received a great deal of assistance from the regulatory agency tasked with defending Americans from just such a swindle. Plunder falls short on exploring just how such malfeasance at the highest levels of power is allowed to happen, though it does an admirable job of laying bare the function of such agencies. Similarly, the film falls short in explaining why the news media failed to report on the matter. Simultaneously, the film points out very sharply the role played by the national media in protecting economic elites and avoiding real discussion of the crisis.

Full Article at Red Star Times

The ISO Dutifully Joins "The Left" in Reformist Protest Politics

Nick Pell at the Red Star Times:

Just wanted to do a quick roundup before the weekend comes. Things have been hectic around RST central as I gear up to move and begin work on my book. Still, there’s a few things I just have to make time for.

There’s the small matter of the continuing oil spill uncontrolled hemorrhage, for which no one has, nor will they ever be, arrested and tried for crimes against humanity.

The unions continue their attacks on workers while the Chinese working class continues to prove that it is at the vanguard of struggle against the fake left, capitalism and imperialism. And Red Star Times’s favorite fake left sect the International Socialist Organization gears up for their annual love-in with the Democratic Party, its radical hangers-on and vaguely left-of-center celebrities, ironically named “Socialism 2010.”

Read the Full Article at Red Star Times

Since first appearing in the popular lexicon, the term “Orwellian” has conjured up a vision of the prototypical “totalitarian state”: a one-party dictatorship that swarmed with secret police, spied on its own people, quashed dissent, made arbitrary arrests, tortured prisoners, waged perpetual war, rewrote history for mere expedience, impoverished its own working population, and rooted its political discourse in doublethink—a thought system defined as “the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

Many Americans would easily recognize this description of “Oceania,” the futuristic dystopia immortalized by George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, one of the most influential English-language novels of the mid-twentieth century.

Whether many Americans recognize that this description applies to their own society as well is another matter. But since the theft of the 2000 election—a period marked by such events as the 9/11 attacks, the invasion of Iraq based on fictitious “WMD” (weapons of mass destruction), the torture scandals, and the 2008 financial crash—it’s a point that increasing numbers of Americans seem to be grasping.

Nineteen Eighty-Four was published in June 1949, amid rising Cold War tensions. For most Western readers, the book was readily interpreted through the anticommunist prism of that period.

The novel’s police state bore an obvious resemblance to Stalin’s USSR. Coming from Orwell—a self-described democratic socialist who was deeply hostile to Stalinism—this was unsurprising. But while Orwell was too clear-sighted to conflate Stalinism with socialism (writing, for example, “My recent novel [‘1984’] is NOT intended as an attack on socialism…but as a show-up of the perversions…which have already been partly realized in Communism and Fascism.…”[1]), his Cold War-era readership was often blind to this distinction…

[continues at the World Socialist Web Site]

Little did I know, Mr. Rogers was an evil man. By telling children they’re special just for being who they are, he helped create this generation of worthless, lazy socialists who think they’re entitled to health care … at least according to Fox News.

They actually use the word “evil” to describe Mr. Rogers and criticize him for his “optimistic message where everyone was special even if they didn’t deserve it”, which is “ruining kids with a sense of entitlement.” Then one of them starts babbling about how children should go back to churning butter and making their own sweaters. Fox’s Brian Kilmeade said “that man unintentionally did a whole generation or two a disservice.” Only on Fox could a man who spent his life dedicated to public service and education be blamed for ruining generations of Americans.

And if you are interested in the ’study’ done by the LSU professor, it’s available at the Wall Street Journal: Blame It on Mr. Rogers: Why Young Adults Feel So Entitled.

Read More on Prose Before Hos

It is worth continuing to explore the role of the International Socialist Organization and its political line expressed in Socialist Worker. As the class conflict becomes more two-sided, groups such as the International Socialist Organization will—regardless of the intentions of individual members—play a crucial role in protecting the existing system.

When one sees the ways in which the International Socialist Organization (and other groups like them such as Socialist Action and the Workers’ International League) play left defending attorneys of the trade union bureaucracy and middle class reform organizations (who play a crucial role in defending the Democrats who push many of the same policies as the Republicans) you can see a straight line drawn from the fake left to George W. Bush.

Full Article at Black Sun Gazette

Things have been rather hectic around Black Sun Gazette Central lately, so forgive my lack of regular communication. I’ve got a few articles brewing that I’m sure my loyal readership is sure to enjoy.

However, I wanted to take a moment to go back to the subject of the International Socialist Organization and their website, SocialistWorker.org.

One of the most common arguments by ISO members is that the tendency with which I am in solidarity “does nothing.” I’d like to take some time to seriously examine this claim, in a more reasoned and less emotional way than my prior screed on the ISO.

Full Article at Black Sun Gazette

From Black Sun Gazette

This is an article I’ve wanted to write for a long time. I considered the subject to obscure until my special lady friend assured me that it was not. If you’ve ever been within 50 miles of a college campus you probably know who the International Socialist Organization are. They’re the obviously middle-class kids shilling a banal newspaper in really large type font who curl into a ball and start crying if you ask them a question harder than “but is socialism really possible / aren’t people naturally selfish / didn’t socialism fail in the Soviet Union?” If the ISO weren’t running around claiming to be socialists, I can honestly say that I wouldn’t have any problem with them. If they just fessed up to the fact that they’re garden variety radical liberals who want good people to do good things in the world, I wouldn’t have the same level of hate for them. It’s their insistence that they represent some kind of political and theoretical continuity with hard as nails American socialists (or at least the popular ones everyone already knows about) and the first people to successfully overthrow capitalism that makes me rage at an almost uncontrollable level.

Read More at Black Sun Gazette

The Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab creates insight into how computing products — from websites to mobile phone software — can be designed to change what people believe and what they do.

Yes, this can be a scary topic: machines designed to influence human beliefs and behaviors. But there’s good news. We believe that much like human persuaders, persuasive technologies can bring about positive changes in many domains, including health, business, safety, and education. We also believe that new advances in technology can help promote world peace in 30 years. With such positive ends in mind, we are creating a body of expertise in the design, theory, and analysis of persuasive technologies, an area called “captology.”

By arriving at this page, you’ve reached the main website for our research lab, directed by Dr. BJ Fogg. On this site you’ll find an overview of captology, learn about examples, have access to captology resources, and be invited to receive our lab’s free newsletter. We also share some insights in our blog, Captology Notebook.

If you want to watch persuasive technology in action, go to Captology TV. This site has dozens of short videos showing how companies use the web today to influence people’s thoughts and behaviors.

An overview of captology

Captology is the study of computers as persuasive technologies. This includes the design, research, and analysis of interactive computing products created for the purpose of changing people’s attitudes or behaviors. As the graphic shows, captology describes the area where computing technology and persuasion overlap.

This area continues to grow quickly. Each week more computing products, including websites, are designed to change what people think and do. We expect this trend to continue, especially as mobile phones become more capable of running software from third parties and the Internet.

Captology is global

Beginning at Stanford in the 1990s, the study of persuasive technology is now a global area of research and design. In the early days, we were doing research, conducting classes, and organizing events at Stanford. But we did not organize the first global conference. We appreciate our colleagues at the Eindhoven University of Technology for organizing this in 2006: First International Conference on Persuasive Technology for Human Well-Being. Since then, the conference has been an annual event, bringing together researchers and practitioners from around the world:
Stanford University hosted the 2007 International Conference on Persuasive Technology.

Oulu University and Aalborg University hosted the 2008 International Conference on Persuasive Technology.

Claremont College will host the 2009 International Conference on Persuasive Technology.

More on the Stamford Captlogy site

Nick P at Black Sun Gazette:

While trying to shy away from any kind of social chauvinism, I must admit that I prefer to read American penned socialist literature more than anything. I am, first and foremost, an American, and I prefer to speak and read American. Nowhere is this more important to me than in socialist literature. The direct, plain language of America will do more to win people to socialism than European theory, which, while relevant today, can come off as a bit dry at times. And, as always, something gets lost in translation. While I still laud Marx and Engels as co-kings of the movement, and Lenin and Trotsky (perhaps the most brilliant political theorist of the 20th century) brilliant theorists and politicians of the same order, the following five are the guys I go to when I want to read for education and pleasure.

Read More at Black Sun Gazette