Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Cardinals Need to Lead Racial Peace

The Cardinals need to reclaim spirit of '64 to heal St Louis' racial tensions

In the wake of the Michael Brown shooting white and black Cards fans have clashed over the case – the team must try to bring them back together as it did in the civil rights era
Michael Brown Cardinals
The St Louis Cardinals cap that Michael Brown was wearing when he was shot sits atop the casket at his funeral. Photograph: Pool/Getty Images
Before the St Louis Cardinals’ first home playoff game on Monday, the team reunited its World Series-clinching battery from fifty Octobers ago – Bob Gibson and Tim McCarver – for the ceremonial first pitch.
McCarver and Gibson were there to evoke the Cardinals’ long tradition of post season glory. But they might also have summoned forth other memories from 1964 – ones that would stand in stark contrast to the scene that unfolded outside Busch Stadium before the game.
There – not far from a bronze statue of Gibson himself – a crowd of African American protestors were chanting for justice for Michael Brown, the unarmed black teen killed two months ago in the St Louis suburb of Ferguson. The demonstrators got an ugly reception from some of the Cards’ diehard fans, to the embarrassment of the team and the city.
Those very same fans may later have stood in tribute to McCarver and Gibson, Cardinal heroes who embody the racial attitudes of a more hopeful era. As David Halberstam ably documented in his book October 1964, the Cardinals’ success in the 1960s owed much to their progressive embrace of racial diversity.
McCarver, a son of the Jim Crow South, had never met self-assured black men like the ones he encountered on the St Louis roster in the early 1960s. Here was Gibson, one of the most forceful competitors of his era; Bill White, later the first African American league president in major sports; and the fearless Curt Flood, whose campaign against MLB’s reserve clause would eventually liberate professional athletes in all sports from (to borrow Flood’s phrase) “well-paid slavery.”
Those players—along with white Cardinal veterans like Stan Musial and Ken Boyer – taught the Memphis-bred McCarver one of the core values of what has come to be called “the Cardinal Way”. The young catcher learned to respect all his teammates – and opposing players, and everyone he met outside his baseball life – equally. 
Michael Brown Sr.
The father of Michael Brown, Michael Brown, Sr., wearing a Cardinals cap during an interview. Photograph: Susan Walsh/AP
White and black Cardinal players of the 1960s didn’t merely tolerate each other. They enjoyed each other’s company. They played interracial hands of bridge, hosted interracial dinner parties, and sent their kids to interracial schools. Cardinal owner Gussie Busch bought his own motel in St Petersburg so that his players and their families could occupy integrated lodgings in segregated Florida during spring training.
The Cardinals achieved this harmony in the midst of a bloody era that witnessed the Freedom Rides, the Birmingham church bombings, and the march on Selma. During the same championship season of ’64 that the Cardinals proudly remembered on Monday night, three civil rights workers – young men only a couple of years older than Michael Brown – were murdered by the KKK in Neshoba County, Mississippi.
That was also the summer that LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act into law. St Louis had by then already shed much of the racial baggage that came with Missouri’s legacy as a slave-owning “border state” in the Civil War. The city witnessed sit-ins at segreated lunch counters as early as 1947, more than a decade before similar protests in the Deep South. The Board of Aldermen passed an ordinance the following year integrating all public buildings, and formally outlawed segregation in all settings, public and private, in 1961.
They were small steps that only began to address St Louis’s racial challenges. But they were steps in a constructive direction – and consistent with the spirit the Cardinals exhibited on the field.
One wonders what McCarver, Gibson, their teammate Mike Shannon (now the Cardinals’ radio play-by-play man), and other members of the ’64 Cardinals made of the tense scene outside Busch Stadium on Monday night. And one worries about what might happen – in front of a national audience – if hostilities intensify during the National League Championship Series, which begins on Saturday night in St Louis.
Ferguson protesters have planned large demon-strations throughout the city this weekend, and those will surely be amplified by Wednesday’s fatal shooting in St Louis of another black suspect by an off-duty white policeman.   A group of Cardinal fans are making things worse by attempting to bring the conflict inside the stadium. They’re planning to wear T-shirts and wristbands emblazoned with the team’s name and colors, plus the name “Darren Wilson” – the Ferguson officer who killed Michael Brown.
Perversely, the T-shirts bear the number 6 – the same number worn by the greatest Cardinal ever, Stan Musial.
Do those T-shirts represent the “Cardinal Way”? Surely the dignified Musial – who witnessed the ugliest forms of racism first-hand when Jackie Robinson broke baseball’s color line back in 1947 – wouldn’t think so.   And neither do the Cardinals’ current executives, who issued a statement pleading for peace after the unseemly behavior they witnessed in front of their ballpark during the NLDS.
They can do more.
The Cardinals unite the city of St Louis as no other civic institution can. As the rest of the country has noted (with growing irritation), St Louisians take tremendous satisfaction in the success of our baseball team. Michael Brown was no exception; like almost every local kid, he identified as a proud member of Cardinal Nation. (The Cardinals hat he was wearing when he was shot rested atop his casket on the day of his funeral.) So, no doubt, do most of the officers who investigated Brown’s death, and who policed the demonstrations in the weeks that followed.
That’s why the Ferguson protestors chose to stage their demonstrations at Busch Stadium earlier this week – there’s no better place to get the whole city’s attention. And it’s why the Cardinals would be well-advised to take an emphatic stand against the bitterness that has spread from Ferguson to their front doorstep, and now threatens to come through their turnstiles.
Michael Brown protest
People have gathered outside Cardinals games to protest the death of Michael Brown. Photograph: MICHAEL B. THOMAS/AFP/Getty Images
If the organization does not get ahead of this curve, it runs the risk of an ugly clash that would turn a potentially joyous occasion into a disgraceful one.
The Cardinals can counteract that possibility by, first of all, demanding that fans leave their Ferguson-related T-shirts, wristbands, and banners outside the ballpark. Better yet, they can celebrate the example of interracial comity established by earlier generations of Cardinal players. Back when Gibson and McCarver played, the races were as divided as they are today, perhaps more so. But the Cardinals stood for something else – something better – both within their clubhouse and on the field.
So when, in the NLCS pregame ceremonies, the Cards honor the heroes of post-seasons past, they also can and should invoke the larger Spirit of ’64 that McCarver and Gibson – two lifelong friends, one white and one black – displayed on Monday night before NLDS Game 3. 
It might take a strong gesture – like sending an interracial group of local Little Leaguers out to the Cardinals’ positions before the team takes the field, or inviting the award-winning, racially diverse Metropolitan Community Church of Greater St Louis Choir to sing “God Bless America” during the 7th inning stretch.
Direct appeals from today’s Cardinal players – a racially mixed lot that includes Anglos, Asians, African Americans, and Latinos – would not be unwelcome.
One way or another, the Cardinals need to push back against the attempts by a handful of St. Louisians to bring shame on their team and their city.
Larry Borowsky is a St. Louis native and founder of the Cardinals blog Viva El Birdos.

FED PILOT Project for JOBS

FEDERAL RESERVE PILOT PROJECT
Keynes Economic Engine Experiment

Janet Yellen is new CHAIR of the FED, and an avid scholar of John Maynard Keynes.  Keynes’ economic cure for continuing recessions is clear. When Corporations are afraid to hire, Government must be the employer of last resort.  In California, there are over 1.3 million unemployed.

We propose employing a FED PILOT sample of 200K jobs. This small a sample should not raise reasonable inflation fears. Yet, California could provide a vibrant model for all Cities in America.

100,000 Jobs to rebuild our Infrastructure.  We need also to hire more Women and Youth, who are often forgotten.    

25,000 ASST. TEACHERS.   Our schools have faced traumatic cuts.
25,000 NURSE ASSTS.  Low hospital Ratios pose acute danger to patients.
25,000 YOUTH HIRES.   Job training: computers for our inner city.
25,000 SENIORS to help other Seniors, and or Children.

To achieve these goals a BLUE RIBBON PANEL should meet with Chair Janet Yellen.  This Panel could consist of our uniquely very popular Mayor, Eric Garcetti, Council Member Mike Bonin, and Congress Members from the U.S. Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The injection of the these Jobs and salaries into the Southern California Economy will spark a consumption revival.  It could lead our entire sputtering Nation into a real recovery.

William Floyd, FED PILOT PROJECT
These are the strongly held convictions of 2500 + Democrats on the Westside (WLA, Brentwood, Westwood, Pac Pal, Palms, Mar Vista, Venice, MdR, PdR)
______________

American Founders, Lincoln and FDR Were Radicals

Americans Should Embrace Their Radical History

Monday, 13 October 2014 13:13By Harvey J. KayeCampaign for America's Future | Op-Ed
American history education is once again a political and cultural battleground. Dominated by conservatives, the Jefferson County Colorado School Board decided to revise the teaching ofAdvanced Placement U.S. History to not only “promote patriotism and … the benefits of the free-enterprise system,” but also to discourage “civil disorder.” Meanwhile, liberals have insisted that we must teach both the good and the bad in America’s past. And any good historian must agree.
Nevertheless, both right and left too often ignore, if not deny, that Americans are radicals at heart – that the American experience represents a Grand Experiment in democracy, an experiment that requires us to continually challenge exploitation, oppression, and inequality – and that at our best we have struggled to promote justice and advance freedom, equality and democracy. Indeed, very much expressing what it means to be American, Jefferson County high school students have rebelledagainst the School Board’s dictates in favor of a fuller telling of the nation’s past – and the Board has decided to revisit the question.
Recent events in Colorado led me to recall the following resolution and argument that I prepared for delivery at the invitation of the Yale Political Union (YPU). An organization composed of Yale student political groups from across the political spectrum, the YPU is the oldest collegiate debating society in America.  Presented on February 25, 2009, the resolution passed by a margin of 2 to 1. My arguments, which follow, originally appeared on-line at OurFuture.org soon after.

In his 1939 book – It Is Later Than You Think: The Need for a Militant Democracy – progressive writer Max Lerner proffered:  “The basic story in the American past, the only story ultimately worth the telling, is the story of the struggle between the creative and the frustrating elements in the American democratic adventure.”
With those words in mind, I move that:  “Americans Should Embrace their Radical History.”  And to second the resolution, I call upon a voice from 1930, one of America’s finest voices, the voice of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a man destined to become the greatest president of the twentieth century.
Looking back on 10 years of conservative-Republican presidential administration and what they had wrought – an intensifying economic crisis and spreading human misery that would come to be known as the Great Depression – FDR, who was then the Governor of New York State, said:  “There is no question in my mind that it is time for the country to become fairly radical for a generation.”
And do we not see what Roosevelt saw then?
We have experienced three decades of conservative ascendance and power.  Three decades, in which well-funded conservative movements, and ambitious and determined political and economic elites, secured power and subordinated the public good to corporate priorities, enriched the rich at the expense of working people, hollowed out the nation’s economy and public infrastructure, and harnessed religion and patriotism to the pursuit of power and wealth.  In short, we have endured thirty years of right-wing political reaction and class war from above intended to undo or undermine the progressive advances of the 1930s and 1960s.
Plus, if all that were not enough, we have suffered eight years of a presidency – the presidency of George W. Bush – marked not only by the tragedies of 9/11, war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and the collapse of an interstate highway bridge in Minnesota, but also by assaults on our civil liberties, the denigration of human rights, breaches in the wall separating church and state, tax cuts for the wealthy, a campaign to privatize Social Security, continued corporate attacks on labor unions, and the pursuit of a politics of fear and loathing – all of which has not only led us to the brink of economic and social catastrophe, but also effectively placed the American dream and the nation’s exceptional purpose and promise under siege.
We clearly see the consequences of conservative rule or, more accurately, misrule – not to mention, liberal deference to it.
I therefore urge this assembly to resolve that, “We Americans should embrace our radical history” – and as FDR himself averred – “make the nation radical for a generation.”
I do so not only because the circumstances we confront demand a radical response, but also because to do otherwise would be to deny who we are.  Our shared past calls on us to do so.  Our own historical longings urge us to do so.  And Americans yet to be await our determination in doing so.
Let us start by recalling our history and reminding ourselves who we are – a by no means simple or easy task.  For as ruling classes have been ever wont to do, America’s own powers that be have regularly sought to control the telling of the past in favor of controlling the present and the future.
I could take you through a long list of New Right initiatives – from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush – intended to determine the shape and content of American memory, consciousness, and imagination.  But let’s just consider the popular little volume and video – Rediscovering God in America – authored and produced by one of America’s smartest and most prominent conservatives, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.  Therein, Gingrich, a PhD in History, takes us on a walking tour of Washington DC – a walking tour in which he guides us around the Mall to discuss both the monuments and the figures they memorialize.
Sounds nice, right?  But there’s more to it.  Along the way Gingrich presents a narrative of U.S. history that attributes America’s founding, survival, and progress to Divine will, to our unceasing faith in and devotion to God, and to our having sustained God’s and religion’s presence in the public square.
Fair enough, you might say.  However, after bizarrely and vehemently warning that “There is no attack on American culture more destructive and more historically dishonest than the secular left’s relentless effort to drive God out of the public square,” Gingrich not only discounts or ignores the fact that most of the leading Founders were deists not Christians and that – in one of the most revolutionary acts of the age – they wrote a “Godless Constitution” which provided for the separation of church and state.  He also somehow neglects to mention that those originally most determined to assure that separation included not just the usual suspects, but also Christian evangelicals.
Nevertheless – with all due respect to God and the faithful among us – we must remember who we are, for as Wilson Carey McWilliams proffered twenty-five years ago:  “A people’s memory sets the measure of its political freedom.  The old times give us models and standards by which to judge our time; what has been suggests what might have been and may yet be.  Remembering lifts us out of bondage to the present, and political recollection calls us back from the specialization of everyday existence, allowing us to see ourselves as a people sharing a heritage and a public life.”
So let us not forget that we are the descendants of Revolutionaries – of men and women who, inspired by an immigrant working-class pamphleteer, Thomas Paine, through words such as “The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth,” “We have it in our power to begin the world over again,” and “These are the times that try men’s souls,” not only turned their colonial rebellion into a war for independence, but also transformed themselves into a nation of citizens, not subjects; endowed their new nation with exceptional purpose and promise; and launched a world-historic experiment in extending and deepening freedom, equality, and democracy.
Let us not forget that we are the descendants of generations of radicals – of men and women, native-born and immigrant, who, struggled not only to realize the American dream, but also to expand the “We” in “We the People.”  Recognizing the contradictions between the nation’s ideals and realities – and rejecting the notion that the American experiment had reached its limits – evangelicals, workingmen’s advocates, freethinkers, slaves and abolitionists, suffragists, populists, labor unionists, socialists, anarchists, and progressives, respectively, dissented from their established churches; pressed for the rights of workingmen; insisted on the separation of church and state; resisted their masters; demanded an end to slavery; campaigned for the equality of women; challenged the power of property and officialdom; and together made the nineteenth century an age not only of growth, expansion, conflict, and the accumulation of capital, but also of militant democracy.
And let us not forget that we are the children and grandchildren of America’s most progressive generation, the men and women who confronted the Great Depression and the Second World War – the men and women who not only made the “We” in “We the People” all the more inclusive, but also subjected big business to public account and regulation; empowered government to address the needs of working people; organized labor unions; fought for their rights; established Social Security; expanded the nation’s public infrastructure; refurbished its physical environment; and defeated the tyrannies of German fascism and Japanese imperialism.
And you yourselves are the children of a generation who – for all of our many faults and failings – marched for civil rights, pursued the vision of a Great Society, challenged cultural prohibitions and inhibitions, pushed open institutional doors for women and people of color, and protested an imperial war in Southeast Asia.  Admittedly, we made mistakes, regrettable mistakes.  But we also made America better and more promising in the process.
Finally, let us never forget that we are the descendants of Americans who – confronting seemingly overwhelming crises in the 1770s, 1860s, and 1930s and ‘40s – not only rescued the United States from division, defeat, and devastation, but also succeeded, against great odds and expectations, in extending and deepening freedom, equality, and democracy further than they had ever reached before.
Still, I do not argue that we “should embrace our radical history” merely because we owe it to past generations to do so – though that in itself is a good, strong, and compelling reason to do so.
I further contend that we should embrace our radical history, because we owe it to ourselves – and, ultimately, to Americans yet to come – to do so
As our greatest democratic poet Walt Whitman rightly saw it:  “There must be continual additions to our great experiment of how much liberty society will bear.”
Or, even better, as the progressive journalist Henry Demarest Lloyd put it a century ago – in words that I believe you will immediately grasp:  “The price of liberty is something more than eternal vigilance.  There must also be eternal advance.  We can save the rights we have inherited from our fathers only by winning new ones to bequeath our children.”
Those words do speak to you – don’t they?  You know why?  Because you are Americans – and no less so than any previous generation of Americans, you – all of us – remain radicals at heart.
Yes, the likes of Newsweek editor Jon Meacham tell us that “America remains a center-right nation.” And yes, former Reagan speechwriter and now Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan has very graciously reminded us that our newly-inaugurated President Obama “would be most unwise to rouse the sleeping giant that is conservatism.”  But such talk ignores or denies what we ourselves feel and have been feeling for some time….
While we may not yet fully recognize it, we ourselves continue to feel the radical impulse and democratic imperative that generations of Americans, through their struggles, passed on to us – or better said, endowed or imbued us with.  Truly, we never stopped feeling them.
Ask yourselves this:  Why was it that in the midst of the seemingly most conservative political era since the 1920s, Americans passionately sought to recall, honor, celebrate, and engage, America’s most revolutionary and progressive generations – the nation’s Founders and the so-called Greatest Generation and its greatest leader, FDR?
Most of you are probably too young to remember the mid 1990s explosion of interest in the likes of Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and yes, Paine – an explosion of interest that editors and academics alike somewhat dismissively referred to as “Founders’ Chic.”
And you may also be too young to remember the even grander explosion of interest in FDR and the young men and women of the Great Depression who went on to fight the Second World War – an explosion of interest that turned books like Tom Brokaw’s The Greatest Generation into bestsellers and films like Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan into blockbuster hits; that made television series such as HBO’s Band of Brothers and Ken Burns’ The War major events; and that instigated innumerable popular gatherings around the country.  Indeed, an explosion of interest that led us to erect two new grand monuments in the very heart of the nation’s capital: one to Franklin Roosevelt and the other to the 16,000,000 veterans of World War II.
But even if you do remember those developments, you may not have critically considered what they represented.  And you would not have been alone in not doing so.
Consider the phenomenal interest in the Greatest Generation and its greatest leader.  While commentators marveled at its scale and intensity, they never seemed to grasp the most profound meaning of it all.  Discussing the New Deal as merely a massive program of economic recovery and the Second World War as just a series of vast military struggles – and describing Americans’ expressions of admiration and affection as if it were all one big farewell party – mainstream media folk never really appreciated or acknowledged either the radical-democratic achievements of the men and women of the 1930s and 1940s or the radical-democratic anxieties and yearnings that motivated the popular desire to thank, honor, and celebrate the generation that was passing away.
In fact, many a conservative – after decrying that FDR didn’t even deserve a monument – used the interest in and admiration for the Greatest Generation as an opportunity to attack the Sixties Generation for challenging the nation’s political and cultural order and opposing the war in Vietnam.  And sadly enough, leftists did little better.  They either belittled the attention to the wartime generation as nothing more than nostalgia, media hype, and the commercialization of the past or – in a somewhat paranoid fashion – charged that government and media were orchestrating a campaign to eradicate the nation’s “Vietnam syndrome” in favor of new “imperial adventures.”
Such critics – right and left – never really considered the connection between what Americans were experiencing and what they might actually have been trying to say and do.  We, however, should not fail to consider it.
Recall that in November 1992, Americans – despite the nation’s victories in the very long Cold War and the very brief Gulf War – turned out the Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush in favor of Democrat Bill Clinton, the presidential candidate who not only emphasized “change,” but also promised to address the needs of middle- and working-class families by, among other things, investing in the nation’s already crumbling public infrastructure, protecting the environment, and establishing a system of universal national health care.
Of course, if Americans truly were expecting renewed liberalism, they were to be sadly disappointed, for Clinton quickly betrayed those who had worked to place him in office by making his first priority the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, an initiative proposed by Republicans and promoted by big corporations.
And we know what happened next.  In the wake of NAFTA’s passage and the death of the promised progressive endeavors, Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, took control of both houses of Congress for the first time in forty years.
Change and growth ensued, but not always or exactly the sort hoped for in 1992.  In addition to learning of “ethnic cleansing” in the Balkans and genocidal civil wars in Africa, Americans witnessed accelerating globalization, persistent corporate “downsizing,” the further deregulation of capital and privatization of public goods and services, the steady erosion of the nation’s industrial base and decay of its public infrastructure, continuing assaults on labor, increasing concentration of wealth, intensifying material insecurities, the termination of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the growth of illegal immigration, virulent “culture wars,” the emergence of rightwing militias, foreign and domestic terrorist attacks, burnings of black churches, killings at family-planning clinics, the impeachment of a president, and a quite possibly stolen presidential election in 2000.
Never get nostalgic about the 1990s!
Politicians and pundits of every sort described Americans as deeply divided, angry, and cynical, and Americans surely had substantial cause to feel that way.  And yet they did not – at least not in the fashion asserted by all the media talk and images.
More serious studies showed that while Americans felt anxious, resentful, and even pessimistic, they not only continued to subscribe to both the “American creed of liberty, equality, and democracy” and the “melting pot theory of national identity.”  They also continued to believe – even while recognizing that Americans had far from always lived up to them – that those very ideals and aspirations defined what it meant to be an American.
In other words, Americans still possessed a shared understanding of and commitment to the nation’s historic purpose and promise – though they did wonder seriously about its prospects and possibilities
What politicians and pundits missed – or tried to obscure – about the popular desire and effort to reconnect with the Founders and the Greatest Generation was that Americans were doing exactly what Americans have always done when they sense that the American dream and the nation’s historic purpose and promise are in jeopardy.
Almost, instinctively, they were looking back – back to those who originally and most powerfully expressed what it meant to be an American – most particularly to those who, facing crises themselves, made the United States radically freer, more equal, and more democratic in the process.
Even after thirty years of conservative and corporate rule – even after concerted efforts to make us forget, or at least confuse us about our history and what it has to say to us – we, too, not only yearn to redeem America’s purpose and promise.  We also find ourselves looking back and reaching out to America’s Revolutionary and radical pasts.  The task however – a task made all the more urgent by the crisis we face – is to embrace it.  And perhaps we are not so far from doing just that…
In fact, maybe the resolution before us is not as fantastic as it seems…  For if we look closely, we might well see that Americans are already reaching out to grab hold of and embrace their radical history.  We might well see that instead of simply saying “We Americans should embrace our radical history,” we should actually be leaning into it and saying:  “YES, We Americans should embrace our radical history.”  Or – to quote a recently popular refrain – “Yes, we can.”
Now don’t get me wrong.  I am not calling Barack Obama a radical.  I’ll leave that to Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin (or to her smarter body-double, Tina Fey).  Nevertheless, something critical, something progressive – and possibly even radical – seems to be happening.
Think back five weeks – to January 20th – to the inauguration of our new president.  Inaugurations are always historic occasions, especially when one party replaces another.  But this time it was historic in an even grander sense, for Americans had elected a black man to their nation’s highest office.
Looking from the Mall up to the Capitol – either standing there in the cold or watching on television – Americans, not only African Americans, but all Americans, had reason to take pride and even shed tears of joy.
And yet, perhaps there was even more going on than that – that is, more than the talking-head politicians, pundits, and presidential scholars pointed out to us.
Here’s what I mean…
Shift the vantage point and look out on the Mall from the Capitol as our new president did.  Now if Newt Gingrich – or the Reverend Rick Warren – were talking to us, they would tell us that we were witnessing the American people assembled together in the presence of the Almighty.
But I saw something else that day – and maybe many of you did, too.  I saw something that made me think that as much as Obama’s ascendance to the presidency represented a radical break with the past, it also represented something oh-so-very American, and yet again, in that very way, something also truly radical and truly promising.
I saw two million Americans gathered together amidst monuments and memorials that testify not so much to God’s beneficence – or, at least, not to that alone – but all the more to our persistent aspirations and perennial efforts to extend and deepen freedom, equality, and democracy.
I saw two million Americans – in all their wonderful diversity – celebrating their democratic lives, peering into the future with hope and expectation, and pressing up against monuments and memorials that render nothing less than a grand narrative of revolution and radicalism.
There they were – there we were – standing beneath a monument to a man who led a revolutionary army; chaired a constitutional convention that announced to the world that here in the United States “We the People” rule; and served as the first president of a pioneering democratic republic.
And if that were not enough, we actually heard our new president essentially calling them all forth to stand with us.  He spoke of our revolutionary and radical pasts.  He spoke of America’s continuing purpose and promise.  And he spoke of what we needed to do by reciting the words that Washington ordered read to his troops on that cold and fateful Christmas eve in 1776 – words of Thomas Paine from his revolutionary pamphlet, The Crisis: “Let it be told to the future world… that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive … that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].”
Again, I am not saying that Obama himself is a radical – Hell, he used Paine’s words, but never mentioned Paine’s name!
But really, the point isn’t whether Obama is or isn’t a radical.  It’s that we ourselves need to be.
Only then might we make him the great democratic president that we require.  And even more crucially, only then – in the best of our traditions – might we redeem America’s purpose and promise and make an even greater nation for ourselves and for those who follow us.
We have much to do.  In addition to repairing the damage to the Constitution of the past eight years, we must enact the Employee Free Choice Act, establish universal health care, re-appropriate the wealth appropriated from working people, invest in new technologies, refurbish our public spaces and national infrastructure, democratize corporations, and pursue a New Deal on immigration.
Propelled by the memory and legacy of those who came before us, the yearnings and aspirations we ourselves feel, and the responsibility we have to those yet to come, we can pursue not only recovery and reconstruction, but also the making of a freer, more equal, and more democratic America.
So – leaning into it, and saying it as I should have said it to begin with – I call on this House to join me in resolving that “We Americans SHOULD EMBRACE our radical history.”
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

HARVEY J. KAYE

Harvey J. Kaye is the Ben & Joyce Rosenberg Professor of Democracy and Justice Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay and the author of the new book The Fight for the Four Freedoms: What Made FDR and the Greatest Generation Truly Great (Simon & Schuster). Follow him on Twitter: @harveyjkaye.

Monday, September 22, 2014

Maximum Wage from Gov. Jesse Ventura


In a country where the economy is always a hot topic, the former governor of Minnesota said he's tired of talking about the minimum wage, and that it's time for a maximum wage instead.
With an economy that is still finding its way back from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, one issue that gets brought up around the political water cooler is the minimum wage. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr, and hasn't been increased since July of 2009. The increase that summer was based on a law that was passed in 2007, when George W. Bush was in the White House and the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Since President Obama was elected and the Republicans have gained a full majority in the House and enough to prevent a majority in the Senate, the minimum wage, like many other issues, hasn't remained the same.
One voice that has been outspoken about the minimum wage is Jesse Ventura. Once the independent governor of Minnesota and current host of Ora.tv's "Off the Grid,"Ventura has been vocal about raising the minimum wage. "You should be able to live without government subsidies, without food stamps, without welfare, without anything like that," Ventura has stated. "The former governor notes that if you put in an honest week's pay, "your wages should be high enough to accomplish that."
On Friday's episode of "Off the Grid," producer Alex Logan brought up the story of former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, and current Representatives Tim Ryan out of Ohio and Jan Schakowsky, who all tried to live off the minimum wage for a week. While Ventura thought their effort should be praised, he sad he was tired of talking about the minimum wage because he had a better idea.
"I think we should end all talk about the minimum wage. I don't think we should talk about it anymore. Alex, you know what I think we should talk about. Maximum wage! I think we should pass a law in this country...$100,000,000 is the most any one individual can earn in a year. Because if you can't survive on $100,000,000, something is grossly wrong, isn't it?
Logan noted that when budgeting, only $77 was put aside for food and personal expenses and he asked Ventura if he thought that was reasonable for a weeks worth of meal planning.
"Are you kidding me? I go out to dinner myself and spend $77 in one night, depending on the restaurant. If you are surviving on $77 a week, you are eating garbage. You're not even eating nutritious food. And what expense will that give us then in the health care industry? Because people can't feed themselves and give themselves good nutrition."
If a full time worker received a minimum wage salary, took no time off and worked a full schedule for one calendar year, they would earn $15,080 - before taxes. While that makes life almost impossible for many, it also increases the tax payer burden to continue to fund and expand social welfare programs. Compared that to the possible earner of $100,000,000 a year, life seems like it would be a bit different.