----- Original Message ----- 
From: John A Imani 
To: [email protected] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [May 19th Movement] Fwd: A washingtonpost.com link from: 
[email protected]


Kwazi,

Thanks for all this evidence of the impending collapse of this system that the 
rich m'f'ers (and their friends in high places (Congress, White House, Fed 
Reserve, the 'mainstream media' and its right-wing talk radio and FOX, etc) 
will try to stave off by starving us whille 'explianing' to us the necessity of 
'austerity'. 

The assault on the working class continues and is world-wide:  in France, they 
raised the retirement age (keeping these workers in the workforce, denying jobs 
to the youth, forcing concessions from the workers to keep their jobs, lowering 
wages (see chart below to see how failing capitalism has taken more blood and 
sweat from the labor force) and accellerating the decline in worker's standard 
of living (closing of hospitals, closing of schools, libraries, etc).

And then there is the so-far successful attempt to divide the working class 
along racial lines so as to provide 'braed and circuses' while this latter-day 
Rome burns.

Why are our living standards fallling when we have such means to produce a 
veritable surfeit of goods to satisfy all human wants and needs?  There's a 
one-word answer: capitalism.  Capitalism which denies workers access to 'their' 
machines because they can make no profits.  Capitalism which has blown bubble 
(military spending) after bubble (stock market 'New Economy' Ponzi sscheme) 
after bubble (housing 'wealth effect').   Capitalism that has exported our jobs 
to find a labor-force that are forced to work for a pittance; and then, turns 
around and forces us to buy the products that we used to make.  How to maintain 
when one has less coming in: debt.  Not just personal debt but a system-wide 
pyramid scheme of "I owe you who owes him who owes this or that company, this 
or that nation".

And now, they recognize that having a foot up one's ass leads people to not 
only rebel agianst it but also begin to ponder the way that things might be 
done differently:  "

One nation, divisible
As America undergoes dramatic, uneven changes, it may become harder to govern 
Nov 18th 2010 | chicago | from PRINT EDITION 

  a.. b.. AMERICA is getting used to political upheaval. Barack Obama’s 
election was, to many voters, a moment of transformation. His first two years, 
many others lamented, brought a dangerous expansion of government; now the 
right has arisen again. The new Congress will be more polarised than at any 
time since Reconstruction, reckon some political scientists. But these swings, 
however large and consequential, are arguably only symptoms. 

  
If people feel as if the country is changing quickly, that’s because it is. The 
first set of numbers from the 2010 decennial census will be published in 
December. They will, sadly, be less interesting than in previous decades, as 
the census form has been radically shortened this time. But plenty of other 
data get collected by the Census Bureau every year, and our trawl of what has 
been gathered over the past decade already reveals some seismic shifts. Baby 
boomers are retiring in large numbers; the young are more racially diverse than 
ever. Hispanic immigrants are transforming communities, bringing both promise 
and tension. The first decade of the 21st century was not kind to America’s 
middle class—real median household income was 7% lower in 2009 than it was in 
2000. The gap between rich and poor widened (see table). And the young are 
doing relatively badly in education. 

All these trends are enough to shake a nation. Just as important, however, is 
that they are playing out very differently from one part of the country to 
another. Of course, some variation is inevitable; but as the fault lines that 
criss-cross the country widen, finding political consensus becomes ever more 
difficult. 

In one important respect America has a sunny demographic outlook. Its elderly 
may be growing in number but, to the envy of other developed countries, America 
also has a burgeoning young population. However the distribution of old and 
young makes this picture more complex. 

For decades Americans have followed the sun westward. This shift continued from 
2000 to 2007, when the gathering recession all but stopped migration. However 
the populations of the north-east and Midwest have not just shrunk (which means 
that the census will require them to give up congressional seats) but become 
greyer. Young families leave, often to look for economic opportunity or an 
affordable home (Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor, calls his town a “luxury 
city”).

Between 2000 and 2009 Maine surpassed Florida as having the highest 
concentration of those 50 and older, according to the Census Bureau’s American 
Community Survey. Of the 20 oldest states in 2009, 14 were in the north-east 
and Midwest. The sunbelt, in contrast, was home to eight of the ten states with 
the highest concentration of youth. Austin’s number of married couples with 
children rose by 24%; Youngstown’s shrank by the same.

America’s young and old are differentiated not just by region but by race. 
Hispanic immigrants in particular are helping to swell the ranks of the young. 
The decade saw America’s foreign-born population grow by 24%, or about 7.4m. In 
2009 Hispanics comprised 21% of those younger than 25; those 65 and older were 
80% white and only 7% Hispanic.

But this divide—what William Frey of the Brookings Institution in Washington, 
DC, calls “the cultural generation gap”—is very much wider in some states and 
cities. In Arizona, for example, 83% of the elderly are white and 42% of those 
under 25 are Hispanic. This can lead to divergent priorities, such as the 
reluctance of the old to pay for education, or even a political eruption. This 
year Arizona’s anti-immigration ordinance sparked protests far beyond the 
state’s borders and a lawsuit from the federal government. 

Such conflict may well be replicated as other places welcome (or fail to) new 
residents. Immigrants are increasingly dispersed, settling in areas unused to 
outsiders. South Carolina’s Hispanic population expanded by 116% between 2000 
and 2009. South Dakota, Tennessee and Alabama also saw big jumps.

In the long term, these immigrants or their children may become local economic 
stars. In the short term, tension is mounting. Mr Frey found that many of the 
new magnet states attract immigrants unlikely to speak English or to have 
completed school. Voters in such communities may view immigration rather 
differently than do those in San Francisco or Pittsburgh, hubs for skilled, 
foreign-born workers.

There is also a range of subtler shifts. In his 2008 book “The Big Sort”, Bill 
Bishop argues that communities are differentiated not just by demography but by 
the way people live. In the 1960s and 1970s communities on the whole grew ever 
more alike. But since the 1980s they have diverged on a range of indicators, 
from the age at which women have children to the age at which residents die. 
The most powerful “sort”, however, may be the slow concentration of educated 
workers. 

America as a whole is becoming better educated. In 2000 24% of those 25 and 
older had a bachelors degree or more. By 2009 28% did. But this rise is not 
uniform across ethnic groups—blacks and Hispanics are lagging—or throughout the 
country. In the 1970s America’s college graduates were distributed relatively 
equally among cities. Since then, however, the skill-level of metropolitan 
areas has diverged. Brookings ranks the 100 biggest metropolitan areas by rate 
of educational attainment. The gap between the most and least educated cities 
was 26 in points in 1990. By 2009 it had widened to 34 points.

These trends, if they continue, will surely affect regional prosperity. From 
1999 to 2009 median household income rose in only five states, and in four of 
these the gains were driven by soaring commodity prices. The biggest drops in 
income were all in states that depend on low-skill industries: Michigan, 
Indiana and Ohio.

During the recession, education was workers’ best shield. Of the 20 
best-educated metropolitan areas, only four saw their employment rate drop 
further than the national average, according to Brookings’s Alan Berube. The 
worst-hit areas were those dependent on construction and manufacturing. It was 
there, too, that women began to support their families in higher numbers—3.4% 
of families had an unemployed husband and a working wife in 2009; Florida, 
Nevada, Michigan and Ohio had shares well above the average. 


E pluribus unum? 

All these conflicting interests are helping to polarise further America’s 
politics. In the 1976 election, explains Mr Bishop, 26% of voters lived in 
counties where one party won by 20 points or more. In 2008 a whopping 48% of 
voters did so. Strikingly, less than 400 of America’s 3,141 counties switched 
parties at the 2008 election. Politicians, like marketers, have become adept at 
identifying likely customers. “Bringing out the base” is the key to winning. 

As a result of this polarisation, satisfying a range of constituents is 
becoming harder. The federal stimulus revealed this well. The bail-out 
gratified some Wall Street bankers. Aid to state governments mostly helped 
workers in capital cities. But voters in places with battered housing markets 
got little benefit from either. James Gimpel, a political scientist at the 
University of Maryland, notes that areas with high rates of foreclosure, such 
as suburban Atlanta, were hotbeds of tea-party activism. 

Talking about their generation
The best hope for a return to moderation may lie in America’s suburbs. Once 
blandly homogenous, suburbs are now home to a majority of America’s Asian, 
black and Hispanic populations. They are increasingly filled not just with the 
rich and middle class but the poor. It is little wonder that the closest 
political battles are often waged in suburbia. For now, however, more 
polarisation seems likely. This year many moderate Democrats either retired or 
were sacked. “There is much too much partisanship and not enough progress,” 
Evan Bayh lamented as he announced his retirement from the Senate.

So from January Congress will include a higher proportion of lefty Democrats 
and a new crop of conservative Republicans. Keith Poole, a political scientist 
from the University of California, San Diego, thinks the 112th Congress will be 
the most divided since the end of the civil war.

With the federal government deadlocked, bold measures may be confined to state 
and local governments. Already, Mr Bishop points out, states find it easier to 
pass controversial initiatives than the federal legislature does, whether that 
be allowing gay unions in the north-east or banning embryonic stem-cell 
research in South Dakota.

In some respects, decentralised policies make sense—local and state politicians 
are better suited to tackle divergent needs. But America has big national 
problems. Increasing divergence will not make agreeing on how to deal with them 
any easier. 


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: bring 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 3:03 PM
  Subject: [May 19th Movement] Fwd: A washingtonpost.com link from: 
[email protected]


  Corporations raking in the bucks!!!





  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email protected]
  To: [email protected]
  Sent: Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:35 pm
  Subject: A washingtonpost.com link from: [email protected]


You have been sent this  link from [email protected] as a courtesy of 
washingtonpost.com 
 
 Corporate profits hit record rate
 
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-economy/2010/11/corporate_profits_hit_record_r.html?referrer=emaillink
 
 

Visit washingtonpost.com today for the latest in:

News - http://www.washingtonpost.com/?referrer=emaillink

Politics - 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/politics/?referrer=emaillink

Sports - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/sports/?referrer=emaillink

Going Out Guide - http://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/?referrer=emailarticle

Opinions - 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/?referrer=emaillink




Want the latest news in your inbox? Check out washingtonpost.com's e-mail 
newsletters:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/email&referrer=emaillink



© 2009 The Washington Post Company




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to