what in TarNation

What in tarnation is up lately with the maniacal use of crude.  Why are jobs so linked to this filthy poisonous fuel source.  Are we so stupid not to see our addiction to oil as the eventual tarring and feathering of this nation.

It seems that everywhere you turn there is a bright orange work crew tearing up perfectly good sidewalks and curbs and streets.  I guess we are just another one of those "developing nations".



We all know these are tough economic times and so having any job is better than being unemployed.  The gov'ment knows there must be jobs otherwise folk get all revolting in the streets.  So for a swelling underclass of unskilled laborers, breaking rock is welcomed work when available. For shady contractors, endless road work is a golden goose.

But who exactly are the genius planners that decided to destroy American infrastructure only to rebuild it one dump truck at a time.  It is the non-partisan experts in DC who craft those economic stimulus packages.  And it s also those paid-for legislators in the state capitol handing out contracts to their clients.  And it is the lowly ditch digger just doing his job.

It is possible that all this tearing up and shit is simply a very unimaginative ruse by politicians in a last ditch effort to stall the global economic meltdown looming in their own rearview mirrors.

Is it just me or are others getting a little bit fed up with endless road work.

*

Visual Pollution

While world-class cities such as SaoPaulo Brazil logically abandon the odd model of promoting overt "In Your Face" consumerism, other towns such as Miami continue to embrace advertiser's invasion of public air space. So with unapologetic gall, another billboard goes up.

In the swamp, every tree that is cut down seems to get replace with some steel and concrete contraption. Sadly the defoliated iron crosses yield little flower or fruit. What they produce is a bunch of visual pollution.

The argument against billboards is simple, they are often so imposing that it is almost impossible to not look at them. If you don't like a tee-vee commercial, change the channel. If you don't approve of magazine ads, turn the page. But the appropriation of our common eye/air space for the benefit of private interest is just plain ballsy.

Why Fight the massive trend of a vinyl-clad world? Because the swamp is not a circus.

To be fair, a billboard on your roof or backyard is great for property owners struggling with soaring real estate taxes. Politicians and bureaucrats love the permitting kick-backs. But with the economy in the dumps, it is no surprise promoters of these towering scarecrows are coming up a bit short on advertising dollars. The answer for now seems to be a windfall for well heeled arts funding endeavors and starving artist. For the counter-cyclical, opportunity is a matter of perception.

From menaces above to obstacles below. Today some folk contemplate finding shelter under the bridges and highways, while the FDOT continues to use our tax dollars as toilet paper for road improvements projects that seem to never end.

At least this one is quite interesting; a ready-made earth-work featuring 300lbs dingleberries.

For this election year, let's hope that progress remains the opposite of congress.

*

99% preoccupied 1% free

I saw this article by Glenn Greenwald and decided to re-post it in its entirety.

Honestly, there isn't much more that can be added, the only thing remaining is A C T I O N . . .

It may as well be Glenn behind the Guy Fawkes Mask.

What's behind the scorn for the Wall Street protests?
By Glenn Greenwald

A few hundred demonstrators protesting against corporations march from nearby Zucotti park to Wall Street, Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2011, in the Manhattan borough of New York.

It's unsurprising that establishment media outlets have been condescending, dismissive and scornful of the ongoing protests on Wall Street. Any entity that declares itself an adversary of prevailing institutional power is going to be viewed with hostility by establishment-serving institutions and their loyalists. That's just the nature of protests that take place outside approved channels, an inevitable by-product of disruptive dissent: those who are most vested in safeguarding and legitimizing establishment prerogatives (which, by definition, includes establishment media outlets) are going to be hostile to those challenges. As the virtually universal disdain in these same circles for WikiLeaks (and, before that, for the Iraq War protests) demonstrated: the more effectively adversarial it is, the more establishment hostility it's going to provoke.

Nor is it surprising that much of the most vocal criticisms of the Wall Street protests has come from some self-identified progressives, who one might think would be instinctively sympathetic to the substantive message of the protesters. In an excellent analysis entitled "Why Establishment Media & the Power Elite Loathe Occupy Wall Street," Kevin Gosztola chronicles how many of the most scornful criticisms have come from Democratic partisans who -- like the politicians to whom they devote their fealty -- feign populist opposition to Wall Street for political gain.

Some of this anti-protest posturing is just the all-too-familiar New-Republic-ish eagerness to prove one's own Seriousness by castigating anyone to the left of, say, Dianne Feinstein or John Kerry; for such individuals, multi-term, pro-Iraq-War Democratic Senator-plutocrats define the outermost left-wing limit of respectability. Also at play is the jingoistic notion that street protests are valid in Those Bad Countries but not in free, democratic America.

A siginificant aspect of this progressive disdain is grounded in the belief that the only valid form of political activism is support for Democratic Party candidates, and a corresponding desire to undermine anything that distracts from that goal. Indeed, the loyalists of both parties have an interest in marginalizing anything that might serve as a vehicle for activism outside of fealty to one of the two parties (Fox News' firing of Glenn Beck was almost certainly motivated by his frequent deviation from the GOP party-line orthodoxy which Fox exists to foster).

The very idea that one can effectively battle Wall Street's corruption and control by working for the Democratic Party is absurd on its face: Wall Street's favorite candidate in 2008 was Barack Obama, whose administration -- led by a Wall Street White House Chief of Staff and Wall-Street-subservient Treasury Secretary and filled to the brim with Goldman Sachs officials -- is now working hard to protect bankers from meaningful accountability (and though he's behind Wall Street's own Mitt Romney in the Wall Street cash sweepstakes this year, Obama is still doing well); one of Wall Street's most faithful servants is Chuck Schumer, the money man of the Democratic Party; and the second-ranking Senate Democrat acknowledged -- when Democrats controlled the Congress -- that the owners of Congress are bankers. There are individuals who impressively rail against the crony capitalism and corporatism that sustains Wall Street's power, but they're no match for the party apparatus that remains fully owned and controlled by it.

But much of this progressive criticism consists of relatively (ostensibly) well-intentioned tactical and organizational critiques of the protests: there wasn't a clear unified message; it lacked a coherent media strategy; the neo-hippie participants were too off-putting to Middle America; the resulting police brutality overwhelmed the message, etc. etc. That's the high-minded form which most progressive scorn for the protests took: it's just not professionally organized or effective.

Some of these critiques are ludicrous. Does anyone really not know what the basic message is of this protest: that Wall Street is oozing corruption and criminality and its unrestrained political power -- in the form of crony capitalism and ownership of political institutions -- is destroying financial security for everyone else? Beyond that, criticizing protesters for the prominence of police brutality stories is pure victim-blaming (and, independently, having police brutality highlighted is its own benefit).

Most importantly, very few protest movements enjoy perfect clarity about tactics or command widespread support when they begin; they're designed to spark conversation, raise awareness, attract others to the cause, and build those structural planks as they grow and develop. Dismissing these incipient protests because they lack fully developed, sophisticated professionalization is akin to pronouncing a three-year-old child worthless because he can't read Schopenhauer: those who are actually interested in helping it develop will work toward improving those deficiencies, not harp on them in order to belittle its worth.

That said, some of these organizational/tactical critiques are valid enough as far as they go; the protests could probably be more effective with some more imaginative, concerted and savvy organizational strategies. The problem is these criticisms don't go very far -- at all.

There's a vast and growing apparatus of intimidation designed to deter and control citizen protests. The most that's allowed is to assemble with the permission of state authorities and remain roped off in sequestered, out-of-the-way areas: the Orwellian-named free speech zones. Anything that is even remotely disruptive or threatening is going to be met with aggressive force: pepper spray, mass arrests by highly militarized urban police forces, and aggressive prosecutions. Recall the wild excesses of force in connection with the 2008 RNC Convention in Minneapolis (I reported on those firsthand); the overzealous prosecutions of civil disobedience activists like Aaron Swartz, environmentalist Tim DeChristopher, and Dan Choi; the war being waged on whistleblowers for the crime of exposing high-level wrongdoing; or the treatment of these Wall Street protesters.

Financial elites and their political servants are well aware that exploding wealth inequality, pervasive economic anxiety, and increasing hostility toward institutions of authority (and corresponding realization that voting fixes very little of this) are likely to bring London-style unrest -- and worse -- to American soil; it was just two weeks ago that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg warned that the unemployment crisis could trigger "riots." Even the complacent American citizenry -- well-trained in learned impotence and acquiescence to (even reverence for) those most responsible for their plight -- is going to reach a tipping point of unrest. There are numerous weapons of surveillance and coercion that have been developed over the last decade in anticipation of that unrest: most of it justified in the name of Terrorism, but all of it featuring decidedly dual-use domestic capability (illustrating what I mean is this chart showing how extensively the Patriot Act has been used in non-Terrorist cases, and how rarely it has been used for Terrorism).

In sum, there is a sprawling apparatus of federal and local militarized police forces and private corporate security designed to send this message: if you participate in protests or other forms of dissent outside of harmless approved channels, you're going to be harmed in numerous ways. As Yves Smith put it this week:

I’m beginning to wonder whether the right to assemble is effectively dead in the US. No one who is a wage slave (which is the overwhelming majority of the population) can afford to have an arrest record, even a misdemeanor, in this age of short job tenures and rising use of background checks.

This is all designed to deter any meaningful challenges to the government and corporate institutions which are suffocating them, to bully those who consider such challenges into accepting its futility. And it works. In an excellent essay on the Wall Street protests, Dennis Perrin writes:

The dissident children were easily, roughly swept aside. Their hearts are in a good place. Their bodies a minor nuisance. They'll stream back to prove their resolve. And they'll get pepper sprayed and beaten down again. And again.

I admire these kids. They're off their asses. Agitating. Arguing. Providing a living example. There's passion and feeling in their dissent. They're willing to be punished. It's easy to mock them, but how many of you would take their place? . . . .

Yet I have doubts. The class war from above demoralizes as much as it incites. Countless people have surrendered. Faded from view. To demonstrate or occupy corporate turf doesn't seem like a wise option. You'll get beaten and arrested. For what? Making mortgage payments is tough enough.

Given the costs and risks one incurs from participating in protests like this -- to say nothing of the widespread mockery one receives -- it's natural that most of the participants will be young and not yet desperate to cling to institutional stability. It's also natural that this cohort won't be well-versed (or even interested) in the high arts of media messaging and leadership structures. Democratic Party precinct captains, MBA students in management theory and corporate communications, and campaign media strategists aren't the ones who will fuel protests like this; it takes a mindset of passionate dissent and a willingness to remove oneself from the safe confines of institutional respectability.

So, yes, the people willing to engage in protests like these at the start may lack (or reject the need for) media strategies, organizational hierarchies, and messaging theories. But they're among the very few people trying to channel widespread anger into activism rather than resignation, and thus deserve support and encouragement -- and help -- from anyone claiming to be sympathetic to their underlying message. As Perrin put it:

This part of Michigan [where I live] was once militant. From organized labor to student agitation. Now there's nothing. Shop after shop goes under. Strip malls abandoned. Legalized loan shark parlors spread. Dollar stores hang on. Parking lots riots of weeds. Roads in serious disrepair. Those with jobs feel lucky to be employed. Everyone else is on their own. A general resignation prevails. Life limps by.

Personally, I think there's substantial value even in those protests that lack "exit goals" and "messaging strategies" and the rest of the platitudes from Power Point presentations by mid-level functionaries at corporate conferences. Some injustices simply need anger and dissent expressed for its own sake, to make clear that there are citizens who are aware of it and do not accept it.

In Vancouver yesterday, Dick Cheney was met by angry protests chanting "war criminal" at him while he tried to hawk his book, which prompted arrests and an ugly-for-Canada police battle that then became part of the story of his visit. Is that likely to result in Cheney's arrest or sway huge numbers of people to change how they think? No. But it's vastly preferable to allowing him to traipse around the world as though he's a respectable figure unaccompanied by anger over his crimes -- anger necessarily expressed outside of the institutions that have failed to check or punish (but rather have shielded and legitimized) those crimes. And the same is true of Wall Street's rampant criminality.

But for those who believe that protests are only worthwhile if they translate into quantifiable impact: the lack of organizational sophistication or messaging efficacy on the part of the Wall Street protest is a reason to support it and get involved in it, not turn one's nose up at it and join in the media demonization. That's what one actually sympathetic to its messaging (rather than pretending to be in order more effectively to discredit it) would do. Anyone who looks at mostly young citizens marching in the street protesting the corruption of Wall Street and the harm it spawns, and decides that what is warranted is mockery and scorn rather than support, is either not seeing things clearly or is motivated by objectives other than the ones being presented.

http://www.salon.com/news/wall_street/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/09/28/protests

*

Chicken Little

The 14 karat gold plated corporate media has decided we can not get enough of the economic pornography they have packaged so irresistibly for general consumption.

Propaganda mogul sports common man look. Literally millions of viewers weened on cable news can't seem to decide which story is most disturbingly stupid; the Debt Ceiling question looming overhead or Rupert Murdock loosing his grip as a media empire crumbles to the ground.

A clever expression of modern sensual British banality by wonder-guy Ron English.

Where is Waldo ! and where is our Dubya, the decider of war and debt. Where are those who got us into this trillion dollar mess. Bush is toast, Pelosi is out to pasture, and Boehner is hanging on by his lavender ascot. Notice the listless hands barely raised as if to suggest a hidden grudging contempt.

Take the millions and run. Clever graffiti focuses on the monopoly of insecurity as the wealthy and affluent scramble for cover from the guarantee of uncertainty that disaster capitalism delivers in the age of global shock doctrine.

Success is not an option. Republican Speaker is just talk as the Bonernator and the rest of his obstructionist party give us the finger.

Eighteen holes and a bottle of bubbly. Civility and refinement are at the core of the camaraderie among the elite political and media class. No matter their price of 'freedom', the multitude of manipulable folk will pay in blood and treasure.

While the militarization of the world mounts...

... the supple hands of the business class begrudgingly prepare for the worst.

*

Labor Pains

Same Old World

It is a well kept secret that labor precedes capital. Without the muscle there is no hustle. This fact is not lost on the titans of industry, multinational corporations and one-world elite who strong-arm unions and insidiously muddy the message to assure that the balance of power is tacked for their profit. Capital's contempt for Labor is proof enough that without the worker the boss has no job in the new world order.



Since the building of the great pyramids of Egypt the pharaoh understood the need to keep workers content, they gave them beer. More recently, after much unrest and bloodshed, president Grover Cleveland declared a national holiday to honor the lowly workers that built this great nation. Without them there would be no development, no progress, no fortunes. His gesture defused unrest and assured that the other 364 days of the year would be productive.




Then and Now

Not much changes in the work ethic.
A virtuous worker has always gotten the job done regardless of the compensation. Other less dignified workers will look for ways to game the system to get something for nothing. One is motivated by a sincere willingness to be contribute to the union, the other by sly self-serving contempt for humanity.




The Ultimate Resource

The human resource is largely untapped. When will we get with the program and lift humanity out of the dumb-age? When will capital temper its Darwinian impulse of predatory capitalism with compassion and social relevance? A quick look around makes it clear that a living wage for most of the worlds workers will not come any time soon.



Down-Time Deferred

For some of our most dedicated workers there is no time off from their job.
The rewards come not in a paycheck or long weekend, but in the form of honor from service to country. The front-lines may be a dusty outpost or a moldy office cubical, both are valid so long as the mission is for the betterment of civilization. Doing no harm is more than just a job, it is the guiding principal in considering any employment.



Now Not Hiring

With the unemployment numbers at stratospheric heights, the economy talking a double dip and the dollar in the dump, keep your head above the water line and figure out a way to get your overhead down. Keep in mind that there must be better times ahead, its the only prospect we have for now.



Official Humor

So on this celebration of Labor remember the boss is always right, to the left of center.

*