The more they stall, the more people will feel frustrated. Let's hope the footdragging works in favor of progressives.

MLK was concerned with economic justice and equality for ALL people not just people of color and he started the Poor Peoples' Campaign. His mission and legacy was betrayed in this way more than any other. Particularly so because racial "diversity" and a very capitalist assimilation of African American society into mainstream American society (which started sometime after King and continues now) was used to divert attention away from economic inequality.

That is partly because in the care free, middle class U.S. economy of the '60s we were a middle class society. Labor was strong (and corrupt - it had become part of the problem, a strong impediment to social change and the redistribution of power) and poverty was almost non existant. What poverty there was was largely race based, i.e., it was largely the result of racial dicrimination. For this reason the social justice movements of the '60s took up issues of racial rather than economic - or class - justice and the idea of a class struggle never really became popularized, hip or fashionable in the U.S.. Labor's corruption led to its demonization and ultimate decline lending itself to the Right's campaign against it and the suppression of class consciousness.

Meanwhile the big bussiness media, in service of the Right's campaign, diverted attention from economic injustice by cynically exploiting racial issues pointing to "diversification" of the elite sectors of society. We now have Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice and Barrack Obamma so everything's right with the world. We're "post racial".

Henry Louis Gates Jr., an African American Harvard professor, in his book Beyond Race, argues that class is a greater divider than race in current society (don't know what he might say now after his famous encounter with the police when he locked himself out of his his house and he they mistook him for a burglar). That's kind of a traditional Marxist view and kind of likeThom's "Billionairistan" thesis. In contemporary U.S. society it is easier to have a friend - or even to marry someone - of another race than of another class.

For further reading I recommend The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality by Walter Benn Michaels, Henry Holt and Company, 2006.

The Twain Report

All The News That Mark Twain Says He Would Report If He Was Alive Today

8-24-2013

When Goldman Sachs Banker Jason Lee was Arrested yesterday for raping a woman in his Hamptons rental house in the presence of other guests, locals were quick to rally to his defense.

"Oh, you can't really call that rape," said East Hamptons Rolls Royce dealer Humbert Smythington III. "For God's sake, the man is brilliant- he has a doctorate in international finance and he is on the short list to become the Dominique Strauss-Kahn Professor of Economics at Harvard School of Finance. Anyone with any education at all knows that Mr. Lee was simply applying well-proven economics principles to interpersonal relationships."

"My children," said Rory Cheerful McBlockkopf III, bishop of the Hamptons Catholic Diocese, "have we strayed so far from God's teachings as revealed in Ayn Rand's sacred scriptures, that a man who simply finds a resource and avails himself of said resource, can be arrested and charged with a crime? And more to the point, how can a man who only last week gave me a $20,000 box of Cuban cigar be guilty of anything? God damn it, I'm the bishop around here, and I very specifically gave Mr. Lee a dispensation for any rape that he would commit in the next week and a half, with an option to give me another box of cigars and extend the dispensation to cover a full month."

The Twain Report is taking up a collection so our editor- not a wealthy man by any measure- can get a dispensation just in case he gets a parking ticket or thinks an unkind thought. Please send your donations of at least $50,000 in cash, to:

The Bribe God for the Twain Report Fund

C/O H. E. Bishop RC McBlockkopf

Bank of America building

East Hamptons, NY

chuckle8 ~ You are welcome for the discussion. By the way, I did some research of my own. Negative rights are not necessarily a bad thing. They are defined as rights that protect people from the actions of other people. Definition per wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_rights

On Negative Rights vs Positive Rights:

Quote wikipedia:Under the theory of positive and negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group—a government, for example—usually in the form of abuse or coercion. A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action of another person or group. In theory, a negative right forbids others from acting against the right holder, while a positive right obligates others to act with respect to the right holder. In the framework of the Kantian categorical imperative, negative rights can be associated with perfect duties while positive rights can be connected to imperfect duties.[citation needed]

Belief in a distinction between positive and negative rights is usually maintained, or emphasized, by libertarians, who believe that positive rights do not exist until they are created by contract. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights lists both positive and negative rights (but does not identify them as such). The constitutions of most liberal democracies guarantee negative rights, but not all include positive rights. Nevertheless, positive rights are often guaranteed by other laws, and the majority of liberal democracies provide their citizens with publicly funded education, health care, social security and unemployment benefits.

Negative rights tend to protect individuals from bullies like corporations, religious institutions, mafia, unfair employers and each other. Negative here is a noun and not an adjective. I admit very confusing, but nothing to be wary of.

Links for today:

The NSA is cracking the UN's video confrencing encryptin all after condemming China for doing it

http://rt.com/news/nsa-us-un-germany-snowden-964/

Teens actually starting to care about online privacy

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/08/24/2017201/teens-actually-care-about...

Cookieless tracking being done now via ETags

http://lucb1e.com/rp/cookielesscookies/

Fukushima worse then reported

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23779561

The secret cleanup of Soviet nuclear test site

http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/08/20/1738213/the-secret-effort-to-cle...

GMO rice passing on it's roundup ready genes to weeds

http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/08/19/221202/gm-rice-passes-unexpec...

The next level of corporate explotation of the public

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/08/17/0354202/the-next-frontier-of-cons...

DAnneMarc -- Thank you for discussing the topic. I will continue to research the subject since I cannot think of a more important topic than the will of the people to determine the rules we live by. I think the words "We the People" in the preamble are more important than anything else in the constitution or its amendents.

The dream realized after the murder of MLK, JFK & RFK is our current nightmare. The nexus of power that Eisenhower warned against took control by the murder of the greatest leaders of that generation. We still live with the consequences of that coup d'etat.

Live the dream...

Yes we can...

Palindromedary, as uncomfortable as you- as a straight person- are with the subject of transgender medication/surgery, imagine how uncomfortable it could be for a man to stand up in today's homophobic America (and as if that wasn't enough, he makes his stand in a military prison, which is an even more frantically homophobic environment), and say that in his heart he has always been a woman, knowing that hundreds of millions of people all over the world will hear his statement. I was already incredibly impressed with Manning's courage before this, but now even more so.

And yet, similar to you, I feel personally uncomfortable around people like Manning. What has changed in recent years, however, is that- like you- I freely admit to the discomfort I feel, and I don't try to justify or excuse it. I will know that I have made significant progress when I feel the same toward transgender people as I do toward everyone else.

A Chinese doctor told me, "Everything in this universe is a direct result of the interaction of yin and yang. Most women are more yin than most men, but some women are very yang. And most men are more yang than most women, but some men are very yin. Sometimes these differences play out in the sexual arena, but even when they do, it's still just yin and yang."

As an environmentalist, I would dearly love to see all hormone-disrupting chemicals banned, because they make an already complex and difficult situation, more complex and more difficult to understand clearly.

chuckle8 ~ Very well! At this time I feel certain that you are confusing apples and oranges. The founding fathers did perceive the common people as unable to participate in Government due to lack of education and information. They were right in many respects. Despite the current electronic information age coupled with free public education for everyone a very serious argument can still be made that the 'commoners' are not educated enough to participate in governmental decisions. However, that is not the argument at hand.

The argument at had is whether or not We the People are deserving of the Bill of Rights. That is another argument altogether. Lets stick to that one. In that respect I must assert that the intent of the founding fathers was beyond a reasonable doubt to insure that every aspect of the Bill of Rights be applied to every American. In fact, despite the fact that African Americans were denied such rights at the time the Bill of Rights was written, I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt that they too were intended to be covered by these rights as well. The founding fathers simply wrote what they perceived to be the best plan for everyone and silently decided to let future generations figure it out.

As far as "negative rights" are concerned, I am certain this a red herring created by a select few to confuse the general masses into accepting the concept that human rights are inherently bad and don't serve the common good. In this respect I have to say without any hesitation that the entire concept of "negative rights" is a bogus attempt to attack the Constitution by the 1%. You've stated that this concept comes from the Obama Administration and Thom Hartmann and yet have provided no reference, quotes, or evidence whatsoever. You've taken a term completely out of context without any definition. Without such sources this subject is merely hearsay and completely dead in the water.

These "negative rights" as YOU call them should be called "Super Rights." They should never be challenged by any form of our legislative system. When elected all legislators from Congress to the Executive branch swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That oath leaves no room for tampering with any part of our fundamental Constitution--including The Bill of Rights. It is The Bill of Rights first and foremost that must survive any legislative actions. It is possible that the current President is attacking The Bill of Rights because he certainly has demonstrated little intent on following through with his oath of office. However, Thom Hartmann is another story altogether. He has sworn no oath of any kind and has nothing to gain from treason. Perhaps he mentioned some ridiculous catch phrase the Administration is or has attempted to throw out; but, I feel confident that he is not promoting such a malicious unconstitutional agenda. If you feel he is, please provide your links and quotes. Otherwise, I am through with this topic. Please excuse me; but, I must move on to bigger, better and more tangible topics. See you next week.

Quote David Abbot:
Without people like Manning, America would just be another cheap-shot dictatorship. Manning should receive the Congressional Medal of Honor and a public apology, be given several million dollars for her service to America, and have a national holiday named after her.

DAnneMarc --- Noboby ever accused me of clarifying anything. If the "Bill of Rights" were as you describe neither Thom or Obama would call them negative. With my sophomoric understanding of history, I think when our country started, every other country in western civilization was run by the 1% or less. It was the opinion of the rest of the world that if the 99% were running government it would not work because they would take all the goodies for themselves and there would be no productionof value. This is the currect view of Fox News when they talk about the 47%. I think some of this view rubbed off on our founders. They wanted to protect certain rights from the democratic process of the simple majority and require a super majority. Remember all my discussion is trying to determine why Thom and Obama call them negative rights. I want to restate that all our liberty flows from we the people deciding laws based on a simple majority.

I used to listen to Thom on my way to work -- a 10 minute drive. I missed a lot. When I retired I listened while walking at the beach for 2 hours. I heard a lot more. Then, Thom left LA and I subscribed to his podcasts. Podcasts have no commercials, so during a 2 hour walk I can hear everything he says. Of the 60 hours a month of Thom I would say he mentions "negative rights" for 10 seconds.