Corona

 RANDOM JACK POETRY HOUR: CORONAVIRUS SERIES

Corona

I respect words

I resent having a word burned into my

consciousness without my consent

I resent words being redefined with a

mark of death to the end of time

Corona

A crown

The blazing crown of the sun

The king of beers

Cerveza mas fina

What was once innocent and refreshing

is now and forever stained with

Deadly sickness hospitals and quarantine

Never again can we say corona

without conjuring an image of

destitution and plague

Isolation

RANDOM JACK POETRY HOUR: CORONAVIRUS

Isolation

Condemned to exist in a shrinking space

Where nothing living can penetrate

Isolation not as punishment

But as precautionary measure

Compelled to dive inward

To discover forbidden secrets

Fears and desires buried deep

In the hidden subconscious

How will we emerge from such an exercise?

How will we be transformed?

We are unwilling participants in the greatest

experiment in the history of the world

Will we rise or fall?

Will we thrive or wallow?

No one knows

No one has a clue

The only certainty is that nothing

But nothing will ever be the same

The Plague

RANDOM JACK POETRY HOUR: CORONAVIRUS

The Plague 

A deep dark deadly shadow fell upon the earth

Spreading like wildfire crossing borders

Walls and oceans with little hesitation

No one listened when the ghosts of

Nostradamus warned the end is nigh

No one listened when the poets cried

The reckoning is at hand

No one listened when the bible thumping

Soothsayers brought down the hammer

Of the lord’s vengeance

We’re listening now

We’re making amends

We’re praying now

Praying it’s not the plague

Praying it’s not Armageddon

Praying it’s not too late

THE MARKET HAS SPOKEN

RANDOM JACK POETRY HOUR:  THE CORONAVIRUS

The Market Has Spoken

In the midst of pandemic the president

Declares:  Enough is enough!

We have to stop this market slide

So what if people die?

Take your sniveling driveling empathy

And toss it out the door

The flu takes thirty thousand lives

What’s thirty thousand more?

And the market sings hallelujah boys

The party’s on again

The working stiffs will always lose

And we will always win

So the Dow becomes a morbid measure

Of how many lives we lost

But the people will remember always

That it came at such a cost

[Note:  As I post this the Dow has risen over 3,000 points since the president declared he will not allow the virus to impede the nation's economy for much longer.]

The Hillary Roadmap to Losing in November

A LONG & WINDING ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE

THE HILLARY ROADMAP TO LOSING THE WHITE HOUSE

By Jack Random

No one exemplifies the definition of insanity (trying the same thing over and over expecting a different result) than the Democratic Party. 

On the Monday before Super Tuesday the Democrats in coordination with mainstream Democratic media (MSNBC, CNN) staged a rare and impressive display of party unity in an attempt to derail the Bernie Sanders train to the presidential nomination.  To a large extent their efforts succeeded.  If not for California the Sanders campaign would be on life support. 

The irony is: We have seen this act before.  The party is repeating the same pattern of behavior that culminated in losing the presidency to the most unqualified and ill-suited candidate for high office in all of American history. 

Congratulations, Democrats!  You’re doing it again. 

Perhaps the most unpopular nominee in party history, Hillary managed to win the nomination by capitalizing on her association with former President Barack Obama.  Without a direct endorsement, that association was good enough to win a dominant share of the African American vote.  She swept the South and used big money donations and free media promotion to run up an insurmountable lead.  By the time we got to the California primary it was all over. 

Then Hillary took her corporate friendly policies and an attitude of entitlement into the general election.  She won big on the coasts but she lost the rust belt where the good working people of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin abandoned her by the busloads.  They didn’t believe she represented their interests.  They had good reason not to believe her.  Her record did not support her promises. 

If this all sounds familiar it should.  Joe Biden is Hillary without the pantsuit or the political acumen.  On some vague, hard-to-define level, old Joe is certainly more likable than Hillary.  But he represents the same failings.  He represents a party that gives only lip service to the memory of Franklin Roosevelt.  He represents a party that loudly proclaims:  We’re not as bad as the other guys!  Yeah.  Well, maybe you’re not but there’s not a whole lot to get excited about. 

Hillary thought that argument would win her the critical states by default.  She was dead wrong.  She didn’t even bother to show up. 

Old Joe Biden goes on the stump and delivers every platitude and cliché known to the American history books:  Four score and seven years ago, our father who art in heaven...  Ah jeez, you know what I mean. 

Old Joe has challenged a man who dared question the job his son took in Ukraine to a pushups match.  His Democratic challengers have been exceedingly polite in not bringing up that crooked deal.  The first rule of politics is not to engage in behavior that has even the appearance of corruption. 

Do you think the Trump campaign or Trump himself will ignore the Hunter Biden story?  How do you think Old Joe will respond this time?  By challenging the man in the orange mask to a dual at sundown? 

Trump rode to the Republican nomination in 2016 largely on the strength of free publicity delivered by mainstream media.  Despite the fact that Bernie Sanders draws crowds in the thousands, his events rarely make an appearance on any newscast.  The blitz of Old Joe the comeback kid during and after the South Carolina primary was topped only by the open adulation and coronation before, during and after Super Tuesday. 

The only difference between the bumbling Joe before South Carolina and after South Carolina is that now he’s louder and more assertive.  How long will he get away with a stump speech that consists of the preamble to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address and an occasional Robert Frost quotation?  How long will the media be able to pretend that Old Joe has got his Mo back? 

How long will the Lib Media get away with ignoring Biden’s record of being on the wrong side of the issues?  Biden chaired the committee that skewered Anita Hill and secured Clarence Thomas a place on the Supreme Court.  Biden sponsored the notorious crime bill that led directly to the mass incarceration of minorities.  Biden forcefully sponsored and supported every American industry killing Free Trade deal from NAFTA to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  Biden voted to repeal the critical Glass-Steagall regulation that protected consumers from reckless Wall Street speculation.  Biden voted for the bankruptcy bill that made it harder for ordinary people to cancel their debts to unscrupulous banks and business interests.  Biden failed to oppose the Keystone Pipeline and supports fracking.  Biden supported the Iraq and Afghan wars with all his heart.  Biden was an author and sponsor of the Patriot Act, an act that stands alongside the Alien and Sedition Acts as an assault on civil liberties. 

The only time Biden remembers the workers, the environment, equal rights, women’s rights or civil liberties is election time. 

If I sound a little disillusioned, I am.  Four years ago, faced with the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency, I warned everyone who would listen that Hillary Clinton was not only the wrong candidate to defeat Trump.  She was precisely the wrong candidate.  She suffered a severe credibility gap with working people.  She was saddled with enough baggage to supply the Olympic track team.  And she alienated the beating heart of the party: The Bernie Brigade. 

Yet all the party operatives and all the “liberal” media pundits went down the path to defeat with smiles on their faces.  Hillary couldn’t lose.  Until she did. 

Now they’re doing the exact same thing all over again. 

And now I’m sounding the same alarm and I hope it’s not too late.  If not for California standing up to all the media hype and Democratic machine propaganda, it surely would be. 

Biden is not the candidate they’re pretending he is and no amount of money or propaganda can sustain such an illusion from now to Election Day. 

Bernie Sanders, the Democratic Socialist or Social Democrat, is the man who can take us home.  He’s as genuine as an old pair of Levi jeans.  His only interest is to deliver a government that represents the common folk.  Biden talks the talk.  Bernie walks the walk. 

If the people are allowed to hear his ideas, they will embrace them.  They know by raw instinct he’s right.  Bernie’s Medicare for All will provide universal healthcare while saving the nation $450 billion per year.  It will also save 68,000 lives per year.  [1, 2]  Bernie is dedicated to a Green Economy, a national minimum wage, labor union protections and a foreign policy that works for peace.  Bernie wants an immigration policy that legalizes people who are already here and contributing to our society.  Bernie wants an end to the private prison industry.  Bernie wants access to quality education, including college or trade school, for all.  Bernie wants our most promising students to be free of unconscionable debt. 

Will he get everything that he proposes?  No.  But he will get something.  All newly elected presidents get something.  Obama got Obamacare and it clearly wasn’t enough.  If Bernie gets Medicare for All or something like it, we will all be significantly better off.  Bernie will get a lot more than that because the people will demand it and congress will respond.    

Don’t believe the same old hype.  The candidate to beat Donald Trump is Bernie Sanders. 

Jazz. 

1.     Improving the prognosis of healthcare in the USA.  Prof Alison P. Galvani, PhD, Alyssa S. Parpia, MPH, Eric M. Foster, Burton H. Singer, PhD, Meagan C. Fitzpatrick, PhD.  The Lancet.  February 15, 2020.

2.     Multiple studies show Medicare for All would be cheaper than public option pushed by Moderates. By Igor Derysh.  Salon, February 20, 2020. 

BERN BABY BERN: BERNIE OR BUST!

LONG & WINDING ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE

BERNIE OR BUST!

By Jack Random

In the much awaited trial of the president Democratic members of the house took aim at Donald Trump’s manifestly crooked dealings in Ukraine.  In response, the president’s defenders took aim at Joe Biden. 

Both were previews of the campaign to come.  The prosecution of the president was a three-day, 36-hour attack ad against the presidency of Donald Trump.  The defense was an attack ad against Joe Biden via his son, Hunter Biden. 

The mainstream of both major parties presumed that the coming presidential election would be a match of elders, a contest between the corrupt incumbent against the entrenched Democratic challenger.  The smear machines are revved and ready.

Not so fast. 

Bernie Sanders may be elderly but he represents the young.  He brings the vitality, energy and resilience of the young to a stodgy old process that embraces structural conservatism. 

The old politicos had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that a non-politician without governing experience could win a presidential election by exploiting the flaws in an antiquated and eminently inequitable system.  They are having the same trouble with Bernie Sanders. 

In so many ways Sanders represents the existential threat that Trump posed but has not delivered.  Trump plays the game and makes no excuses.  Sanders tells it like it is. 

With his rise in the polls and his victory in the Iowa caucus (where I come from the one who gets the most votes wins) the operatives and dealmakers of the Democratic Party are beginning to panic.  They miscalculated badly by having Hillary Clinton deliver her attack against Bernie.  To this day they don’t seem to realize that Hillary is not popular among the majority of Democratic or independent voters.  Hillary holds the political class.  She can’t hold a candle to Bernie when it comes to political activists. 

Next they managed to persuade Elizabeth Warren to deliver an attack designed to weaken Bernie’s appeal to women.  It backfired.  People saw through the staged maneuver and moved to Bernie’s camp.  Warren may not recover. 

Now, just like the last campaign, the party is working overtime to find ways to stop the Bernie train.  One by one the surrogates step to the camera to deliver a tired old speech:  Bernie can’t possibly beat Trump.  Bernie’s a socialist.  Bernie is too far to the left.  Bernie’s a radical with radical ideas. 

Maybe they believe it.  Maybe they’re just doing their party’s bidding.  They seem to forget:  Hillary was the mainstream moderate who lost to Trump.  Why would they be so eager to try it again? 

After the impeachment trial Joe Biden is damaged goods.  Act One of the trial that wasn’t a trial was an attack on the president.  Act Two of the trial was a counterattack on the integrity of Biden.  The attack ads are already written.  When Biden calls out Trump for his dirty dealing in Ukraine, the forces of Trump counter with Burisma.  How much was it Hunter Biden made?  More in a month than working people make in a year?  What were his qualifications again? 

In the age of Trump it is not enough to be clean.  You have to be above the appearance of wrongdoing.  The old school politicians know this and Biden fails the test.  

When the Democrats finally accept this fact they will look to another option: anyone but Bernie.  There was a time when I would have included Warren on the list of unacceptable presidential candidates to the Democratic machine.  To all appearances she took essentially the same positions as Bernie but something changed along the line.  The party decided they could work with Warren.  Apparently they don’t feel the same about Bernie. 

Why?  Bernie is the most consistent candidate in the field.  Whether you label him a Democratic Socialist or a Social Democrat or an Independent, he believes now what he believed decades ago and he’s held his ground. 

Little noted in the mainstream cable media that looks more and more like a subdivision of the DNC there was a diversion of response to international crises in recent months. 

First came the coup in Bolivia.  Bernie condemned it as a coup and called for an international response.  Warren, Klobuchar and Buttigieg took the standard line, condemning the victim and supporting the usurpers.  It was an insult to democratic values and democracy itself.  Warren came around but only after Bernie led. 

Second came the events that threatened another forever war in the Middle East, this time with Iran.  The candidates tripped over themselves condemning the assassinated Iranian commander.  Only Bernie took a more measured perspective, stepping back from the precipice of war and condemning targeted assassination as an instrument of foreign policy. 

Third and most recently: the Trump administration’s dead-in-the-waters proposal for peace between Israel and Palestine.  Once again Bernie took the lead, calling out the proposal for the farce that it is.  He took the opportunity to call for an end to Israeli occupation and the establishment of two viable states, guaranteeing Palestinian self-determination as well as mutual security.  To her credit Warren followed suit with her own condemnation of Israeli annexation of Palestinian territories.  Buttigieg talked in his usual doublespeak but criticized the deal as one-sided.  Biden engaged in similar talk, criticizing the deal but emphasizing a long-standing loyalty to the state of Israel. 

More and more I am left with the conviction that Bernie is our best hope both at home and in foreign affairs.  He stands ready to make the fundamental changes that our times demand.  Moreover, he is the best candidate to expose the failures of the Trump administration.  For while the Trump years have seen a dramatic decrease in the unemployment rate, well-paying middle class jobs have been transformed into low-paying service jobs.  While the corporations and the wealthy have made a fortune, the rest of us still wonder how we’re going to make it to tomorrow. 

Bernie has been saying it for years:  It’s time for a political revolution.  It’s time to fundamentally transform an economic and political system that works extremely well for the ones at the top but not so well for the poor and the working people. 

I have not given up on Elizabeth Warren.  She remains my first choice as an alternative to Bernie.  But my confidence has been shaken not only by her politically reckless attack on her progressive rival but her stops and stumbles on policy and events in the daily news.  I fear she may be too anxious to modify her policies to please the party. 

Andrew Yang remains an intriguing choice and one that I would not only support but work for were he to win the nomination.  It would take a tsunami for that to happen. 

The other candidates, including Joe Biden, would be a major disappointment to anyone who believes as I do that the next president must enact historic change.  Would I vote for a Biden, a Buttigieg or Klobuchar, a Bloomberg or Steyer over Trump?  Of course.  But would I work for them, write for them, contribute and serve as a warrior for the cause? 

No, I would not. 

I am old enough to know that change happens.  Sometimes it happens when you don’t expect it.  Sometimes it happens overnight. 

But for now:  It’s Bernie or bust! 

Jazz. 

JACK RANDOM IS A WRITER LIVING IN CENTRAL CALIFORNIA.  HIS WORKS INCLUDE EIGHT NOVELS AND THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES.

The Progressive Divide: Warren Vs. Sanders

LONG & WINDING ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE

THE NOTORIOUS PROGRESSIVE DIVIDE

By Jack Random

On January 14 of the new year 2020 six candidates took the stage in the last Democratic presidential debate before the Iowa caucus.  In the absence of Andrew Yang, it was the first all-white debate.  It seems the African American vote has gone all in for Joe Biden. 

Objectively, neither I nor anyone else will ever fully understand why black voters overwhelmingly prefer Biden over Cory Booker or Kamala Harris but the margins leave no doubt.  If Biden prevails and becomes the Democratic nominee he will owe it all to former President Barack Obama. 

For me the most poignant moment in an evening only slightly more entertaining than a constant drone was when moderator Abby Phillip of CNN pointedly asked of former Mayor Pete Buttigieg:  Is it possible that black voters have gotten to know you and have simply decided to choose another candidate?

It was clear from the mayor’s expression he was stung by the question.  It rang true despite the candidate’s claims that blacks in his town support him.  It did not help his cause that Ms. Phillip is a black woman.  The mayor was stung again later in the debate by the same moderator who noted that his healthcare plan would automatically enroll individuals who do not want insurance. 

Buttigieg is a master of the old debate ploy used to avoid any answers that might not serve his interest:  deflect and pivot.  After witnessing the practice a few dozen times it becomes obvious even to his most ardent supporters. 

Mayor Pete’s performance was flat in keeping with a presumed non-aggression pact among the moderates.  He is competing with Biden and Amy Klobuchar but all three refused to engage.  It is in a sense understandable with Buttigieg.  He is counting on Biden to stumble.  It is not understandable with Klobuchar.  She sits in a distant third and desperately needed to pick up ground before the impeachment trial took her and her fellow senators off the campaign trail. 

With Biden the bar has been set so low he could take third place in a second grade speech contest and the press would call it a triumph.  I understand that the senator overcame stuttering as a child.  I get that his age is catching up to him.  But we should never elect a president out of sympathy. 

The fireworks of the night belonged to the progressive candidates:  Senator Elizabeth Warren vs. Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until recently it was considered logical for these two to eventually unite their followers against a decidedly more moderate field.  Warren and Sanders stand for universal healthcare in the form of Medicare for All.  They are both antiwar and believe that military spending should be substantially cut to make way for progressive programs and a Green New Deal.  Both are solid supporters of taxing the elite to improve the lives of common citizens.  Both are pro labor and believers in Fair Trade.  While there are differences in policy and emphasis, their commonalities are far greater than what separates them. 

In what should have been a non-issue, one largely contrived by CNN, the two senators engaged on whether or not Sanders told Warren that a woman could not win the presidency in a conversation that took place in 2018.  Warren said he did.  Sanders said he did not.  Since it was a private conversation we can presume it was not meant for public consumption.  That Warren made it so is questionable in itself.  She persisted to the point of confronting Sanders on stage after the debated ended.  Refusing to shake his hand she said:  “I think you called me a liar on national TV.” 

When it was picked up by a hot mike and broadcast on CNN it became clear Warren wanted a confrontation.  Both Sanders and Warren being honorable individuals, one would have assumed the incident was a misunderstanding.  It is not beyond question that a 76 year-old man and a 68 year-old woman might misinterpret a remark. 

Now it has become a critical issue dividing the progressive front of the Democratic Party.  Now it becomes an issue that could damage both candidates and open the door to yet another Democratic compromise, probably in the form of old Joe Biden, that will likely lose the White House.  From a progressive point of view that would be a disaster. 

Those who have observed electoral politics over time recognize a pattern.  The guardians of the left are notorious for attacking their own. 

Sanders’ supporters are certainly intense.  In their zeal to boost their candidate they played the cards they had.  They argued what many think but rarely express:  That a woman would be less likely to win against Trump.  I don’t believe that.  Maybe they don’t believe it either.  Hillary Clinton lost not because she was a woman but because she was weak on trade policy, because she came with a ton of political baggage and because her weaknesses played to Trump’s electoral college favor. 

Elizabeth Warren has made a stand and in so doing she has forced us to do the same.  We can stand with Warren or we can stand with Bernie.  We can no longer hold out for one or the other to win the progressive mantle. 

As one who has defended Warren against what I considered unreasonable attacks, I can no longer stand by her.  Bernie’s been with us far too long to believe now that he is anything less than honorable.  Bernie was quick to call a coup a coup in Bolivia.  Warren floundered.  Bernie took the lead in condemning the unwarranted and ill-advised assassination of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani.  Warren wasted time taking the standard mainstream line condemning the victim.  That she eventually found her way to Bernie’s reasoned opposition is commendable but Bernie was already there. 

Strange there was so little discussion of Soleimani’s assassination.  Strange there was no mention of the events in Bolivia or subsequent events in Venezuela.  On matters of foreign policy, military spending and congressional authorization to engage war in foreign lands, Bernie was clearly the best informed and the most principled. 

Warren slips to a distant second on my list of progressive preference.  She needs to back off her attack on Bernie.  Unfortunately, it does not appear that she will. 

It occurred to me in observing this debate that there was very little to engage the curious or challenge the public mind.  Tom Steyer, the newcomer to presidential debates, repeatedly looked into the camera and delivered his prepared appeal.  It did little to persuade.  Steyer may be a good man.  He may have the nation’s best interest at heart.  But he has offered no compelling reason to believe that he is the man to lead the nation in a new direction.  Others can take the lead on climate change and no one believes that term limits is the solution to our problems. 

At least billionaire Mike Bloomberg has held public office.  Neither Steyer nor Bloomberg has managed to make the case that there is anything greater than personal ambition behind their candidacies.  There are far better ways to spend their money and there are far better candidates for their causes.

We have moved on.  The preliminary debates are over.  The senators have been called back to Washington to serve as jurors in the trial of the president.  The strange ritual of the Iowa caucus begins in a few short weeks on February 3^rd.  After that: New Hampshire February 11^th. 

Then the schedule slips into overdrive.  On February 22^nd Nevada will introduce racial minorities, including a significant Hispanic community, into the race.  On February 29^th South Carolina will introduce African Americans. 

The whole contest should pretty much be decided by March 3^rd when California votes along with thirteen other states.  Past that date there will be no pretenders. 

At this juncture, the most likely scenario is that Joe Biden wins the nomination and loses the White House.  I don’t like it but there it is.  On the other hand, anything can happen. 

Jazz. 

Jack Random is the author of the Jazzman Chronicles and Hard Times: The Wrath of an Angry God. 

ANOTHER STUPID WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST

ANOTHER STUPID WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST

By Jack Random

“The stupid endless wars, for us, are ending.”

Donald Trump, Twitter:  9 October 2019

Of all the lies Donald Trump delivered on his twisted road to the White House the most insipid, nefarious and damnable was the one that promised no more “stupid wars” in the Middle East.   

That was then.  This is now.  Trump stands poised to take a desperate dive into war that so many failing presidents have resorted to before him.  George HW Bush had his little war in Panama and his Gulf War prelude to the War in Iraq.  Bill Clinton had his wag the dog excursion into Kosovo.  George W. Bush dove headlong into the quagmire of Afghanistan and the and the ongoing disaster in Iraq. 

True or not, it is commonly believed that Americans will rally to a president at war and Trump is due to forget his campaign promise and take the dive.  Whether it is his doing or that of his neocon Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the US carried out airstrikes against an Iraqi militia killing 25 soldiers.  The bombings were a tragic and potentially catastrophic mistake.  They were not sanctioned by the Iraqi government.  In fact both Iran and Iraq condemned the action. 

Trump and company justified the strikes on two grounds:  First, it was in retaliation for attacks on US bases in Iraq, one of which killed an American contractor (otherwise known as a mercenary).  Second, the militia is connected to Iran and that apparently is justification enough. 

Whatever the justification, thousands of protestors assaulted the American embassy to express their outrage.  It seems the people of Iraq do not have warm feelings for the nation that attacked their homeland without provocation.  It seems the Shiites have warmer feelings toward their Iranian neighbor than they do for the military superpower that attempted and ultimately failed to occupy their country.  It seems there is some animosity when you terrorize a nation, kill tens of thousands of their people and wound countless soldiers and civilians alike. 

The retaliatory bombing campaign came at the same time the Iraqi government was once again on the brink of collapse.  Its security forces have killed an estimated 500 citizens who have risen in protest against the government. 

America’s recent and sudden withdrawal from northern Syria has left the region in turmoil.  Russia has regained control of her client state, Turkey is emboldened in its desire to crush the Kurdish independent movement and the Islamic State is regaining momentum.  Both the Kurds and the Iranian supported militias have played a crucial role in fighting the forces of ISIS.

Now our naïve president has been sucked into the escalation of American forces.  It begins with a few hundred marines but where does it end?  The Iraqi government has condemned the American bombing campaign as a violation of national sovereignty.  Legislation is being proposed to demand withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq.  What will our president do then? 

Trump continues to view the conflict as one between Iran and America but he fails to understand that the vast majority of the Iraqi people are against us.  We cannot be drawn into another prolonged war in the region.  But rather than pause to reflect on the consequences of our actions, our fearless leader chooses to take the most provocative action possible short of launching a full-scale attack:  He orders the assassination of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani at the Baghdad international airport. 

We are diving headlong into the most stupid war in an era of stupid wars.  It is the supremely stupid war because we have already proven the stupidity of endless war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Now we are proposing a regional war with enemies on all sides:  Iran, Iraq, Syria and the Islamic State. 

It is the most stupid of stupid instigations to war because it legitimizes targeted assassination as a weapon of war.  One wonders if Pompeo warned the president about the dangers of this action.  Even warlike nations have always been reluctant to employ assassination lest the enemy replies in kind. 

We can disregard all the testimonials that Qasem Soleimani was an evil man.  He was a military man.  He followed the directives of his government.  The Iranians do not believe he was evil, the Iraqis do not believe he was evil and we did not believe he was evil when he was one of several commanders leading the fight against ISIS. 

The dehumanization of our adversaries is always prelude to war and this war has all the markings of a supremely idiotic, massively destructive mother of all Middle East wars. 

The president has lied and deceived us far too many times to be believed in a matter so crucial as war.  The president claims an attack on American forces was eminent.  There is a difference between eminent and inevitable. 

If we grant the accounts that the Iraqi-Shiite militias with strong ties to Iran have staged several attacks on American bases, the fact remains that only one American mercenary was killed in those attacks.  Twenty-five Iraqis were killed in the American retaliatory bombing.  And that was before the assassination of commander Soleimani and an Iraqi militia leader. 

When you are operating in a foreign nation, there is a code of conduct and proportionality is a part of that code.  There is a process for settling disputes in other nations.  We could have and should have filed a complaint against the accused militias.  Instead we bombed them.  We killed twenty-five and wounded some fifty others.  We could have and should have consulted our allies in Iraq before assassinating the commander of the Revolutionary Guard. 

The White House has warned members of congress that it expects retaliation within weeks.  That is an understatement of epic proportions.  We have escalated our involvement by sending thousands of troops to the region.  We have made yet another stupid war all but inevitable. 

Congress must rise to stop this insanity.  Barbara Lee, the only member of congress to vote against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, stands poised in the lower chamber.  Bernie Sanders stands ready in the senate. 

To any candidate who desires to be president:  Now is the time to demonstrate your mettle.  If you do not stand up against this war now, you do not meet the minimal requirements for assuming the office. 

Jazz. 

JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES, WASICHU, NUMBER NINE, GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION, PAWNS TO PLAYERS, GRAND CANYON ZEN GOLF TOUR AND OTHER WORKS (CROW DOG PRESS).

LAKOTA MEMORIAL DAY: Remember Wounded Knee!

RANDOM JACK: WOUNDED KNEE MEMORIAL

LAKOTA MEMORIAL DAY

The 129^th Anniversary of Wounded Knee

December 29, 1890

One hundred and twenty nine years ago today, the Seventh Calvary of the United States Army opened fire on an encampment of disarmed Lakota men, women and children.  Employing the infamous Hotchkiss guns – guns that fire many bullets – they killed over 250 Lakota.  Their crime was daring to dance the forbidden Ghost Dance. 

For a hundred years the massacre was christened by the American government:  The Battle of Wounded Knee. 

Twenty-five soldiers died in the massacre and twenty were awarded the Medal of Honor.  No man and no woman of honor should ever again accept that medal until those awarded to the Wounded Knee soldiers are rescinded.  Further, the government should declare December 29^th Wounded Knee Memorial Day. 

In honor of the Ghost Dancers buried at Wounded Knee: 

NOT AT WOUNDED KNEE

In the land of the Lakota long ago

Deep in the winter of the frozen earth

The people gathered in circles

Hand in hand line after line

To dance the dance of the ancestors

I was not in the lines of dancers

I did not sing the sacred words

My spirit did not rise above the land

To look down upon this scene

I did not see the soldiers circle the camp

I did not hear the order to disarm

I did not see them mount their guns

That shower bullets

I did not hear the cry of mothers

I did not hear the thunder

I did not smell the cloud of smoke

I did not see them fall

I was not there to give my blood

My heart did not explode

My body was not pounded by bullets

Nor pierced by bayonets

I did not die at Wounded Knee

I was not buried in a common grave

But I have walked those hallowed grounds

I have mourned and shed my tears

And I have said my prayer aloud

And I have heard the buried dead

And I am sworn to heed their plea

Remember Wounded Knee

From Wasichu: The Killing Spirit: 

Wo Lakota!

How can I explain the sorrow of Wounded Knee? 

My heart has been pierced by a thousand arrows

My spirit is broken and my soul is in flames

The sorrow runs through me like a mother’s pain

And my tears flow like rivers

But it is not for the right reason

Here lies Big Foot in his dance of death

Here lie the Ghost Dancers

The followers of Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull

The keepers of the faith

Here on this sacred hill

I should have no thoughts but this:

The Ghost Dance survives!

Instead the thought that will not leave me

Is this:  It should not be this way

Here on Memorial Hill at the head of the table

Where the father should be

There is a place of worship bearing the sign: 

Sacred Heart Church

So the church of the Black Robes

Lays claim to this most sacred ground

Wo Lakota!  It should not be this way!

[Sacred Lands to Native Peoples!  Free Leonard Peltier!]

Jazz.

RECLAIMING AMERICA: Sticking with the Union

LONG WAY HOME:  DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA

REBUILD THE UNIONS

By Jack Random

“You can’t scare me; I’m sticking with union.”

From Union Maid by Woody Guthrie

Unions are to the economic system what elections are to the political system.  Without a strong union presence, there is no counterbalance to the multi-national corporations.  When corporations have dominant power they use it not only to destroy unions and establish a system where workers exist at the mercy of their employers but also to control the political system through financial contributions. 

There was a time when unions posed a viable threat to corporate dominance of our democratic process.  There was a time when union membership and organizational power could almost rival the power of industry and other financial interests.  That time, however, has long receded into the dusty pages of forgotten history. 

 One of many broken promises of the Obama administration was his failure to pass legislation that would protect the right of unions to organize in the workplace against an onslaught of union-killing statewide “right to work” laws.  In the history of organized labor, never has there been a more effective weapon against unions.  The so-called Right to Work mandate is really the right to work in a union shop without joining the union.  It is the right to benefit from union membership without having to pay union dues.  If you don’t have to join the union to gain the benefits, why would you?  From a purely self-interest perspective, only suckers would join the union.  In other word, the “right to work” is the right to freeload on the backs of union members. 

At last count there are 27 states that have enacted such legislation.  They are predominantly red states but include some purple states like Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Virginia and Nevada.  They also include states that are moving in a more progressive direction like Georgia and Tennessee. 

In August voters in Missouri rejected a Right to Work law passed by the Republican legislature with a resounding 67.5% of the vote.  Missouri became the first state to overturn a Right to Work law by referendum. 

The fact that RTW lost in a traditional red state by such an overwhelming margin suggests that when the issues are effectively explained, the people will vote them down.  It also suggests that the tide is turning on anti-union sentiment and that labor rights, including the right to organize, are potentially powerful issues to bring before the electorate in 2020 and beyond. 

Why should voters choose to ban Right to Work laws?  Most recent statistics suggest that workers in RTW states earn at least three percent less that workers in other states.  That is a margin that will only increase when a union movement gathers strength and builds momentum.  At present only an estimate 10.5% percent of workers nationwide belong to a union compared to approximately 20.1% in 1983.  The rate of union representation is 6.5% in RTW states and 13.9% in non RTW states. 

Clearly, where the right to organize is upheld and Right to Work laws are struck down, union membership, wages and benefits go up.  Corporate interests have invested great sums promoting misinformation to pass RTW laws with great success.  That success is at least partly due to the absence of labor rights as a real force in major party politics. 

There was a time when unions represented nearly one third of the American workforce.  The year was 1964 and unions were a viable threat to corporate interests in both electing our public officials and investing in the legislative process on all levels.  Since then union representation has been in steady decline and union influence has declined accordingly. 

The fact is, despite repeated claims by the corporate right, unions have never been a proportionate counterbalance to industry and financial institutions but at least they were a presence.  When combined with their representation of workers and an effective turn-out-the-vote operation they could often tip an election. 

The truth is if we had reasonable restrictions on money in politics we would not need to rebuild the union movement.  Without corporate money both our democratic institutions and organized labor would thrive.  But corporate money has so polluted the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government that we need strong unions just to fight back. 

Increasingly conservative and corporate courts, including the Supreme Court in Janus vs. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, have upheld a state’s right to enforce RTW and other anti-labor laws, leaving action by congress and enforcement by the executive branch as the only viable remedy. 

The Protecting the Right to Organize Act would not only reinvigorate a union movement, it would put an end to a decades-long avalanche of anti-labor legislation.  Former president Barack Obama promised to push through the act in his reelection campaign but he never got around to doing it.  He never really tried.  His failure points out the futility of repeatedly nominating corporate moderates as Democratic candidates for president.  However else we may feel about them, they inevitably abandon significant pro-labor change in favor of corporate friendly compromise.  They pay lip service to labor, environment and income inequality but they fail to deliver lasting change. 

Until the people demand real and systemic change, we will get more and more of the same.  Until workers stand up for the union, employers will rule the day.  Until we stand together both in the workplace and at the ballot box, we will slip further and further behind.  The income disparity between the CEO and the lowly worker will only increase.  The protections of labor and the benefits extended from the generosity of employers will only erode. 

There is a reason organized labor has always stood for democratic reform.  There is a reason organized labor fails to take root in non-democratic nations.  Labor and democracy go hand in hand and each must stand for the other or both will fall. 

“Right-to-work is wrong for Missouri.”  By Janelle Jones and Heidi Shierholz.  Economic Policy Institute, July 10, 2018. 

“Right to Work States Still Have Lower Wages.”  By Elise Gould and Will Kimball.  Economic Policy Institute, April 22, 2015. 

“The Workplace Legacy of Barack Obama.”  By Michelle V. Rafter.  Workforce, January 17, 2017.