Groupthink is a decision-making process that occurs when an idea is put forth and becomes publicly accepted without proof. Groupthink is like an intellectual snowball effect carried from person to person with little, if any, firsthand knowledge or scientific scrutiny. The effect of Groupthink is that it makes the quest for historical truth that much harder when people already accept a given idea as the truth. Ordinarily, one would gather information from first-hand sources, then form an opinion and subject it to examination and reexamination. Groupthink forgoes this process and leads directly to an opinion.

Fact: There has been no vote recount in Iran and the winner of the election is still in dispute. This is really all we can be certain about right now, so I cannot make a valid determination about what is happening in Iran in regard to the election results; rather, this is a quick-and-dirty examination of the process through which unconfirmed information received worldwide attention and force-fed public opinion.

There is some suspicion -- although this idea does not get through in the massive tweets -- that the George W. Bush’s CIA had a hand in supporting Mousavi, who now claims election fraud and victory over Ahmadinejad, even though no proof has been offered that either candidate won the election. The Supreme leader, Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, the mullah who has the real power in Iran, quickly declared Ahmadinejad the winner, then Mousavi supporters claimed the election was rigged and demanded a new election. State forces, controlled by Khamenei, then attacked a group of Mousavi supporters and #iranelection became the top trending topic on Twitter.

Twitter, a real-time microblogging site where users publish 140-character tweets that can be read anywhere in the world where someone has an internet connection, including on cell phones, can spread information rapidly. Users can attach links and photos and state a brief opinion. The hashtag #iranelection takes the Twitter users to a page where all of the tweets using that hashtag can be found. I left the page untouched and unrefreshed for just a few minutes and had a backlog of more that 1,000 tweets. It would be impossible for one person to keep up with this amount of information, but it gives you an idea how rapidly information -- true or not -- can be disseminated via Twitter, as well as Facebook and YouTube.

Youtube videos from Iran are often uploaded from cell phone cameras. The videos show various scenes, usually with some kind of action or violence. Sometimes there is Farsi being spoken in the background, but many have no commentary, so the viewer is left to decide what the scene depicts without actually having been there to witness it. Comments are then made about about the video and some people post links to the video on Twitter and Facebook. Once there, the videos receive additional commentary, then are reposted and retweeted countless times. Some are even broadcast via CNN, although, to CNN’s credit, they do say that the information is unconfirmed. Citizen journalism is a powerful tool, but the content must still be judged critically and confirmed.

According to Time Magazine (June 29, 2009), “it is impossible for an outsider, in Iran for 10 days, to sift through the governmental opacity, the contradictory demonstrations, and predict what comes next.” Yet, by reading a few Tweets and turning our icons green, we jump on the Groupthink bandwagon in cheering for Mousavi and “freedom.” But, when pressed, no one seems to know of any reforms Mousavi has advocated. No one seems to know what kind of president he would be or how he would treat his opposition. While Mousavi was Prime Minister, thousands of political prisoners were executed and hundreds of striking workers were jailed or beaten. Has he changed?  Will he continue to assert Iran’s right to build a nuclear power reactor in spite of warnings from the United States and Israel? Will he assume more state power now in the hands of the religious mullahs?  No one has these answers, but one thing is certain in the wake of the violence: the mullahs will go to great lengths to preserve their power.

By Jamie York

It is a matter of public record that in August 2001 George W. Bush received a Presidential Daily Briefing stating that Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda organization planned to use jet airplanes as weapons.  Did Bush read the report?  Did he read it and fail to act upon the information?  Did he, by extension, allow 9/11 to happen by not acting upon the information in the PDB?

What would Bush have stood to gain by not acting upon this information, by not beefing up airport security immediately?  This would have been the responsible course of action would it not?  Well, consider first that the Bush family business is oil and weapons.  A president whose family stands to gain financially from war might be less inclined to prevent one.  Second, the Bush family world view supports Hitler’s view of unrestricted corporatism.

Under the 8-year Bush/Cheney regime, the United States of America was slowly and methodically overthrown by a small group of economic zealots who believed in the Bush/Hitler view of unrestricted corporatism, a group of zealots who brought the horrific future world foretold in the works of George Orwell to our national doorstep. 

The government has spy satellites that can focus on a license plate. It has facial recognition software. It has a computer system that can pick out key words in private telephone conversations and emails, all without our knowledge or consent.

Under the Patriot Act, we allow the government to break into our houses and download our computer files without a warrant under the guise of finding supposed "terrorists." We allow the government access to our library records so it knows who is reading what.

We routinely accept government explanations for world events without even asking questions to determine if the explanations are based on truthful and valid assertions. We allow our government to assert its right to imprison and torture foreign detainees indefinitely as "enemy combatants" even though they have not been charged with any specific crime or act.

We allow our elections to be purchased by the rich and powerful while denying the poor and working class proper access to voting machines. We allow computerized voting that does not even print out a paper record in case a hand re-count is needed.

We allow our government to grant oil, chemical and mining companies access to public lands, where they extract the natural resources with little regard for the long-term environmental impact, water and air pollution, and global warming.

We allow our young soldiers to become occupiers and nation-builders in foreign lands, even though history has shown that such occupations inevitably fail as one oppressor is replaced by another.

And we allow corporate “military contractors” like Haliburton, Blackwater, and dozens of others, to make millions of dollars without any public accountability whatsoever. From kitchens to prisons, corporations have become a huge part of the war business, outnumbering even the “grunts,” the foot soldiers.

The new United States of America under Bush had nothing to do with the principles of freedom and democracy that the nation was founded upon. Rather, the new United States was all about unbridled imperialism, privatization and militarization. Public monies were shifted from the public sector -- which funds education, food programs, jobs programs, health programs and Social Security -- to the private sector, which includes big business, military contractors, big banks, and the stock market. In other words, the people's money was withdrawn from social programs and deposited into the bank accounts of the rich and the super-rich. And the people's money was gambled away in the largest casino in the world -- Wall Street.

This is the reality of the nation as President Barrack Obama was sworn-in, yet some misinformed folks on the far right think of Obama as a “socialist,” and they refer to him as “fascist” because Hitler’s world view is often referred to as “state socialism.”  Such terms have so many different meanings that they have now become meaningless without a detailed definition of terms, so it is not surprising that these terms might confuse, say,  a FOX News viewer.  Scholarly definitions are not used on FOX News. FOX prefers catch-phrases that are easy for their audience to understand and repeat.

Hitler’s imperialist dream foresaw a powerful corporate state where a limited government functions primarily as a servant of the rich and powerful corporations that own the means of production, fund the nation's elections, control the military, and dictate its political decisions. Fascism, also known as “state socialism,” is not to be confused with Karl Marx’s “scientific socialism,” which holds that the people must own and control the means of production and that government must function first and always as a servant of the people. President Obama is a supporter of the capitalist economic system.  Marxists are not.

Although the Bush regime is gone, many of its democracy-damaging policies remain in force.  Perhaps Obama will overturn these policies, but that remains to be seen.  In the meantime, citizens have a responsibility to defend our freedom and democracy.  To do that we need to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and bring the troops home.  We need to strictly regulate corporations and hold them financially responsible for breaking those regulations.  We need to defend the labor unions and progressive organizations that became targeted for extinction under the Bush government.

Our responsibility is immense. Our responsibility extends to all citizens of the world who look to us as a beacon of hope for human rights, freedom, democracy, equality and justice. It we fail, the world fails with us.

Republicans often rail against “big government,” so let’s take a few minutes to figure out what the role of government should be in the United States.

What do we want from the federal government?  What do we, as citizens, expect our government to be?  What services do we want it to provide on our behalf?

The first thing about government is that we all want it to work for us, not against us.  We do not want to be taxed excessively and we do not want to be spied upon like “big brother.”  We want our elected officials to serve us honorably and we want our justice system to be fair and equal. I would venture to guess that few Americans would argue with these general points, no matter what their political beliefs.

Now, forget government for a minute. What do American citizens want America to be?  Do we want the best health care and education in the world?  Do we want retired citizens to have a guaranteed income?  Do we want the strongest military in the world?  Do we want clean energy?  Do we want to do our part to end global warming?  Do we want strong bridges?  Do we want clean drinking water systems and good sewer systems?  Do we want clean air to breathe?  Do we want corporations to be able to do whatever they want without accountability or do we want them strictly regulated?  Do we want corporations to have the same constitutional rights as individuals?  Do we want a safe interstate system without potholes and other hazards? Do we want high-speed rail?  Do we want safe food?  Do we want equal rights for all, including the right to same-sex marriage?  Do we want a minimum wage?  Do we want a living wage?  Do we want an unregulated mass media, with as few as five conglomerates controlling more than 50 percent of the news we get?  Do we want more licenses for low-power radio and television stations?   Do we want to permit torture techniques to be used on foreign prisoners?  Do we want affordable housing?  Do we want to ensure that the unemployed have an income until they find work?  Do we want to bailout failing banks and large corporations? Do we want people to have the right to organize unions?

Obviously, this list could go on and on and on, but for our purposes, we will end it here.  These questions, when used to decide what role government should play, are where people part ways as Americans and become political opponents. There are those who look at a budget and scream “Pork!” when they see proposals for more unemployment insurance, a raise in the minimum wage, money to repair bridges on secondary highways, housing for the poor, more schools, local water projects, repair of inner city sewer systems, and so forth. Some people believe that the federal government should not be spending money for such things, yet they invariably support unlimited spending for war and preparations for war.

The problem with spending in general is, if we want something, someone has to pay for it.  No one these days wants to take responsibility for increasing taxes, so the burden is passed on from the federal government to individual states, counties, cities, towns and villages.  Revenue is created by increasing various kinds of taxes -- like fuel taxes, hotel taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, estate taxes, “sin” taxes, and so forth. People who call for no tax increases and limited federal government mean that they do not want to say they support taxes at the federal level.  They are not putting the needs of America first, but are playing party politics.  They are trying to win House and Senate seats by claiming that they support limited government and no tax increases, but these shady politicians know full well that there will be new taxes at the state and/or the municipal level.  Otherwise, the United States would fall apart at the seams.  Oh wait, it already is!

It is largely the Republicans who want to be known as the party that believes in limited federal spending and the Democrats who believe the federal government has a responsibility to spend money for things that most Americans want and need. Republicans want to give tax breaks to the rich and super-rich and Democrats want this exclusive group to pay more federal taxes, largely by plugging the loopholes that allow the rich to maintain overseas addresses in order to escape the responsibility of paying federal taxes at all.

The thing that all Americans who have been hoodwinked into narrow thinking by blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly need to be aware of is that taxation is a responsibility of civil society.  If we want Social Security to be viable -- and it still is viable right now -- then we need to pay into the system and perhaps even increase the amount of federal withholding for Social Security at some point.  Those who call for privatization -- letting people choose to invest in the stock market instead of Social Security -- would ruin one of the best federal programs ever created. The needs of the majority of Americans outweigh the needs of a few rich bankers who would get even richer from privatization. At some point we have to say “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”  And we say NO to privatization just as we would say NO to bank bailouts.

That said, we also must be responsible in the way our taxes are used.  No question about it.  We have to prioritize and plan.  We have to save for projects that may not even be completed in our lifetime.  For example, America’s infrastructure is old and in need of an upgrade.  Many inner city and rural water and sewer systems, subways, bridges, roadways, housing projects, and railroads need replaced as soon as possible.  These are long-term projects that may take 50 years or more to complete!  Obviously, completing them is in the best interest of every single American, but are a nightmare for selfish politicians who want votes now and do not want to plan for the future or allocate funds for projects that may not be completed while the politician is still alive.  America is slowly crumbling away and will continue to do so until citizens find the spine to think collectively and put all politicians on notice that the real needs of America and Americans must come first.

Now, I ask again, what do we want from our federal government?  What do we want government to provide on our behalf?  Does anyone not see how important the federal government is in our lives?  We joke about it all the time -- taxes to study the mating habits of the South American swamp rat, for example -- but it all comes back to needs and priorities. No one wants to pay taxes for useless things and the working class are already taxed to the maximum, so the corporate rich and super-rich need to pay a greater share for the greater overall benefit of society.  It is not the size of the federal government that matters, even if the federal government becomes the top employer in the nation and provides new public works jobs to tens of millions.  What matters is that OUR federal government serve WE THE PEOPLE.  That OUR federal government meets OUR needs -- not the short-term, selfish needs of politicians, political parties, war profiteers, and unscrupulous media commentators.

[Somalia is one of the poorest nations on Earth and it has no functioning government.  Organized factions compete against each other for what wealth and food they can find and as part of this competition they have reportedly taken to the seas to loot whatever ship passes their way. Anything of value is taken, from jewelry to food to whatever cargo the ship may be carrying.  Even the entire ship! Loot or starve is basically a way of life. These are some of the “pirates” we hear so much about lately, so now we have to ask, what if Obama declared a war on piracy?  Oh yeah, and western nations are rumored to be dumping tons of nuclear waste into the sea off the Somali coast. And Somali volunteers are rumored to be trying to stop this illegal dumping by chasing down ships.  Hmmm...makes you wonder what’s really up, doesn’t it? Taking hostages is always wrong, but we need an investigation into this allegation of nuclear dumping as well.]

Obama: Mr. Bush, I have a problem.  What should I do about the pirates?

Bush: The Pirates? You gotta love that Duke guy. He’s a a lefty though and I don’t like lefties.  Hehehe.

Obama: No, no, not the Pittsburgh Pirates, sea pirates. SEA PIRATES.

Bush: I understand, I understand.  I’m an understander. hehehe  I loved Hook, didn’t you? Dustin Hoffman looked just like a pirate but I don’t like Hollywood.  Too many lefties hehehe.

Obama: Should I declare war on the pirates? That is what I wanted to ask you.

Bush: I would, hehehe. Back in my day we had a war on the terrorists. You remember that?  I said we would smoke ‘em outta their holes and that’s what we did!  We smoked ‘em!  Hehehe.  Right outta their holes hehehe.

Obama: I remember that! You were a regular John Wayne. But what about the pirates?  Should I declare a “War on Piracy”?

Bush:  What’s that Darkie?  Hehehe Can I call you Darkie?  Stretch is already taken, hehehe, or Dark Man.  Can I call you Dark Man?

Obama: No! How about Barack? You can call me Barack. Or Mr. President. Can you be serious for a moment?  What should I do about the pirates?

Bush: Hehehe, you’re pretty funny there Dark Man.  I like a man with humor.  Ya gotta have humor hehehe.

Obama: George, PLEASE!

Bush:  OK, OK.  Yeah, declare a war on the pirates.  Just make an announcement from the Oval Office, sitting behind my desk, uh, your desk.  The media love that, you know, makes you look presidential hehehe. They eat it up. But you gotta look at the camera. That’s the hard part. Hehehe Dick yelled at me for not looking hehehe  You know Dick?

Obama: Yes, yes, of course I know Dick. Is there anything else I should do?

Bush: Maybe you could have a parrot on your shoulder hehehe. Everyone knows that pirates have parrots.

Obama: Thanks for speaking with me, sir.  I will consider your advice.

Bush: You do that, Dark Man, hehehe [Obama exits]

Voice from closet: Can I come out now? Is he gone, son?

Bush: Yes, yes Poppy, come on out hehehe I had him going didn’t I hehehe

Bush Sr.:  You did great son.  He won’t do anything and when the media find out we’ve been dumping nuclear waste there he will get all the blame.  Then we can get Jeb in the White House. This is the New World Order, son, and Democrats and environmentalists are not welcome!

Bush: Hehehe, Hehehehehe

OK, Mr. Obama, you have my heartfelt congratulations! A Chicago grassroots organizer is now president of the United States. That is a major accomplishment in and of itself. It is early in your presidency and I am pleased that you have dealt with some of the worst offenses of the Bush administration through executive orders, but I must say that your larger policies concern me greatly. GREATLY.

First, there is the matter of privacy vs. warrantless wiretapping and electronic spying on Americans. Your Department of Justice, Mr. President, not only supports but goes beyond the Bush administration in preventing government accountability for willful violations of the law regarding COINTELPRO-style electronic eavesdropping.  Your DOJ recently argued that the U.S. possesses “sovereign immunity” from misconduct lawsuits. Yet you pledged government accountability during the campaign.  Strike one.

Then there is the matter of giving away billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to the same capitalist bankers that helped loot the public treasury in the first place. They must be laughing all the way out of the bank while our money goes to offshore accounts just as fast as they get their grubby hands on it. I got news for you: giving money to the banks is not going to stop the coming depression.

It seems to me that someone with ties to the Chicago grassroots community would bail out the unemployed and working poor first so that people do not lose their homes to the Wall Street thieves; to make sure that everyone has adequate food and access to health care whether they have a job with benefits or not.  As you know, companies are laying off employees, eliminating health benefits, cutting back on retirement, and reducing hours in order to save money. What are people supposed to do?  Starve?  Turn to crime?  Strike two.

Now I hear that you are asking Congress for more than $83 billion for continuing the Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.   I remember very clearly what you said during the campaign and I even made a ringtone out of it so everyone I am around is reminded as well: “When I am elected president I am going to end this war in Iraq and bring our troops home.” (Crowd cheers.)  $83 billion will bring the total amount of money wasted on war up to $1 trillion.

One Trillion Dollars U.S. That is One Thousand Billion Dollars! Or One Million Million Dollars! And there is no end in sight because you cannot fight a cowardly hit-and-run tactic like terrorism no matter how many people you kill and no matter how much money you spend in trying. Of course, the money enriches the military contractors who constantly lobby for more money.  But the American people suffer; the Iraqi people suffer; and the Afghani people suffer.  Osama bin Laden could have been captured years ago if Bush would have asked for the world’s help rather than insisting that the United States did not need help -- and then talking crazy about smoking evil-doers out of their holes. Bush was like a bad cartoon.

One Thousand Billion Dollars wasted while states scramble to find money to pay state employees, pay unemployment benefits, and pay for educating our children while teachers have to meet the unfunded burden of No Child Left Behind.  States like Ohio are even looking at gambling to bring us out of of debt, as if the Wall Street gamblers have not done enough damage. Now the rich and super-rich casino operators will be holding us by the ankles and shaking us to make sure they get all of our money. 

Casinos to pay for educating our children? What kind of craziness is this? Does this make sense to a Chicago grassroots organizer?  Is this the way the United States should be operating? Isn’t there a more fair and equitable -- indeed, a more reasonable -- economic system that we could work toward?  Shouldn’t we be making 5, 10, and 20-year plans in order to ensure that human beings are able to have a job, decent housing, health, dental and eye care, safe food, and clean air and drinking water? What has happened to our priorities in a nation that espouses freedom and democracy, yet leaves its citizens’ dreams at the mercy of the market? 

Socialism may seem like a dirty word to the Wall Street bankers, casino operators, military contractors, FOX News anchors, and other assorted con men and thieves who now thrive in the every-man-for-himself jungle of international capitalism.  But a nation can have both personal freedom and genuine democracy and take care of citizen needs.  It’s not that hard.  You nationalize the banks, utilities, oil companies, health care conglomerates and other major industries then run them in the public interest, not for private profit.  You eliminate the profit-taking at the top and reinvest at the bottom. Imagine a wellness-based single payer health care system free of insurance tycoons who now have the audacity to step in and change a doctor’s orders because it would interfere with their profits? No more of that nonsense.

This does not mean that the United States become the Soviet Union.  No one wants that.  We make our own brand of socialism based upon our long-held belief in liberty and justice for all.   We do not restrict personal freedom; we expand it.  We welcome those immigrants now living and working in our nation by giving them the opportunity for citizenship.  We pay everyone a living wage, provide expanded Medicare for all citizens, make sure that schools are fully funded, and we invest in green technologies to provide millions of jobs and get away from fossil fuels. We invest in rebuilding our dilapidated water and sewer systems, our bridges, our railroads, our inner cities. We develop high-speed rail.  We use science to find new ways to improve our lives through research and development. We change outdated laws that now keep many non-violent offenders in prison and we use community policing and community corrections to focus on genuine rehabilitation rather than prison warehousing.  We get government out of citizens’ bedrooms by permitting marriage unions between same sex couples.

Which road should a Chicago grassroots organizer choose?  A road to individual prosperity and full-employment or the same old road where the rich man plays while the little man pays?  We can rebuild our infrastructure or watch it crumble as roving gangs go from neighborhood to neighborhood stealing whatever they can.   We can rethink our priorities on taking care of ourselves as citizens or we can watch our prisons become the number one industry in the nation.  We can develop new green transportation now or do nothing as gas prices skyrocket to $10 or more per gallon.

Strike three?  Let’s be real before you swing at the next pitch.  The United States is a mess and there are no easy solutions or quick fixes.  This ain’t McDonald’s. Social and economic change takes time and a willingness to sacrifice now so that future generations will not have to.  Rebuilding infrastructure takes time, perhaps even more than one generation.  Can we accept a way of life in which we may not see the benefits in our lifetime?  It takes time to convert from a “me” society that leads the world in the consumption of fossil fuels to a “we” society that has a low carbon footprint.  Until we can produce millions of electric commuter cars, we may even have to ration gas at some point, making sure that fuel goes to farmers and distribution outlets before personal use in automobiles. 

Many sacrifices, some of which are unpredictable now, must be made so that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren can live in a humane nation that prioritizes its needs and produces to meet those needs. If we fail to act soon, our children will be living in a fascist dictatorship where nothing is provided or guaranteed by government, including Social Security; where fuel is unavailable and food is not affordable for most people; where brown-outs and blackouts are commonplace as the electric grid fails from the lack of upkeep; where clean drinking water is unavailable because polluters have lobbied against regulations that impede their profit-taking; where few people can afford health insurance and those without the ability to pay up front are turned away by armed hospital guards.  This is not science fiction.  This is a glimpse at the future unless we, collectively, as citizens, demand of our leaders that we take a different road now.

Which road should a former grassroots organizer choose? The count is 0-2.

Americans have forgotten their own history. From the struggle of Native Americans to preserve their subsistence lifestyle and their harmony with the natural world to the fight of labor unions for an eight-hour workday, Americans have forgotten their own history of class struggle.  The tragedy of this national memory loss is that citizens cannot make important decisions regarding the United States today without understanding the events that happened in the past.

This national memory loss is a failure of both the educational system and the mass media. The school administrators and teachers who decide which history textbooks to purchase and the editors and publishers who decide what is newsworthy emphasize certain historical trends and omit others. One could argue that it is not possible for the historians themselves -- let alone educators and journalists -- to be completely objective in their decisions and judgments, but we should expect and demand a more impartial, realistic treatment of American history.

NATIVE AMERICAN RESISTANCE TO AMERICAN EXPANSIONISM

When Christopher Columbus arrived in the Americas in 1492, millions of Native Americans were already living here. Columbus's "discovery" opened the Americas to exploitation by the colonizing Europeans, who then proceeded to murder thousands of Native Americans while stealing their land and whatever other treasures they could find.

Native Americans were living in harmony with the Earth and they had a profound respect for all that the natural world -- the Great Spirit -- provided for them. As the United States was formed and the westward expansion began, those Indians who were not murdered were forced to live on smaller and smaller parcels of land, to give up their subsistence lifestyle, and to succumb to the demands of the United States Government. Surrender or starve.

In 1868, the Treaty of Fort Laramie was signed between the United States and the various tribes of the Sioux Nation. The treaty promised some 50 million square miles of land in what is now part of Nebraska, the Dakotas, Wyoming and Montana "as long as the grass shall grow." The treaty stipulated that no changes could be made unless three-fourths of the adult males of the Sioux Nation approved the changes.

Shortly after the treaty was signed, gold was discovered in the Black Hills -- the sacred “Paha Sapa” -- and white settlers began moving into the area in violation of the treaty. The U.S. government sought to support the interests of the settlers by advocating the construction of new roads and railroads into the area in spite of opposition by the Sioux. This led to fierce battles as the Indians sought to hold onto the land granted to them under the 1868 treaty. After suffering embarrassing military defeats by Crazy Horse and Red Cloud, the United States advocated a policy of genocide against the Sioux and their main food supply, the buffalo. This policy began to take its toll on the Sioux and, in 1876, Red Cloud was forced to sign a document abrogating the 1868 treaty and turning the Black Hills over to the white man even though three-fourths of the adults males had not agreed to any alteration of the treaty. (To this day, the Sioux Nation considers the 1868 treaty a valid document.)

WOUNDED KNEE MASSACRE OF 1890

By 1890, the U.S. government was pursuing the Sioux bands still at large. "On December 29," writes Peter Matthiessen, "when Big Foot and two hundred or more men, women, and children, with a few fugitives from Sitting Bull's Hunkpapa band, were slaughtered by the Seventh Cavalry at Wounded Knee, Custer's avenged regiment received twenty Congressional medals of honor from a grateful government, despite a bungled maneuver in which at least twenty-five Blue Coats perished in the cross fire from their own guns." After the slaughter, the dead Indians were buried in a mass grave on the top of a small hill.

The Wounded Knee Massacre of 1890 is an important historical event, but it and similar atrocities against American Indians -- including, even, the 1973 battle of Wounded Knee -- have been forgotten by most people. A national memory loss.

Historian Howard Zinn writes:

"The chief problem in historical honesty is not outright lying. It is the omission or de-emphasis of important data. The definition of important, of course, depends on one's values. An example is the Ludlow Massacre. I was in college studying history when I heard a song by folksinger Woody Guthrie called "The Ludlow Massacre," a dark, intense ballad, accompanied by slow, haunting chords on his guitar. It told of women and children burned to death in a strike of miners against Rockefeller-owned coal mines in southern Colorado in 1914. My curiosity was aroused. In none of my classes in American history, in none of the textbooks I had read, was there any mention of the Ludlow Massacre or the Colorado coal strike. I decided to study the history of the labor movement on my own."

What do the Wounded Knee Massacre and the Ludlow Massacre have in common? The answer is simple: The same state forces that wanted to end Indian resistance to the authority of the United States Government also wanted to end the resistance of the miners to the authority of Rockefeller and the coal bosses. Today, those who control education and the mass media prefer that students not learn the specifics of these events, as any impartial examination must portray the actions of the government and the coal bosses as criminal.

RULING CLASS VS. WORKING CLASS

It all has to do with state power -- that is, the power of the Wall Street industrialists to maintain control over the economy, keep people divided and fighting amongst themselves over petty issues, and maintain political stability so they can keep increasing their profits. There are two separate classes of people in the United States today: the ruling class -- the multi-millionaires and billionaires who own the factories, mines, mills, corporate farms, utilities, airlines, railroads, hospitals, media outlets, and so forth; and the working class -- the white and blue collar workers, the 90 percent of us who work at these places, or who, for whatever reason, are unemployed or in prison.  (The mass media rarely mention any class except the “middle class,” yet they never explain what they mean or who, precisely, is included in this class.  They do not acknowledge a ruling class or a working class.)

It is precisely because of class distinctions that many labor uprisings -- including demonstrations, riots and strikes -- have occurred in the United States. Such uprisings, if they are allowed to continue and spread, would be a direct threat to political stability, a threat to the authority and profit-taking of the ruling class, so such struggles are squelched as quickly as possible and then are rarely mentioned again. The greatest fear of the ruling class is that the working class will organize itself and seize state power and corporate profit, so the rulers try to keep the working class divided and afraid. It's white vs. black, young vs. old, professionals vs. laborers, conservative vs. liberal, liberal vs. progressive, men vs. women, straight vs. gay, urban vs. rural, resident vs. immigrant, pro-abortion vs. anti-abortion, and so on.

The educational system and the mass media routinely omit historical events that show the working class organizing itself against the ruling class and the 19th century struggle for an eight-hour workday is a good example here.

HAYMARKET SQUARE MASSACRE

After the stock market crash of 1873, hundreds of thousands of people were thrown out of work and many were unable to secure even the basic necessities of life. Those lucky enough to still have jobs often had to accept wage cuts of up to 50 percent. This led to mass meetings, strikes, hunger marches, and demonstrations of unemployed workers. It also led to a nationwide movement demanding a shorter, eight-hour workday to spread around the available work. In 1877, a series of railroad strikes protesting wage reductions and long hours became a full-blown labor uprising in some cities and U.S. troops were deployed to crush the strikers. More than 100 workers were killed, hundreds were wounded, and thousands were arrested.

On May 1, 1886, at the height of the movement for the eight-hour workday, some 65,000 workers in Chicago walked off the job. Police and Pinkerton detectives (thugs hired by companies to spy, disrupt and kill) began to use clubs to break up peaceful mass rallies and, on May 3, they opened fire on a crowd of lumber-shavers, killing four and wounding many.

On May 4, after a peaceful rally at Chicago's Haymarket Square, someone threw a bomb into a crowd of policemen, killing seven and wounding 66. The police then opened fire on the strikers. After mass media reports condemned the bombing, but did not condemn the police and Pinkerton violence, many strike leaders were hanged, jailed or blacklisted. No one ever found out who threw the bomb.

 A national memory loss. American youth are growing up with no knowledge of these events because they are rarely taught in history classes. Even on Labor Day, which American workers celebrate each September, the mass media do not run stories on the struggle for the eight-hour workday; instead their stories focus on Labor Day parades, picnics in the park, and other activities related to the last three-day weekend of summer.

The ruling class have robbed us of our past so they can control our future. Again, while there are no secret meetings to decide which historical events should be omitted, there has been a consensus among school administrators and among media executives about what to emphasize -- such as the business sector, the economy, and economic growth -- and what to de-emphasize or omit -- such as labor struggles and movements within the United States for independence, sovereignty and human rights. Although the issues of the labor movement are of interest to many people, there are no labor shows on network television and no labor sections of daily newspapers. The only time labor is covered at all is when there is a strike of national significance such as the 1997 Teamsters strike against United Parcel Service -- a strike which was won by public support for the strikers in spite of mass media attempts to portray the strikers as greedy villains.

How can we possibly understand our present economic crisis and proposed solutions without having knowledge of the past?  Americans have the power to confront representatives of the educational system and the mass media. We can form student groups to demand the use of history textbooks that are more consistent with reality. We can stage community teach-ins at school board meetings and other public events to educate people about missing historical information. We can write articles for school papers and letters to the editor of local newspapers.  Good or bad, right or wrong, American history belongs to all Americans and we must reclaim it.

Acknowledgments

Matthiessen, Peter, In The Spirit of Crazy Horse, (New York: Penguin Books, 1992), p. 20.

Yellen, Samuel, America's Labor Struggles, (New York: Nomad Press, 1980), pp. 50-58.

Zinn, Howard, Declarations of Independence, (New York: HarperCollins, 1990), p. 51.

[Stop Monsanto's draconian bill now in Congress. HR875 is disguised as a food safety bill but it would give AG companies the power to virtually control agriculture. http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum959.php ]

Genetically Engineered foods, also known as GEOs (genetically engineered organisms) and GMOs (genetically modified organisms), which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says are essentially equivalent to conventional foods and therefore do not require mandatory labeling or pre-market testing, can now be found in 60 to 75 percent of all non-organic supermarket foods.

Concern over the use of GE products, however, goes beyond the need for safety testing and product labeling. The concern to all of us should be directed toward the corporate scientists creating these products for AG employers such as Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Chemical, Aventis Crop Science, BASF, BIO, Zeneca Ag Products and Novartis. While most of us generally view technology as beneficial to humankind, we must always keep in mind that there is no scientific ethic in place that tempers the application of science only to those areas that may benefit humankind.

Companies that produce and use GE products spend millions of dollars on advertising campaigns trying to convince consumers that their products will benefit humankind. They say that GE products are needed so we can end world hunger, improve public health, create sustainable agriculture and improve crop yields and crop hardiness, but the possible devastating consequences of using GE products are not mentioned in their ads.

We all want to end world hunger, but in so doing, we also want our products to be safe for human consumption. Therefore, we must allow scientists to test these new creations before the AG companies rush them out into the marketplace.  This is just common sense, something the AG companies do not have these days.  They see dollar signs and that is their motivation.

The companies engaging in GE alter the genes of living plants, animals, humans and microorganisms, patent the new life forms, then sell the resulting food, seed or product for profit. When gene-altered crops are introduced into the natural world, however, they may wreak havoc upon traditional crops by creating genetic contamination of non-GE crops.

It is impossible to predict how these new life forms will reproduce, migrate and mutate, so it is also impossible to predict what the end results will be for the food supply. According to FDA logic, if it looks like a tomato, smells like a tomato and tastes like a tomato, then it must be a tomato. But how will a tomato altered with a fish gene effect non-GE tomatoes in 10 years? In a hundred years? In a thousand years? In a million years? Will GE tomatoes begin to develop eyes and brains? No one knows. As wind, bees, birds and insect pollinators begin carrying GE tomato pollen to other species, what results will occur? No one knows. What effect will GE tomato pollen have on beneficial insects such as bees, butterflies, ladybugs and soil microorganisms? No one knows. What new toxins, allergens, viruses, pathogens and antibiotic-resistant infections will be created accidentally? No one knows. If this sounds like science fiction, then perhaps it is, because no one knows what effects GE will have upon the natural world. No one knows what long-term consequences GE may have upon the food supply and the environment because these products are being created recklessly and rushed into the marketplace without benefit of proper safeguards, testing and controls.

Readers should keep in mind that GE technology is not the same thing as traditional cross-breeding or hybridization, which mixes only the genes of the same or closely-related species. Genetic engineering mixes the genes of unrelated species -- such as fish and tomatoes, bacteria and soybeans, and humans and pigs -- that would likely never be intermingled in the natural world. Genetic engineering produces new life forms and these new life forms are now in our food supply.

And what's worse, these life forms have gotten into our food supply without scientific evidence that they are indeed "safe." Valid scientific procedure is a rigorous process of examination and re-examination using experimental control groups, but this process is conveniently omitted by the AG companies The only evidence that these new life forms in our food supply are "safe" is the claim by GE producers that no one has ever gotten sick or died from using them, but there is no way to verify this claim because there is no labeling required for these products and therefore no follow-up.

GE products can now be found in infant formula, soda, pizza, chips, cookies, cereal, candy, vitamins, ice cream, pasta, sauces, breads, oils, juice, sweeteners, animal products, yogurt, cheese, sour cream, butter, detergents, salad dressings, frozen dinners, milk, and many other products made from genetically engineered soybeans, corn, canola, papaya, potatoes, tomatoes, flax, sugar beets, yellow crookneck squash, radicchio, cotton, zucchini, rBGH dairy products, processing aids and enzymes. Without product labeling, consumers have no way of knowing which products contain GMOs and, as a result, consumers are denied the opportunity to make informed choices about the food they eat. The GE producers are against any labeling because they argue that GE is "safe."

Unless AG companies are stopped in their tracks by an international moratorium on GE products, they may soon become the new landlords of life on Earth by monopolizing the global market for seeds, food and medical products. GE companies are lying to consumers about the safety of these products and they are lying to farmers about their necessity.

Maybe it's time we did something about it. For starters, we can write or call our congressional representatives and ask that our tax dollars not be used to fund GE research at universities. We can also start buying products that are made from certified organic ingredients. Just because we humans have the technical ability to create new life forms and to clone existing ones does not mean we should be using these technologies except with great caution and with proper scientific controls. Our human greed for capital gain in the present should be stifled by a greater desire to make our impact on this planet as minimal as possible. Besides, we haven't even learned how to get along peacefully with our own species, so why should we be creating more?

Support the National Health Insurance Act (HR 676)!

By Jamie York

When Bill Clinton was in his first term as president in 1992, he vowed to "reform" the health care system in the United States. He held up a single insurance card and said that under his plan every American would have one of those cards. It was to be the only insurance card a person would need because Clinton was advocating a single payer health care system and every American was to be covered.  In addition, that card was to be imbedded with a memory chip that would hold all of one's medical records, including medical history, test results, digital XRAYs, Pet Scans, MRIs, dental and optometrist records -- anything that pertains to one's well being. Present your card to a health care provider and you will be taken care of.  No other insurance needed.

Clinton's plan immediately drew intense fire from the multi-billion-dollar insurance industry, so, rather than stick up for single payer as rational and viable, he backed down with his tail between his legs and asked Hillary to work with the insurance industry and come up with a new plan. Of course, this secret new plan, conceived behind closed doors in consultation with insurance industry tycoons, soon became known as "managed care." Hillary's managed care plan is really nothing more than an ineffective cost-containment plan and has nothing to do with providing quality health care coverage for every American. There are still more than 33 million Americans without any coverage whatsoever and the quality of health care in 2009 is even worse than it was when Clinton first became president.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush and Al Gore talked about the cost of prescription drugs for seniors, but neither candidate dared to mention a single payer health care system and no reporters stepped up to challenge them about it. Clinton made a lot of enemies when he held up that single payer card and his administration never fully recovered from it. Similarly, in 2008, as Barack Obama was running for president, he initially said he supported single payer health care, then began talking about health care “reform,” which is a code word for same-old same-old.  In a March 26, 2009, town hall meeting, Obama said that he wanted to reform the system that is already in place.  Like Bill Clinton, Obama cried “uncle” on single payer.

When I think of the insurance industry, I think about a Mafioso requiring small business owners to pay them protection money in order to gain immunity from violence. What is the difference between paying the Mafia for protection from violence and paying an insurance company for protection from illness? The only difference I can see is that the Mafia are regarded as criminals and their activities are illegal while insurance companies operate freely as legitimate businesses and their activities have become accepted.

Today, we are expected to pay for protection against illness, motor vehicle accidents, fire, flood, theft -- you name it and some insurance Mafioso will accept your money for protection against it. If, after buying food and paying our bills and taxes, we cannot afford to pay for such protection, then we could be denied emergency health care services or we could be left literally with nothing but the clothes on our backs. To me, the idea of paying the insurance mafia for health care protection is particularly unnerving because I believe that food, shelter, health care and education are essential for human survival and should be considered birthrights, not simple privileges for those who can afford them. For most people, there is little left after we pay our monthly bills, yet insurance premiums keep going up. The premiums I paid to my former health care HMO -- Kaiser Permanente -- doubled during the Clinton administration, so I then dropped Kaiser for a Prudential plan that had cheaper premiums but required more out-of-pocket payments in case of illness. As long as I didn't get sick and have to pay high out-of-pocket expenses, I could pay the monthly premiums. After changing jobs, however, I was without insurance coverage for nearly a year, then I enrolled in an employer's Blue Cross plan with a very high deductible, but I soon received a letter informing me that because I hadn't had continuous insurance coverage they would not pay for any pre-existing conditions until I had been enrolled in their plan for one year. It was an important reminder to me that insurance companies are in business to maximize their profits.

While I am in favor of a health care system that is free from the cradle to the grave, I also realize that in a capitalist economy, health care is not a birthright but is a privilege under the terms of the free market. Pay the insurance mafia or do without. Proponents of the current health care marketplace argue that a "socialized" health care system will somehow take away their freedom of choice regarding which doctors they see and which treatments are offered. But under managed care, as more physician practices are gobbled up by corporate chains, it is nearly impossible for many patients to see the doctor of their choice and the treatment options for most standard procedures are often dictated by the chain, not by the doctor. How many of us have heard the familiar mantra: "I'm sorry, Dr. Jones is not available on those days, but I can get you in to see Dr. Smith in two weeks." Under single payer, the doctor-patient relationship will come first, as it should. Hospitals are also hiring their own staff of doctors -- called "hospitalists" -- and are excluding many local family doctors from having hospital privileges. If you have to be admitted to the hospital, your own doctor may not be able to see you there, and the hospitalist may not order tests you need in order to save money for the hospital.

A single-payer health care bill now before Congress is HR 676. This bill, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), would give every American expanded Medicare coverage that would also include eye care, dental and long-term health care. A federally-regulated single payer health care system will not be a free system -- we will be taxed for it -- but it will provide efficient, streamlined health care for all Americans by eliminating the profit-taking and high administrative costs of the mafia system. It will save billions of dollars. Of course, the insurance mafia and their supporters in Congress and in the media will go to great lengths to scare the public away from single payer. They will scream “socialism!” They will wave the flag and argue that privatization equals free choice while single payer equals a return to "big government." The truth, however, is that in the current private system -- the mafia system -- 35 percent of health care costs are administrative. These administrative costs include marketing, insurance company profits, CEO salaries, pre-authorization panels and billing clerks. When a doctor orders a test on a patient -- a CT or PET scan, for example -- the cost of the procedure is inflated to pay these high administrative costs. Single payer will help to streamline the health care system by eliminating the administrative "middle man" from the doctor-patient relationship; as a result, the cost of exams will be lower and doctors will be free to practice medicine without bureaucratic interference from the insurance mafia.

It is time to end the reign of the insurance mafia and put single payer on the national agenda. The mainstream politicians and the collaborative "lapdog" media are not going to bring up the issue of single payer, so it's up to the public to support HR 676 and tell their representatives to back it also.