The Case for Democratizing Legal Knowledge

Law is a reflection our values as a society. It sets the parameters within which our conduct must conform and provides redress for individuals who have been harmed by those who step outside of these boundaries. It is, in many ways, the great equalizer that can transcend disparities in wealth and status. 

While essential legal principles, most of which are codified in our Constitution and international legal instruments, are unwavering, much of our law is fluid. Legal protections and restrictions change. There has been and will always be debate as to the proper role of law in certain areas of life, and what the goals of many of our laws should be. For example, the phrase “All Men Are Created Equal” initially excluded women and African Americans. Although the underlying principle remains the same, the class of persons included has expanded as our societal values have changed. A vibrant public dialogue on the law created this and similar evolutions, and must continue in order to foster the ideas that will help us progress as a nation. 

Professors, practitioners and students of law engage in extraordinary legal discussions through academic journals, conferences and symposia. Through these venues they highlight problems, advocate changes, and seek new conceptualizations of the law. They put forth the ideas that are vital to understanding and improving the legal system. Most people, however, don't know this dialogue is taking place, much less can participate in it. Legal professionals engage in debates, but only with other legal professionals. As a recent law school graduate and new attorney, even I find it hard to access these venues due to the considerable amount of time and money they require. There is a culture of exclusion that keeps legal knowledge out of the hands of ordinary citizens and denies them the opportunity to participate in important legal debates. 

 

At this moment in our history, the public debate about law and the Constitution is just as fervent as the one within the legal community. Yet the public's knowledge of basic legal concepts is inadequate for such a discussion. Amidst a contentious debate about rights, liberties and constitutional principles, how many people actually know what the state action doctrine is and how it affects the applicability of the Constitution? We, as a country, are having a discussion about the role of regulation and its effects on men, women and juridical “persons.” Should we not know about corporate personhood, or be guided by the salient quote from Chief Justice John Marshall that “[t]he government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.”¹ When we speak of states' rights, should we not know about the Supremacy Clause and federal preemption in addition to the 10th Amendment? Is there anyone who doesn't think that these concepts should be common knowledge? Why, in the midst of such an intense debate over legal principles, are fundamental doctrines virtually unknown, and academic works on these subjects unavailable, to the public?

Legal professionals should take steps to democratize legal knowledge. Law is a fundamental part of our national dialogue. But to enrich the debate, Americans must have a greater understanding of the law. Legal institutions (bar associations, law schools, law firms, etc.) and practitioners should open up the debate and make greater efforts to both educate the public and increase the accessibility of legal academic work. Adherence to the law is not a luxury. Nor should knowledge about our rights and duties under the law be. By increasing the public's understanding, we have the potential to not only demystify the law, but create a better-informed public and more robust dialogue about the proper role of law in society. 

1 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803).

Yes, Class Warfare is Being Waged in America. The Working Class is Losing.

As politicians debate the future of American economic policy, we continually hear the accusation of "class warfare." This, of course, mostly comes from the Right, and is accompanied by a strong defense of tax cuts for the wealthy, and offsetting "entitlement" cuts for the poor.

There is indeed a class war in America. Yet it is the working class that is shouldering the burdens of the battle, while the wealthy reap the benefits. As Warren Buffet famously said, "[t]here’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." 

At the forefront of the battle is taxation. Tax rates have been falling in this country for more than thirty years. The benefits have overwhelmingly gone to the richest individuals and corporate entities.

Take, for instance, corporate taxes. While the corporate tax rate has remained unchanged at 35%, the number of available deductions, reductions, etc., have left corporate tax revenue at an all-time low. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) found that corporate tax revenue has fallen from 4.7% to 1.9% of the GDP since the 1950's. Thus, corporate taxes account for just 10.7% of federal revenues, compared to 29.8% during the 1950's. Meanwhile, corporate profits' percentage of the GDP has increased. 

Next, let's look at taxes and income for individuals. The top fraction of the top 1%, for instance, have been doing increasingly well in recent years. Matt Yglesis and Think Progress reported that, according to data released by the IRS, between 1995 and 2007, the 400 richest Americans' effective tax rates declined from 29.93% to 16.62% while their combined incomes increased from $6 billion to $30 billion. During the same period, the average rate of taxation dropped from 9.3% to 9.9%. Yet, unlike the ultra-wealthy, most workers have had to deal with thirty years of wage stagnation.

Not only have tax rates for the wealthy plummeted. The wealthiest Americans enjoy a larger share of the national income. As Mother Jones' Kevin Drum explained, 

If you look at the raw CBO figures [June 2010 Report], they show that a full tenth of the national income has shifted since 1979 to the top 1% of the country. The bottom quintiles have each given up a bit more than two percentage points each, and that adds up to 10% of all earnings. That 10% has flowed almost entirely to the very tippy top of the income ladder.

The effect of the Bush-Era tax cuts on our nation's economy is also clear. The CBO reported that, between 2001 and 2005, Bush's tax legislation led to a $539 billion increase in the deficit, and that federal revenues dropped from 20.9% of the GDP to 16.8%. The tax cuts are, in fact, the worst culprit for our soaring deficit. And how is Washington attempting to deal with the deficit? By cutting programs for the poor, of course. 

Yes, there is class warfare, and it is being waged against the working class. We are in the midst of an unprecedented redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top. Couple this with wage stagnation, rising cost of living and the undercutting of employment protections, and an era of neo-feudalism is dawning.

These policies also allude to a more nefarious objective: a concerted effort by the moneyed elite to manufacture economic crises that will necessitate a considerable reduction in government spending (i.e., social programs), no matter which party is in power. We are at the tipping point this very moment. 

Clearly our politicians are willing to redistribute wealth. Efforts must be made, however, to ensure that the inequitable trends favoring the ultra-wealthy are reversed. An electoral strategy is insufficient. We have an extremely powerful, yet under-utilized, weapon at hand: civil disobedience. A multi-faceted approach is essential to achieving any gains, no matter how small. 

The bottom line is this: unless we make considerable efforts to reverse the trends of our current economic policies, the vast majority of Americans' standard of living will continue to deteriorate, while the disparity in wealth between the working class and wealthy will exacerbate and solidify. The class war will be lost. 

We've seen the effect that current economic policies have had on our communities: exploding poverty numbers, millions of foreclosed homes, millions of displaced workers. This isn't an unexpected downturn, but a deliberate plan to consolidate wealth and power into the hands of the very few. We still have an opportunity to reverse course. But time is running out.

Occupy Wall Street: This is the Future of Resistance in America

The Occupy Wall Street movement is what should have arose following the 2008 economic collapse. Instead, powerful conservative activists co-opted public anger and fortified the Tea Party. A faux-populist movement whose platform brazenly seeks to bolster Wall Street has occupied the political void. That is, until now. 

 Occupy Wall Street isn't receiving the media attention it deserves, and we shouldn't be surprised. This movement makes the powerful extremely uncomfortable. It, unlike the Tea Party, defies the oppressive nature of corporations (mainstream media included). Don't judge the success of Occupy Wall Street by mainstream media coverage. If anything, judge it by the police presence.

This movement isn't about winning or losing: it's about the disenfranchised exercising their long-neglected civic duties. It's about taking ownership of the atrocities we've let take place in the name of endless war and boundless greed, and saying "no more." The uprising may be destined to fail. But this kind of resistance is essential to retain one's moral character, whether it makes an impact or not. 

For too long, the lower classes have stood by idly as corporate forces have destroyed communities and halted futures. We've seen the private sector become more powerful than, and then slowly merge with, the State. Occupy Wall Street provides a blueprint to end the oppression. Win or lose, this is the future of resistance in America. 

Because It's That Kind of Week: Peggy Lee's "Is That All There Is?"

Romney Continues GOP's Anti-Intellectual Crusade

The GOP's disdain for intellectualism has been a staple of the party for more than a decade. During the W. Bush years, the nation was held captive by leaders with unabashed antipathy towards science, tro-lers (trial lawyers) and explanations that didn't involve end times dominionism or naked capitalism. 

And, inconceivably, things have only gotten worse. Disbelief in global warming, evolution and President Obama's birth certificate continue to garner widespread support among the Republican base. Only half of all Tea Party members believe in global warming or evolution. The public's stance isn't much more impressive, at 70 and 57 percent respectively. Until President Obama confronted the issue directly and released his birth certificate, only 38% of the public believed that he was a US citizen. The GOP's war on intellect has pervaded the public conscience and convinced a large segment of Americans to forgo reason. 

With a heavy dose of hypocrisy, presidential candidate Mitt Romney continued the anti-intellectual rhetoric this week. Romney, who graduated twice from Harvard, donated $50,000 to Harvard in 2003, has three sons who graduated from Harvard, and has advisors from Harvard, criticized President Obama for relying on "Harvard Faculty Lounge" for guidance. Hmm. 

Romney's line says more about GOP voters and the general public, however, than it does about himself. It's a sad day in America when a candidate accusing the President of relying on graduates and faculty from an elite university is red meat to voters. 

And Now, A Protest Song

Phil Ochs' "I ain't marching anymore." This is a wonderful song that documents some of our country's more unsavory military excursions and questions their wisdom. Enjoy and have a great evening.

Let's Not Fool Ourselves, There Are Fundamental Differences Between The Major Political Parties

This week David Sirota, as so many others have, published an article in which he argued that the Democratic and Republican parties are essentially one and the same. His piece provides two good examples of the amorality and self-interested careerism that many politicians exhibit. But he fails to prove "that the parties are often two heads of the same political monster." Democrats and Republicans offer, especially at this moment in time, fundamentally different visions for the future of our country. It is simply disingenuous to claim otherwise.

True, many Democratic politicians have moved to the right as of late. This is to be expected, considering the shellacking that they took in the last midterm election. We saw similar acts in 2006 and 2008 by Republicans, when they switched parties or ran for office as "Blue Dogs." This kind of shuffling is merely a sideshow undertaken by ambitious individuals who gravitate to the path of least resistance in their quest for power and status. It does not speak to the fundamental differences between the parties.

The question shouldn't be "are the Democratic and Republican parties the same," but "are the Democrats' policy positions different than Republicans'?" We know where the GOP stands. They are the advocates of unfettered capitalism. No taxes, no regulation, no social services = Freedom, liberty and Utopia.   Does the Democratic Party champion the same? The answer is, quite simply, no. 

Sirota uses the same tactic in his latest piece that Republicans have used to fight class action lawsuits, healthcare reform, regulations, tax increases, etc.: The anecdote. He uses anecdotes of two sordid politicians, a Republican and a Democrat, to argue that, if you add up these and similar examples across the country, the two parties are virtually identical. This is a pretty superficial barometer (news flash: there is unethical behavior and corruption in politics). 

We should judge the parties by their policy platforms. And I would argue that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is greater now than it has been for quite some time. In numerous states, Democrats have united with public workers in protest of  anti-union legislation passed by Republicans. It is the Democratic party that is advocating for green energy projects, while Republicans have united in opposition. Democrats stand with the LGBT community, women and minorities to promote civil rights while Republicans are working hard to undermine equality. Other examples: voting rights, unemployment insurance, taxing the rich, support for public schools, infrastructure spending, military cuts, belief in climate change, belief in evolution. And the list goes on. 

This is not to say that there aren't any similarities between the parties. Certainly there are. Many Democrats have and still advocate for foreign intervention, laissez-faire economic policies, and fail at crucial times to uphold their principles. But, as a whole, there is a substantial difference between the parties. And to argue otherwise, especially at such a crucial moment in our history, is not only foolish, but dangerous. 

Songs for Justice: Music of the Civil Rights Movement

At the 1964 Berlin Jazz Festival, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stated, "[j]azz speaks for life. The blues tell the story of life's difficulties, and, if you think for a moment, you realize that they take the hardest realities of life and put them into music, only to come out with some new hope or sense of triumph. This is triumphant music."1

In honor of the civil rights movement, and in light of the execution of Troy Davis, Last Throes will be highlighting some of the most important songs that have accompanied the struggle and capture the essence of King's statement. Here is The Staple Singers' "When Will We Be Paid?"

1http://jazztimes.com/articles/24223-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-from-1964-berlin-jazz-festival-program

Song for A Somber Afternoon

Lush Life, a song written by Billy Strahorn and performed here by Johnny Hartman with John Coltrane. 

An Innocent Man Will Be Executed. How Can We Prevent This From Happening Again?

 Troy Davis, who is likely innocent of the crime for which he was convicted, will be executed today in Georgia. This is a grave injustice that requires intervention by the courts, and should prompt a broad investigation into the fairness of our justice system.

The Georgia Parole Board has denied Davis' appeal, and isn't likely to reconsider it. Davis is scheduled to be executed tonight at 7:00pm. There is no physical evidence linking him to the murder (the murder of a white police officer in the south, no less), the case was mishandled by police, and the witnesses have since recanted. This execution must be stopped.

The courts have intervened in some high-profile cases as of late. Cleve Foster, a Texas inmate, was granted a third stay of execution by the U.S. Supreme Court (by writ of cert) in a case that actually has evidence of his guilt. Duane Buck, also a Texas inmate (surprise), was granted a stay of execution largely due to the fact that testimony was given by a psychologist who claimed that black men were more likely to commit violent crimes. The West Memphis Three, one of which was sitting on death row, were released after spending nearly two decades in jail for the murders of three boys. They were convicted in large part because they were misfits who liked heavy metal music and wore black clothing. Mr. Davis' case has as much a basis as these to warrant intervention by the courts. 

I was at a seminar recently, and a criminal defense attorney explained jurors' understandings of burdens of proof. He talked about jury selection for criminal cases and uses this example to educate the jurors. I'll paraphrase. Let's take the three standards: a preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and beyond an reasonable doubt. A preponderance of the evidence essentially means that it is more likely than not that the person is liable (50.1%). Clear and convincing evidence is even higher. And beyond a reasonable doubt is much higher than the clear and convincing standard. The clear and convincing standard is used when a court determines if a child should be taken away from a parent. How high do you think the burden should be to take your child away from you? And now think about how high the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt should be to convict someone. 

Without the guidance above, most jurors articulate the beyond a reasonable doubt standard as something closer to a preponderance of the evidence. And now think about how jurors will be affected if a judge lets questionable evidence in at trial, or fails to police his or her court room and let the prosecutors operate freely during questioning. The defendant has no chance.

Now let's think about the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, in light of all of the evidence that has come out of late, and whether the State has met its burden of proof in the case of Troy Davis. Let's also consider how many of these cases are out there where no presumption of innocence was given, little or no evidence was presented, and yet the individual was convicted. A man's life and the integrity of our justice system are at stake. We must stop not only this execution, but take steps to ensure that similar miscarriages of justice don't happen again.

In Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision created systemic change in the education system in the name of fairness and justice. Schools were required to integrate "with all deliberate speed." A similar action could be taken against courts that systematically undermine the constitutional rights of defendants and create situations like the one we find with Mr. Davis. Grave injustices that result in the imprisonment and execution of individuals based on racism, junk science or local biases need to be addressed in a broader scope so that an innocent person's freedom is never taken away again. We need to ensure that courts provide due process and justice for every person who comes before them. And if they aren't currently providing such, they must remedy their defects "with all deliberate speed."

A Night's Lullaby . . .

Esquviel's Baia, of course. Enjoy and have a great night!

On Consciousness, The Market and Resistance

Surely one of the most wonderful gifts in this world would be to not know. For to be conscious is to know little more than pain, destruction, hatred and violence. How horrible it is that the vast majority of humans who actually experience life mostly struggle and suffer due to conditions beyond their control. Oh what a gift it would be to be able to shop for groceries without thinking of the exploited laborers, to buy clothes without imagining the child inhaling toxic fumes while giving the denim its proper fade, or to purchase electronics and not foresee the final destination of the obsolete laptop; a toxic e-dump where upon a child dips the computer's peripherals into a vat of acid for "recycling." To live without consciousness is to live in the moment, to indulge in hedonistic self-aggrandizement, and to be blind to the misery that suffocates billions of people around the globe.

Those who worship the "free market" are those who live without consciousness. They are oblivious to the exploitation and brutality that "market forces" conjure in the name of profit. The motif of oppression within which capitalism ensnares innocent human beings is perhaps the most powerful force in the modern world. Many cast libertarians (more so consumption advocates given that the civil liberties component of that particular philosophy has all but disappeared) and market fundamentalists as amoral or evil. And while this may be the case for many, the likelier symptom is that such individuals are unable to look at the world objectively. To be conscious of one's actions, and societal power structures, requires one to look at oneself, and the facets of institutional power, critically. And if you look at yourself critically, you may just realize that, in the process of bringing more "choice" to consumers, income into your household, less "waste" in the government, or managed democracy to unfamiliar countries, you have caused more anguish than prosperity for your fellow humans. 

But those who are conscious of these problems have a duty to not simply critique, but to act and counter such oppression. We must stand with the exploited. We must march with the labor unions at the statehouse, hold hands with members of churches going on hunger strikes to protest budget cuts that disproportionately affect the poor. We can volunteer on weekends and help community centers distribute free meals and groceries to our neighbors. There are numerous individual acts of human decency that prevent the gears of power and greed from churning unfettered. These acts of humanity during a period of untold suffering are the remaining glimpses of sunshine through an overcast sky. These are the remnants of hope that liberate the conscious, and make the struggle of another day worth living.

Songs for the Struggle: Music of the Labor Movement

In light of the anti-union legislation/sentiment that has been sweeping the country, I've been researching the protest songs that have galvanized workers for over a century. It is hard to imagine the labor movement, or the civil rights movement, without the powerful music that has accompanied it. Here is the second entry of Last Throes' new series, Songs for the Struggle: Music of the Labor Movement.

 Florence Reece was a folk singer and labor activist from Sharps Chapel, Tennessee. She performs her song, "Which Side Are You On?," written during the United Mine Workers strike in 1931.

Songs for the Struggle: Music of the Labor Movement

Woodrow Wilson Guthrie lived through the Dust Bowl, the Great Depression, World Wars I & II, and the Red Scare. Guthrie also witnessed many of the perils that the labor movement faced when standing up to powerful interests. He traveled from Oklahoma to Texas, to California, then to New York, everywhere in between, and back again. He sang songs for the powerless and disenfranchised, and became an American icon along the way. Some of Guthrie's most powerful songs were about the struggles of the unions. Here is one about the violence that union workers endured, titled "Union Burying Ground." 

Source: http://www.woodyguthrie.org, The Official Woody Guthrie Website.

On Leisure Time and Democratic Participation

As I begin a brief reprieve from work, I can't escape this idea from Sheldon Wolin's 2008 book, "Democracy, Inc.": That it is vital for citizens to have leisure time to engage substantively in the political system. In our current economic system, most Americans simply do not have that luxury. Time literally prevents them from participating in their democracy.

People need leisure time to become more than merely passive members of society; to become more than an electorate. Many speak of the disparities in education and equality and how it affects our political system. And these are certainly valid criticisms. But, at bottom, time may be the most restrictive element that prevents us from engaging as political beings and nurturing democracy's fragile ecosystem.

My Upcoming Work . . .

So, I have some new material. I really do. It is all finished. But I have to wait. So hold on. Here, an offering. Esquivel!

Yesterday's Developments

Hey all, 

Last Throes was on hiatus yesterday. I had three important meetings and arrived home exhausted. These meetings may have opened some opportunities for interesting research projects that will directly benefit the readers of Last Throes. I will be sure to keep you up to date on the status of these as they develop. 

-Z

A Song for the Night

Here is Air's "Once Upon a Time." This is a great song, and notable because the great Tony Allen sits in on the drums. I saw Allen live in Ann Arbor recently. He is such a joy to watch play. His rhythms sound as if two drummers are playing, yet it all looks so effortless. Enjoy and have a good night.

Control Freaks: Understanding The Tea Party Proletariat

After more than forty years in power, Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie faced the imminent overthrow of his autocracy.¹ Rebellion had spread throughout the country and engulfed the Royal Palace. At the height of this unprecedented wave of defiance, the Emperor's response was also exceptional. When he learned of the conspiracy against him, the Emperor didn't order the usual brutal crackdown. He simply nodded and remained silent.²

Opposition forces began arresting Selassie's servants from the Palace. “Whenever they arrested someone, they immediately announced that they had done so in the name of the Emperor, and right away they would emphasize their loyalty to His Majesty.”³ The Emperor would thank them for their service, praise their loyalty, and defend them against those who questioned their allegiance.⁴

The emperor craved control. As a former servant said, “His Venerable Majesty wanted to rule over everything. Even if there was a rebellion, he wanted to rule over the rebellion, to command a mutiny, even if it was directed against his own reign.”⁵ He acted as if he, not the opposition forces, were making the decisions. He knew his time was up. Behind a veneer of strength, Selassie capitulated to the opposition's every demand until his Palace was empty and he was imprisoned.
 

In modern American politics, an analogous fight for control by the powerless is being waged by the lower classes within the Tea Party movement. While there are certainly many differences between a dying autocratic regime and a segment of a burgeoning right-wing political group, they share a common nexus. Both have, in the face of growing desperation and impotence, supported the motives of groups with antithetical interests in order to hold on to some semblance of power. 

 The Tea Party has emerged as a formidable political force in the U.S. The movement espouses the ideas of the far-right, mixing Friedman economics, Christian fundamentalism and conspiracy theories into an ostensibly cohesive platform. But its primary issues involve the economy and the role of government. It favors the elimination of social welfare programs like Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. It champions unfettered capitalism, and has called for the elimination of whole federal agencies like the EPA and the NLRB. The Tea Party's favored policies promise to usher in a period of unprecedented concentration of wealth, and expansion and consolidation of corporate power. It threatens to eviscerate the rights of the working class and minority groups, and undermine the very tenets of American democracy. We cannot underestimate the seriousness of such a movement gaining political legitimacy. 

The Tea Party's supporters are generally considered white and well-off, and this is partly true. A New York Times poll showed that more than half of its supporters earn $50,000 or more annually, with 20% earning at least $100,000.⁶ This element, the Tea Party elite, wants to exact more concessions from the welfare and regulatory states so as to elevate its status and fortify its wealth. The best way for the more affluent members of the Tea Party to achieve such gains is to adopt a corporate-friendly, anti-government platform.

The rest of the Tea Party, however, are from the middle and lower classes. They, the Tea Party Proletariat, echo the same pro-corporate and anti-government stances as their wealthier counterparts, yet stand to gain very little (and more likely lose a great deal) by supporting such policies. The question then is, “Why?” Why does the Tea Party Proletariat support a movement whose platform is so clearly against its own interests?

It must be stated at the outset that the Tea Party is anything but a grassroots movement. The group emerged after the 2008 economic collapse, and rose to prominence amidst a power vacuum in 2009. Barack Obama had just been elected, the economy was still floundering, and Congress was orchestrating another bailout. Given the severity of the downturn, and the fact that the White House and Congress were controlled by large Democratic majorities, a policy approach similar to FDR's “New Deal” appeared imminent. At a time when a leftward shift in policies seemed inevitable, the Tea Party entered. They, not liberals and progressives, hijacked the populist energy and public anger during this time of crisis, and swung the political pendulum to the right.

The Tea Party was not, however, an organic cooperative of malcontents. Its birth resulted from a variation of the “Shock Doctrine,” which Naomi Klein documented in her 2007 book. A severe economic crisis – the “shock” – created an opportunity to remake the American political sphere. And that is exactly what happened. Funded and coordinated by powerful conservative activists like former Congressman Richard Armey and the Koch Brothers, a faux-populist movement filled the political void amidst the downturn and prevented a more logical liberal policy shift.⁷ The movement's momentum continues, with a large swath of Tea Partiers now occupying seats in Congress.

Working class supporters of the Tea Party are victims of the very policies for which they advocate. They bear the costs of reckless deregulation; public health risks, unsafe working conditions, untold environmental disasters like the BP oil spill. They do not benefit from tax cuts for the wealthy that do nothing to create jobs and ultimately take money away from vital social programs. And they also end up on the losing end of spending cuts that eliminate jobs, reduce investment and stifle economic growth. The effects of such policies are apparent. Case in point: while sales of luxury goods flourish, a record 46 million Americans rely on food stamps to purchase their meals.⁸ This leads us to the primary inquiry of this article. Why would Tea Party Proletarians vehemently oppose policies that are specifically intended to benefit them, and stridently support those that will do them harm?
 

One commonly-accepted explanation is that the Tea Party Proletarians are victims of a sophisticated propaganda campaign that is intended to manipulate them into supporting the evisceration of the social safety net while further enriching the wealthiest people (both human and juridical) in America. They have been preyed upon, and now channel their rightful anger and desperation to bolster a radical right-wing agenda.

But it would be wrong to write off the working class supporters of the Tea Party as nothing more than a pack of unwitting dupes. Perhaps some are, but most of them must know, on some level, what's going on. A likely explanation is that they are desperate for control. In a country whose political and economic systems are slowly but systematically transforming its society into a form of neofeudalism, having a say in one's own oppression may be the only choice one has left.

At some level, whether conscious, unconscious, or masked by cognitive dissonance, these people know that they are the victims of an unjust system. And they must, on some level, understand that the platform they champion will not improve their condition. Fighting the good fight – that is, the one for substantive equality and social justice – has become much more difficult, and at times feels like a lost cause.

Resistance to the corporate state and anti-democratic forces will continue. Yet the current societal power imbalances almost ensure that these acts will be in vain. Disparities in wealth and, by extension, power are at an unprecedented level. And with unlimited money flowing freely and anonymously into elections, and almost always to anti-liberal candidates, the electoral process is becoming increasingly undemocratic. Good deeds and good candidates are going to have an increasingly difficult time making a difference.

The Tea Party Proletarians scream at town hall meetings, dress up like the Founding Fathers at rallies and devote their precious time and resources to elect Tea Party-approved candidates to public office. Their energy and theatrics support those with the most power, those with an unwavering false sense of persecution, and those whose interests couldn't be more contrary. Like Emperor Selassie, they are, at a moment of ultimate weakness, supporting the opposition to create an illusion of their own power. Having capitulated to the elite class, the Tea Party Proletarians now seek to control their own demise under a facade of faux populism. They know that they are powerless, yet they yearn for a sense of control over their circumstances. Their desire runs so deep that they will find a way to exert control even if it means presiding over their own subjugation. In a society that is becoming increasingly undemocratic, that may be the only power they have left. 

 

1Kapuściński, R., & Thomas Leiper Kane Collection (Library of Congress. Hebraic Section). (1983). The Emperor: Downfall of an autocrat (6^th edition). San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

2Id. at 126.

3Id. at 129.

4Id. at 129.

5Id. at 134.

6“Polling the Tea Party.” (2011, April 14) The New York Times. Retrieved August 9, 2011: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/14/us/politics/20100414-tea-party-poll-graphic.html?ref=politics#tab=9.

7Mayer, Jane. (2010, August 30) Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging war against Obama. The New Yorker. Retrieved on August 20, 2011: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all.

8Clifford, Stephanie (2011, August 3). Even Marked Up, Luxury Good Fly Off Shelves. The New York Times. Retrieved August 16, 2011: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/business/sales-of-luxury-goods-are-recovering-strongly.html; Ellis, Blake (2011, August 4). Food Stamp Use Rises to Record 45.8 million. CNN. Retrieved on August 16, 2011: http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/04/pf/food_stamps_record_high/index.htm.

Coming Up Today . . .

 Here's what to expect today on Last Throes:

• A post covering the inaccessibility of legal academic work and proposing its, well, accessibility
• A weighty piece that provides a unique take on a particular segment of the Tea Party (I'm being purposely vague)

There won't be new content on Last Throes until this evening. You see, Last Throes' author (me) has to meet some professional requirements this morning. CLE requirements are no joke. Stay tuned, I think you'll enjoy the forthcoming posts.

-Z

For NY and NV Special Elections . . .

Check out Nate Silver's twitter page, http://twitter.com/#!/fivethirtyeight. Could be a big night for the GOP if NY goes red.

How to Start the Evening Off Right: Manu Dibango, Of Course

A Song for Early Afternoon: "Walkabout" by Atlas Sound

A Wonderful rendition of a beautiful song. If you're not familiar with Bradford Cox, you should be.

On The Moral Imperative to Alleviate Poverty

The Census Bureau reported that over 46 million Americans lived in poverty in 2010. This is the highest number recorded in 52 years, since estimates have been published. Also in the report: Real median income for families dropped, the number of people insured through private insurance fell, and the number of people insured through the government increased. 

46 Million also represents that number of Americans who receive SNAP benefits, commonly known as food stamps. Below are this year's federal poverty income guidelines (FPIG) from HHS. To qualify for SNAP, one's income must be 130% or less than the FPIG. And let's not forget the millions who are eligible, yet are not receiving, SNAP assistance. 

The 2011 Poverty Guidelines
Persons in family Poverty Guideline
1- $10,890
2- 14,710
3- 18,530
4- 22,350
5- 26,170
6- 29,990
7- 33,810
8- 37,630
For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,820 for each additional person.

These numbers indicate that a vast segment of the population is suffering extreme hardship, and should be impossible to ignore. Yet many, mostly conservative legislators, want to cut the very programs that are keeping poverty in America from absolutely exploding. Despite the impassioned advocacy by many groups to preserve and indeed expand funding, anti-poverty programs remain on the chopping block as part of budget-balancing efforts.

And perhaps it is because advocates are framing the message the wrong way. Conservative legislators' adherence to a rigid economic ideology has made all arguments based on numbers (much less fact) useless. So let us change the contours of the debate, and create a new dialogue when we talk about poverty. We must begin to speak in the language of humanity, and base the need for action on human compassion. These 46 million Americans are not numbers or abstractions, and therefore shouldn't be addressed as such. They have stories. They have families. They are living in our communities. If we fail to come to the aid of these people, we will face not only the economic consequences, but the moral consequences as well. And our legislators must become aware of this. Let's begin to tell the stories of these 46 million, and hope that truth and kindness prevail.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/record-poverty-last-year-as-household-income-dips-2011-09-13?link=MW_pulse

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11fedreg.shtml

Daily Kos: More Americans using food stamps than ever before: 45.8 million

Reclaiming 9/11: Honoring The Victims, Serving Our Communities

In 2009, September 11th was officially designated a National Day of Service and Remembrance by the passage of the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. Just as we came together as a nation immediately after the attacks, so should we come together again as a people to serve our communities and create a new narrative as we move forward.

We must always honor those who were taken from us on September 11th. But we must also ensure that, out of the tragedy, we honor human compassion and realize why we mourn; because of the enduring ties to our families, friends, and neighbors. So on 9/11, let us honor the victims, but also take time to volunteer and help build better communities.

If you served in your community on 9/11, please share your story in the comments below. Thank you.

Let's Sober Up: Real Talk on the U.S. Occupations

An interview with Harper's Magazine President John A. MacArthur on Afghanistan and Iraq. After the 9/11 memorials, back to reality.


Follow the link to watch: http://harpers.org/#ooid=tha2xzMjra7fxyQmI6wXwaMpiXrA8tmb

A Song for Sunday Night ...

How about a Bjork remix to kick off the evening. Enjoy. 

And, on 9/11 let us not forget ...

Undermining Equality: The Anti-Democratic Platforms of the 2012 GOP Presidential Hopefuls

In a recent debate, 2012 presidential hopeful Ron Paul proclaimed, "I don't like the word democracy." This simple declaration encapsulates the problem with all of the GOP presidential candidates. At bottom, their views and policy platforms are inherently anti-democratic. 

All candidates are running on essentially the same platform, which consists of cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy, rolling back regulations, drastically reducing or eliminating social programs for the poor and working class, privatizing essential public functions and decimating workers' rights. These aren't ideas, but offerings: offerings to their campaign contributors, major industries and the moneyed elite. These candidates, like most politicians, operate within a closed system. Their actions are taken to perpetuate their and their supporters' power, not to promote the welfare of our nation. 

Democracy is the great equalizer. No matter our status or income, we all share a formal equality. In the current election cycle, however, this baseline of equality is being offered to the highest bidder. Corporate power is greater than it has ever been, to the point that many entities may no longer be regulable. The disparity of wealth in the U.S. is reaching epic proportions, and is slowly transforming our society into a form of neo-feudalism. The essential public functions that once operated under the glare of public scrutiny (municipal services, utilities, schools, prisons, armies) are now just private entities that seek to increase profits at all costs. The latest pool of GOP presidential hopefuls seek not to ameliorate these debilitating trends, but exacerbate them. And this is the true danger of these candidates. The ability of citizens to address imbalances in wealth, power and equality through the democratic process is in peril. The 2012 GOP candidates are fighting to be the torchbearers of a virulently anti-democratic platform that could erode the basic equalities upon which our nation was founded.

Must Read Today: Chris Hedges on 9/11

If you read just one article on tenth anniversary of 9/11, it should be Chris Hedges' "A Decade After 9/11: We Are What We Loathe." Says Hedges, 

"We were unable to accept the reality of this anonymous slaughter. We were unable because it    exposed the awful truth that we live in a morally neutral universe where human life, including our life, can be snuffed out in senseless and random violence. It showed us that there is no protection, not from God, fate, luck, omens or the state."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/nationalism_in_the_aftermath_of_9_11_20110910/

And to celebrate a new beginning ...

This is Last Throes

Last Throes is a blog that hopes to create a new dialogue. For those who seek a deeper understanding of the day's issues, and to connect the dots, Last Throes is for you.

Last Throes operates from the premise that every action that our government takes should be done to advance democracy. This is not, repeat not, the idea of "promoting democracy" as championed by neoconservatives. We believe that democracy is, at bottom, about addressing disparities in power, wealth, and equality. 

Consider the writings on Last Throes an invitation to discussion and debate. The post is simply the opening move. It is up to you, the readers, to continue the conversation so that all of us can achieve a greater understanding. So thank you for stopping by, and let's get to work.