Saturday, October 13, 2018

The democratic wing of the Democratic Party*
who don't take funding from corporate PACs
who are not rich and do not become rich in office
who practice transparency and full disclosure

Which leads to representatives who represent ordinary middle and working class people and not corporations and the super rich.

The democratic wing is not so much an ideology as it is a commitment to the democratic process. It might include some on the left, liberals, socialists and progressives without some of the pejorative connotations. It could also include centrists and conservatives but not those who represent corporations and the super rich.  The democratic wing favors transparency and full disclosure and democratic process in elections and government.

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Okay, Bernie Sanders is in the race and just tied with Hillary Clinton in the Iowa Caucus. If he wins, Bernie says, we need a movement to achieve a "political revolution".

Seems to me we need a movement even more if Bernie doesn't win.

Who's going to organize it? Will MoveOn, Occupy, Black Lives Matter, the splintery leftist and socialist groups, the many single interest groups interested only in guns, immigration, women's rights, etc. all join together?  How about what's left of the American unions?  

Maybe Bernie's campaign organization? Obama said much the same thing in 2008 according to Robert Reich but his campaign organization, “Organizing for America”, morphed into “Organizing for Action” and essentially became a PAC for obamas 2012 election.

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Socialism is not working for me anymore.  How about the American Cyber-Luddites Union (ACLU)? That was John's idea. Clever. But I really want a group not welded to a nineteenth century ism that works for a system that is not controlled by corporations, banks and very rich people. That's a lot of negatives.  So maybe the ACLU is not so bad after all.

Wednesday, January 1, 2014

Boeing and the IAM 751

Boeing has really irritated me recently as they attempt to blackmail and break the local machinists union, the IAM District 751 by threatening to move the 777X
plant to one of 22 other states they have conned into offering Boeing massive tax give-aways.

It’s just another drive to the bottom. North Carolina is just a step toward Mexico. No different from Walmart or COSCO.

You might think machinists enjoy a high union wage scale but take a look at it at the current wage scale. The average union wage turns out to be about $16 per hour. Meanwhile the Boeing Corp is racking up record profits and CEO, Jim McNerney, just got a nice multi-million dollar bonus.

It’s unfortunate that the national union is not backing the local. The national is parroting the Boeing threat in what appears to be a hopeless and short sighted appeasement effort. In fact all the politicians (except one) also back Boeing. Save the jobs - we don’t care if they are minimum wage jobs. This is just a way to drive union workers out of the middle class which is exacerbating the polarization of income in America.

Boeing’s competition, Airbus, is owned by EADS, a mostly government-owned European consortium.

Hey, there’s an idea. Why not nationalize Boeing?

    “Boeing's attacks on its workforce, together with the company's demand for $8.7 billion in concessions from the State - to be paid  for out of increased taxes on all workers and small businesses - can only be described as corporate blackmail.” and …

    “The only viable response to such a situation is to say the needs of the people of Washington – the same ones who have subsidized Boeing with tens of billions of tax payer handouts – come first.  While Boeing CEO’s are free to leave, Boeing's assets - including the intellectual property developed by generations of dedicated engineers and machinists – would need to be taken into democratic public ownership.”*
That’s where I stand and I can’t say it any better than the one elected official who sides with the local and understands the stakes  - * Kshama Sawant who was just elected to Seattle City Council.

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Attempt to Privatize Fort Worden State Park

The Attempt to Privatize Fort Worden State Park

In his July message to the Port Townsend community, tucked into our water bills this week, our mayor, David King, tries to promote the Fort Worden Public Development Authority (FWPDA) - the group that wants to take over the management of Fort Worden State Park here in Port Townsend. Many of us think that is a bad idea and that state parks should be owned and managed by the state.

For one thing the mayor points out that a PDA can issue bonds but he also says "the park can never be mortgaged". Really? Don't you need collateral to issue bonds just as with any other debt? When the bonds can't be paid what do the investors get? Wouldn't we in fact be mortgaging the park?

The mayor also claims that the park cannot be "hijacked by private interests" because it will always be under the authority of the City. (At best he is advocating that the state park be managed by the city.) But the next sentence is even worse where he points out that the PDA would be "insulated" from the political process. Is that just a positive spin on not being transparent? It's precisely because the park should be owned and managed openly by the state (not the city) and not "insulated" from the checks and balances of the political process that we oppose control and management by the FWPDA.

The mayor, well-intentioned though he may be, says that control by the FWPDA does not "privatize" the park - a word that he uses - as well as the wonderfully evocative "hijacked by private interests".  I think he has given us a great slogan:

You like the privatization of liquor? You'll love the privatization of of our state park.

Good for the 1% - not so good for the rest of us. More information at "" Or email us at ""

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Distinguishing between Good and Bad Corporations

Today the New York Times reported that stockholders voted against a $15 million pay package for Citigroup's chief executive, Vikram Pandit. "C.E.O.'s deserve good pay, but there's good pay and there's obscene pay." quipped Brian Wenzinger a principal at Aronson Johnson Ortiz, a money management company that voted against the pay package.

So, does that make Aronson Johnson Ortiz or Citigroup "good" corporations? Hardly. But it does indicate a fissure or an opportunity to influence corporate behavior.

More interestingly today several corporate donors pulled back from supporting the right wing lobby groups, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the National Rifle Association (NRA). They were McDonald's, Wendy's, Intuit, Mars, Kraft Foods, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. Again, does that make these corporations "good"?

Maybe not but maybe we could refine the criteria suggested in my February 12, 2012 post and begin to think of a continuum of "good" to "bad" corporations. Most would, of course, be somewhere in between.

Amended guide or point system for judging "good" corporations - the more points the better the corporation:

1) Make something of value or provide a service of value - up to 5 points

2) Have a workforce that is unionized or in some sort of worker ownership arrangement - up to 5 points

3) Is small, locally owned - up to 2 points

4) Is Transparent and accountable to the public - up to 2 points

5) Does something - a single event or press release in any of the above categories - up to 1 point

So far here is a list:

Southwest Airlines - 7 points (4 points for being unionized and having a worker/ownership plan, 2 points for doing something useful and 1 point for being open and transparent.)

Apple - 4 points (3 points for making something useful and 1 point for being responsive to worker conditions in China)

Starbucks - 3-1/2 points (1 points for making something useful, 2 point for practicing a kind of moral capitalism including buying sustainably grown coffee and 1/2 point for their recent support for same-sex marriage

McDonalds - 3-1/2 points (2 points for making something useful, 1 point for deciding to buy organic potatoes and 1/2 point for ceasing to fund ALEC and the NRA)

Kitsap Bank (Olympic Peninsula) - 2 points (1 point for being small and local and 1 point for being transparent and accountable to the community and customers)

Goldman Sachs - 0 points

Bank of America - 0 points

Obviously this will take a lot of work but at least it might give us a measure to use in evaluating a corporation's actions, policies or contributions to causes or politicians and it might help us in determining how to work with or against certain corporations.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

The Obama Administration just proposed to lower corporate taxes (bad idea) in exchange for closing some loopholes (good idea). Why don't they just close the loopholes? One feature, however, does strike me as interesting. The Administration proposes to tax manufacturers at even a lower rate than other corporations - 25% as opposed to 28%. It's probably insignificant but it does raise an important question: What do you make? If you make something of value, like bricks or windmills or cars or build homes, roads or schools, then you should be encouraged with a lower tax. If what you make is money, like investment banks and hedge funds, then maybe not. Can we begin to distinguish between "good" corporations and "bad" corporations as I suggested back in November, 2010? Yes we now have the very encouraging movement of the 99 Occupiers but with both Democrats and Republicans vying to be the spokespeople for corporate interests, as we rush headlong into fascism, it looks as if we the people, the 99, us Americans, are losing. Divide and conquer is a useful strategy in war, politics and chess. Can we find and promote good corporations that make something and obey laws against the bad corporations who are basically gamblers who hide their winnings off shore and take advantage of loopholes? They don't have to break the law like old fashioned gangsters because they own the politicians who they instruct to make the way they steal legal. What would a "good" corporation look like? Maybe we can set some guidelines - points for companies that ... 1) Make something of value or provide a service of value. 2) Have a workforce that is unionized or in some sort of worker ownership arrangement. 3) Is small, locally owned. 4) Transparent and accountable to the public.