The Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank, the Federal Reserve, and the Swiss National Bank are today announcing coordinated actions to enhance their capacity to provide liquidity support to the global financial system. The purpose of these actions is to ease strains in financial markets and thereby mitigate the effects of such strains on the supply of credit to households and businesses and so help foster economic activity. – Federal Reserve (links above added)
The Dow gained 490 points or 4.2% after the collective central banks’ action. It’s the largest gain since the spring of 2009.
“They must really be worried to get together like this, but it can’t be good in the long run,” Paul said on CNBC’s Squawk on the Street Wednesday. “All they are doing is a form of worldwide quantitative easing.”
Felix Salmon: “Think of it as a holiday greetings card from the banks to the market.”
The central banks’ coordinated market intervention gave investors hope that world leaders could take necessary steps to avoid a credit crunch or market paralysis stemming from Europe’s sovereign debt crisis. “It’s the first time we’ve seen this type of global coordination since November 2008,” said Michael James, a senior equity trader at Wedbush Morgan. “The degree of coordination sends a message to the markets that global leaders are going to do whatever they need to do to instill confidence in the markets.”
The open question is whether this increases confidence enough to get major European countries through critical bond auctions, not just this week, but most important, a series of major refundings Italy has in February.
Anyone betting on that one?
And just for fun, Freakonomics asks whether the euro can be saved. Buckle up before reading.
ADP also reported that 260,000 private-sector jobs were added in November, though we’ll hear more on unemployment numbers Friday.
Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.
As expected, Occupy Philly and LA camps were evicted last night. Occupy Oklahoma and Dayton are facing deadlines. Most likely other sites will do the same. About last night’s actions, media and Occupy reports indicate largely peaceful evictions and arrests. Both LAPD and Occupy LA have talked about fairly good relations, in general. It was still what an NPR affiliate station reporter called the “largest police action” he’d seen in LA., with some 1400 officers making more than 200 arrests. But it mostly occurred without resistance or excessive force. The same reporter said he heard the occasional individual apparently trying to “provoke” police, but when that happened, Occupiers around that individual immediately called for him / her to stop, emphasizing peaceful words and actions.
You can read more, and find links to two sets of photos of the “Raid at #OLA” at Occupy Los Angeles.
In Philadelphia, a reported 40 to 50 arrests were made. Apparently most Occupiers moved, as ordered, to sidewalks. Some chose to stay and be arrested. Things didn’t escalate to the extent we’ve seen elsewhere, but horses were once again used to move into a crowd. There’s a video here in which you can see some of this happening.
As I keep saying, I don’t think the Occupy / 99% movement will end with the evictions because the spaces created for conversations and actions are simply much bigger than the physical encampments. The movement itself is much bigger than, and too different from, the existing political system to be accepted as is.
The general movement isn’t limited to the U.S., of course. From England today are press reports of “two million” people engaged in a “walk out” related to the “austerity” measures taken by the government. The reports say these are people primarily from the public sector. Predictions that passengers at Heathrow would encounter long waits weren’t accurate (as of my last check), because the government sent people from various offices and departments to do the work of those who walked out. Which, one would reasonably assume, means the work those government employees usually do went undone. Among other things, the public sector workers are reacting to proposed cuts in their pensions as an “austerity” measure. It’s another indication of a familiar OWS’ message: “The banks got bailed out, we got sold out.”
The “what happens next with OWS” questions continue. I don’t think anyone knows, as Occupiers continue making decisions in the “horizontal” model of General Assemblies, emphasize peaceful actions, and affirm their position outside the Two Party System. Here are a few examples of some of the actions being taken, including in NYC, where eviction from Zuccotti did not end the movement.
On December 2, 2011 New York artists will introduce tourists and New Yorkers going to Broadway shows or shopping themselves into debt to the idea of occupation as CREATIVE resistance with non-stop free performances.
From Occupy Chicago, The Occupied Chicago Tribune is announced, “a four-page broadsheet newspaper with an anticipated first issue print run of 20,000.” When much of media is so entwined with The System which is being challenged, other ways to disseminate accurate information, and different ideas, are devised. This isn’t new. It happened long before Twitter or “the personal computer” or a copy machine existed. But it’s as important now as in every other challenge to The System.
One relevant tweet: “kiplet RT @luketadams: If only Woodward & Bernstein had known that the authorities didn’t want them to report on Watergate…”
I heard or read, in at least four different stories today regarding Occupy LA and Philly, reporters asking some version of: “How can Occupy maintain it self without the camps as a focus?” I hear in that: “How can they expect us to keep paying attention if we don’t have our accustomed visuals? How can they expect to succeed if they don’t do things the way they’re ‘suppose’ to?”
I recently included actions by Move To Amend in examples of possible co-opting efforts. This news, from Occupy Denver, seems to provide an example of efforts to work together, an encouraging thing. From Occupy Denver:
On Monday, November 28, a representative from Move to Amend participated in the General Assembly and proposed Occupy Denver join with other Occupations like Miami, Memphis, and Nashville in endorsing the passage of Move To Amend’s Amendment intended to curb the pernicious effects of corporate personhood.
Perhaps we’ll see more such efforts of working together. Organizations like Move to Amend have important jobs to do, and finding ways to work together is significant. But it seems a bit strange to me when assumptions are made that it’s the job of Occupy to do the work of “inside the System” organizations. Different kinds of work, different roles to play, but with good possibilities of joining forces around particular projects and actions.
As more Occupied sites are shut down, the evolution of ideas and actions continues. This Saturday, for example, “Is there life after eviction?” will be discussed at an “Occupy Portland Town Hall” gathering, at First Unitarian Church.
Occupy Portland’s Vision & Strategy Committee invites you and members of your communities to join us for conversation, food, and networking. We want to provide a friendly setting for dialogue, to explore the varied views people have of Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Portland. As more and more camps are being dismantled, many wonder what might be next. We invite campers, supporters, curious bystanders, skeptics … to join us to pause and reflect on what we think OWS and OP have accomplished, and where the movement might be headed.
Our hope is to follow this Town Hall with many more open discussions, to sustain the dialogue that has been started and to help shape of the movement’s future.
We often hear that “democracy is a messy process.” An actual democratic process isn’t neat and tidy. The emergence of a different way of organizing and working is just as messy. You learn as you go, create and revise, make mistakes and make progress. As long as the reasons for the actions remain, actions can evolve. Or, as this tweet puts it:
TCFdotorg Richard Leone: Occupy Politics: Until the causes of its discontent are addressed, the movement has staying power http://t.co/mH5MVPq7#OWS.
(Occupy LA Eviction photo via Occupy LA. Occupy Broadway flyer via Occupennial.)
Jonathan Martin does the take down of Herman Cain, who is now representative of a group of Republican wannabe presidential candidates that defy reality.
Later in the day, Block told ABC there’s “no way he’s dropping out” and that the reassessment was “not a reassessment of withdrawing” from the 2012 race.
That familiar Keystone Kops performance is a reflection of an organization staffed by few operatives with presidential experience, working for a political neophyte who’s proven himself ill-equipped for a national campaign. The combination of a supremely self-assured candidate — speaking in the third person and convinced of his own ability to talk himself out of any jam — surrounded by a group of not-ready-for-prime-time aides making it up as they go along has resulted in a campaign meltdown for the ages.
There’s a reason the Tea Party has crashed and burned in public opinion. Herman Cain is exhibit A why.
Jon Huntsman served up a very fitting blast from the past: “We’ve got real issues to talk about, not the latest bimbo eruption.”
You know it’s bad when not even Ginger White, who received gifts, plane rides and lavish holidays, thinks Herman Cain would make a good president. That’s after 13 years of cash and trinkets coming her way.
Ginger White, who says she was involved in a 13 or 14 year “on and off” affair with Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, today told me she does not think he is fit to be president. “I honestly do not think that he is, in my opinion, would make a good president as far as I’m concerned,” White told me in an exclusive interview on “GMA.”
In asserting that Mr. Gingrich has never engaged in lobbying, his aides say lawyers have thoroughly vetted all of his activities. Randy Evans, a Georgia lawyer who has represented Mr. Gingrich since his days as House speaker, said none of Mr. Gingrich’s clients paid him to adopt a position that he did not already have. “That matters a lot,” Mr. Evans said, “because there was never a point where we identified a client’s position first and decided, ‘O.K., that’s where we’re going.’ His vision always came first.” – Gingrich Gave Push to Clients, Not Just Ideas
The New York Times article today comes after an exhaustive piece in the Washington Post on Sunday outlined Newt, Inc. and his path from “flameout to fortune” that amounted to Gingrich earning $100 million over the last decade. But the right, so far, remains deaf, dumb and blind to Newt’s calculated machinations.
Is it ignorance, willful blindness or abject hypocrisy that is driving Republicans primary voters to go from alleged sexual harasser and philanderer Herman Cain to serial cheater and wife dropper Newt Gingrich?
A man who was having his own adulterous affair at the time he began hunting William Jefferson Clinton for a stupid consensual affair that would have brought down his presidency, except for Hillary running Democratic Party interference.
A man who claims not to ever flip flop but has gone from sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi in a climate change ad paid for by Al Gore to his address on K-Street where he made over $100 million dollars in Newt, Inc. to being paid millions by Freddie Mac to being a lobbyist, while lying about the title if not the deeds he performed.
Watching Republican primary voters whipsaw from candidate to candidate this year has been one of the most amusing things I’ve seen in politics since I started paying attention through my big brother when I was a kid.
The New York Times article today is the latest tale to rip the facade away from Newt’s theatrics, the truth plainly visible that Newt Gingrich remains a charlatan, a hypocrite, a liar and a fraud.
Yet if Mr. Gingrich has managed to steer clear of legal tripwires, a review of his activities shows how he put his influence to work on behalf of clients with a considerable stake in government policy. Even if he does not appear to have been negotiating legislative language, he and his staff did many of the same things that registered lobbyists do.
The center’s own records — kept in a restricted section of its Web site, but found by The New York Times in an unsecured archived version of the site — contain several previously unreported examples.
Two years before the Florida “summit,” Mr. Gingrich made a presentation to Republican lawmakers in Georgia, promoting the work of his member companies by citing specific benefits if they were hired. For example: “VitalSpring could save the State Employee Program over $20 million a year.”
When Newt got access to Hillary Rodham Clinton that resulted in legislation, does it really matter he didn’t write it?
He also pressed for passage of a federal bill to increase the use of electronic health records, collaborating with one of its co-sponsors, Representative Patrick J. Kennedy of Rhode Island, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, both Democrats. After appearing at a press briefing on the issue with Mrs. Clinton in 2005, he stated flatly on Fox News: “We’re launching a bill.”
Mr. Gingrich’s ability to reach leaders like Mrs. Clinton was a selling point for the center. A PowerPoint presentation for prospective members advertised its “contacts at the highest levels” of federal and state government. Paying $200,000 a year for the top-tier membership, it said, “increases your channels of input to decision makers” and grants “access to top transformational leadership across industry and government.”
Mr. Gingrich’s relationship with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy also paid dividends, as the Times article outlines.
If all this doesn’t convince Republican primary voters that Newt isn’t any different than Mitt corporations are people Romney, you’d think the fact that Pres. Obama would easily beat him going away would. Or the fact that I’d applaud Barack Obama doing so, because America’s in enough trouble today and the last thing we need is Newt Gingrich having the keys to the presidency and access to the world.
Republicans are evidently going to give in on extending the payroll tax break, but they still won’t budge on a surtax on millionaires, after the first million?
Do these people not see what’s happening in the Occupy movement?
From CNN, some details, which Lawrence O’Donnell also talked about tonight.
Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said the GOP would offer a bill this week to extend the payroll tax cut for one year and offset its costs in a way that is more agreeable to Republicans than a surtax on incomes over $1 million, which Democrats had proposed. [...]
The Democrats’ bill would extend and expand last year’s tax break. Payroll taxes, cut to 4.2 % from 6.2% last year, would be lowered to 3.1%. That would provide middle class families with up to $1,500 more in their paychecks next year, Democrats said. Democrats would also partially extend the break to employers, hoping that might spur hiring. The price tag of the bill is about $265 billion, according to aides.
Democrats want to pay for it with a 3.25% surtax on annual income over $1 million, and they sense they have the political advantage on the issue.
Not only do Democrats have the political advantage on this issue, they also have the moral high plain, which in a country where people are choking on economic anxiety could go a very long way.
Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.
A continued search for a “leader,” if not a “savior,” from and as defined by the same Two Corporate Party System that brought us to this Occupied moment, would be, at best, to keep repeating the same mistakes. Worse, it’s to cooperate with our own continued decline. Not surprisingly, there is a great deal being said and written about the “meaning” of the Occupy / 99% movement. A part of that conversation is about leadership.
Occupy Wall Street is a people’s movement. It is party-less, leaderless, by the people and for the people. It is not a business, a political party, an advertising campaign or a brand. It is not for sale. …
We wish to clarify that Occupy Wall Street is not and never has been affiliated with any established political party, candidate or organization. …
Any organization is welcome to support us with the knowledge that doing so will mean questioning your own institutional frameworks of work and hierarchy and integrating our principles into your modes of action.
Occupy Wall Street … (is) about providing a forum for people to show how tired they are not just of Wall Street, but everything. … by being so broad in scope and so elemental in its motivation, it’s flown over the heads of many on both the right and the left. …
As the Occupy Movement transitions, with physically occupying public spaces still a key piece, but multiple other actions and ideas emerging, you can see a couple of things happening. On the Right, of course, are gleeful shouts of “Look, we made the dirty f’king hippies go away!” On the Left, we see increasing efforts to co-opt. I know I keep bringing this up, but that’s because it keeps happening.
A recent MoveOn.org mailing:
That’s why on Thursday, Dec. 1, we’re organizing ‘99% Congressional Speak-Outs’ at the local offices of our senators and representatives. We’ll expose Republicans for making it their top priority to protect millionaires instead of creating jobs—and we’ll call on Democrats to fight hard to help Americans get back to work and stay in their homes.
I’ll be interested to see how they “call on Democrats” to do something that should have been a priority for a few years now. More to the current point, this is a prime example of jumping on the bandwagon someone else built, after it’s picked up some speed. Or, as this tweet puts it: “Dirtyfknhippy RT @KBZeese: No to Co-Option: MoveOn is the Opposite of the Occupy Movement owsnews.org/?p=8891.”
I’m guessing, but don’t know, that “@KBZeese” is Kevin Zeese, who wrote, from Occupy Washington, DC :
The corporate media is anointing a false leader of the Occupy Movement in Van Jones of Rebuild the Dream.
The former Obama administration official, who received a golden parachute at Princeton and the Democratic think tank Center for American Progress when he left the administration, is doing what Democrats always do – see the energy of an independent movement, race to the front, then lead it down a dead end and essentially destroy it. Jones is doing the dirty work of a Democratic operative and while he and other Dem front groups pretend to support Occupiers, their real mission is to co-opt it. …
These Dem front groups operate within the confines of the two corrupt parties and their agenda is limited by what big business interests say is politically realistic. Rebuild the Dream is more of the same that has been seen over and over from groups like MoveOn and Campaign for America’s Future – elect Democrats is their mantra. It is their only program. And, it is bankrupt.
Inspired by our friends at Occupy Wall Street, and Dr. Cornel West, Move To Amend is planning bold action to mark the second anniversary of the infamous Citizens United v. FEC decision!
Occupy the Courts will be a one day occupation of Federal courthouses across the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court … on Friday January 20, 2012. …
Americans across the country are on the march, and they are marching OUR way. They carry signs that say, ‘Corporations are NOT people! Money is NOT Speech!’
Grabbing on and using whatever is working is classic marketing, from movies to apps to beer to politics. And since we’re less than a year out from 2012 elections it’s no surprise that both Corporate Parties are using the Occupy / 99% movement for their own ends. Of course the Occupiers and 99%-ers make mistakes, will need to keep learning and evolving and refining and trying new things. But the very fact that they’re being used by both Left and Right argues that they’re “doing something right.”
… Th(e) protracted struggle on the part of everyday Black, White, Brown, Red, and Yellow people is not without its inevitable contradictions which must be addressed … . Nonetheless, an important initial victory has already been won. … the fact that the ‘OCCUPATION’ movement is bringing about a very important increase in the political consciousness of everyday people. …
… the corporate Democratic Party foxes and the corporate Republican Party wolves are attempting to exploit these contradictions in an effort to co-opt, discredit, neutralize, and ultimately destroy this growing people’s movement.
And that is one fundamental point: an actual “people’s movement” challenges the Corporate Occupation of our nation.
Mitt Romney needs to double down in Iowa, beginning on an “illegal immigration – amnesty” message, because the Newt Gingrich factor is setting in. But will Iowa’s Christian conservatives bite on Mormon Mitt? I just don’t see it. Who knows, maybe the real conservative in the pack, Jon Huntsman, will end up benefiting in New Hampshire. However, Newt in the south could run a string that would send a gale beneath the Obama reelect team’s wings, as it blows out the only chance Republicans have of beating the President.
You want to know the biggest reason Mitt Romney hasn’t surged at any point in the Republican Presidential race this year? It’s because the more GOP primary voters across the country have been exposed to him, the less they’ve liked him.
Adults watch “Morning Joe,” not children. “Sesame Street” it is not. So the audience can handle the likes of Ann Coulter, otherwise why book the bombastic right wing bandleader?
There’s also the reality that no one articulates right wing primary voters’ plight better than the screed merchant from the right.
Coulter’s presence led to a spectacular segment, adding more energy and relevancy on today’s conservatism than anything Peggy Noonan could ever bring to the show.
Then the inevitable happened, though Politico blasting out Coulter being bleeped was more about driving web page hits (glad to help on this one) than it was about anything that happened as a result, because after a moment of unnecessary awkwardness, the segment continued.
While talking about the Arizona senator, Coulter’s audio was bleeped by the show, cutting in and out three separate times, for a total of about 13 seconds.
After the sound returned, Coulter paused, realized that something had happened, and then could be heard asking others on the show, “What did I say? Oh, douche bag.”
“Just blur it all out,” host Joe Scarborough responded, apparently talking to the control room.
Mika Brzezinski looked away, acting like she couldn’t bare to look at Coulter. She is far more adept than to simply play the scold to Coulter’s fire breathing partisanship, which anyone booking this woman knew was going to erupt, because her volcanic style is not only legendary, but also why she’s invited on to cable. Mika could just as easily have said, “Now, that’s not necessary,” following what Mike Barnicle had done a few minutes earlier when Coulter laid into former Sen. Ted Kennedy.
Meanwhile, post bleep, Joe Scarborough tried to speed up time.
Coulter’s brand of acidity has become a tonic amid the hypocrisy of the Republican parade of wannabe candidates, the latest being Newt Gingrich’s move to the spotlight as this opportunistic K-Street resident hawks conservative credentials he doesn’t have. Her endorsement of Mitt Romney and her reasoning priceless. To paraphrase, Mitt’s flipped to her position, the conservative one, so what’s the problem?
What’s not to love about that?
Mr. Scarborough’s op-ed today for Politico is a perfect backdrop for Coulter’s decision to endorse Mitt Romney. An excerpt of the quiz he offers:
2. Who bragged about being a moderate with this comment, “There is a new synthesis evolving with the classic moderate wing of the party, where as a former Rockefeller state chairman, I’ve spent most of my life”? A. Mitt Romney B. Newt Gingrich C. Jon Huntsman
3. Who starred in a 2007 global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi that was sponsored by Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection? A. Mitt Romney B. Newt Gingrich C. Jon Huntsman
5. Who was paid $312,000 by ethanol interests and then said ethanol is good for national security and for the economy? A. Mitt Romney B. Newt Gingrich C. Jon Huntsman
9. Which candidate went on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and called Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan “radical” and “right-wing social engineering”? A. Mitt Romney B. Newt Gingrich C. Jon Huntsman
15. Which candidate was ranked by Cato Institute in 2008 one of the most fiscally conservative governors in America? A. Mitt Romney B. Newt Gingrich C. Jon Huntsman
16. Which candidate was cited by the Pew Center for running the “best-managed” state, hailed by Forbes magazine as the “most fiscally fit” and ranked first in the country for job creation? A. Mitt Romney B. Newt Gingrich C. Jon Huntsman
17. Whose economic plan does The Wall Street Journal consider the most impressive and conservative of the Republican presidential field? A. Mitt Romney B. Newt Gingrich C. Jon Huntsman
Mika Brzezinski tried to get Coulter to name Huntsman as the most conservative candidate running, however, what Mika misses is that Coulter’s neoconservative hawkism doesn’t consider avoiding foreign misadventures a conservative principle. That’s the problem with conservatives today, as they remain afflicted with Cheneyism.
Coulter rightly eviscerating Newt Gingrich is also something only she and Joe Scarborough have gone out of their way to do, with Scarborough bringing more focus to Mr. Huntsman lately as the real conservative than anyone else.
Joe should have Coulter back. Regularly. MSNBC should also make her a contributor. They can attach a rider to her contract on language and decorum if they’re that squeamish.
Love her or hate her, no one represents the way through for the Republican right wing primary voter better than Ann Coulter. She can articulate crazy better than any other conservative, she’s articulate and a consummate entertainer, something that MSNBC is sorely lacking.
Never before has the right needed Ann Coulter more desperately. Up is down this year. Insanity is now sane. Republicans need to provide Ann Coulter with a renaissance and with it she needs to up her game and leave “douchbag” behind her. Because in a year where Republicans can’t find any core at all, Ann Coulter is providing a compass for 2012.
Watching the reaction of the Pakistanis after the NATO bombing incident that killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers, it was hard not to wonder if this would escalate further. It just did.
Calling the event a “tragedy,” Pres. Obama did not offer an apology, mainly because the events that played out are being contested.
Pakistan’s government announced Monday that it will not participate in an upcoming conference in Bonn, Germany on Afghanistan’s future, in protest to this weekend’s bombing of two border posts in Mohmand by NATO forces that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers (BBC, Tel, AP, Reuters, ET, AFP). The decision came during a meeting of Pakistan’s cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, who promised in an interview with CNN Monday that there would be no more, “business as usual” with the United States following the raid (CNN, Reuters, ET, AFP/Dawn). In a briefing Tuesday Pakistani Gen. Ashfaq Nadeem called the incident a “deliberate act of aggression” by the United States, and said Pakistan was still deciding if they will cooperate with an American probe of the attack, whose results are due to be released December 23 (AP, Dawn).
Pakistan and the United States continue to dispute the events surrounding the bombing, as U.S. and Afghan officials describe a joint commando patrol near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border that came under attack from positions near or even inside the Pakistani army posts, while Pakistan has said the assault continued long after Pakistani forces identified themselves to NATO (Post, NYT, ET, BBC, AP, WSJ). President Barack Obama and other American leaders have called the incident a “tragedy” but refused to apologize (AFP/ET, Tel). The Pentagon said Monday that it would “carry on” in Afghanistan without supplies from Pakistan, which has closed its border to U.S. supplies, and Pakistan reportedly refused a request by the United Arab Emirates to review its decision to evict American personnel from the Shamsi airbase in Balochistan, which the Emirates are believed to control (AFP, ET, Dawn, AFP).
Pakistan is sending a chilling message that in the short term is saying they’re pulling out of any regional involvement on what happens with Afghanistan. Since Pres. Carter signed off on funding efforts in Pakistan and Afghanistan, there hasn’t been a development like this that I can remember.
A nuclear power in this region, with an unstable domestic landscape to boot, is not a positive prospect to consider.
Osama bin Laden picking Pakistan to hide away seems to have been foreshadowing and the result of the U.S. never quite understanding what we were dealing with in this country going all the way back to Ronald Reagan.
Protesters in the Iranian capital, Tehran, have broken into the UK embassy compound during an anti-British demonstration, reports say.
Militant students are said to have removed the British flag, burnt it and replaced it with Iran’s flag. State TV showed youths smashing embassy windows.
The move comes after Iran resolved to reduce ties following the UK’s decision to impose further sanctions on it.
If you want to know how these things happen, the story of Herman and Ginger is the most common. The man has the opportunity and the means. The woman is bored and takes the offer. From there it’s pretty ordinary.
Well, except for the part where the man decides to go on a book tour that turns into a political farce in a year that has every Republican except the dog catcher taking his or her turn in the spotlight.
“He made it very intriguing,” White told FOX 5. “It was fun. It was something that took me away from my humdrum life at the time. And it was exciting.”
She says he gave her his newly-published book, Leadership is Common Sense, and he wrote: “Miss G, you have already made a ‘big difference!’ Stay focused as you pursue your next destination.”
She says during the next 13 years, he would fly her to cities where he was speaking and he lavished her with gifts. She says they often stayed at the Ritz Carlton in Buckhead and dined at The Four Seasons restaurant. She says he never harassed her, never treated her poorly, and was the same man you see on the campaign trail.
“Very much the same, very much confident, very much sure of himself,” White said, describing Cain. “Very arrogant in a playful sometimes way. Very, ah — Herman Cain loves Herman Cain.”
Yep, that’s the bottom line for most male adulterers. They love themselves and indulge their every whim, thinking of no one else.
From the start of the accusations I never had one doubt about Herman Cain. The first woman with Gloria Allred was not only credible, but Herman Cain’s rolling response was just too predictable.
There’s also the reality that where there is one there is usually another. Then another. Then another.
Sitting on the sidelines is the pitiful Mrs. Cain, another woman who didn’t want to know the man she was married to and thought religion made Herman righteous.
If Herman has any decency he’d— Never mind.
Moral of this story is simple. If you let your ego control your life it will eventually take you out.
Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.
Among the latest of the Occupations to be given a deadline by which they had to leave, or law enforcement would evict the Occupants are Occupy Philly and Occupy Los Angeles. As of a short time ago, via OWS, “Occupy Philly Still Standing Strong.”
And at Occupy LA, last night’s 12 AM deadline to disperse was not enforced. As the sun came up, the livestream at OWS included shots of LAPD officers leaving in vans, as well as a friendly conversation with someone identified as “Capt. Smith,” who smiled and talked about the “peaceful” way most Occupiers acted – as an Occupier walked by and asked the officer, “Can I buy you a cup of coffee?”. Capt. Smith added that there were a few people (among the Occupiers) who “didn’t get it,” and threw a few things at his officers; there were “three or four” people arrested. But according to what he, and Occupiers, said, it was a basically peaceful evening. He was asked, “What do you think will happen tonight, at midnight?” in terms of what the city officials would instruct the PD to do, and he said, “I don’t know,” but went on to focus on keeping things as peaceful as possible.
I’ll bet most Occupiers, and most law enforcement officers, agree with that. According to Occupiers in the livestream feed, the people who, as Capt. Smith described them, “didn’t get it,” were not individuals the Occupiers recognized. This, of course, is nothing new. But what’s also nothing new is that it’s the non-peaceful moments and actions by law enforcement and by those among (though not necessarily of) the Occupiers that inevitably get media attention. Maybe that’s why they miss so much of the many things that are going on. A few examples, as I’ve seen them at various Occupy web sites: the NYC People’s Library is now “on wheels”; Zuccotti, and other sites of “evictions,” are still spaces where Occupiers gather during the day for meetings and simply to have a presence, and where some will remain overnight, though not in tents or any other “structure”; Occupy the Board Room; Boycott Black Friday; #OCCUPYXMAS; General Strikes, marches and sit-ins. And these:
At Dewey Square today, Monday, November 28, you will see six barber stools representing the six biggest banks: JPMorganChase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. From 3pm to 6pm, skilled barbers will operate at each of these stations, providing free haircuts to occupiers and supporters. … In banking, a ‘haircut’ is when a bank or other lender adjusts the terms of a loan to decrease the debt on the borrower. While banks routinely take ‘haircuts’ when dealing with large corporations and wealthy clients, they rarely do the same when dealing with members of the 99% who are paying back mortgage loans, student loans, credit card loans and other debts.
You can keep up with what’s going on through a relatively recent addition to online sites: Occupy TV “aggregate(s) videos from Occupy protests worldwide.”
Occupations across the world have recently adopted the tactic of taking over unoccupied buildings. In New York, students and allies occupied New School buildings and dropped leaflets and banners from inside during the N17 Day of Action. In North Carolina and Oakland, protesters occupied vacant downtown buildings.
This Saturday (Nov. 26) Occupy Denver is proud to announce its first ever Children’s March … . From our first march, we have been blessed to have so many young people marching with us. …
Last Monday Occupy Denver was blessed with a fieldtrip of 50 or more 7-8th graders from the Logan School. We were blown away by the questions they asked, their understanding of the issues, and their enthusiasm.
has been a voice for veterans and their grievances since our founding in 2004. We understand that change comes about when people speak up, organize, and demand justice. Veterans and active-duty service members have a history of organizing, from the Bonus March to the Vietnam War. Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have an important contribution to make to this movement.
As veterans and members of the 99% we stand in solidarity with the Occupy Movement.
Most of these are actions unlikely to get much media attention, but then, the Occupy Movement isn’t so much a “protest” as a “process.” That presents problems and challenges for everyone accustomed to the controlled gatherings that have become the standard: city officials, law enforcement, media, analysts (Left, Right, Center) academics … everyone has to adjust, or resist adjusting. Occupy certainly draws on historical activism, but just as occurred in those earlier moments, evolving and new ideas are essential. One last illustration of what’s happening and being said, via a few announcements, ideas and thoughts from the Twitter feed at OWS:
Big_Red_Star #occupyyourself #Ows PROTEST ALERT-Occupy the CUNY Board of Trustees, TODAY, 4-8pm, Baruch College, 24th and Lexington Ave.
DEADHEAD1776 RT @occupybot: RT @studentactivism If the #Occupy movement is ‘camping’ then the lunch-counter sit-ins of 1960 were ‘hanging out at the malt shop.’
Jeff_Raines A question of focus is always divisive. RT @PolicyMic Occupy the hood: Should #OWS focus on the bottom half of the 99%? bit.ly/s2wmVS
ATRACZZ RT @blogdiva: RT @an0nyc: @MichaelSkolnik <– 100% Right. The #Occupy movement is not about standoffs with police, this is an #IntentionalDistraction
MichaelWeschler RT @Occupy_Provo: RT @LOLGOP: I’ll remind you that a crowd smaller than #OccupyLA owns more than the bottom 150,000,000 Americans combined.
Of course there is always some continuity in activism. In this morning’s livestream from Occupy LA, I heard one. A woman, off camera, said of an Occupier’s call to “keep it peaceful”: “Right on.” Sometimes eras sort of blend together.
(“Cannot Evict an Idea” poster via OWS. “Not Protest but Process” poster via Occupy Together.)
“Look, I was an independent at the time of Reagan Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.” – Mitt Romney
The ads below from the DNC targeting Mitt Romney are priceless. They also reveal how screwed up the primary process for Republicans is this year and point to the reason Pres. Obama has the biggest chance of getting reelected.
Having no core has its consequences. That seems to be the conservative theme this year. Because if conservative Republicans had a center, any political compass at all, their candidate would be Jon Huntsman. He’s the only candidate running, the only one, to have endorsed Paul Ryan’s extreme economic plan. Getting out of foreign entanglements is no longer a conservative principle. The neoconservative hangover is still crippling conservative sensibilities, making a mockery of William F. Buckley’s party.
It’s also why Mitt Romney’s still the best bet to win the nomination, even if Jon Huntsman is now the strongest cross-over candidate they’ve got.
Once upon a time, Romney’s economic background was a true threat to Obama. It could still be, depending on what happens with the economy, with a lot of election year energy also depending on whether Occupy protests rev up in the spring again and gain traction next year. Regardless, Mitt’s 1% persona, corporations are people too patter, will hang around his neck now. Before Occupy, Romney looked a lot better than he does today.
The opening of the first Romney ad below is not only hilarious, it’s sheer genius.
The sequel is longer, devastating and playing in a swing state near you.
The exquisite timing and validating effect of the New Hampshire Union Leader’s endorsement presents Gingrich with the biggest boost yet to his resurgent campaign — a conservative stamp of approval at a pivotal moment. – Jonathan Martin
Making sense on immigration didn’t work for Rick Perry.
Only Newt Gingrich could talk about immigration as he did last week, get a key endorsement in New Hampshire, followed by praise from former Pres. Bill Clinton, and now be riding high.
“Some evangelical Christians would outright not consider him,” said Justin LaVan, president of the Network of Iowa Christian Home Educators. “I, on the other hand, am not looking for a presidential candidate” based on “whether he’s qualified to be an elder in my church.”
An influential evangelical group, the Family Leader, which opposes abortion and same-sex marriage, named Mr. Gingrich one of four candidates in the running for its endorsement.
“I never thought I’d get excited about Newt Gingrich, but in terms of ideas and the ability to articulate ideas and his grasp of history, there’s no one better,” said Matt Reisetter, development director of the Family Leader.
Pres. Obama and his reelection team, however, remain focused on Mitt Romney. If it turns out to be Newt, which I doubt seriously it will, they won’t have anything to worry about at all.
“I’m like everybody, I want more action. But I understand that [Pres. Obama's] trying not to piss off a lot of people. But I believe wholeheartedly if he’s back in, he’s going to do some gangsta sh—.” – Chris Rock, Politico
Thanksgiving week began with a rhetorical explosion of Democratic, progressive and liberal disgust met with defensiveness, which was a continuation of what’s been building throughout Pres. Obama’s first term. The latest defense comes from the estimable Nicolas Kristoff and joins the list of equally unimpressive efforts, which culminates with this all being about “grumpiness toward the incumbent during a difficult time.” That is another wishfully lame assessment of an American electorate who passed “grumpiness” some time ago.
The quote above from Chris Rock came in early November, but it follows the current mood, as well as what I’ve written many times before about Mr. Obama and entitlements, for instance. Somebody’s going to “reform” entitlements, so everyone needs to decide which is better to get the blame, Democratic or Republican politicians. It’s a fitting end, because the big two parties have gotten us into this mess, which has led to a political system long overdue for upheaval and realignment, which has begun, the completion of which will take years and several election cycles.
Chris Matthews finally let his frustrations out with Alex Witt recently as well. It was one of the more extraordinary events from the notorious career Clinton hater, someone who earned a significant role in my book.
Coming on MSNBC made Matthews’ grousing more amazing, because there isn’t much political reality to be seen from MSNBC’s primetime coterie of hosts. The entire network has taken a dive into Democratic denial, which could be driven by the lack of sanity on the Republican side and betting it’s the smart move, but which is actually decidedly out of sync with most Americans, who are sick of both big two parties. Being the bookend for Fox News Channel might have seemed like a good idea once, but now just comes off as equally unwatchable.
From the interview with Matthews:
“There’s nothing to root for. What are we trying to do in this administration? Why does he want a second term? Would he tell us? What’s he going to do in his second term, more of this? Is this it? Is this as good as it gets? Where are we going?” – Chris Matthews with Alex Witt
What Mr. Matthews still doesn’t understand, though he’s certainly got a lot of company, as Mr. Kristoff proves today, is that even if Pres. Obama answered his questions it wouldn’t mean anything, because it’s coming from a man with no internal compass and people now realize it. Pres. Obama’s style is not moored in leading people to consensus from his own foundational principles that would give us something firm to grasp, but instead is predicated on culling consensus from what’s presented from others, which can change with the wind.
Of course, this in no way means he can’t win reelection. However, there’s a reason Dan Baltz points to the Center for American Progress recent report that states 2012 will be “no election for the faint-hearted.” The uncertainty is also why the news that Democrats are out fundraising Republicans for House races is so important to Democrats, in case Obama loses.
Last week a video circulating had one Obama supporter give a flatly delivered, unenthusiastic case on why he wasn’t disappointed by Pres. Obama, which I rebutted easily with Obama’s history, while simultaneously you had Jonthan Chait give a long-winded whine about liberals. From Chait’s piece:
Harry Truman has become the patron saint of dispirited Democrats, the fighting populist whose example is invariably cited in glum contrast to whatever bumbling congenital compromiser happens to hold office at any given time. In fact, liberals spent the entire Truman presidency in a state of near-constant despair. Republicans took control of Congress in the 1946 elections and bottled up Truman’s domestic agenda, rendering him powerless to expand the New Deal, as liberals had hoped he would after the war had ended. Liberal columnist Max Lerner decried Truman’s mania for “cooperation” and his eagerness “to blink [past] the real social cleavage and struggles,” attributing this pathological eagerness to avoid conflict to his “middle-class mentality.” (Some contemporary critics have reached the same psychoanalysis of Obama, substituting his bi-racial background as the cause.) The New Republic’s Richard Strout lamented how “little evidence he has shown of being able to lift up and inspire the masses.” The historian Richard Pells has written that in the eyes of liberals at the time, “the president remained an incorrigible mediocrity.”
An exception to this trend, but only a partial exception, is Franklin Roosevelt, the most esteemed of the historical Democratic president-saints. Roosevelt is hard to compare to anybody, because his achievements were so enormous, and his failures so large as well (court-packing, interning Japanese-Americans). But even his triumphs, gleaming monuments to liberalism when viewed from the historical distance, appear, at closer inspection, to be riddled with the same tribulations, reversals, compromises, dysfunctions, and failures as any other. Roosevelt did not run for office promising to boost deficit spending in order to stimulate the economy. He ran castigating Herbert Hoover for permitting high deficits, then immediately passed an austerity budget in his first year. Roosevelt did come around to Keynesian stimulus, but he never seemed to understand it, and in 1937 he reversed himself again by cutting spending, helping plunge the economy into a second depression eventually mitigated only by war spending.
I’ve written, as Chait did this past week, on J.F.K. being dragged to civil rights by Martin Luther King, Jr. In my book, in a chapter titled “Blaming Bill” that makes a similar case on liberal schizophrenia, I also write about Bill Clinton’s mistake on derivatives, his help campaigning and electing Blue Dog Democrats while making labor the villain, not to mention Clinton’s free trade penchant, which is being channeled by Pres. Obama, as the former president’s economic policies make the latter’s possible. It’s juxtaposed against the pastime of progressives to blame Bill Clinton for everything, which is often cited by Obama fans as what’s happening to our current president, though I also lay out a conclusive case of just how different the situations were for these two men entering the presidency.
See, contrary to my “die hard Clintonite” mantle (given to me by the Washington Post, no less), I’m no stranger to Democratic discontent. It’s why my recovering partisan present is a natural. In fact, anyone paying attention to my history of writing going back into the ’90s will see that it’s the one constant in my life, seen best in my vote for Reagan in ’80.
Chait resurrects a beauty from the history books on that one:
The Times’ editorial board captured the liberal view of the era when it relayed the joke of a voter with a gun to his head who’s asked to choose between Carter and Ronald Reagan and replies, “Shoot.”
So furious was I at Carter, a combination born out of waiting in gas lines in New York City, a place in decline at the time, while watching the hostage crisis play out, with Teddy Kennedy’s hopes going up in smoke with Roger Mudd, it made voting for Reagan easy. Anger’s like that at the voting booth; emotion a powerfully irrational catalyst.
Who can forget candidate Obama hoisting Ronald Reagan up as an example over William Jefferson Clinton time and again? Chait does it as well. However, Mr. Chait ends his attempt at defending Pres. Obama with a thank you to his critics. Oh, the irony, which he misses completely, making his own defense of the President schizophrenic.
Republican Reagan-worship is a product of a pro-authority mind-set that liberals, who inflate past heroes only to criticize their contemporaries, cannot match. If recent history is any guide, they are simply not capable of having that kind of relationship with a president. They are going to question their leader, not deify him, and search for signs of betrayal in any act of compromise he or she may commit. This exhausting psychological torment is no way to live. Then again, the current state of the Republican Party suggests it may be healthier than the alternative.
It brings me back to a place I know well. Not so much looking for an ideological leader, as a human being with an unflinching compass and undeniable character to stand up against Congress and politicians of both parties. A lightning rod of a person who rails at the injustices and isn’t afraid of anything, including outcome. An individual outside of the corporate and political systems that has brought us to the brink.
However, even though this person no doubt exists somewhere it won’t matter as things stand today. Because the system our founders put together wasn’t driven by two locked in ideological political parties that after two hundred years have reached the only ending they could: stalemate.
In the end our American democratic republic wasn’t made from political parties, but from a diverse group of leaders standing on their own principles, as well as self interest, with compromise and deals made possible out of necessity, not ideology. There is no necessity to compromise today because the political parties to which our politicians belong won’t allow this natural occurrence to manifest. The only thing that can alter that fact is more political individuals elected outside the system.
But first we have to tear the two party system down, which is what the Tea Party began doing, with Occupy Wall Street offering another angle, which holds more hope, because there is not party alliance at its hub, though it’s clear there are more similarities with Democratic principles at its core.
As an side, Libertarianism, as seen through politicians like Ron Paul, the only person talking war and peace in real terms, offers an alliance for Democrats and even Republicans sick to death of the militancy of their own conservative wings, which has gained more ground under Pres. Obama. But again, this can only happen with more independent minded and not beholden to party politicians getting elected.
It won’t be done completely in 2012, but the system has already begun to shake. The bad news is that we are going to elect a few more weak leaders before it’s over. That’s the case whether Barack Obama gets reelected or Mitt Romney takes the presidency, though the case for Mitt with some will lie in what might be possible from him, which comes coupled with what is known not to work already with Pres. Obama.
The likelihood that the American electorate will just keep throwing the bums out until we reach a moment when the person we’re electing means more than the party he or she represents is where American politics is being pushed today.
Voting for a Democratic or Republican politician simply because of their brand simply isn’t working anymore. Certainly we can all at least agree on that.
Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.
Sen. Wyden at Green Energy Site in Oregon
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore) is planning a filibuster against a new infringement on civil rights. This is one clever way to make people aware of what their bought off congress is up to:
In the coming weeks, a new and unprecedented thing just might happen in the U.S. Senate: the Internet will filibuster a bill.
Specifically, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) will filibuster a bill — the Protect IP Act, which aims to fundamentally change the structure of the Internet — with a little help from his friends and admirers online.
In a website launched this week by the left-leaning political action committee Demand Progress, Wyden promises that if the Protect IP Act comes up for a vote in the Senate, he will stage an old-school standing filibuster and speak for as long as his lungs have wind.
To bolster his speech, Wyden plans to read off the names of people who stand united with him against proposed rules that would fundamentally change the structure of the Internet.
So far, over 60,000 petition signatures have been collected, his staff said, and that number is growing quickly.
“My boss couldn’t feel more strongly about this issue,” a Wyden aide told Raw Story on Tuesday, stressing that their main goal right now is to prevent the bill from coming up for a vote.
“He will do a standing filibuster, but at this point, we don’t necessarily have the votes to sustain his filibuster,” the aide continued. “Our goal is to continue to slow down this process and continue to educate members of Congress on why [the Protect IP Act is] the wrong approach.”
The names that aren’t read will later be entered into the congressional record.
The Protect IP Act is heavily sponsored by the entertainment industry and the powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbying group, which sees it as a means to prevent online piracy, which they claim costs jobs.
But its detractors, companies like Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Aol, see the bill a little differently. While Protect IP — and its House version, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) — would make it easier for U.S. authorities to crack down on websites accused of pirating movies, television shows and music, it would also allow the government and copyright owners to disable credit card processing for sites they claim are engaging or enabling copyright infringement, all without a court hearing.
The legislation is so broad it could be used to target online anonymity tools used by human rights activists…
Here is the website mobilizing progressives against this bill.
In Ohio labor and progressives are doing huge things: moving to repeal bills passed by the GOP legislature. They repealed SB5, and now are moving to prevent the new congressional GOP drawn maps from being implemented and also are moving to stop the egregious new voting g restrictions from ever becoming law. It looks like the have secured enough signatures to get these bills n the ballot for repeal. More:
“Over the course of the last year, almost 2 million (signatures) have been collected from across Ohio’s 88 counties to repeal such egregious pieces of like Senate Bill 5, now House Bill 194, and obviously the work that’s ongoing with House Bill 319,” said Chris Redfern, chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party.
“We made history with Senate Bill 5 and we continue to make history with 194,” Redfern said later. “It’s not to be underestimated the work that’s in place.”
…
Redfern said Democrats have collected more than 100,000 signatures to place the Republicans’ new congressional maps on the November ballot. He also said he’s met with some groups, including the League of Women Voters, to discuss putting on next year’s ballot a mechanism to redo how congressional maps are drawn in Ohio.
Among the provisions in House Bill 194 that Democrats find objectionable:
A reduction in early voting from 35 days before an election to 21 days by mail and 17 in person. The bill also would prohibit in-person voting on Saturday afternoons, Sundays and the three days before the election.
A prohibition on counties such as Franklin from sending unsolicited absentee-ballot applications to all voters.
Requirements regarding whether a poll worker has to tell a voter that he or she is in the wrong precinct.
New standards for when a vote should be tossed out, such as when a person puts the wrong birth date on an absentee-ballot envelope.
Republicans argued that the bill would bring uniformity to Ohio’s elections, strengthen security and still provide plenty of access to the polls through early voting.
Greg Schultz, state director for Obama’s re-election campaign in Ohio, said Obama volunteers held about 1,700 events geared toward placing House Bill 194 before voters.
“The process of getting this on the ballot can’t be understated,” Schultz said. “We had neighbors talking to neighbors about this. Our volunteer infrastructure is that much more motivated, that much more engaged. This year, 2011, could’ve been a very long year, and instead there’s been an incredible amount of activity.”
Where oh where are African Americans in Occupy protests? A question I have been wondering. This article I think hits the nail on the hail. For many blacks, seeing white Occupy protestors is a “welcome to the party” moment:
Is there a chance that the movement can become more diverse? Leslie Wilson, a professor of African American history at Montclair State University, is not optimistic.
“Occupy Wall Street cannot produce enough change to encourage certain types of black participation,” Wilson said in an interview. “The church cannot get enough blacks out on the streets. Some students will go, but not the masses. Black folks, particularly older ones, do not think that this is going to lead to change. . . . This generation has already been beaten down and is hurting. They are not willing to risk what little they have for change. Those who are wealthier are not willing to risk and lose.”
Black America’s fight for income equality is not on Wall Street, but is a matter of day-to-day survival. The more pressing battles are against tenant evictions, police brutality and street crime. This group doesn’t see a reason to join the amorphous Occupiers.
But if the Occupy movement does not grow in solidarity with other constituencies of exploited and oppressed people, and if black America does not devise new leadership strategies to deal with today’s problems, the truth of Frederick Douglass’s wisdom will hold — the powerful undertow of race and class in America will keep both blacks and whites from being free.
The great challenge for Occupy to me is expanding tactics and diversifying it’s participants.
And finally great news out of Texas: the federal court in San Antonio has issued interim new lines for state house, state senate and congress. These lines may wind up becoming permanent depending on upcoming trials at the DC circuit and trial in Texas. Civil rights groups call this new map the most progressive map for minorities in Texas history. Right now Texas Dems hold 49 Texas House seats out of 150. The new map gives Dems, mostly minorities, another 10-12 seats.
See MALDEF’s happy statement on the Texas legislature maps here.
And Lone Star Project’s analysis of state house maps here.
And for congress: Texas gained 4 new seats in the census. And thanks to GOP foolishness the San Antonio court has given at least 3 of the new seats to Latinos and blacks. And several other districts will likely flip in the new few cycles due to growing Latino population. Memo to Tea Party: it won’t matter how many gerrymanders you do, you cannot silence growing numbers of minorities in America. All thanks to the Voting Rights and Civil rights Acts…
Kimberly Warner-Cohen is a New York City-based novelist and economic activist.
The FCC, who approved the highly controversial Comcast/ NBC merger (and came under fire when one of their commissioners took a job with Comcast four months after the deal went through), worked with the Justice Department to file suit in August blocking the merger of the second and fourth largest telecom carriers in the country, which would create an effective monopoly. According to the LA Times, the DOJ announced:
The deal…would displace Verizon Wireless as the largest wireless carrier in the U.S., leading to higher prices, lower-quality services, a smaller pool of choices and fewer pioneering technologies for millions of Americans. Consumers in rural areas or with lower incomes would be especially hard-hit, Deputy Atty. Gen. James M. Cole said in a statement.
Part of the debate came down to AT&T’s claim that the merger would create 55-96,000 jobs and promised to bring back the 5,000 call center jobs they had shipped overseas. However, critics:
[P]oint out that AT&T’s claim that the deal will add up to 96,000 jobs is misleading because the EPI report actually estimates it will create between 55,000 and 96,000 “job-years,” which refer to a job held for a single year. That means that up to 96,000 people could be employed for one year.If the $8 billion in investment is spread over seven years, it would create around 13,700 jobs that last seven years, but may then disappear.. And the study says AT&T has eliminated thousands of jobs during previous mergers, so there’s no reason to expect the company to behave differently this time.
This past Thursday, AT&T and T-Mobile’s parent company, Deutsche Telekom, temporarily halted their merger application on Wednesday while they handle the Department of Justice matter. However, that may not matter, as:
The announcements came after FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski on Tuesday came out in opposition to AT&T’s proposed $39-billion purchase of T-Mobile, moving to refer the deal to an administrative law judge for a hearing that could sink its approval…Gigi B. Sohn, president of advocacy group Public Knowledge, which opposes the deal, said the companies withdrew their FCC application to avoid disclosing just how bad the deal would be for consumers.
And, in the a sign that this deal has all but died:
[AT&T] will take a $4 billion accounting charge this quarter to cover part of the break-up fee it will owe, if its bid to acquire T-Mobile fails to gain regulatory approval.
I’m curious to see if there will be any eleventh hour saves and how, if at all, this will affect the Google antitrust investigation.
Instead, pick a small business to visit and support them with a purchase.
This is one of our very favorite places. Grape and Bean has a wonderful selection of wines and champagnes, including bubbly at a price anyone can afford. In downtown Alexandria, Virginia, it’s always fun walking down the old streets to visit this little wine bistro, which also does a hefty coffee business.
…and if you want to support another small business, BUY MY BOOK (aps for your pc, MAC or iPad are available for free). You may have to buy it through Barnes & Noble, which has an exclusive until December 15th, but you’ll be supporting a small businesses in the process, yours truly.
Support small business Saturday. At the very least, have a nosh at one of your local restaurants instead of a chain.
Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.
I know … AIDS probably doesn’t sound like a great Saturday read. And it’s been a topic of conversation for over three decades, so it’s easy, perhaps, to assume we know what’s happening. But …
On November 8, 2011, in advance of World AIDS Day (December 1), a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, “Creating an AIDS-Free Generation”:
The fight against AIDS began three decades ago in June 1981. American scientists reported the first evidence of a mysterious new disease. It was killing young men by leaving them vulnerable to rare forms of pneumonia, cancer, and other health problems. Now, at first, doctors knew virtually nothing about this disease. Today, all those years later, we know a great deal.
We know, of course, about its horrific impact. AIDS has killed 30 million people around the world, and 34 million are living with HIV today. In Sub-Saharan Africa—where 60 percent of the people with HIV are women and girls—it left a generation of children to grow up without mothers and fathers or teachers. In some communities, the only growth industry was the funeral business. …
(In 2003) … only 50,000 people in Sub-Saharan Africa were receiving the antiretroviral drugs that would keep them alive. Now, more than 5 million do, along with more than a million people in other regions of the world, and the vast majority receive drugs financed by either PEPFAR or the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, which the United States helped create.
Much has been learned about AIDS, and millions are alive as a result. But as Sec. Clinton says in the same speech, “AIDS is still an incurable disease.” And while Clinton’s speech contained a lot of encouraging and accurate information, a couple of weeks later, on November 22, Access to Essential Medicines Campaign and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) issued a very troubling release about that Global Fund Clinton mentions. Via The World AIDS Campaign, Global Fund Cancels Round 11 Financing:
Because donor funding for global HIV/AIDS and the Global Fund has been declining, the Fund is in the most dire financial situation it has ever seen since its creation ten years ago. As a result, the Global Fund board decided to effectively cancel its 11th funding round due to lack of resources.
The Global Fund will provide for a ‘transitional funding mechanism,’ whereby countries known to be facing a disruption of programs for HIV, TB and malaria before 2013 will be offered a chance to apply for funding to cover their most essential needs. For HIV, this funding can cover medicines for people already on treatment, but does not provide for scale-up of HIV treatment. Funding will also be restricted for treatment of drug-resistant forms of TB.
Short version: the funds aren’t available to keep people from dying, and the disease from spreading.
The dramatic resource shortfall comes at a time when the latest HIV science shows that HIV treatment itself not only saves lives, but is also a critical form of preventing the spread of the virus, and governments are making overtures that there could be an end to the AIDS epidemic.
“There’s a shocking incongruence between both the new HIV science and political promises on one hand, and the funding reality that is now hitting the ground on the other,’ said Dr. Tido von Schoen-Angerer, executive director of MSF’s Access Campaign. ‘Donors are really pulling the rug out from under people living with HIV/AIDS at precisely the time when we need to move full steam ahead and get life-saving treatment to more people.
World AIDS Day is celebrated on December 1 each year around the world. It has become one of the most recognised international health days and a key opportunity to raise awareness, commemorate those who have passed on, and celebrate victories such as increased access to treatment and prevention services.
And, of course, to remember that the job isn’t done.
Capitalism Out of the Closet **UPDATED** Would we be any worse off with Stephen Colbert as president? I doubt it. Politifact has watched the video [...]
Not Disappointed in Pres. Obama **Postscript added** President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics [...]
Fan Politics Despite rising public concern about the federal budget deficit, Americans favor keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are [...]
Watching the reaction of the Pakistanis after the NATO bombing incident that killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers, it was hard not to wonder if this would escalate further. It just did.
