TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Archive | December, 2011

The Big Two Political Conventions and Occupy

By on 10 December 2011

In the greater Occupy world, there’s uncertainty verging on ambivalence toward the idea of protesting either the DNC in Charlotte or the Republican National Convention taking place in Tampa. Some activists admitted that they did not know when the DNC was taking place. While they stressed it might be important to show opposition, they are more focused on the idea of creating alternatives to the political system, or even just dismissing it entirely as irrelevant. – Huffington Post

Front page of the Huffington Post .

The two big party political conventions are anything but irrelevant. Occupy activists can say they’re part of the problem or that they don’t want to be associated with them. However, don’t political activists and groups agreeing or even supporting Occupy activists have an obligation to challenge the political structure that has created the space for Occupy in the first place? If they don’t, doesn’t that say something about political activism today compared to, let’s say, 1968?

How can unions and other Democratic organizations trumpet Occupy’s complaints, then show up, suck up, support and endorse the Democratic establishment in Charlotte, which is absolutely part of the problem?

Republicans are against taxing millionaires and Sean Hannity and right wing radio, the base of the right, has called Occupy irrelevant, or worse, compared to the Tea Party. What does it mean if political activists who support Occupy do not peacefully demonstrate in Tampa?

From the Huffington Post:

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — When the Democratic National Committee picked Charlotte to host its September 2012 convention, city leaders saw it as a boost to the local service economy. Hotels would be filled, restaurants would be booked, and party spaces would be rented. Up until a few months ago, officials only had to worry about the would-be traffic congestion on Trade Street as lobbyists shuffled to the next cocktail party. But now, they have to be concerned about feistier visitors known as Occupy Wall Street.

If Charlotte officials fear having another Chicago ’68 on their hands, they’re hoping to take one essential weapon out of the hands of activists: their tents. On Oct. 27, the Charlotte city manager released a draft ordinance that makes camping on public property a “public nuisance” and would prohibit “noxious substances,” padlocks and other camping equipment that city officials fear could impede traffic and create public safety issues.

The Charlotte City Council has not yet voted on the ordinance, and some argue its language is vague and may violate First Amendment rights. “If the ordinance is passed, it is possible that its constitutionality will be challenged,” wrote Isaac Sturgill, director of the Charlotte School of Law chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, in an editorial that will run in the Charlotte alternative weekly Creative Loafing on Dec. 13. “There is also the potential for increased confrontation between protesters and police.”

It’s a long way from convention season, so thinking about what could possibly play out is nowhere on the Occupy radar yet. But these events are a challenge to the continued importance of Occupy, but also whether it’s able to mature as a movement through the actions of political activists supporting Occupy.

A story in the Miami Herald reported the Republicans aren’t worried.

Around 50,000 people are expected to come to the Tampa Bay area for the convention, including 5,000 to 6,000 delegates, 15,000 media members and possibly 10,000 protesters. Officials said it was too early to discuss the specifics of security plans, which may have to take into account larger-than-normal demonstrations spurred by the recent Occupy Wall Street movement. A small group of protesters has maintained a presence in a downtown park since October.

A “security perimeter” around the downtown arena will be established, but Harris said it was too early to determine the boundaries or how close to the venue the designated area for demonstrators would be located.

“The convention has been made a national security special even by the federal government, so the U.S. Secret Service is coordinating all the agencies down here together to come up with a security plan,” Harris said. “We have absolute confidence in their ability.”

If Occupy is to resonate as a movement on a wider scale and be taken seriously in a year where economic issues will be central to the debate, how can it not turn its sights on the politicians who make Wall Street’s greed possible, the nexus of both gathering in Charlotte and Tampa?

You can rail about unfairness and Wall Street all you want, but unless you take it to the political powers that can do something about the situation, you’re just not getting to the heart of it.

Occupy’s presence in Charlotte and Tampa is not only relevant to manifesting a shift in policies, it’s critical to driving the message of inequality and fairness home.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Queer Talk: In court, at the UN, and in Perry-land

By on 10 December 2011

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

Lots of queer talking in the last week, including from the California courts, to the United Nations, to the “how low can he go” Rick Perry campaign.

Beginning with the ongoing court battles regarding California’s Proposition 8, a voter initiative which banned “same-sex” marriage. Via American Foundation for Equal Rights:

Today (December 8), plaintiffs in Perry v. Brown, the landmark federal constitutional challenge to California’s Proposition 8, presented oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explaining why videotapes of the Proposition 8 trial should be publicly accessible and why Proponents’ motion to vacate judgment is meritless.

This will likely be the final hearing before the Ninth Circuit issues a ruling on the U.S. District Court’s August 2010 decision that struck down Proposition 8.

Earlier this year, Plaintiffs moved to unseal the trial video recording in the district court … . On September 19, 2011, U.S. District Chief Judge James Ware agreed with Plaintiffs … . ’

Too simplistically, but the Proponents of Prop 8 appealed that decision – they don’t want the video shown which includes their earlier arguments in favor of Prop 8 – adding to their reasoning that because Judge Ware came out as gay, with a partner (following his ruling, and after he retired), he should have recused himself. Because, you see, a gay judge must be biased toward gays.

‘What Proponents insist on today is nothing short of a double standard within the federal judiciary; one that applies to gay judges but not to their straight colleagues,’ said plaintiffs’ lead co-counsel David Boies.

The judges had their own questions, as reported by Keen News:

What if a gay judge was not in a relationship. Should he or she have to disclose his or her intentions to marry? Would a straight judge have to reveal his or her intentions for marriage? Would a married judge have to recuse himself from presiding over a divorce case? What if a straight judge had a desire to maintain the definition of marriage as one man-one woman, would he or she have to disclose that?

The expectations are that whoever loses will appeal either to the full 9th Circuit, or to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The story that got the most attention, of course, was the two fold Obama administration decision regarding LGBT rights, worldwide. Multiple LGBT organizations issued positive statements, similar to the below from NGLTF:

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force … applaud(s) President Obama and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for their outspoken commitment to ending abuses and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people worldwide. BOLD The White House today issued a presidential memorandum directing all federal agencies engaged abroad to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT people.

Shortly afterward, Clinton made a historic human rights speech commemorating International Human Rights Day delivered at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. The secretary made it clear that the fair and equal treatment of LGBT people worldwide is a moral imperative, and a priority and legitimate concern in U.S. foreign policy. …

While largely met with praise, there were some who questioned how these actions by the administration can be made to fit with an apparently still “evolving” position on marriage equality, as one example. Others raised cautionary notes, in terms of the potential for LGBTs to become scapegoats or targets if a country is denied financial aid based on its LGBT rights record.

In Rick Perry-land, the administration’s announcement and Clinton’s speech were further proof of Obama’s “war on religion.” Someone was at least smart enough to use “religion” and “faith,” and not just “Christianity.” Perry wasn’t alone in his quick condemnation. BOLD From Keen News:

Perry said such an initiative was ‘not in America’s interest’ and that it was, in fact, ‘the most recent example’ of Obama’s ‘war with people of faith in this country.’
Another GOP long-shot, former Senator Rick Santorum, said the Obama initiative is part of the president’s gay agenda–‘not just in the military, not just in our society, but now around the world with taxpayer dollars.’

On a gay roll, the Perry campaign released an ad in Iowa that was widely condemned, and became something of a joke, as the anti-LGBT ad, criticizing the repeal of DADT, pictures Perry dressed in a coat very similar to the one worn by Heath Ledger in “Brokeback Mountain.” More substantively, via Huffington:

The spot … features the governor questioning why soldiers can serve openly in the military while children ‘can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.’

Although the ad used “people of faith” and “religion,” Perry, of course, is less than shy in proclaiming his Christian faith, and his intentions to govern accordingly. Others on the Right side of such proclamations jumped in. From Pam’s Houseblend:

Peter LaBarbera:

Homosexuality — once widely regarded as a Crime Against Nature — is no more a ‘fundamental human right’ than any other sexual sin.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council:

It is startling that President Obama is prepared to throw the full weight and reputation of the United States behind the promotion overseas of the radical ideology of the sexual revolution.

Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel and radio show host Janet Mefferd:

Mefferd: … In all the stories I was reading yesterday about this directive, in none of them did I see any break down of statistics on the number of homosexuals and transgenders worldwide who are being tortured, persecuted and killed for being gay, have you seen any statistics like that?

Barber: Of course not, it’s nonsense.

Actually, none of these people probably have “seen any statistics like that,” since it’s unlikely they’d be reading anything that provided, you know, facts. Or just didn’t fit their preconceived “truths.”

(Photo via AFER)

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Eleanor Roosevelt, Unions and Occupy

By on 10 December 2011

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

Before turning to Eleanor and unions, one quick thing: Time magazine has released its “Top 10 U.S.-News Stories,” and with no surprise at all, “Occupy Wall Street Protests” is number one on the list. You can see the accompanying spread here.

Now, about Eleanor Roosevelt. Suzanne Kahn asks the question: Would Eleanor Roosevelt Support Occupy Wall Street?. Obviously the answer is speculative, but I still found it an interesting read.

In 1962, she (Roosevelt) answered a question about another set of mass protests – the anti-nuclear rallies of 1961 and 1962. Asked if she saw any value in women’s groups marching in front of the White House for peace, she wrote:

‘The average person has a sense of frustration because he can think of no way to express to his government or to the world at large his desires for peaceful solutions to the difficulties that confront us. The demonstrations you mention are important if only because they dramatize the lack of more useful ways for people to show their devotion to the cause of peace.’ (McCall’s, May 1962).

Similarly, in 1961 Eleanor also wrote about the frustration individuals felt about not being able to do more to prevent nuclear war. In ‘My Day’ (her syndicated newspaper column) she wrote that the best an individual could do was ‘register with our government a firm protest.’

The response regarding demonstrations, that they “dramatize(d) the lack of more useful ways” of expressing concerns for peace, isn’t the most vigorous endorsement, I suppose, but then, she was speaking to the “frustration” of getting the government to listen to your concerns. It would be very nice if such actions weren’t necessary, but when your government ignores your concerns, and at this point, has the electoral system so stacked against voters getting real choices, taking to the streets may very well be one of the most “useful ways” to get the message out.

Kahn’s analysis includes this:

OWS provides the average person with a way to express frustration and register a firm protest about an unfair economy. Critics have demanded that OWS propose solutions, but Eleanor might have pointed out that OWS makes clear the important point that there aren’t easy, direct ways for the average person to fix the economy.

Viewed this way, OWS is doing something both Eleanor Roosevelt and the feminists of the 1960s and 1970s really understood: consciousness raising. Consciousness raising was a method of political mobilization developed by feminists in the late 1960s and 1970s. Formally begun by women’s liberation groups, consciousness raising groups allowed women to share personal experiences and frustrations and come to understand that these were not isolated instances, but part of a larger pattern of political relationships that defined women’s personal lives. Many feminists embraced consciousness raising methods because they hoped the realizations they inspired would move women to more concrete political action.

I know, “consciousness raising” was derided endlessly, became the butt of multiple jokes, along with the “bra burners” and other stereotypically and largely uninformed sexist responses that avoided addressing actual issues. Kind of the way Occupy is treated, by some.

Okay, now to unions, via NY Times, where Steven Greenhouse writes, “Occupy Movement Inspires Unions to Embrace Bold Tactics”:

Organized labor’s early flirtation with Occupy Wall Street is starting to get serious.

Union leaders, who were initially cautious in embracing the Occupy movement, have in recent weeks showered the protesters with help – tents, air mattresses, propane heaters and tons of food. The protesters, for their part, have joined in union marches and picket lines across the nation. About 100 protesters from Occupy Wall Street are expected to join a Teamsters picket line at the Sotheby’s auction house in Manhattan on Wednesday night to back the union in a bitter contract fight.

Greenhouse notes that labor has watched Occupy’s use of Twitter, Tumblr and other social media, and is making changes accordingly.

‘The Occupy movement has changed unions,’ said Stuart Appelbaum, the president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union. ‘You’re seeing a lot more unions wanting to be aggressive in their messaging and their activity. You’ll see more unions on the street, wanting to tap into the energy of Occupy Wall Street.’

Unions have long stuck to traditional tactics like picketing. But inspired by the Occupy protests, labor leaders are talking increasingly of mobilizing the rank and file and trying to flex their muscles through large, boisterous marches, including nationwide marches planned for Nov. 17. …

‘We think the Occupy movement has given voice to something very basic about what’s going on in our country right now,’ said Damon Silvers, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s policy director. …

Of course there isn’t total agreement on what the relationship between Occupy and labor unions should be. Some Occupiers talk about the need to work closely together, others express concerns about maintaining autonomy, about being co-opted. From the union side of things,

María Elena Durazo, executive secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, said it remained to be seen whether the unions and the protesters could, by working together, achieve concrete change.

‘Workers are with the Occupy movement on the broader issues; they’re with them on the issue of inequality.’ … ‘The question is, can the labor movement or the Occupy movement move that message down to the workplace, where workers confront low wages, low benefits and little power?’

Eleanor, unions and Occupy. Now it’s your turn.

( Poster via Occupy Posters )

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Dash of Dan: Dark Chocolate Gingerbread Cookies

By on 10 December 2011

Holidays always bring the best stories.

For me, my boss Ronald shared a memory of his growing up.

Every Christmas he’d go top his Aunt’s house, she was the cook of the family.

Food abound, but one thing that struck Ronald was the beautifully and meticulously decorated gingerbread house, with its fanciful shapes and colors. Every year it would be ravaged, to be replaced by an even prettier one the following Christmas.

When he was older he asked his aunt for the recipe, and how she managed to create such beautiful work and with such patience.

She looked at him and said “Those things? I buy them!”

The cookies below are an adult take on a classic gingerbread; chewy and filled with chopped dark chocolate. And you can say you made em’!

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Recipe: 

2 cups flour + 1 Tbsp. Dutch Process Cocoa

1 tsp. ground cinnamon                         3/4 cup of unsalted butter

1/4 tsp. ground cloves                             1/2 cup dark brown sugar

1/4 tsp. ground nutmeg                          1/4 cup unsulfured molasses

1 tsp. baking soda

1 Tbsp. freshly grated ginger                1 large egg

Granulated sugar (for rolling)

7 ounces dark chocolate, coarsely chopped

* Preheat the oven to 350 degrees   *Line two baking sheets with parchment or silpats
1. Beat butter and fresh ginger in the bowl of a stand mixer, fitted with the paddle attachment. Add the dark brown sugar, and cream on medium speed.
2. In a medium bowl sift together flour, dutch-process cocoa powder, baking soda, cinnamon, cloves, ground ginger, and salt.
3. Add the molasses and egg to the butter/brown sugar mixture. Beat well and scrape down the bowl as needed.
4. Add the flour mixture, with the mixer on low speed. Add the chopped dark chocolate, stir. Refrigerate the dough for two hours or overnight, wrapped well in plastic.
5. Using a 1-inch scoop, form the dough into rounds, and roll in the granulated sugar.
6. Place on prepared sheets, bake for 10-15 minutes, the cookies will be firm along the edges, and have a cracked top. Let cool on wire racks.

Do you have a family recipe that you make for the holidays? I am so glad to be back, it’s been quite hectic at my end! As usual I’m here for comments and questions! This is an open thread!
Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Newt Nibbles the Bait

By on 10 December 2011

In a report from Jake Tapper, Newt Gingrich takes the bait and gets down into it a bit on Romney. His ego made him do it.

"If you were me, you'd have a big head, too."

DOMENECH: And, of course, that Contract is one that your primary opponent Mitt Romney did not support. I wanted to ask you a question based on –

GINGRICH: That’s not totally fair. He was running for — He was running to the left of Teddy Kennedy in Massachusetts in 1994. And he said flatly, he wasn’t for the Reagan-Bush policies, he was independent. And he couldn’t possibly have been for the Contract because, how do you run in Massachusetts to the left of Teddy Kennedy favoring a Gingrich Contract?

However, what’s really interesting is the quote from Mitt Romney in 1994. You’ll recognize something about it.

In a debate on October 27, 1994, Romney said: “In my view, it is not a good idea to go into a Contract like what was organized by the Republican party in Washington, laying out a whole series of things which the parties said, these are the things we’re going to do. I think that’s a mistake. I think instead, that if you want to get something done in Washington, you don’t end up picking teams with Republicans on one side and Democrats on the other, entering into a Contract and saying, ‘Ok we’re all going to do this,’ and then of course if that works, then the other side feels like they’re the loser but if it wins, they feel like the winner. I don’t like winners and losers in Washington. I’d rather say let’s get together and work together.”

In that quote, Mitt Romney sounds a lot like what Barack Obama sounded like in 2008.

I’ve been writing that they have more in common than people think, with their lack of fealty to ideology the key to each man. It’s one reason conservatives don’t trust Romney, with the Democratic activist contingent learning that trusting Obama is a dangerous game, too. They also just don’t speak to how Americans are feeling today, though candidate Obama showed up in Kansas this week to give us a peek, with energy and fight Romney hasn’t shown yet, which is his main problem. But few voters are thinking either man has the answers.

However, compared to Newt Gingrich, there’s no contest, though who knows if Republican voters will wake up in time to choose someone, anyone, besides the “godfather of gridlock,” to quote Axelrod.

No wonder so many Republicans are shown in polls to be willing to change their mind.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Secy. Clinton Taking Heat for Hypocrisy on Internet Freedom

By on 09 December 2011

Secretary Clinton delivers remarks at the Conference on Internet Freedom, in The Hague, Netherlands. (State Dept Image by Jos van Leeuwen)

Yesterday, Secy. Clinton gave a speech on Internet freedom at the Hague. Glenn Greenwald eviscerates Clinton, as well as the Obama administration today, with the criticism well earned.

The subject is important, because there’s quite a flurry of activity right now surrounding SOPA, with all you need to know at TechDirt.

In the Senate, both the New York Times and the LA Times came out against the Protect IP Act, so have entrepreneurs. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden has been the champion against it, placing a hold on it.

The PROTECT IP Act Will Slow Start-up Innovation

McKinsey recently studied thirteen mature national economies and found that over the past five years, 21% of GDP growth can be directly attributed to the Internet. They found that 2.4 jobs were created for every job lost to Internet efficiencies. They also found that over the last fifteen years, an increase in Internet maturity is directly correlated to an average increase in real per capita GDP of $500. By contrast, it took 50 years to see that impact during the industrial revolution of the 19th century.

The Internet is good for the economy. It is also good for consumers. McKinsey found that Internet efficiencies put $64B back in U.S. consumer’s pockets in 2009. The full report is here.

So when considering legislation or regulation that would impact the basic structure of the Internet, we believe that legislators and regulators should be guided by a key tenet of the Hippocratic Oath “FIRST DO NO HARM”.

Clinton’s speech made her a target, because of the Administration’s history, which isn’t great. The State Dept. has a history of interesting choices when it comes to online communications as well.

Many of you may remember when I challenged the official blog of State, Dipnote, when they ignored the Green uprising in Iran, two years ago this month.

From Greenwald:

What Hillary Clinton is condemning here is exactly that which not only the administration in which she serves, but also she herself, has done in one of the most important Internet freedom cases of the last decade: WikiLeaks. And beyond that case, both Clinton specifically and the Obama administration generally have waged a multi-front war on Internet freedom.

… First, let us recall that many of WikiLeaks’ disclosures over the last 18 months have directly involved improprieties, bad acts and even illegalities on the part of Clinton’s own State Department. As part of WikiLeaks’ disclosures, she was caught ordering her diplomats at the U.N. to engage in extensive espionage on other diplomats and U.N. officials; in a classified memo, she demanded “forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications” as well as “credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers and even frequent-flyer account numbers” for a whole slew of diplomats, actions previously condemned by the U.S. as illegal. WikiLeaks also revealed that the State Department — very early on in the Obama administration — oversaw a joint effort between its diplomats and GOP officials to pressure and coerce Spain to block independent judicial investigations into the torture policies of Bush officials: a direct violation of then-candidate Obama’s pledge to allow investigations to proceed as well being at odds with the White House’s dismissal of questions about the Spanish investigation as merely “hypothetical.” WikiLeaks disclosures also revealed that public denials from Clinton’s State Department about the U.S. role in Yemen were at best deeply misleading. And, of course, those disclosures revealed a litany of other truly bad acts by the U.S. Government generally.

One headline read like this: U.S. Tries to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet.

The Obama administration has attacked email privacy:

In a brief filed Tuesday afternoon, the coalition says a search warrant signed by a judge is necessary before the FBI or other police agencies can read the contents of Yahoo Mail messages–a position that puts those companies directly at odds with the Obama administration.

Regarding the Wikileaks diplomatic dump, did you know that wannabe diplomats are being warned off commenting on the cables? According to a report by the New York times, Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, a hub for future diplomats, got a missive from the State Dept. warning students that if they ever hope to work at State they should “avoid posting comments online about the leaked diplomatic cables.”

From: “Office of Career Services”

Date: November 30, 2010 15:26:53 EST:

Hi students,

We received a call today from a SIPA alumnus who is working at the State Department. He asked us to pass along the following information to anyone who will be applying for jobs in the federal government, since all would require a background investigation and in some instances a security clearance.

The documents released during the past few months through Wikileaks are still considered classified documents. He recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.

Regards,
Office of Career Services

A grand jury was opened last May to investigate the leaking of these documents as well.

You may also remember that last January, the U.S. subpoenaed Twitter in order to gain access to the accounts of people associated with Wikileaks.

The White House warned federal employees that if they dare to even read the Wikileak documents they’re breaking the law.

The White House Office of Management and Budget blasted out a memo that if you looked at the cables on your BlackBerry you were breaking the law.

The structure for the creeping security state was laid after 9/11 during the Bush administration. There is a lot of evidence that the Obama administration and politicians are using what happened in the last decade to further encroach on the privacy of Americans, but also on tech entrepreneurs, which could end up having a chilling impact on us all.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Would Obama Veto Payroll Cut Bill If it Includes Keystone Pipeline?

By on 09 December 2011

Republicans believe that after weeks of taking a pounding from Obama over the payroll tax issue, they finally found a rallying point over the Keystone pipeline. “Everybody sees the president’s delay on the Keystone pipeline [for] what it is: He doesn’t want to choose between his political base, labor and environmentalists,” said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who heads up the Republican Conference’s 2012 efforts. But even though Democratic senators like Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas support the pipeline project, top Senate Democrats are confident they’ll remove “extraneous” GOP provisions. – Politico

Right-leaning The Hill news outlet has a different take.

For House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), there’s nothing like a presidential veto threat to make his job easier.

Pres. Obama delaying his decision on the Keystone Pipeline is like everything he does, it’s about his reelection and motivated by politics.

But while Republicans won’t tax millionaires, they are also trying to cut federal unemployment insurance benefits substantially too, as almost 1 million people are about to see the end to the aid in January.

So this is a very interesting development with the Keystone gambit smart for Republicans if they’d give on the millionaire surtax, but they won’t. It would also provide Pres. Obama an out, something that’s always appreciated by any politician.

If he caves on Keystone, it’s like what he did last year on extending the Bush tax cuts, but lately Obama doesn’t seem to be in that same mood. In 2010, he’d just come off a brutal shellacking in the midterms. Looking at Republicans today, Newt at the top of the ticket, with Santa coming early giving Obama reelect The Donald’s Apprentice debate (if it still happens, because most aren’t showing up), Pres. Obama is in the power position.

Nothing counts unless the Senate can pass the bill. But if they do, something that doesn’t happen often these days, and it comes to Pres. Obama’s desk, will he actually veto it?

In the background is what Barack Obama would likely do in a second term, with no political threat left. I believe he’d okay the Keystone Pipeline, because he’d be safe to rack up what the White House would call accomplishments. This isn’t Yucca Mountain, which I lived through out west. There’s a lot of ignorance about the environmental dangers of Keystone, with Democrats like former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell saying that people will be protected environmentally from the dangers of what the Keystone could bring.

So, imagine a Cordray recess appointment, coupled with an Obama veto on a bill that extends the payroll tax and unemployment insurance, because of Keystone is included.

It would be an interesting way to end the year, with Obama cornering Republicans on raising taxes just as 2012 rolls in.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Who defines the rights of activists?

By on 09 December 2011

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

In the Occupy pieces I’ve been posting, the general topic of activism has come up several times, and since civil disobedience and activism are obviously related to our political system, and so to this Two Parties, Too Few Choices series, I decided to spend some time on that here.

Over the last decade or so, activism in the U.S. has usually meant a one day, few hours event, maybe a march and a rally. Then everyone went home. Most of these “permit actions” have been done within the very carefully defined spaces and timeframes imposed by authorities.

And of course, the “virtual” activism of online petitions and texts and tweets and even old fashion emails, have played a huge role in informing and growing the numbers aware of, if not actually involved in, various actions.

But historically, and practically, activism that results in change isn’t going to look like the kettled and contained “protests” which became the norm, until fairly recently.

Wisconsin was a reminder – activism requires taking steps that inconvenience or disturb some people, sometimes people who agree with you, or who have no direct way to do anything about the issue you’re protesting. That’s not a minor consideration.

Some government workers in Wisconsin were no doubt very inconvenienced. But if activism is so contained and restricted that it causes little to no concern, it isn’t likely to have much effect, either. Let’s face it, playing within the rules of permitted protests and marches; writing letters to your congress/corporate people, visiting them in person, even voting – all of that can be helpful, but if the Electeds and Elites see no threat to their very comfortable status quo, why do we think they’ll respond? And if the public in general notices a march to city hall, they’re likely to forget it before all the activists even get home.

So, where do you draw the lines in activism? Many, probably most of us, draw one very firm line in insistence on non-violence. But beyond that fundamental, what is “too much”?
The people who sat down at lunch counters and refused to move until they were served, or were arrested, interrupted a legitimate business, kept some customers from eating. People who marched on the roads and streets could have created problems for others just trying to go buy groceries or get to work or whatever. Protests against the Vietnam war took up all kinds of city and state resources, disrupted streets and campuses. Sit-ins in lobbies or university offices made doing business in a normal way difficult if not impossible.

The marches and rallies in DC alone have required significant amounts of resources. Just a few: The Peoples Campaign, including several thousand building and camping in “Resurrection City”; the March for Life; Tractorcade; Rolling Thunder; Million Man March; March for Women’s Lives; March on Washington for LGB rights (unfortunately, while transgender persons were there, they weren’t included in the official list); protests against the Iraq War; Taxpayer March on Washington; Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. Everyone of these, and many more, cost DC time and money, and probably disrupted plans of visitors.

It doesn’t mean an “anything goes” policy should prevail. But a look at our history reveals the necessity and the power of people speaking out, and walking out, toward forcing government and media and society to look, really look, at injustices.

The majority of people will never directly engage in “activism,” not the “take to the streets” kind. And that’s fine. Clearly the growing possibilities of “virtual activism” engage a lot more people, and that’s good, too. Others will be active, at some level, in the two dominant party political system, in “third parties,” even if just in voting. Another good thing.

Of course, all of this is my perspective, and certainly not one with which I expect everyone to agree. I do think, though, that it’s an important topic, not just as related to Occupy, but as one component of challenging the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy.

I want to conclude with one example of activism, and attempts to restrict it, coming out of Wisconsin. Thanks to Taylor for this one, via Job Party:

Standoff Coming in Wisconsin Against Restrictions to Protest at Capitol

… Jason Stein at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel lays out the specifics on what is going on in terms of (Gov.) Walker’s attempt to hold protesters financially liable and compel them to apply for permits for any demonstrations of four or more 72 hours in advance. …

… why would Walker go with this move, and why now? So far, what I’ve been hearing from Madison blogger Bluecheddar and local #occupy organizers Jenna Pope and Bill Fetty is that the specifics behind the re-strictions are being taken as a direct response to the ‘Solidarity Sing Along’, which has gotten under Walker’s skin … .

The sing alongs began at the State Capitol in Madison on March 11, 2011, and one has been held at the Capitol every week-day at noon since. …

… I’ve been assured that every day since the mass protests started dying down there has been an average of 50-100 Wisconsinites who go back to the site of the occupation to use song in a continuous action against Gov-ernor Walker. …

‘The Wisconsin Department of Administration has announced a new policy that would require demon-strations inside the Capitol of four or more people to request permits of the state 72 hours in advance, and could require protest groups to reimburse the state for the cost of policing them, at a cost of $50 per officer per hour.’

… Monday, December 19th will be the first day the Solidarity Sing-Along will be subject to the new policy. …

One protest, demonstration, rally, march, occupation, sing-along; one online petition; one congressperson letter or visit; one campaign volunteering; one vote at a time.

( Photo via ThinkProgress )

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Rick Perry’s Latest Oops

By on 08 December 2011

With Newt Gingrich now capturing the wild imaginings of the rabid right primary voter, it’s no wonder Rick Perry’s been reduced to this latest stunt. The ad is titled “Strong.” It divided the Perry campaign, according to a report by Sam Stein.

But not everyone was comfortable with the script. When the ad was being crafted several weeks ago, Perry’s top pollster, Tony Fabrizio, called it “nuts,” according to an email sent from Fabrizio to the ad’s main creator, longtime GOP operative Nelson Warfield. In a separate email to The Huffington Post, Warfield confirmed that the ad was made over Fabrizio’s objections.

“Tony was against it from the get-go,” Warfield wrote. “It was the source of some extended conversation in the campaign. To be very clear: That spot was mine from writing the poll question to test[ing] it to drafting the script to overseeing production.”

The folks over at Americablog noticed something special about the ad, Perry’s jacket, with the photo below coming from them.

If you haven’t had your complete fill of Rick Perry, check out Vanity Fair‘s January issue. From “the rumors about gay affairs” to the “painkiller use,” it’s brutal.

Some people just aren’t meant for the national stage. But his fashion choice in “Strong” really is quite precious.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

An Occupied thought: “The People Who Created the Crisis Will Not Be the Ones That Come Up With a Solution”

By on 08 December 2011

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

Looking at the history of activism, this is what we should expect will continue happening related to the Occupy movement: break-away groups, offshoots, and yes, co-opting, or simply using the momentum and attention gained by Occupiers. From Roll Call:

Liberal Groups Take Up Occupy Mantle in D.C.

The rain-soaked protesters who stormed Capitol Hill on Tuesday in an attempt to “Occupy Congress” are not officially part of the Occupy Wall Street movement, but they are an example of how established liberal groups are trying to capitalize on the grass-roots movement and shift it from protests to direct advocacy.

Tuesday’s labor-backed sit-in, which targeted mostly Republican lawmakers, was actually focused on a legislative agenda that predates the Occupy movement. Hundreds of activists lobbied Members of Congress to pass President Barack Obama’s proposed jobs plan and extend unemployment insurance. …

… even as the Capitol Hill protesters shouted that they are the ‘99 percent,’ language introduced by OWS, it was unclear whether the D.C. effort had the backing of the larger grass-roots movement. …

The Capitol Hill action — led by the American Dream Movement, a coalition that includes MoveOn.org, the Service Employees International Union and the local jobs group Our DC — aimed to direct the movement toward legislative advocacy. …

Some Occupy activists joined in, but others disagreed that lobbying Congress is the best way forward.

Disagreements, and just differing perspectives and ideas, are inevitable. If the response is to call anyone holding a perspective differing from our own an idiot … then we’ll all be working with “idiots,” ourselves included, because differences are always going to be a part of the process. It’s entirely possible, and actually quite common, for breakaway groups, or groups with similar or overlapping agendas, to co-exist, even cooperate. The Roll Call piece continues in describing some of what’s happening now.

Jonathan Smucker, a leader of the Occupy Our Homes effort, said he is not interested in appealing to Congress through traditional advocacy routes.

‘I think it’s clear that we can’t compete with the money of Wall Street and the money of the big banks to influence politicians. We don’t want to … . We’re in a process of creating a new revitalized civic in this country.’

Ben Campbell, who is leading an Occupy Wall Street offshoot called Occupy Fundraisers, disagrees and said he would prefer to work within the current political system.

‘There’s a little bit of a divide between the radicals and reformers. Ultimately, we’re all working toward the same goal,’ Campbell said.

On Monday, Campbell protested a fundraiser for GOP presidential candidate and former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) to draw attention to the role money plays in politics.

University of California (Irvine) sociology professor David Meyer is quoted in the same article:

‘You can expect if the movement takes off that there are going to be a lot of failed campaigns, but some things are going to take off’ … . He added that it is typical for grass-roots movements to splinter into different efforts, and it doesn’t necessarily mean their demise.

‘The fact that people are going to disagree and do different things doesn’t mean it can’t be a movement’ he said.

That’s rather extensive quoting on my part, but the article provides a good way to consider the current moment of Occupation, and beyond. You can read other thoughts and perspectives about the movement in the first edition of Tidal: Occupy Theory, Occupy Strategy.

Another source for Occupy information, among other things, is at Digitafolio.

From a November 29 Wired.com piece, Tracking the U.S. Government’s Response to #Occupy on Twitter:

… the New York Times reported … the #occupywallstreet hashtag was conceived in July, a full two months before the first tent was pitched at Zuccotti Park.

As it grew from a single camp into a movement, Twitter was essential for getting real-time updates out as events unfolded, for both supporters and local government. …

While city officials have actively communicated their positions, the response from the federal government has been muted, at best. … So far, official statements are isolated and infrequent — an early endorsement from the president, a couple of statements from the White House press secretary, and a range of opinions from individual members of Congress. …

Since the Occupy protests started in mid-September, nearly 15,000 messages were posted by the 126 federal Twitter accounts. Of those accounts, only three have mentioned the Occupy protests in any way — Voice of America, the Smithsonian, and the White House.

Here’s another perspective on what’s happening, via Huffington :

The United Nations envoy for freedom of expression is drafting an official communication to the U.S. government demanding to know why federal officials are not protecting the rights of Occupy demonstrators whose protests are being disbanded — sometimes violently – by local authorities.

One official response to Occupy that received a lot of attention was in Oakland, whose mayor caught a lot of flak. Via SF Gate:

A petition to recall Oakland Mayor Jean Quan was certified Wednesday for signature gathering just as a second group of residents submitted their own recall petition against the increasingly embattled mayor.

This is also from late last month, but Roy makes what seems to me to be a fundamental point, and a good way to close. From TruthOut, an interview with Arundhati Roy, who says, “The People Who Created the Crisis Will Not Be the Ones That Come Up With a Solution.”

( Poster via Occupy Posters )

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Obama’s Fight for Cordray Missing for Elizabeth Warren

By on 08 December 2011

“But the bottom line is that we are going to stay here as long as it takes to make sure that the American people’s taxes do not go up on January 1st.” – Pres. Obama

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

The quote above is a brilliant political tactic and rhetorical broadside from Pres. Obama.

It comes on a day when Republicans blocked Richard Cordray’s nomination for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which Elizabeth Warren imagined and championed.

When Elizabeth Warren was poised for this very job, Pres. Obama didn’t lift a finger in her favor. Now she’s in Massachusetts taking it to Scott Brown. From the Boston Herald:

Warren leads Brown by a 49-42 percent margin, outside the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 5.3 percentage points. That number includes voters who say they are “leaning” for either candidate. But even without the “leaners,” Warren still leads by a 46-41 percent margin, barely within the margin of error.

It is a lesson on just how differently Obama’s actions compare between Warren and Cordray.

It also brings back the relevancy of Washington Post reports on just how women have felt inside the Obama White House.

“This place would be in court for a hostile workplace,” former White House communications director Anita Dunn is quoted as saying. “Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

This mentality is driven home by Pres. Obama’s recent moves against women’s reproductive freedoms.

Maybe Tim Geithner made him do it.

If you haven’t seen Dan Froomkin’s review, “Suskind’s Confidence Men Raises Questions About Obama’s Credibility,” it’s worth a read.

Another quote from Confidence Men, the book that sent the White House into swift damage control, by Ron Suskind, is below:

“… Only those in his inner circle at Treasury, though, can read what’s behind that expression: a string of private efforts across the past year to neutralize Warren. The previous fall, Geithner huddled with top aides to develop what one called an “Elizabeth Warren strategy,” a plan to engage with the firebrand reformer that would render her politically inert. He never worked out a viable strategy–a way to meet with Warren without drawing undesirable comparisons–and so, like the president, he didn’t.

What the Treasury Department did do, unbeknownst to Warren, was embrace demands from the banking industry to create a bureau under the condition that Warren would not be allowed to lead it. [...] The industry managed to get the proposed agency shrunk into a bureau that would live under the auspices of the Federal Reserve…

After all, Goldman Sachs is a major component of Obama’s corporate fuel, so Pres. Obama can’t really afford to buck those boys.

When I see evidence that 44 Republicans who blocked Cordray have received big bucks from the financial industry, I have to ask, so what else is new? So does Mr. Obama.

The 44 Senate Republicans who signed a letter in May pledging to filibuster any CFPB nominee (plus Sen. Dean Heller who later added his name once appointed to the Senate) have received over $6.5 million from the financial industry in 2011 and nearly $125.6 million over their careers.

Question for Pres. Obama, his fans and Democratic partisans: Have you counted how much cash Barack Obama has raked in from the financial industry since he started running for the presidency?

Meanwhile, the woman Pres. Obama couldn’t bring himself to support for the agency he now touts, Elizabeth Warren, stands well outside of the hackery of the Democratic boss. But also ousted from the position she created in the agency that Pres. Obama is now working hard to get his man approved.

Think about that for a minute.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Pres. Obama’s War on Women’s Reproductive Freedoms Continues

By on 08 December 2011

**UPDATED**

In a statement, FDA Administrator Margaret A. Hamburg said she had decided the medication could be used safely by girls and women of all ages. But she added that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had rejected the move. – Washington Post

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

First it was Bart Stupak.

Then came poor women in Washington, D.C.

Now it’s Pres. Obama putting politics before science, while making Kathleen Sebelius the first H.H.S. secretary ever to overrule the F.D.A.

Mr. Obama didn’t get the message in 2010, when women split with Republicans, after winning their vote by 13 points in 2008. Now Pres. Obama has given progressive women a real reason not to vote for him, because he’s confirmed for the third time that what’s important to a majority of women in the Democratic Party isn’t important to him.

Obama’s continual war on our reproductive freedoms sends a message to organizations like Planned Parenthood, a group that’s been feckless since Pres. Obama came into office, with NARAL not much better. But they’ve got their own funding to worry about, which isn’t coming from the right, so what difference does it make if a poor or young woman has to pay more to get a doctor to prescribe medication that’s been approved by the F.D.A. as safe for women of all ages to be available over the counter? This hurts women in the 99%, upping the ante on their reproductive choices. More from the Post:

“We are outraged that this administration has let politics trump science,” said Kirsten Moore of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, a Washington-based advocacy group. “There is no rationale for this move. This is unprecedented as evidenced by the commissioner’s own letter. Unbelievable.”

Susan F. Wood of George Washington University, who resigned from the FDA in 2005 because of delays in relaxing restrictions on Plan B, said she was “beyond stunned” by the decision.

“There is no rationale that can justify HHS reaching in and overturning the FDA on the decision about this safe and effective contraception,” Wood said. “I never thought I’d see this happen again.”

I’ve referred before to the chapter in my book, The Hillary Effect, that’s titled “Is Freedom Just for Men?” It’s detailed, taking on the right, including Sarah Palin, who trumpets “freedom,” just not for women, and also Michele Bachmann and the “baby Palins,” among others, including Leader Pelosi, for allowing the Catholic bishops into the conversation when health care legislation was being debated, as well as Pres. Obama for emboldening and then capitulating to the Bart Stupak contingent, which ended up codifying the Hyde Amendment into law (previously it was a budget item, voted on yearly). You may also remember this past April, when Obama caved to Speaker Boehner, this time again screwing poor women, doubling down in D.C. Hey, why not? They don’t vote, right? From Colbert King, as a refresher:

The budget deal that averted a federal government shutdown delivered a below-the-belt blow to local self-determination. Congress used the budget negotiations to attach riders that prevent locally raised tax dollars from being used for reproductive services for low-income District women. Another provision forced a federally funded school-voucher program on the city.

If that weren’t galling enough, President Obama threw the city under the bus and bought the deal, telling GOP House Speaker John Boehner, “John, I will give you D.C. abortion. I’m not happy about that.” Boo-hoo. Like hell.

That Pres. Obama has hit women again isn’t surprising. Pres. Obama is afraid Republicans will use his support for reproductive freedoms against him in the general election campaign. The right is anti-science, so Obama wants to prove he can be, too, when it’s convenient and the constituency being hit is also being squeezed, because Republicans would do worse. Never mind that this mentality is what inspires Pres. Obama and other Democrats like him to believe they’ve got nothing to lose, because women won’t dare bolt the Democratic Party.

So, get ready for Obama fans to tell you that it’s the correct decision, because young women under the age of consent don’t have rights, unless their parents say so, while the Bill O’Reilly contingent applaud Obama, as will conservatives and some independents, which is exactly what the White House wants to hear.

Obama and his fans will ignore how his decision impacts a healthy majority of the female population, especially women in rural areas and poor women, as well as others in the 99% hit hard by bad economic times, women who have lost their insurance. They’ll say it’s important to support Obama, because Republicans are worse.

The right’s argument is that it encourages early promiscuity and encourages men to prey on young girls. Men who victimize young girls don’t give two hoots about the Morning After pill or contraception, they’ll do it anyway. Teenage girls in today’s society are not the same as they were during the June Cleaver era, sexualized at younger ages than ever before. Preparedness and access to all SAFE and F.D.A. approved medicines is the only way we will prevent unwanted pregnancies.

That’s not to say the thought of a girl age 14 or 15 getting pregnant and taking Plan B shouldn’t make everyone squeamish, because having sexual relations this young is not a wise decision. But first sexual encounters are almost always rooted in emotional and physical reactions, not through thought. That doesn’t mean emergency measures that have been tested and proven completely safe by the F.D.A. shouldn’t be available for these teens.

Teen sex is a reality throughout history, as females at puberty are going through a potent sexual passage, which they obviously feel, as their partners sense.

But 13-year old females having a child is a much worse consequence, one that is life threatening. The embarrassment, shame and fear of telling a parent of such an occurrence is no doubt harrowing, with a young female not having the means to do other things or the support system, beyond family, to rescue herself. When you take it to rural areas it’s worse, as it is in religious communities and families. Doctors are also out of reach for young girls in emergency situations.

We haven’t even begun to talk about victimization, force and abuse.

As with all access and reproductive health care products, it’s a public health and safety issue, which should be subject to science, not politics, as Pres. Obama has done, or religion, which does not belong in the dialogue either.

Modern women would be better off if Mr. Obama would go back to voting “present,” as he did so often in the Illinois state senate.
Modern women would be better off if Mr. Obama would go back to voting “present.”

I wonder how Pres. Obama would like it if progressive women did that next November?

Read full story · Comments { 46 }

Pearl Harbor and the Memo Detailing the ‘Japanese espionage effort’

By on 07 December 2011

This film, narrated by Tom Brokaw for National Geographic, was produced in 2001. You’ll have to get through about a minute of advertising, but it’s worth it, especially for those of you who don’t know the history and the legacy.

Today, it’s the 70 year commemoration of that fateful day.

A new book publishes a 26-page memo that details the “Japanese espionage effort,” though it stops short of predicting an attack. From ABC News:

“It was first declassified in 1985 but as far as we can tell nobody looked at it after that time,” said Craig Shirley, author of “December 1941: 31 Days that Changed America and Saved the World.” Shirley said his son discovered the document, prepared by the Counter Subversion Section, Office of Naval Intelligence, while researching at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library.

… On page two, the memo reads, “Japan is vigorously utilizing every available agency to secure military, naval and commercial information, paying particular attention to the West Coast, the Panama Canal and the Territory of Hawaii.”

Roosevelt and his military leaders have been criticized for being inadequately prepared for Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. There were several warning signs of a pending attack, and “there’s no doubt there were straws in the wind,” Shirley said.

At the time, Japan had already resigned from the League of Nations, signed a pact with Germany and Italy, and invaded eastern China, Shirley explained, so relations between the U.S. and Japan had soured.

The memo references a “possible crisis,” concluding that “a mass exodus of Japanese residents is under way. On December 1, 1941, the Consulate General on the West Coast began to destroy its records, as did the Japanese Chamber of Commerce and the Japan Institute in New York City. Secret codes and ciphers at the Japanese Embassy were burned on the night of December 5, 1941.”

More at ABC News.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Occupy, “after the encampments”

By on 07 December 2011

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

UPDATE Today Occupy DC followed through with the plans I mentioned yesterday: this morning’s march to an “undisclosed” lobbying firm reportedly found the doors locked – how symbolic is that – but showing up still made a statement. A party on K Street included drums and dancing, and apparently at least one Occupier being arrested when he laid down in the street. A march to the WH at 5PM, and a 7PM march to the Supreme Court filled out the day’s actions. Live stream (feed is kind of iffy) here.

One admiring comment I heard while watching the livestream: “Nobody does Occupy like Grandma does Occupy.” Probably talking about an old hippy, of course.

A couple of current actions, and some thoughts about “after the encampment.” I’m going to start with the latter, from the initiators of the Occupy movement, Adbusters. They have a very important post up, following at least a couple of others, all of which are looking at the “what’s next in the Occupy movement” direction. Adbusters doesn’t “run” or “lead” the movement they helped initiate, but their thinking could certainly be important in creating the “what’s next” steps and actions.

After the Encampments, #OCCUPYMIGRATION and #OCCUPYHOMES, via Adbusters, Micah White writes:

The history of activism is a cat-and-mouse game of surprising tactical innovations that spark an insurrectionary situation and the counterstrategies developed to put down the revolt. … In each of these cases, the power structures were taken by surprise, were slow to respond but eventually, through trial-and-error, discovered a successful counterstrategy. If there is one law of activism it is that every tactic which works initially will eventually be defeated if too often repeated. …

From the perspective of the status quo putting down a revolution is a matter of buttressing oneself against unforeseen assaults and waiting out the initial storm while continually experimenting with responses. … Our task as revolutionary activists is thus quite difficult: we must continually innovate; we must perceive immediately when one tactic begins to fail; we must be ready to deploy another stratagem.

#OCCUPY was birthed when the Tahrir Uprising was combined with the Spanish acampadas and transposed onto an unexpected place: the most potent symbol of casino capitalism: Wall Street. From a strictly tactical perspective, the first phase of #OCCUPY was comprised of a permanent encampment and a general assembly. … It was the quantity and autonomy of these encampments – that they grew despite an early media blackout, that locals showered them with financial and material support, that they functioned as a viable alternative to the corporate-State – which presented the greatest threat to the status quo.

After some trial and error, the “corporate-State” figured out what to do, and the tactic spread, successfully. Basically, they announce a deadline for the close of the camp; the Occupiers gather in large numbers, law enforcement shows up in large numbers, but then don’t enforce the eviction. Then. They way a day, week or however long, return to “carry out a military-style raid when the encampment is sparsely populated,” and shut it down.

White continues:

… we could very easily get stuck in a game of diminishing returns by expending our resources to set up encampments once they’ve been taken down knowing they will be taken down once again.

White doesn’t suggest that remaining encampments, or presumably the new versions that have appeared (basically, follow the rules but maintain a presence), should be abandoned, but writes, “now might be the perfect moment to embrace the innovation that is already happening.”

We can accelerate the #OCCUPYHOMES meme by making a concerted push on December 6 and beyond to set up squats in bank-owned, foreclosed homes. In addition, we can facilitate the #OCCUPYMIGRATION of occupiers from hostile to friendly cities. There are, for example, over ninety tents at #OCCUPYBERKELEY even though #OCCUPYOAKLAND’s encampment a few miles away has been shut down.

While the corporate-State chases symbolic tents, we can start consolidating and fortifying our outdoor encampments in friendly territory until we are strong enough to resist foreclosure. Meanwhile in cities everywhere, let’s quietly set up local indoor Occupy Homes in every neighborhood. Both of these spaces just might become the bases for our Spring Offensive.

That appears to be what’s happening. From OWS, about the national day of action to “Occupy Our Homes”:

In recent days and weeks, there has been successful occupation move-ins of homeless families and eviction defense for homeowners facing foreclosure in Atlanta, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Rochester, and over a dozen other cities and towns across the country. Local communities and 99% movement participants have committed to escalating this occupation movement to support the human right to housing — and to push back against the bailed-out and fraudulent big banks that are stealing our homes.

Another action, “Take Back The Capitol,” is taking place in DC this week. Via The Indy Channel:

‘Take Back the Capitol’ is, in part, an outgrowth of the movement to protect collective bargaining that started in Wisconsin and Ohio.

The ‘Rebuild the Dream’ movement organized the event, with funding from many sources, including MoveOn.org and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

The movement says thousands of people signed up to join the protest, being organized ‘by a wide variety of community, labor, Occupy, and other groups around the country.’

The official website links to SEIU.org … .

I’ve seen this described as “using the Occupy movement for their own purposes,” but also as “just another way of making the same kind of points OWS is making.” It doesn’t show up on the Occupy DC website, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t Occupiers involved, from DC and elsewhere. The same article says that Tuesday’s actions included visits, and sit-ins, to the offices of, among others: Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Missouri; Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland (who met with the group); “Sens. Joe Lieberman, Scott Brown, Marco Rubio and other lawmakers.”

This part, from the same article, is interesting, in terms of who is involved in the “Take Back the Capitol” weeklong event:

The company Berlin Rosen, which specializes in public affairs campaign management, said sit-ins were taking place at the offices of more than a dozen lawmakers, including Sens. Dean Heller, Kay Bailey Hutchison and Mark Kirk.

‘Unemployed workers and activists from around the country are refusing to leave congressional offices until they are able to speak firsthand to their members of Congress about the need for action on jobs and extending unemployment insurance benefits,’ the company said in a news release.

(Occupy Home poster via Adbusters)

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Why is John Bolton’s name trending on Twitter?

By on 07 December 2011

“If he’ll accept it, I will ask John Bolton to be secretary of state.” – Newt Gingrich

It’s happening right now and now you know why. The accompanying tweet snark is priceless.

That officially makes Newt Gingrich scarier than George W. Bush.


Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Desperation Inside the 99%

By on 07 December 2011

A woman in the border city of Laredo, Texas who was angry because she had been denied food stamps killed herself and shot and critically wounded her two children late on Monday, authorities said on Tuesday. – Reuters

Yesterday on Sean Hannity’s radio show, he made a startling statement about the poor that revealed the right wing’s economic philosophy today: Even the poor live well in America. Hannity went on from there to talk about the poor having microwaves, air conditioning and on and on. Few people are more clueless.

It’s why I offer Newt Gingrich’s rip off of Reagan’s “Morning in America” campaign ad, which is the perfect example of the right’s disconnect with the 99%.

It is a rare day when Al Sharpton emerges as the voice of sagacity, but when Newt Gingrich has the microphone, all things are possible. – Kathleen Parker

I sure did call Pres. Obama’s speech yesterday, but at least he gives great lip service to what’s going on with the 99%.

If Pres. Obama’s leadership resembled his speech in Osawatomie, Kansas in any way at all he wouldn’t be at 41% approval in the polls.

The anger and desperation some people inside the 99% feel today has been witnessed in Occupy Wall Street in many cities. People not in this position often do not understand or even empathize with people’s deep frustration today, which can lead to desperate acts.

It’s part of the divide in this country and why many Americans looking at Democrats and Republicans don’t feel compelled to support either, but also are not enthused about 2012. People are asking, Does it really matter to Americans who is elected from the big two parties?

Both big parties have proven they don’t understand what’s going on outside their own entitled, corporate and Wall Street backed bubbles. It makes people even more desperate in the current economic times.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Romney Retools, Starts by Stiffing Trump

By on 07 December 2011

The Mitt Romney campaign is making an immediate shift in tactics, a move that is necessary because, as one Republican close the campaign put it, “What they are doing now isn’t working.” – ABC News

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

Romney has already begun giving time to Fox News Channel and now he’s decided to demur from The Donald’s Apprentice debate. Trump’s statement, via CNN:

“It would seem logical to me that if I was substantially behind in the polls, especially in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida, I would be participating in the debate,” Trump said. “But, I can also understand why Governor Romney decided not to do it.”

It’s also being reported that Sen. John McCain is considering laying hands on Romney, something he’d previously said he wouldn’t do.

McCain has been it subtly on Twitter.

McCain actually owes Romney, because he earned it. During the 2008 season, as one aide put it, “He went wherever and whenever he was asked.” Frankly, it’s small of McCain not to come out early for Romney, because that would be the class thing to do.

Romney has decided that he needs to show he wants the nomination and show some heart, or at the very least, that he’s willing to fight for it.

Everyone is gearing up, but it’s not as much for Mitt Romney as it is to stop Newt Gingrich.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Another Republican Judicial Filibuster

By on 07 December 2011

… Republicans at the time argued that it was unconstitutional to block votes on judicial nominees, and the Republican leader, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, threatened to change Senate rules to ban judicial filibusters. The crisis was averted after seven Democrats agreed not to block certain appeals court nominees and to eschew filibusters except in “extraordinary” circumstances, which were not defined. In exchange, the seven Republicans promised not to vote for changing Senate rules. [...] Mr. Obama, who was a senator from 2005 through 2008, was not one of the Democrats in the Gang of 14; he voted to filibuster several of Mr. Bush’s nominees.- Filibuster by Senate Republicans Blocks Confirmation of Judicial Nominee

The Republican schmucks in the Senate are blocking Caitlin Halligan. They say it’s about guns, but they’re really buying time until after 2012.

Statement by the President on Republican Filibuster of Caitlin Halligan

I am deeply disappointed that a minority of the United States Senate has blocked the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Ms. Halligan has the experience, integrity, and judgment to serve with distinction on this court, and she has broad bipartisan support from the legal and law enforcement communities. But today, her nomination fell victim to the Republican pattern of obstructionism that puts party ahead of country. Today’s vote dramatically lowers the bar used to justify a filibuster, which had required “extraordinary circumstances.” The only extraordinary things about Ms. Halligan are her qualifications and her intellect.

Currently, Senate Republicans are blocking 20 other highly qualified judicial nominees, half of whom I have nominated to fill vacancies deemed “judicial emergencies” by the Administrative Office of the Courts. These are distinguished nominees who, historically, would be confirmed without delay. All of them have already been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee – most of them unanimously – only to run into partisan roadblocks on the Senate floor. The American people deserve a fair and functioning judiciary. So I urge Senate Republicans to end this pattern of partisan obstructionism and confirm Ms. Halligan and the other judges they have blocked for purely partisan reasons.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Secretary Clinton: ‘Free and Equal in Dignity and Rights’

By on 06 December 2011

The United States will begin using American foreign aid to promote gay rights abroad, Obama administration officials said on Tuesday. President Obama issued a memorandum directing American agencies to look for ways to combat efforts by foreign governments to criminalize homosexuality. – U.S. to Use Foreign Aid to Promote Gay Rights Abroad

What Pres. Obama has done through this directive is historic. Having Secy. Clinton to deliver the message makes it resound.

To use American foreign aid to combat foreign governments from criminalizing homosexuality is something only a president can do and Barack Obama has done a great and controversial thing, given the focus on foreign aid and our economic state, through his decision.

This speech continues what Hillary began in Beijing, China as first lady in 1995, a speech that is foundational to my book, The Hillary Effect, and which is cited in the Introduction. The Hillary Effect itself, along with Secy. Clinton’s advocacy, helped by time, made possible by Pres. Obama’s courageous act, aided by the advocacy of gays and lesbians fighting for equality, which reached critical mass on DADT, manifested a global moment of pride for our country today.

Contrary to the naysayers, I always contended, in fact I knew, that Barack Obama could have no stronger partner than Hillary Clinton in his Administration. Having studied her for two decades, I had never a doubt. Their partnership here sings out.

It is a great day for which we owe Pres. Obama a great deal, with this speech by Secy. Clinton a historic moment for her as well.

Of course, in an election season, nothing this grand could go without scurrilous words from the right. It’s fitting that it comes from Rick Perry.

“This administration’s war on traditional American values must stop. … Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money. … This is just the most recent example of an administration at war with people of faith in this country. Investing tax dollars promoting a lifestyle many Americas of faith find so deeply objectionable is wrong. President Obama has again mistaken America’s tolerance for different lifestyles with an endorsement of those lifestyles. I will not make that mistake.”

Ah yes, human rights as “special rights,” the threats of torture and even death for gays not enough to convince Republicans like Rick Perry that this is a human rights issue.

This is the sort of action that inspires people to repeat the axiom that presidential elections be seen as a choice and not a referendum. Only a president can make such a groundbreaking, sweeping decision. It’s a reminder that hits deep for many and will bind some people to Pres. Obama tightly, while also revealing a core tenet of the Democratic Party.

First Lady Hillary Clinton said “human rights are women’s rights.”

Today she spoke for America once again saying, “human rights are gay rights.”

It is a great day.

Read full story · Comments { 34 }

Playing the “yes, but” game with Occupy

By on 06 December 2011

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

You’ve had the experience. Two or more people, talking about how to solve some problem, or how to plan something, even as simple as where to eat. And there’s that person who greets every idea with some version of “Yes, but …,” and proceeds to say why a particular idea or suggestion won’t work. That’s how some people are approaching OWS.

The Occupiers are really making a statement, through their camps, about the gulf between the 1% and the 99%!

Yes, but they’ll have to do more than that to be successful. And nobody knows what they really want.

The Occupiers are making it clear what their concerns are — in statements, chants, signs, street theatre, teach-ins, their own newspapers and libraries, general strikes, marches, occupying a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser, gathering in front of Bloomberg’s mansion, occupying foreclosed properties, all kinds of ways!

Yes, but they need to get in the face of bankers.

The Occupiers are rallying in front of banks!

Yes, but that’s just going to make people who need to do some banking get mad. They really need to get in the face of politicians.

The Occupiers ‘mic checked’ Obama!

Yes, but they need to understand that it’s the Republicans they should be targeting.

The Occupiers confronted Gingrich!

Yes, but the Republicans aren’t going to listen to Occupy.

You really have a lot of criticisms. Got any ideas?

Yes, but you’re clearly too politically naive to understand them.

Meanwhile, the politically naive, dirty f’kin hippies, etc., keep on coming up with ideas and actions.

Via Occupy DC:

On Wednesday, Dec 7, Occupy DC calls on all occupiers in the DC Metro area to unite for a day of action against the undue influence of money in politics.

We will meet at McPherson Square at 10:30am to march on an undisclosed lobbying firm.

At noon we will reconvene at McPherson Square for an occupation block party on K Street. …

At 5pm we will march to the White House, a central hub of corporate bribery. President Obama is expected to raise as much as $1 billion in his re-election campaign — enough to pay 20,000 school teachers for a year.

Then we will march to the Supreme Court to protest its decision in the Citizens United case. This decision promises to unleash a flood of corporate campaign contributions unlike anything seen before, until the American citizens unite to overturn it.

From Occupy Oakland:

Support Grows For Occupy Movement’s Coordinated West Coast Shut Down On December 12th

‘We’re shutting down these ports because of the union busting and attacks on the working class by the 1%: the firing of Port truckers organizing at SSA terminals in LA; the attempt to rupture ILWU union jurisdiction in Longview, WA by EGT. EGT includes Bunge LTD, a company which reported 2.5 billion dollars in profit last year and has economically devastated poor people in Argentina and Brazil. SSA is responsible for inhumane working conditions and gross exploitation of port truckers and is owned by Goldman Sachs. EGT and Goldman Sachs is Wallstreet on the Waterfront’ stated Barucha Peller of the West Coast Port Blockade Assembly of Occupy Oakland.

‘We are also striking back against the nationally coordinated attack on the Occupy movement. In response to the police violence and camp evictions against the Occupy movement … . ’

Each Occupy is organizing plans for a mass mobilization and community pickets to shut down their local Port. The mobilization of over 60,000 people that shut down the Port of Oakland during the general strike on November 2, 2011 is the model for the West Coast efforts. …

From West Coast Shutdown, a list of participating Occupations includes Anchorage, Berkeley, Denver, Houston, Portland, Oakland, Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Tacoma, Santa Barbara, Vancouver, and Occupy Wall Street.

In other actions, via Occupy Cleveland:

Because the Occupy movement is addressing the pressing concerns of all people, Cleveland City Council has passed this resolution to state that it supports the principles of our movement and the peaceful and lawful exercise of the First Amendment! The Council is transmitting copies of this resolution to President Barack Obama and all members of the U.S. Congress. The resolution passed 18 to 1!

From Occupy Atlanta:

Some Occupiers decided to try a tactic which has worked in other cities, of retreating to the sidewalks at night when the park is closed. Every morning at 6 am, the tents are moved back into the park. So far, so good… . After tomorrow there will be THREE Occupations in Atlanta: the park and two houses under threat of foreclosure in the Old 4th Ward and Riverdale. Occupy Gwinnett is working on their own plan.

Occupy Houston has this:

In continuing solidarity with the oppressed LGBT community of the Russian Federation, Occupy Houston will be holding protests outside of the Russian Consulate … .

Two tweets for today:

… RT this if you want to #OccupyFox

CryptoAnarchy RT @tibettruth: ‘You have the right to consume & a right to remain silent’, anything else means you are a #terrorist

( West Coast Port Blockade poster via West Coast Port Blockade
Repeal Citizens United poster via Occupy Posters )

Read full story · Comments { 23 }