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.

Tag Archives | 2012

Can you be politically significant without playing by the Two Party Rules?

By on 09 February 2012

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

What will Occupy do, or more accurately, what will different people and different Occupy groups do, related to 2012? No doubt, a number of things, some widely embraced, some not. And some well covered, some not.

Will Occupy, in general, endorse a party, of the Duopoly, or otherwise? Will it, in general, endorse candidates? My guess: in general, no.

Will it use the dominant political party / corporate / media system in efforts to move its equality agenda along? My perspective: it already is. Probably more accurately, the dominant players haven’t been able to ignore them, or make them go away. Most importantly, they haven’t been able to shut down the conversations taking place in the spaces Occupy created. And that is politically significant.

Katrina vanden Heuvel at The Nation:

I don’t know how Occupy Wall Street will impact the 2012 election, but one thing seems pretty clear: it’s changed the national conversation.

A few short months ago, the corporate media and inside-the-Beltway chatter was all debt and deficits, all the time.

Occupy changed that. It reset the media narrative so it’s more aligned with the true crises of our times – income inequality, downward mobility and economic fairness. It’s also renewed attention to corporate accountability and the corrosive role of corporate money in politics. …

Sarah Treuhaft, associate director at PolicyLink, says grassroots equity advocates who have been working on these issues for years are now much more confident to speak up about inequality. …

Both Democratic and Republican parties reveal they know they can’t ignore these “issues.” It’s likely done by way of co-opting attempts, or attack points; and I have little to no expectation any of them will do more than the absolute minimum required, as far as seriously acting to change things. That’s also why, I think, Occupy as a whole won’t jump into the political games as usual – the Duopoly is not on our side.

From the same article, about the sudden interest of Electeds and media on the very things Occupy is talking about:

President Obama certainly tapped into that trend, making economic inequality and fairness the centerpiece of his State of the Union address … .

As Election 2012 gathers steam, the corporate media will no doubt fix on the hoopla of the horserace. Independent media has a vital role to play in ensuring that the real issues of our time which are now, at long last, front and center – thanks in no small part to Occupy – remain there.

Of course it isn’t just Mr. Obama who suddenly started talking about such things. From CNN, via OWS News:

Occupy arrives at the Republican Party …

‘Is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of people and then walk off with the money?’

‘The 1% is doing fine. I want to help the 99%.’

The above statements are the type you might expect to hear at an Occupy Wall Street protest. But they weren’t uttered there. Instead, the first was from Newt Gingrich and the second was from Mitt Romney.

As for Occupiers, they’re planning ahead, but it seems they are much more interested in staying focused on their “agenda” than trying to fit into, or be fit into, 2012 politics as usual.

From OpEdNews, by John Iacovelli:

In a conference call … Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, two of the movement’s best known organizers, both very active in Occupy Washington DC, answered questions about ‘Occupy Phase 2,’ the directions that the movement should take in the Spring. …

NowDC, the National Occupation of Washington D.C., slated for April, will (be) an important step in coordinating separate occupations nationally, and for its actions to be taken to pressure Congress, when it returns from Spring recess. In addition to ‘Phase 2,’ miscellaneous questions were addressed, including whether the movement should focus on the 2012 elections, and what to do in the period afterwards.

Check out the entire article to read more about “Occupy Phase 2” and NowDC. For now, and staying with the “what about 2012” focus, Iacovelli writes:

Though not strictly part of the discussion, in response to caller questions, Zeese provided a perspective on the 2012 Presidential auction. Simply put, the conversation between President Obama and the Republican nominee is a false conversation, for what will be said is only what those nominees’ contributors allow them to say. The movement has no time to look to elected leaders to solve problems because time is short, and the system does not work. The true conversation is the one we must continue in the movement. But after 2012, it may be time to organize another party.

Whatever ends up happening regarding Occupy in general, and Occupiers in specific locations and as individuals, the movement has already played a significant role. It has the abilities to continuing pushing the conversation, most importantly, among the grassroots dwellers, the non-Elites, the “99%.” That’s where any real challenge to the Two Corporate Parties has to come. Occupy has amplified a long, ongoing conversation by taking it outside the very comfortable and predictable Republican and Democratic structure.

(Occupy NOW-DC via InterOccupy)

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Planning mayhem, Occupy style and Conservative Political Action Conference style

By on 08 February 2012

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

The Conservative Political Action Conference is underway in DC, and Occupy is making its presence known, the way it has at progressive events. I’ll admit I’m giving time to Occupy CPAC because of the way that plan was heralded by The Foundry, the “conservative policy news blog” of the Heritage Foundation (a CPAC sponsor), specifically, via The Scribe.

The Scribe’s Lachlan Markay writes Exclusive: Occupy DC Plans Mayhem for Major Conservative Conference. Markay relies heavily on a “source” in reporting. The information from the “source” sounds more than a bit iffy to me, but of course, I wasn’t there.

And truth is, Occupy DC’s call to “Occupy CPAC” isn’t shy about the language they use to describe CPAC, just as they aren’t when commenting about what “progressives” are up to.

Considering Markay’s use of “mayhem,” reading what he writes, and what Occupy says made me think: there’s more than one way to “plan mayhem.” The long list of CPAC speakers itself sounds mayhem-ic to me, including Michele Bachmann, John Boehner, Andrew Breitbart, Herman Cain, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Bobby Jindal, Mitch McConnell, Grover Norquist, Sarah Palin, Tony Perkins, Rick Perry, Ralph Reed, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Phyllis Schlafly, and Scott Walker. And checking out the long list of presentations only adds to my sense of turmoil.

From Occupy DC:

On February 9th through February 11th , a who’s who of dastardly politicians will be holding the Conservative Political Action Conference … . Similar to the Alfalfa Club dinner, this event is another gathering of bigots, media mouthpieces, corrupt politicians, and their 1 percent elite puppet masters. …

Spectacles will include imperialist topics such as … ‘Is the ‘Arab Spring’ Good or Bad for America?’ and frequent bloviation on ‘American exceptionalism.’ Openly racist discourses will be given on ‘The Failure of Multiculturalism: How the pursuit of diversity is weakening the American Identity’ and ‘Islamic Law in America: How the Obama Justice Department Is Selling Us Out.’

You can see the complete list here. A few more examples: “Return of Big Labor: What Can We Learn from Wisconsin & Ohio?”; “Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity”; “In the Name of ‘Tolerance’: Countering Sexual Identity Politics in Schools …”; “Why are U.S. taxpayers spending billions to promote abortion and homosexuality worldwide?”; and “Taking Back Wall Street: The Tea Party vs. Occupy Wall Street.” To me, the ideas presumably being promoted sound likely to produce mayhem in the lives of targeted populations.

Here’s a part of what Occupy DC says about their plans.

Our Mission: Occupy CPAC. Create as much non-violent resistance as possible, and make this a conference the attendees will never forget.

We will be joining in solidarity with the AFL-CIO, SEIU, National Nurses United, Metro Labor Council, OurDC, and more to make our voices heard in our increasingly top-down, money-corrupted democracy. We will have actions on Friday at noon and 5pm (for Scott Walker’s speech at the Reagan Banquet), and on Saturday we will meet at Malcolm X Park at 16th and Euclid at noon to march to the Marriott.

I could see some potential “mayhem,” disruptive moments in that, even with the stress on non-violence. But according to Markay, the planned chaos leans to the dangerous.

The ‘Occupy DC’ protest group is planning to disrupt the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference using a range of potentially illegal tactics that could even include violence against participants, Scribe has learned. …

I’ve already expressed my skepticism, but have no way to confirm or refute what follows. We aren’t given any information about this apparently first-hand listener to Occupy planning, though whoever it is certainly had a lot of scary sounding things to say. Watch for red flag, mayhem-like language.

During a Thursday meeting at McPherson Square, until Saturday the epicenter of the protests, Occupiers brainstormed tactics for shutting down or disrupting the conference, according to a source who was present at the meeting.

The protesters suggested pulling fire alarms in the hotel where the conference will take place, screaming ‘fire’ during conference activities, ‘glitter-bombing’ participants, cutting electrical power, and barricading entrances to the hotel, according to the source, who requested anonymity.

‘Speakers will be physically assaulted, not just verbally confronted,’ the source told Scribe in an email. Two Occupiers, who the source also identified as members of the New Black Panther Party, ‘said they would be disappointed if they didn’t get arrested and planned to ‘make it count.’’

The “source” quoted another protester as saying, ‘Mitt [Romney] has Secret Service now, but [Newt] Gingrich and [Andrew] Breitbart don’t,’ seemingly suggesting that the latter two would not be as heavily guarded.

Markay writes that assurances regarding security have been provided by the American Conservative Union (host of the conference) and the Marriot. And yet …

… concerns remain. Occupiers reportedly discussed a number of tactics for getting protesters into the conference, where they would be able to do more damage than a street protest could muster.

The “source” said the AFL-CIO was helping get Occupiers into hotel rooms, to get around security measures, but an AFL-CIO spokesperson told Scribe this wasn’t true. Markay then writes:

The AFL-CIO has aided Occupy DC before, most recently in storing Occupiers’ belongings at its headquarters in advance of the National Park Service’s enforcement actions.

The “source” had more: Occupiers from American and George Washington Universities are going to “infiltrate,” and provide “counterfeit credentials” to non-students. Which leads to one last disclosure from the “source,” and this is, by far, my favorite:

‘In order to avoid having to shower and dress in business attire to blend in,’ Scribe’s source said, ‘they plan to wear Ron Paul 2012 gear because they believe Paul supporters ‘generally look like hippies.’’

Of the four remaining GOP hopefuls, guess which one isn’t attending CPAC?

Meanwhile, choose your mayhem carefully.

(Shady Bunch poster via Occupy DC)

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Are You Excited to Vote in 2012?

By on 08 February 2012

From PPP:

Our last national survey for Daily Kos found that 58% of Democrats were ‘very excited’ about voting this fall, compared to 54% of Republicans. Six months ago the figures were 48% of Democrats ‘very excited’ and Republicans at the same 54%. Generally you would expect voters to get more excited as the election gets nearer. That trend is occurring on the Democratic side, but not for the GOP.

Um… 58% of Democrats are “very excited”?

African Americans: “72% of whom say they’re ‘very excited’ to cast their ballots.”

These numbers are not exactly in out of the park territory.

As for Republicans, why anyone is excited to even admit they’re a Republican today is beyond me.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Some of The President’s Faith Allies

By on 08 February 2012

On the Diane Rehm show today, according to my husband who sometimes listens to NPR while he’s driving from order to order, a man called in. They were discussing the Administration’s decision on contraceptive coverage. The gist of what the man asked, as I got it from Mark, is that the man said he got a vasectomy from a Catholic hospital, so why can’t women get contraception? The lawyer on with Ms. Rehm was a bit startled, then said, he shouldn’t have.

I’ll stack my religious faith and spirituality up against anyone on the right, because that’s what this comes down to, right? That’s the battle on which the religious conservatives want to fight. It’s unseemly, because it thrives on division and distracts from the actual purpose of Pres. Obama’s policy decision. Dividing secular public policy meant to aid women, particularly those in the challenged means category, and helping them to be more autonomous and capable of planning their lives, which begins with pregnancy.

As with anything connected to women’s freedoms, religious conservatives, no matter the political party, have chose to attach a political cost to helping women maintain more freedom. Already, David Axelrod has telegraphed the White House will compromise. This is where Democrats and Republicans become one large political party, both willing to use women’s autonomy as a chess piece on their political play board. It’s why my vote is up for grabs in the upcoming 2012 elections.

The connection to something greater, however it’s defined, has guided me throughout my life. This is part of what I talk about in my book, which appears in the chapter “Is Freedom Just for Men?” That my book has never been more timely when it comes to that chapter and the current discussion is enriching.

Below is the text of an email sent out by Catholics for Choice. It lays out some of the President’s faith allies, of which I am one.

Major Mainstream Religious Leaders Support White House on Contraceptive Coverage In Health Care Reform

February 8, 2012, Washington, DC – Today, twenty major mainstream religious leaders released a statement supporting the January 20, 2012 announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services that contraceptive services must be covered by most insurance policies without deductibles or co-pays, and that only purely sectarian organizations are exemptfrom this requirement.

Catholics for Choice; the Central Conference of American Rabbis; Concerned Clergy for Choice; Disciples Justice Action Network; Episcopal Divinity School; Episcopal Women’s Caucus; Hadassah; the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation; Jewish Women International;
Methodist Federation for Social Action; Muslims for Progressive Values; the National Council of Jewish Women; Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory Board; the Rabbinical Assembly; the Religious Coalition to Reproductive Choice; the Religious Institute; Society for Humanistic Judaism; The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; Union Theological Seminary; Unitarian Universalist Association; and United Church of Christ represent millions of religious leaders
and people of faith across the country.

Together, the leaders of these Christian, Jewish and Muslim national organizations affirmed:

“We stand with President Obama and Secretary Sebelius in their decision to reaffirm the importance of contraceptive services as essential preventive care for women under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and to assure access under the law to American women, regardless of religious affiliation. We respect individuals’ moral agency to make decisions about their sexuality and reproductive health without governmental interference or legal restrictions.

We do not believe that specific religious doctrine belongs in health care reform – as we value our nation’s commitment to church-state separation. We believe that women and men have the right to decide whether or not to apply the principles of their faith to family planning decisions, and to do so they must have access to services. The Administration was correct in requiring institutions that do not have purely sectarian goals to offer comprehensive preventive health care. Our leaders have the responsibility to safeguard individual religious liberty and to help improve the health of women, their children, and families. Hospitals and universities across the religious spectrum have an obligation to assure that individuals’ conscience and decisions are respected and that their students and employees have access to this basic health care service. We invite other religious leaders to speak out with us for universal coverage of contraception.”

Catholics for Choice, Jon O’Brien, President
Central Conference of American Rabbis, Rabbi Jonathan Stein, President
Concerned Clergy for Choice, Rabbi Dennis Ross, Director
Disciples Justice Action Network, Rev. Dr. Ken Brooker Langston, Director
Episcopal Divinity School, The Very Reverend Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, President
Episcopal Women’s Caucus, Rev. Dr Elizabeth Kaeton, Convener
Hadassah, Marcie Natan, National President
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, Robert Barkin, Interim Executive Vice President
Jewish Women International, Lori Weinstein, Executive Director
Methodist Federation for Social Action, Jill Warren, Executive Director
Muslims for Progressive Values, Ani Zonniveld, President
National Council of Jewish Women, Nancy Kaufman, CEO
Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory Board, Rev. Jane Emma Newall, Chair
Rabbinical Assembly, Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, Executive Vice President
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Rev. Steve Clapp, Chair
Religious Institute, Rev. Dr. Debra W. Haffner, Executive Director
Society for Humanistic Judaism, M. Bonnie Cousens, Executive Director
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Rabbi Steven Wernick, CEO
Union Theological Seminary, Rev. Dr. Serene Jones, President
Unitarian Universalist Association, Rev. Peter Morales, President
United Church of Christ, Rev. Geoffrey Black, General Minister and President

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Santorum Sweeps

By on 08 February 2012

His candidacy all but dismissed just days ago, Rick Santorum won the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses and a nonbinding primary in Missouri on Tuesday, an unexpected trifecta that raised fresh questions about Mitt Romney’s ability to corral conservative support. – The New York Times


“Conservatism is alive and well in Missouri and Minnesota.” – Rick Santorum

Mitt Romney’s remarks in Colorado began with making excuses for the tiny crowd, saying it wasn’t as big as the 2,000 plus he had last night, but after all it was snowing, so thanks for coming out. Then walked off the stage to shake hands, with the Secret Service suddenly pulling Romney back and helping him duck what looked like on CNN another glitter bomb attack. That was before he found out Rick Santorum had pulled off a major upset in that state, a major trifecta, handing Mitt Romney a huge embarrassment and a major setback, which makes him look an even weaker frontrunner than ever before.

With his triumphs, Mr. Santorum was also suddenly presenting new competition to Newt Gingrich as the chief alternative to Mr. Romney, the front-runner. Where Mr. Gingrich has won one state, South Carolina, Mr. Santorum has now won four, including Iowa. – Another Twist for G.O.P. as Santorum Fares Well

Rick Santorum’s massive Missouri win last night didn’t surprise me at all. Growing up in Missouri, it’s a conservative southern state, with both KKK and so-called “right to life” woven into the fabric of much of the state.

Wisconsin gave Mr. Santorum a big win too, with Ron Paul coming in second, Mitt Romney third.

It was Colorado, however, that brought the story of Tuesday night into stark view.

Santorum’s victory speech was given before Colorado came in, with the big winner of the night attempting a grander reach in his rhetoric. He needed a teleprompter, because he couldn’t handle the scope or the theater of the moment off the cuff. However, in moments he showed more ease and authentic conservatism than anyone else yet, a quality that has also made Ron Paul so popular.

In contrast, there was Mitt Romney. His Colorado speech was gracious to Rick Santorum, but team Romney is likely to drop a piano on him now. Romney attempted to mimic Santorum’s populism by bringing up his dad, citing George Romney’s humble beginnings, which was a nice touch, especially compared to the repetitive “I love America” patter that’s worn way thin at this point.

Oh, and some other guy named Newt Gingrich didn’t even make a blip on the Republican radar. It made March’s Super Tuesday look a long way away.

Santorum made the best case yet this primary season that he, yes, Rick Santorum, is not only the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, but the guy who is seen as the frontrunner can’t make a closing case with conservatives.

Money should come flowing in to Rick Santorum today.

However, nobody has the organization of Mitt Romney. But it does pose a vice presidential reality that won’t be a choice for Romney if Santorum can get traction from the triumphs he garnered last night.

Read full story · Comments { 42 }

Women Want Their Birth Control

By on 07 February 2012

“The Peggy Noonan piece left some things out. … But I have to say, the article appears to be very misleading.” – Mika Brzezinski, “Morning Joe” (7 Feburary)

This started yesterday on “Morning Joe,” with Brzezinski reading part of an over the top declarative Peggy Noonan op-ed and getting very exercised about it before she had the facts.

Something very obvious and important is getting lost in the current contraceptive controversy.

If religious conservatives like Noonan really wanted to stop abortions and unplanned pregnancies they’d hail the opportunity for more women to have access to birth control without charge. That they aren’t says all you need to know.

David Axelrod on “Morning Joe” teased a compromise today, which is not a surprise to anyone, I’m sure. But does the Obama team actually believe religious conservatives are going to compromise? I mean, seriously, because that theory has worked so well with congressional Republicans? It’s the epitome of Obama logic and a catastrophic suggestion, especially when a majority of Catholics (and other religious Americans, including myself) agree with the Administration.

This whole argument has certainly revealed the priorities of religious conservatives, putting them at odds with women. Birth control is an economic issue for modern women, regardless of faith, as is planning pregnancy itself. However, the religious institution and whipping up a crisis around religious freedom that doesn’t exist is paramount in the minds of Republicans, because they want it for a political issue, which was proven quickly because that’s the first place they went. Democrats are more concerned with getting important reproductive health care to low and middle income women, while bending over backward to keep from setting off a religious war with the right who won’t be deterred.

Rarely has an issue set up the political sides so starkly.

Again, if stopping unplanned pregnancies was the goal it’s clear who’d come out on top morally and it’s not religious conservatives or Republicans.

From a new poll by PublicReligion.org:

Majority Support Requirement that Employer Health Care Plans Include Contraception Coverage

  • A majority (55%) of Americans agree that “employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost.” Four-in-ten (40%) disagree with this requirement.
  • There are major religious, generational and political divisions:
    • Roughly 6-in-10 Catholics (58%) believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception.
    • Among Catholic voters, support for this requirement is slightly lower at 52%.
    • Only half (50%) of white Catholics support this requirement, compared to 47% who oppose it.
  • Among other religious Americans, 61% of religiously unaffiliated Americans believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception, compared to only half (50%) of white mainline Protestants and less than 4-in-10 (38%) white evangelical Protestants.

As an aside, Massachusetts Mitt Romney issued a similar ruling as Pres. Obama did on contraceptives, but presidential candidate Mitt Romney is railing against it today. Chalk it up as just another point of hypocrisy from Mr. Romney.

To Ms. Brzezinski’s credit, she changed her tune today after getting the facts from the White House, which Joe Scarborough labeled as talking to a “mouthpiece.” It’s unfortunate Brzezinski wasn’t armed with the facts before she read Noonan’s piece on the air, because this is important policy for women that needs everyone’s attention, no matter your politics or religion. But this type of thing happens far too often on cable, taking a traditional journalist’s op-ed as gospel when peers revere the writer.

There is no injury to freedom of religion by what the Obama administration has done. It’s patently false to say otherwise, which is what Noonan’s column implied, Joe Scarborough has insinuated, and Mark Halperin posits will alter the 2012 election, with Scarborough agreeing, of which there is absolutely no proof. What applies is if any institution provides health care to its employees they must provide women with the same contraceptive coverage as any other woman in the country. No discrimination because she’s working for a Catholic school or hospital. That in no way precludes what Catholics can choose for themselves.

The hypocrisy of religious conservatives is fully unmasked through this discussion. They evidently think immaculate intervention will stop pregnancy. If the Catholic Church and other religious political operatives really cared about stopping abortion they’d understand that’s what’s at stake here. Preventing unplanned pregnancy and putting the control of women’s lives in their own hands, which cannot happen without access to reproductive health care, starting with birth control.

Contraceptive coverage must be offered, whether you’re in a Catholic hospital or at Fordham.

Bridgette Dunlap, a Fordham University law student, knew that the school’s health plan had to pay for birth control pills, in keeping with New York state law. What she did not find out until she was in an examining room, “in the paper dress,” was that the student health service — in keeping with Roman Catholic tenets — would simply refuse to prescribe them.

Bridgette Dunlap organized an off-campus clinic staffed by volunteer doctors to provide prescriptions for birth control because Fordham University’s student health service does not do so.

As a result, students have had to go to Planned Parenthood or private doctors to get prescriptions . Some, unable to afford the doctor visits, gave up birth control pills entirely.

Title has been changed.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

When the media is a part of the news …

By on 07 February 2012

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

When it comes to mainstream media and the Occupy movement, there is, of course, some actual reporting. But then there’s what at least appears to be two things happening, sometimes overlapping: a negative spin of some sort, when the media seems to be doing exactly what they’re fairly often accused of doing – the bidding of the “1%.” But regularly, at least some members of the media have found themselves sharing, with Occupiers, the unhappy attention of riot geared police.

For an Occupy take on MSM reporting, check out this post. I mentioned it yesterday, but it’s worth another look. An excerpt:

… the corporate media increasingly dismiss Occupy Wall Street as a dying movement.

The corporate-funded political status quo, including corporate-funded news coverage, benefits the 1% at the expense of the 99%.

The OWS’ post then “debunks” four media “myths” – “OWS’s numbers are dwindling”; “was weakened by the eviction of our camps”; “has lost its purpose and focus”; and that “The 2012 U.S. elections are eroding OWS’s relevance” – by

… examining a few of the major Occupy stories and actions of the past month that the corporate media would rather dismiss than cover …

When media coverage is perceived to be biased, it should be called out. So, of course, should unlawful restrictions on the media. From Press TV:

‘The attitude towards people covering the Occupy movement was filled with contempt in the same way that the attitude towards occupiers was driven by contempt, Danny Schechter, editor of Mediachannel.org, told Press TV’s U.S. Desk … .

The crackdown ‘has become a national story because the same pattern seems to have taken place in many places.’

It isn’t as if the media hasn’t let their concerns be known. For example, via Capital New York:

The New York Times fired off another letter to the Police Department … on behalf of 13 New York-based news organizations about police treatment of the press over the last several months.

The first letter, sent back in November during the height of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, resulted in a meeting with NYPD brass and ‘stepped up’ efforts on the part of the department’s public information office to train officers in working with the media.

But in today’s letter … the news organizations, which also include the New York Post, Daily News, Associated Press, Reuters, Dow Jones, Bloomberg News, the National Press Photographers Association, several local TV affiliates and others, say problems have persisted.

‘There have been other reports of police officers using a variety of tactics ranging from inappropriate orders directed at some journalists to physical interference with others, who were covering newsworthy sites and events,’ the letter reads.

I’ve written earlier about the latest Press Freedom Index, but obviously it’s related here. From Common Dreams:

While the United States certainly hasn’t descended into the ranks of the most oppressive regimes, the watchdog group Reporters without Borders observes that in 2011 the political barriers and outright attacks facing reporters had led to a steep drop in the rankings-27 places down, to number 47:

In the space of two months in the United States, more than 25 [journalists] were subjected to arrests and beatings at the hands of police who were quick to issue indictments for inappropriate behaviour, public nuisance or even lack of accreditation.

The most high-profile violations of press freedom took place during the Occupy protests, as reporters were abused by police and otherwise stonewalled by authorities.

Restrictions, intimidation and more aren’t only related to Occupy coverage, however, as the Common Dreams piece continues.

… while the Occupy-related arrests were a major factor in the lower ranking, the organization also noted failures to address other longstanding press freedom concerns.

Reporters Without Borders’ (RWB) D.C. Director Delphine Halgand told In These Times, ‘this big decline [in ranking] is also due to old concerns we have and which weren’t addressed by the Obama administration.’ These include excessive limits on access to government information (despite the guarantees of the Freedom of Information Act), the lack of a legal protections for confidential journalistic sources; and threats to Internet freedom posed by the proposed SOPA and PIPA legislation.

And from Intrepid Report:

… As WMR has reported in past articles, the National Security Agency (NSA) has maintained a series of ‘mug shots’ of journalists it suspects have sources inside the NSA. Often, NSA personnel throught (sic) to have been speaking to journalists are called into NSA’s ‘Q’ security group and questioned on whether they have spoken to various journalists. Along with the names of the journalists, are photographs, described by NSA insiders, as ‘mug shots,’ likely culled from the Internet.

One question that can asked about all of this, as it impacts both Occupiers and media: who benefits from the restriction and spinning and use of excessive police force?

(Freedom of Speech poster via Occupy Design)

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Obama Embraces the Super PAC

By on 07 February 2012

Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson

It was the only decision to make, giving the official White House nod to Bill Burton, a former Obama aide.

President Barack Obama — in an act of hypocrisy or necessity, depending on the beholder — has reversed course and is now blessing the efforts of a sputtering super PAC, Priorities USA Action, organized to fight GOP dark-money attacks. – Obama super PAC decision: President blesses fundraising for Priorities USA Action

The rambling excuse by Jim Messina is as unnecessary as it is bloated.

BuzzFeed, Ben Smith’s new haunts, is unimpressed.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Obama and the Boiling Middle East

By on 07 February 2012

“So what do we do? Well, faced with a neutered Security Council, we have to redouble our efforts outside of the United Nations with those allies and partners who support the Syrian people’s right to have a better future. We have to increase diplomatic pressure on the Assad regime and work to convince those people around President Assad that he must go, and that there has to be a recognition of that and a new start to try to form a government that will represent all of the people of Syria,” [Secy. Hillary Clinton] said. – Josh Rogin

It’s no secret I was against the Libya bombing and remain so. Watching the carnage in Syria reveals the flaws in the Obama administration’s strategy, as much as there was one. The unspeakable, which Josh Rogin said outright last night, is civil war in Syria. Even as Secy. Clinton worked the Arab League hard to make the NATO mission feasible, regime change looks differently once it’s over and the fallout begins.

See Egypt, where Americans are reportedly to be tried, including Secy. Ray LaHood’s son. Our so-called relationship today in that country as bad as it’s been in decades, which Josh Rogin explained with Chris Hayes last night. No doubt Secy. Clinton’s first instinct to bolster Mubarak came from this dreaded place. However, the truth is wider and deeper, of an American policy supporting dictators who are our allies in torture and rendition, as both Mubarak and Assad have been, while the people suffer.

The Arab Spring has unleashed a lot of energy, none of which Pres. Obama can predict, contain or manage very easily, but considering we engaged in the contagion to try and impact it, he’ll have to take ownership of something that is uncontrollably unpredictable.

Stephen Walt offers some thoughts on Syria, after the Libyan NATO mission.

One can argue that this was the right course of action anyway, because getting rid of a thug like Qaddafi was worth it. That’s a debate for another day, although I would note in passing that post-Qaddafi Libya remains deeply troubled and the collapse of the regime seems to be fueling conflicts elsewhere. But what if the Libyan precedent is one of the reasons why Russia and China aren’t playing ball today? They supported Resolution 1973 back in 2011, and then watched NATO and a few others make a mockery of multilateralism in the quest to topple Qaddafi. The Syrian tragedy is pay-back time, and neither Beijing nor Moscow want to be party to another effort at Western-sponsored “regime change.” It is hardly surprising that Russian U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin condemned the failed resolution on precisely these grounds. In short, our high-handed manipulation of the SC process in the case of Libya may have made it harder to gain a consensus on Syria, which is arguably a far more important and dangerous situation.

Also read Marc Lynch on what a horror it is that the U.N. failed, which no doubt is making the neoconservatives gleeful.

I wrote about this just a few days ago, but if you count Iran and Israel, the economy may be the least of Obama’s worries, with the Middle East possibly throwing a curve to all the prognosticators.

With Pres. Obama’s foreign policy credentials including ordering the slaying of Osama bin Laden, there is no sense whatsoever that Mitt Romney can make a serious challenge to Pres. Obama if the Middle East goes south.

What that means to Republicans picking a nominee is anyone’s guess. It also could be why Newt Gingrich has seduced himself into thinking the race isn’t over.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Romney with Donald Trump, Now it’s Pete Wilson

By on 06 February 2012

Is Mitt Romney trying to throw this race? He couldn’t have picked anyone who better represents Hispanic rejection of all things Republican, former Gov. Pete Wilson.

“Romney can’t seem to stop himself from digging deeper and deeper into his hole with Latino voters,” said Eliseo Medina of the Service Employees International Union in a statement. “Here is what Pete Wilson accomplished: He turned Latino voters against the GOP brand.” – LA Times

No wonder religious conservative Erick Erickson has thrown all caution to the ether and endorsed the “sweet meteor of death” over any of the current candidates.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Did Clint Eastwood Know He Was Making a Case for Pres. Obama?

By on 06 February 2012

**UPDATED**

[update]“I just want to say that the spin stops with you guys, and there is no spin in that ad. On this I am certain. I am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message about just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it. I thought the spirit was OK. I am not supporting any politician at this time. Chrysler to their credit didn’t even have cars in the ad. Anything they gave me for it went for charity. If any Obama or any other politician wants to run with the spirit of that ad, go for it.” – Clint Eastwood to Bill O’Reilly’s producer

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

The Super Bowl ad above has caused quite a ruckus. As you’ll see in the update at the top [update]. Rove responded earlier.

“I was, frankly, offended by it,” said Karl Rove on Fox News Monday. “I’m a huge fan of Clint Eastwood, I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising.” – Karl Rove quoted in the Washington Post

Mr. Eastwood is in direct conflict with what he said last year.

“We shouldn’t be bailing out the banks and car companies. If a CEO can’t figure out how to make his company profitable, then he shouldn’t be the CEO.” – Clint Eastwood

Bailing out the U.S. car industry is one of the most exceptionally American things Pres. Obama has done.

I’ve read Lawrence Summers 57-page economic memo and any person or politician positing that the Obama administration isn’t partially responsible for the trajectory of our economy, which is headed in positive direction, simply cannot be trusted.

What I find inexcusable is what might have happened if Pres. Obama had opened up Medicare as his first stop in solving health care, especially at a moment in time where he had the people ready to back him. A stimulus of the size Robert Reich suggested is another failing. However, at least Pres. Obama didn’t check the austerity box with Bowles-Simpson.

In the Super Bowl ad above, Clint Eastwood, when faced with a script that hails the saving of a quintessentially American industry and manufacturing base, does what any American with common sense would feel compelled to do. Praise the efforts and say we need more of it.

It used to be something on which we could all agree. Objective facts of success leading to someone to seeing a template for paving the way ahead.

Writers like Charles Kupchin are starting to weigh in that China’s GDP will pass the U.S. in around ten years. The World Bank has predicted that the dollar, the renminbi, China’s currency, and the euro will become part of a new “multi-currency” in less than 3 decades.

So far, Mitt Romney nor Newt Gingrich or any other Republican have come close to explaining their plans for stopping what many see as inevitable, given our current trajectory We’re left with platitudes and fearmongering from Republicans who are asking Americans to vote for them to lead us.

It will be frightening if people actually start believing the current crop of Republicans has one clue what to do, besides inflict austerity on a fragile recovering that is going in the right direction. When you look at Mitt Romney’s answers to our economic woes there is absolutely no sense he understands how austerity will impact the poor, many of whom are women and children.

If Republicans are going to take the government out of the building future of the United States, I would suggest that what Kupchin and others are saying will happen in ten or twenty years will be on our doorstep a lot earlier.

I say this as someone who no longer trusts Pres. Obama or believes he has the ideological compass or passion to do what’s required. However, that doesn’t mean Republicans do. That our politics is dumbed down to this either or choice is partially why writers are giving the U.S. such dire future prospects, because Republicans and Democrats clearly aren’t up to the challenges.

That Clint Eastwood didn’t even get what he was saying or representing in the Super Bowl ad above should give people pause.

Karl Rove clearly got the message and it freaked him out.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Occupied Thoughts from Howard Zinn, Boots Riley, and Bill Maher

By on 06 February 2012

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

In addition to Zinn, Riley and Maher, I’m including some thoughts from a “where we are now” post at OWS.

First, the late historian Howard Zinn obviously didn’t have the Occupy movement specifically in mind when he was included in The Nation’s February 1, 2010 article, Obama at One, which asked for thoughts about Obama’s first WH year. Zinn’s response concluded:

I think people are dazzled by Obama’s rhetoric, and that people ought to begin to understand that Obama is going to be a mediocre president … unless there is some national movement to push him in a better direction.

On another occasion, Zinn said:

What matters most is not who is sitting in the White House, but ‘who is sitting in’ – and who is marching outside the White House, pushing for change.’

And this:

If those in charge of our society – politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television – can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves.

It’s a matter of opinion what kind of role the Occupy / 99% movement is playing in challenging “those in charge.” Bill Maher recently got some attention for his comments. Via Yahoo News, “Maher to leftover Occupy movement ‘douchebags’: ‘Get a job.’”

‘Let me ask about another occupation … – the Occupy Wall Street,’ Maher said. ‘Because similar to Afghanistan, when you occupy anything too long, people do get pissed off. And as I watch them on the news now, I find myself almost agreeing with Newt Gingrich … — get a job.’ …

‘… the people who originally started, I think they went home, and now, I think it’s these anarchist stragglers,’ he continued. ‘And this is the problem when your movement involves sleeping over in the park. You wind up attracting the people who were sleeping over in the park anyway. And I think that’s where we are now with the Occupy movement. They did a great job of bringing the issue of income inequality to the fore. But now it’s just a bunch of douchebags who think throwing a chair through the Starbucks window is going to bring on the revolution.’

Maher, obviously, has every right to express his opinion. But, activism should continue only as long as you aren’t “pissing off” people? Further, reducing all Occupiers to “anarchist stragglers” and “douchebags” who are only “people who were sleeping in the park” before the Occupation, and how seriously are you going to take that kind of person – that makes for very easy “analysis.”

As I’ve said all along, like every movement, Occupy makes mistakes; they’re evolving, and sometimes quite messily. But they are working at it, “pushing for change.” If you disagree because you think no change is needed, or that they’re going about it the wrong way, fine. Maher’s critique, though, is at best lazy and simplistic.

From the OWS post I mentioned, “In Spite of Elections and ‘Camping Bans,’ Revolutionary Wave Grows”. It includes information about some of the many Occupy and related actions which have taken place this year.

Earlier this month, we celebrated 2011 and declared 2012 would be even bigger. One month in, we’re keeping our word, but the corporate media increasingly dismiss Occupy Wall Street as a dying movement. …

The only lull has been in the media coverage of our continuing struggle to create a more just world for all. While the corporate media have shifted focus to the U.S. Republican primaries and Presidential election, government agents of the 1% continue their assault on Occupy camps … .

The post includes discussion of several points of MSM “misinformation”: that OWS’s “numbers are dwindling”; “was weakened by the eviction of our camps”; “has lost its purpose and focus’; and that ‘The 2012 U.S. elections are eroding OWS’s relevance.’

Politics-as-usual won’t fix our problems. … We support communities trying to improve their present living conditions and fight back against corporate control and economic injustice … . But we do not endorse any politician(s) because no candidate will bring change.

One other perspective, which probably pushes at the margins even for some Occupiers, from a Rolling Stone:

‘Doing What’s Right, Not What’s Legal’: Boots Riley on Occupy Oakland …

One of the most dynamic spokespeople for Occupy Oakland has turned out to be Boots Riley, who grew up in Oakland and might be familiar to music fans as m.c. of the radical hip-hop group the Coup. …

‘All the changes that we’ve had in the last century that people can call progressive change, none of them have happened because people elected the right person into office,’ Riley told me. … ‘We got the eight-hour day because people shut shit down. We got the weekend because people shut shit down. New Deal happened because there were a million card-carrying Communists and people were in the streets and FDR thought there was going to be a revolution.’ …

By directly targeting labor and production through actions like the port shutdowns, Occupy Oakland has been different from other Occupy cities, Riley notes. He’s hoping the movement will grow to include elements of the working class who don’t normally organize, such as fast food workers. …

‘We want to organize where people … are not able to unionize because they’ll get fired. We can eliminate that risk because if they fire the folks who are unionizing, we can shut them down. Unions can’t legally organize in that way.’ Riley smiles. ‘But we can do stuff based on what’s right. Not what’s legal.’

A few thoughts from a few people for your consideration.

(Media Report sign via OWS News)

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

In Honor of Mitt Romney Winning in Nevada: ‘Poor Pee-ple’

By on 05 February 2012


Mitt Romney isn’t featured in the video above, but another rich Republican is. However, the video covers a subject dear to Mitt’s heart.

It’s a thing of beauty.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Mitt Romney Minute: Roll that Gafferiffic Footage

By on 04 February 2012

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

Mitt Romney has had his share of gaffes that are giving the Democrats the ammo needed to possibly destroy any hope he has of getting elected president. Gaffes become stories when they fit the narrative and the narrative is Mitt is a rich insensitive guy who does not get it.

What are some of his greatest hits that have become damning for him? Ah, memory lane so far (and I‘m probably missing a few along the way):

“Corporations are people my friend.”- Uh yeah: Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Queer Talk: HRC Honors Goldman Sachs, Queer Occupiers cry “Help”

By on 04 February 2012

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

UPDATED AT END

It’s the time of the year when the annual Human Rights Campaign “galas” kick-off, taking place in cities across the nation from now until November.

Fully acknowledging snark mode, we see HRC doing its Mitt Romney impression and providing more evidence for the Insider disconnect with the “99%.” While the language is a bit different, the criticism of HRC’s out-of-touchness is nothing new. This year’s Greater New York Gala, scheduled for this evening, honors Goldman Sachs with the “Corporate Equality Award.” In this Occupied time, that’s particularly, well, interesting. But it also raises the always present question: what to do when someone with big money is good on your issue, but bad in other ways? It’s certainly not a new conundrum, and it’s just as certain that different people will arrive at different answers.

From HRC:

The Greater New York HRC Steering Committee and Dinner Co-Chairs Eric Blomquist , Jo Doyle & John Rivers cordially invite you to:

‘Celebrate our victories and honor the work ahead for full LGBT Equality and Civil Rights’ at the 11th Annual Greater New York Human Rights Campaign Gala.

Joe Solmonese, soon to be stepping down HRC head, is “Featured Speaker.” The “Ally For Equality Award” will go to Anna Wintour, Vogue Editor-in-Chief, and the “Corporate Equality Award” to Goldman Sachs.

At NYTimeOut:

Last year was not a good one for many workers at Goldman Sachs, but the company’s LGBT contingent had cause to celebrate. The firm’s Ally Strategy program went beyond standard policies of workplace diversity and inclusiveness, and actively sought to educate and engage straight employees to create a more welcoming and open environment for LGBT ones.

Obviously that’s good for queer equality. But especially if you’re already skeptical, at best, about HRC’s Insider status, and even more, if you’re involved with the Occupy movement, honoring Goldman Sachs is akin to getting in bed with 1%.

Queer Occupy Wall Street, a caucus of NYC OWS, announced that it will protest at the Waldorf Astoria, site of the Gala, and in contrast to the VIP $650 a plate meal, host a “Guerrilla Potluck.”

1. The Queer Caucus condemns HRC’s decision to honor Goldman Sachs in a time of financial collapse caused by their unethical business practices and greed, and deplores the use of our cause and suffering for corporate public relations. …

2. The Queer Caucus calls upon HRC to embrace the grassroots demand for Full Federal Equality by 2014 – the 50th Anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. …

3. The Queer Caucus also demands that HRC open the process to transparency and grassroots inclusion. …

With this structure in place, queer occupiers know that only a handful of privileged voices are setting the national queer agenda and strategy, defining what ‘LGBT equality’ means and who our friends are.

For example, HRC’s key sponsors includes a long list of big businesses that contributed to recent economic and environmental distress, including Citi Bank, Bank of America, Chevron, BP, Shell, Morgan Stanley, MetLife, Deloitte, Lexus, Prudential, and Ernst & Young.

In a related press release:

Dubbed the ‘Guerrilla Potluck for Full Equality,’ activists from the Radical Faeries will also bring high-design to the sidewalk demonstration with the message of ‘HELP’. HELP end LGBT abuse. HELP end LGBT suicides. HELP end LGBT discrimination. HELP get Full Equality by 2014.

With an absolutely classic blowing you off political response, via the NYTimeOut piece:

Asked about the planned protest via e-mail, HRC spokesman Paul Guequierre wrote, ‘We are fortunate to live in a democracy where everyone’s opinion counts.’

Some, of course, count more than others.

So, what do you do when someone (corporations are people, remember, so it’s “someone”) with money and a willingness to support your cause is also someone who implements and enforces other policies that are quite harmful, including to people involved with your cause? It’s never been an easy answer, but it remains a very important question.

UPDATE: Check out Bil Browning’s post at Bilerico:

Talk about tone deaf… The HRC Manhattan gala dinner will honor Goldman Sachs. …

‘We are fortunate to live in a democracy that encourages many diverse points of view,’ Fred Sainz, HRC’s vice president of communication and marketing, tells The Advocate. ‘The irony is that our programs serve the 99% of the population this group says it represents.’
What a load of horse shit; that’s the worst spin I’ve seen out of HRC yet.

Bil includes a link to a petition to “withdraw the award from Goldman Sachs.” See it at Change.org.

( Occupy HRC Guerrilla Potluck via Occupy Pix
Occupy Queer OWS Logo via Occupy Pix )

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Romney Gets Even for New York Times Story

By on 03 February 2012

A GOP campaign operative who won plaudits for bolstering Mitt Romney’s recent debate performances is not being retained by the frontrunner’s campaign, an apparent victim of internal tensions over staff receiving too much credit for the candidate’s comeback, POLITICO has learned. – Mitt Romney splits with Brett O’Donnell

Fridays is dump day in politics and the Romney camp has just done a whopper of one. This is as inside political baseball as it gets, but they’re fascinating if you’re interested in the machinations of political campaigns, which I am.

Last weekend, the New York Times ran a story replete with how Romney’s team, advisers, opposition-research crew, as well as a new debate coach, who became the talk after Romney took it to Gingrich, Brett O’Donnell, ganged up on Gingrich in Florida to give Mitt a victory. An excerpt:

Mr. Romney, meanwhile, had been receiving help from a new debate adviser — Brett O’Donnell, a longtime leader of the Liberty University debate team who advised Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota in her campaign last year — and assumed a new role as the campaign’s chief attacker, relinquishing his old approach of leaving the dirty work to supporters and a friendly super PAC.

A team of some of the most fearsome researchers in the business, led by Mr. Romney’s campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, spent days dispensing negative information about Mr. Gingrich, much of it finding its way to the influential Drudge Report, which often serves as a guide for conservative talk radio and television assignment editors and to which Mr. Rhoades has close ties.

The effort hit a peak by Thursday, when the site was virtually taken over by headlines assailing Mr. Gingrich, whose advisers said they eventually gave up on trying to persuade the Drudge staff to spare them, acknowledging, in the words of one aide, that “very little can be done.”

“The Romney team” became the subject of scathing rants by Joe Scarborough on “Morning Joe” this week, highlighting how scandalous it was for insiders in the campaign to be blowing their own horns, while giving little credit to Romney.

The closer to the article reveals what became a big problem as the week went on:

Mr. Romney was still in South Carolina when the team, led by Mr. Rhoades, presented the plan to him. “He was on the road, and there was a call with him on Sunday morning where we laid out all the different pieces of what was going on,” Mr. Schriefer said. “He asked questions, but it wasn’t a particularly long call; it was very calm, sort of ‘O.K., guys, let’s go win in Florida.’ ”

Mitt’s team tried to get Brett O’Donnell’s name removed from the piece before printing, but they couldn’t.

Ego is all in politics and after the debate everyone was talking about O’Donnell, if not by name.

There’s an old law in Hollywood: always support the star. If you pull focus you’re not going to be around long.

Mitt Romney’s team seen preening on the front page of the Times taking credit for Florida was bad enough, but having someone who actually made a difference in the candidate’s performance named out loud, well, that’s unforgivable.

So, late on a Friday night of Super Bowl weekend, they decided to cut someone loose to send a message. So who do they ax? Not an adviser or part of the oppo-research team, heaven forbid, they let O’Donnell go.

Message: Mitt Romney doesn’t need no stinking debate coach. He’s got game on his own.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Super Bowl Occupations

By on 03 February 2012

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

“We briefly interrupt this campaign season to bring you special coverage of a shorter version of an equally distracting event, where a ‘world champion’ of teams from one nation is crowned in made-for-television spending entertainment and distraction extravaganza.”

That really isn’t a quote, just me venting. I know millions love the Super Bowl, and wish every one of you happy watching, munching and drinking. I also, however, wish those using the moment to point out the skewed priorities which see who knows how many millions of dollars changing hands, legally and otherwise, due to a professional sports event, while money can’t be found to help millions secure employment, health care, housing, food, clothing and other basic necessities. Obviously the vast majority of those who enjoy the Super Bowl are not of the 1%. And I’m guessing it’s those non-1% who the Occupy the Super Bowl folks are hoping will take notice of the non-football numbers they’re providing.

Via Interoccupy, from Occupy the Super Bowl:

There are currently 21,334 foreclosed homes in Indianapolis. The median list price of these homes is $139,900.00. That’s a total of $2,984,626,600.00.

Capitalism without control results in companies spending $76,667.00 per second for a Superbowl advertisement. At 67 ads that amounts to $154,100,670.00.

These ad profits alone would totally pay off 1101 homes.

$720,000,000.00 was the cost of Lucas Oil Stadium. This cost would return 5,147 homes to their owners debt free.

Like all such comparisons, these are mostly about providing a way to envision what for most of us is a difficult thing to do: what very large amounts of money can buy. And of course, the numbers also provide a contrast between two worlds, or often, between two overlapping worlds. Back to the Interoccupy post:

We The People of Indianapolis are not anti-Superbowl. We’re a sports city lacking only a baseball team. We love our Colts even this year with their atrocious record, they are still The Indianapolis Colts! The point is this, Corporate America is not about doing what’s right for The People, it’s about profit. Yet these same corporations don’t hesitate in demanding funds from We The People.

Or as Dave Zirinon writes, at The Nation:

The Super Bowl is perennially the Woodstock for the 1 percent: a Romneyesque cavalcade of private planes, private parties and private security. Combine that with this proposed (now passed “right to work”) legislation, and the people of Indiana will not let this orgy of excess go unoccupied.

At TomDispatch, via TruthOut, Robert Lipsyte writes, “Four Reasons to Watch the Super Bowl: Joe Hill, Joe Pa, Tebow, Wee Brains,” which includes:

Most Americans won’t need a justification to watch Sunday’s game, but if you’re a TomDispatch.com reader you might think, even in passing, that celebrating the holiest day of violence, consumerism, and class warfare on your couch is a betrayal of your values or a waste of your time. You might even imagine that it would be better to take a hike, read a book, or meditate.

Not this Sunday, buster. It’s an election season. You need to watch this game to fully understand how jobs, religion, leadership, and healthcare dominate every American contest.

You’ll need to check out the article to follow his thinking, but here’s an excerpt:

Even with a progressive attitude, watching the Super Bowl, which seems to float on rivers of oil — think car ads — and beer, is not exactly like holding a OWS-style general assembly in the red zone. Nevertheless, it’s a terrific visual of the American class divide. In their skyboxes, usually in jacket and tie, eating, drinking, and high-fiving — or scowling — are the one-percenters who own the team, which is usually not their only source of income.

Below them, on the field, are their employees (many of them temporary one-percenters, given the median league salary of at least $560,000), using up the capital of their bodies.

One last thing, an indication of some fun and creativity of the Occupy the Super Bowl group, about a music event they’re organizing:

The protests of the 60s and 70s had Wood Stock. We came up with the name Occupy Corn Stock.

(Super Bowl sign via OccupySuperBowl
Jefferson Class Warfare Quote via OWS Posters)

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Komen Caves? Not Really.

By on 03 February 2012

**UPDATED**

“We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives,” the group said. “We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities,” the group said. – Komen reverses decision to stop Planned Parenthood funding

This is what victory looks and feels like. But let’s look at the results to make sure they actually fully fund Planned Parenthood, because “preserve their eligibility” is awfully wishy-washy.

The people at Susan G. Komen underestimated the fury of the Democratic and progressive allies of Planned Parenthood. That’s because you rarely see them in action unless the worst has already happened.

This is instructive to the weak-kneed Democratic base and progressives who have compromised whenever Pres. Obama goes soft on principles that matter to the left.

From the New York Times:

Although multiple sources have said the board’s decision to eliminate funds to Planned Parenthood was driven by abortion opponents inside and outside of the organization, the Komen foundation, in its statement, insisted that its decision was not “done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood.”

“Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation,” the statement said. “We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.”

The statement asked everyone “who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.”

If you don’t want your “mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics,” then don’t hire a right-winger for public policy at the same time you fire a Democratic lobbyist.

The fact remains that Cecile Richard and Planned Parenthood, along with a lot of Democratic and progressive groups and activists, missed the signals and underestimated yet again the goals of right-wingers.

This is what you can do when you join each other in a worthy fight. But don’t let up, because eligibility is not full funding restored.

The statement from Nancy Brinker and the Susan G. Komen Board of Directors:

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.

The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight againstbreast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.

Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public’s understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.

Read full story · Comments { 22 }

Economic News Buoys Obama, as Israel & Iran Chatter Grows

By on 03 February 2012

The pace of job creation surged in January, with the US economy generating 243,000 new positions while the unemployment rate dropped to 8.3 percent, according to government data released Friday. – CNBC

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza



This is fantastic news. Besides the people impacted by the turn in the economy, Obama reelect gets a boost too.

“What’s not to like about the report?” said Andrew Wilkinson, chief economic strategist at Miller Tabak in New York. “Not only did payrolls exceed forecasts…but between the November and December revisions employers added 160,000 more jobs than first thought.” – CNBC

I’d like to just offer one note of caution as 2012 election season starts to be seen only through the jobs and unemployment numbers. This is understandable, but as we learned on the run-up to George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004, when Osama bin Laden popped up in a video, what is suspected to be the issue, Bush-Cheney’s screw-up on Iraq, didn’t turn out to do him in. Obama gave the order for a daring SEAL Team Six mission to take out Osama, for which he doesn’t get enough credit, but there other foreign policy areas where he is less surefooted.

There is growing chatter about developments surrounding Iran and Israel. Richard Haas talked about it this week on “Morning Joe,” stressing a new element, the “zone of immunity.” David Ignasius wrote about it yesterday:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has a lot on his mind these days, from cutting the defense budget to managing the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But his biggest worry is the growing possibility that Israel will attack Iran over the next few months.

Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily.

In his State of the Union Speech, Pres. Obama trotted out the old and tired war rattling words “no option off the table” to make the point about Iran. I mentioned earlier when talking about Newt Gingrich and Sheldon Adelson (see Wayne Barrett here and here), who’s whole reason for being is to saber rattle on Iran, that DNI Clapper had warned about Iranian attacks inside the U.S.

There’s an interesting post up at Huffington Post on the entire subject of Obama and Iran.

Mitt Romney is so incredibly weak on national security issues that there can be little doubt he’d have to trip the full neoconservative wire to pass muster with Republicans.

Pres. Obama has shown his Bushesque colors throughout his foreign policy decisions, with an election year bringing even bigger challenges to him. As many of you remember, he ducked an important vote on Iran as a senator running for president. There has been much criticism on his Israeli policy as president, most undeserved. Pres. Obama has been a steadfast friend to Israel, as all American presidents must be, with Romney’s “appeasement” lines absurd.

It has leaked that US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Gen. Martin Dempsey warned the Israelis that if they launched a strike on Iran that spiralled into a war, they would be on their own. – Juan Cole

It’s a long way until November. However, never underestimate election year foreign policy problems to distract people who remain unhappy about the direction of the country. If Iran and Israel become front and center the Middle East could raise its head and turn the election into something no one anticipates today.

This election year is primed for shock waves.

This column has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

“Is There a ‘Quick Fix’ for Partisanship?”

By on 03 February 2012

Joyce L. Arnold: Liberal, lesbian, Independent, equality activist, writer.

Independent Voting asks the question above, and talks about why, unsurprisingly, there are no “quick fix” reforms possible. From a recent emailing:

Outside-the-beltway reform activists believe that the difficult and long-term effort it takes to achieve these reforms is a good thing. In the process of winning them and using them, the American people will become more developed and politically sophisticated and take direct responsibility for our democracy.

I’ve included Independent Voting in earlier posts in this Two Parties = Too Few Choices series, in talking about the multiple efforts underway across the nation to challenge (my word) or reform the two party system. I thought it might be helpful to think again about some of those efforts, which can be overlooked at most any time, but all but lost during high profile presidential election times. This is simply one example of what is, in fact, happening. From Independent Voting’s About section:

We are a national strategy, communications, and organizing center working to connect and empower the 40% of Americans who identify themselves as independents. …
Our mission is to develop a movement of independent voters for progressive post-partisan reform of the Ameri-can political process.

We do not aspire to be another special interest. Independents seek instead to diminish the regressive influence of parties and partisanship by opening up the democratic process. Independents in the CUIP networks are creating new electoral coalitions such as the Black and Independent Alliance, supporting new models of nonpartisan governance and striving for the broadest forms of ‘bottom-up’ participation.

Another effort that’s received more attention is Americans Elect. Via Common Dreams, Joel Hirschhorn describes the overall two party situation in ways with which I can identify, and makes an argument for Americans Elect that makes some sense, even with my strong skepticism about the role the Board gives itself in the final determination of who the AE presidential and vice-presidential candidates are.

Why am I so sick of all the media attention to the Republican presidential primaries and all the blabbering about President Obama’s advantages and disadvantages for the coming election? I just cannot get excited. My answer may also be yours: No matter who wins, our nation loses. …

Considering the widespread and deserved disgust among Americans with both major parties, there is a decent chance that people like me will be strongly motivated to vote for the Americans Elect alternative ticket. It defi-nitely will be a vote against both major parties. If millions of Americans make this choice, then I will be over-joyed and so should you. Why? Because it may be the most important historic event that could motivate actions to get us genuine reforms of our political and government system. The Americans Elect ticket does not have to win, just show the Democrats and Republicans how much they are both being rejected.

Of course, you can say the same thing for “third party” efforts in general. The total number of votes cast for an “alternative ticket” will be interesting to know. Naturally the message isn’t as strong – because the challenge isn’t as great – if those votes are split in multiple ways. But none of these non-Two Party votes are “wasted,” not from my perspective. They are a challenge to the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy, and a rejection of the “wasted vote,” “you have no other choice,” “this is just the way things work” arguments that help perpetuate the system.

Phil Rockstroh, at OWS News, writes, “A Journey To The End Of Empire: It Is Always Darkest Right Before It Goes Completely Black.” It’s more philosophical than pragmatic, but his conclusions are quite practical in their implications.

‘That’s just the way it is’ might be one of the most soul-defying phrases in the human lexicon.

Contrast this with the OSW slogan, ‘The beginning is near.’

Bradley Maxwell, at Occupy the 99%, writes “Reform vs. Radicalism: More Damn Labels to Divide Us,” and includes talking about the way “1%” uses division to help prevent large enough numbers of people from coming together to challenge the status quo.

The powers we face, love for these conflicts, which divide us, to exist. And even if the 1% did not plant the seeds of division, they certainly water them. …

We will need to continue shaking off irrelevant theories and labels in order to become the true kind of movement we need to be. … So I say let the people do their ‘reform’ work, and let other people do their ‘radical’ work. …

We all have work to do, so stop making it so damn difficult for those you don’t agree with, to get their work done.

Going back to the top, I don’t think anyone who pays even cursory attention to politics would believe a “quick fix” is possible. On the other hand, there seem to be a large number of people who do believe any kind of “fix” is impossible. Somewhere between those two positions is the space to make serious challenges to “the way things are,” enough space so that even people with differing perspectives can get to work.

( Photo via ThinkProgress )

Read full story · Comments { 4 }