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

If ‘This Is Not Who We Are,’ Then Who Are We, and Who Gets to Decide?

By on 16 May 2012

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

Earlier this month Dan DeWalt wrote So then Who in the Hell Are We? at This Can’t Be Happening.

The latest PR catch phrase from business, administration, military, state and local officials after some atrocity or other is that whatever happened, it is certainly ‘not who we are,’ a phrase initially uttered by the Vietnam War commander, Gen. William Westmoreland, with reference to the My Lai slaughter of 400 women, children and old men, all civilians, by a group of US soldiers.

Yet if all these abominations are not ‘who we are,’ then why do our business, police and military and government institutions generate so many examples of obscene, horrific or criminal behavior?

“This is not who we are” fits right in with “If I offended anyone” used in what’s suppose to be an apology, but is better termed an acknowledgement that enough people seem to think I did something that offended them so I finally had to say something. “This is not who we are” may very well be accurate, in terms of who we want to be or think ourselves to be, or want others to think we are. But unless accompanied by concrete actions to change the “not who we are” decision or incident or whatever, it serves more as a non-apology apology.

DeWalt provides these examples:

‘This is not a reflection of who we are or what we stand for.’ – Jeff Gearhart, Wall-Mart general counsel, on the firm’s Mexico bribery

[Torture] ‘is not the norm.’ – Mike Pannek, Abu Ghraib prison warden.

‘This is not who we are.’ – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the US massacre of 16 Afghan villagers …; General John Allen, commander of forces in Afghanistan, on Koran burning …; Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta on troops posing with enemy body parts …; Secretary of State Clinton, also on troops posing with enemy body parts …

Spying by the New York Police on Muslims in Newark, NJ, which the Newark Police Chief was alerted to, is ‘not who we are’ – Newark Mayor Cory Booker

‘I can tell you something all of you know already – that using pepper spray on peaceful protesters runs counter to our values. It does not reflect well on this university and it absolutely is not who we are.’ – UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi, who ordered campus police to use force to clear peaceful student occupiers from the campus, leading to pepper spraying of students

Ripping families apart by deporting the undocumented parents of American-born children is ‘not who we are.’ – President Barack Obama

‘This larger notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everybody’s money, and let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they’re on their own – that’s not who we are.’ – President Barack Obama

‘You can’t say, well, we developed trade and the economic relations first and the disregard of human rights. That’s not who we are. We are the United States of America.’ – Sasha Gong, director of the China branch of Voice of America.

DeWalt writes about the “sick hypocrisy” of Obama, Clinton, Panetta and Allen to

… claim that these actions are not a direct result of U.S. military and foreign policy. If Dick Cheney and John Yoo were torturing language and logic to advocate the torture of humans, why wouldn’t guards at Abu Ghraib fall into the same debased state of mind? …

Those in power attempt to frame the issue within the ‘one bad apple in the barrel’ rubric. As long as they can pretend that war crimes and atrocities aren’t a logical outcome of official policy, they can shift blame to those without power … .

When riot geared law enforcement officers use “non-lethal” pepper spray, sound canons, batons, bean bags, spying and more, in the name of enforcing “order,” and as inevitably will happen, someone is injured, or the official actions are so obviously over-the-top, the use of “that’s not who we are” as an attempt to avoid responsibility at the top becomes a familiar, pious-sounding non-apology apology. The safety of “we” instead of “me” language, along with a clear “it’s not my fault” distancing are all attempts to avoid complicity.

Same kind of thing, when corporations seek to distance themselves from, say, “using bribery as a standard business practice,” which, DeWalt writes, has recently been exposed at Siemens, Boeing and Wall-Mart.

Of course not everyone, not even at the top of government, law enforcement and corporations, do this. But the fact that the “this is not who we are” phrase shows up so often is telling, both about those using it, and about those who do, or don’t, name it for the evasion of responsibility it is. That’s us, of course. DeWalt:

Just because these shameful acts may indeed indicate who or what our Empire’s institutions are, it does not mean that it is who we are as well. Most Americans, as well as most Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians etc., would not commit the types of acts that have made our nation infamous over the years. But if we are truly better than that, if this is not who we are, then we had better do something about the fact we are being represented to the world by the very actions that we find so heinous.

The Who’s “Who Are You?” might provide a better soundtrack yet if we changed it to “Who Are We?”

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Super-Powered and Halo’d, Obama is Still the One?

By on 16 May 2012

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

When I saw the NARAL release yesterday, announcing their endorsement of Obama – no surprise to anyone, I’m sure – I flashed back to the 2009 Ms cover, “This is what a feminist looks like.” I’d recalled the same thing a few days earlier, with Newsweek’s “The First Gay President” cover. At least, I thought, it wasn’t an LGBT publication making this second declaration, as it was a self-identified feminist publication making the first.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, today announced that her organization’s political action committee proudly endorses President Obama’s bid for a second term, calling his re-election critical to protecting women’s freedom and privacy.

The announcement, which comes as the country marks National Women’s Health Week, makes NARAL Pro-Choice America the first reproductive rights group to endorse President Obama’s re-election effort.

It all reminds me of what seems to me to be another example of over-reach: Obama awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.

Of course Obama is better on women’s and LGBT’s issue than Romney. Given the backward direction of the Republican Party, that’s not necessarily saying a lot, though Obama is certainly more enlightened than Mitt. But these declarations of heroism or saint-like virtue or just “bigger than life” are a real stretch for me. Why this need to make him super-powered and halo’d? What do such “annointings” – certainly not unique to Obama – tell us about us?

Anyway, I started wondering what the next declaration will be: This is what an immigrant looks like? An environmentalist? The first female president, or the first physician president? The floor is open for your annointings, as well as your thoughts about what this apparent need for super-powered, halo’d leaders tells us about us, related to Obama or just in general.

(This is What A Feminist Looks Like cover via Ms
First Gay President cover via Newsweek)

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

The Political Elite Fête Pete Peterson, the Man on a Mission to Gut Social Security

By on 16 May 2012

IT’S NICE TO be Pete Peterson.

But who is this guy? Besides the man who can get all the cool millionaires into a room to bargain away the U.S. social safety net?

Read Ryan Grimm and Paul Blumenthal, consider it your assignment today.

But if you haven’t figured it out by now why Pres. Obama thinks he can get away with a grand bargain, which will likely come in his second term, all you need is three of the most potent words in American politics: William Jefferson Clinton. The grand bargainer himself.

From E.L. Eskow on HuffPost:

The Rich Get the Elevator. The Middle Class Gets the Shaft.

“Simpson-Bowles makes the Social Security system more progressive,” said Bill Clinton. Actually, it would gut Social Security benefits while lowering the top tax rate for billionaires like Peterson and millionaires like Clinton. That’s the opposite of “progressive.” But it would give the illusion of ‘progressivity’ by offering a slight benefit bump to the extremely poor, funded by benefit cuts for the middle class.

It would also give a tiny bump to seniors who live an especially long time after retirement. That would also be funded by middle-class benefit cuts. And since minority and low-income life expectancy is still far below that of white people in general — and white women in particular — this would also be economically regressive.

The fact that this false ‘progressively’ would transform a social insurance program into a welfare program seemed to disturb the former President not one bit. And he seemed entirely unaware of the what it means to the political discourse when a former Democratic president argues for a plan that would cut taxes even more for the wealthiest Americans, while cutting the few hundred dollars per month received by many elderly and disabled Americans in order to provide benefits for the poor. Bill Clinton calls that “progressive.”

And that was the leftmost wing of the Fiscal Summit’s leadership.

Note to everyone, there is no “leftmost wing” in politics. It does not exist, otherwise there would have been a primary challenger for Barack Obama.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Sarah Palin’s Gal Upsets the Boys in Nebraska

By on 16 May 2012

“Sarah Palin still can pick ‘em.” – Jennifer Rubin

SARAH PALIN BACKED the log shot, while the guys were duking it out. Today Palin congratulates Deb Fischer on a spectacular upset.

As recently as a week ago, Deb Fischer was dismissed by the establishment. Why? Because she is not part of the good old boys’ permanent political class. The message from the people of Nebraska is simple and powerful: America is looking for real change in Washington, and commonsense conservatives like Deb Fischer represent that change. I applaud Moms like Deb Fischer who are bold enough to step up and run on a conservative platform to restore America and protect our children’s future. Congratulations to the people of Nebraska. As the Huskers’ fight song goes: “The eyes of the land, upon every hand, are looking at you. Fight on for victory!”

- Sarah Palin

Rick Santorum and Club for Growth went for separate guys, while Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Deb Fischer nationalized her campaign, a phenomenon reminiscent of the power Palin used to wield back in 2010.

Fischer will face former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey in November.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Snapshot Shows Romney Strong Against Obama

By on 15 May 2012

The poll showed that relatively few voters consider same-sex marriage their top issue amid continued economic uncertainty, and more than half said it would make no difference in their choice for president. But among those who said Mr. Obama’s position would influence their vote, more said they would be less likely to vote for him as a result; in a close race, even a small shift in swing states could be costly. – Obama’s Switch on Same-Sex Marriage Stirs Skepticism

NO IDEOLOGICAL COMPASS and no economic message since before the 2010 midterms has come back to bite Pres. Obama, giving Mitt Romney a strong showing according to multiple polling snapshots of the presidential race today.

A larger stimulus would have been more effective, while illustrating Pres. Obama had a progressive economic plan, with a strong message in 2010 to take on Tea Party austerity at least showing he had a clearly stated economic vision throughout his first term, instead of the series of reactions to Republicans that it has come to represent.

Simpson-Bowles did absolutely nothing for Pres. Obama except to show that he was farming his economic plan out to a bipartisan commission. But even then he couldn’t make a decision on the group’s decisions, letting them die a slow death, except with infotainment talking heads who love it. Making matters more confusing, Pres. Obama also floated a grand bargain on entitlement “reform,” yet another reaction to Republicans digging in their heels, which Speaker Boehner promised today to do again. Pres. Obama’s populist Kansas speech was met with glorious praise by partisans, but financial word salads and budgetary bromides without force of action mean squat, especially when they’re nakedly political in the first place.

It has all had a cumulative effect and is the single biggest challenge in Obama facing off with Romney, who will not be intimidated on economics, his strong suit, whether you agree with his theories or not.

All the polling out today incorporates the gay marriage equality issue, but come November people will be voting on economics, unless an unforeseen national security matter rears up, then it’s Obama’s advantage all the way.

The snapshot in time polling, starting with the New York Times/CBS, should not surprise anyone, though I’m more interested in the USA Today/Gallup poll.

Though an overwhelming 71% rate economic conditions as poor, a 58% majority predict they will be good a year from now. While those surveyed are inclined to say they are worse off financially than a year ago, nearly two-thirds say they think they’ll be better off this time next year.

[...] Since becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, Romney’s favorable-unfavorable rating has jumped to 50%-41%, his best ever and in the same neighborhood as Obama’s 52%-46% standing. The former Massachusetts governor gets stronger ratings than the president when it comes to handling the economy, the issue likely to drive the campaign.

In the poll, 55% say the economy would get better over the next four years if Romney was elected, compared with 46% who say it would improve if Obama was re-elected. Twenty-seven percent say the economy would get worse in a Romney first term, compared with 37% who say that of an Obama second term.

There’s nothing that will convince me the marriage equality statement of Pres. Obama’s last week will factor in with voters who are seriously considering him in the first place. Though it is telling that the Times poll shows such a whopping number of people, 67% to 24% believing it was politically motivated, which points to a character issue about Barack Obama that has been seen throughout his political rise.

Mitt Romney’s character issue on political expediency and convenience, as well as on 1% economic largess, has been documented, as have been his statements proving he’ll say absolutely anything to win and actually has on a number of occasions.

The Obama camp, through Stephanie Cutter, is saying the Times/CBS polling sampling is untrustworthy, though she used the word “biased” when speaking with Chuck Todd on MSNBC.

In the ABC/Wash Post poll, 54% of women approve of his stance, while men weigh in at 37%. Independents are favorable of his stance, 49-43, though some independents are strongly against, but I’d bet they’re also conservatives who hate the notion of marriage equality. Some people will never evolve to the point of accepting it’s a civil rights issue.

In the USA/Gallup poll, understanding we’re talking about a snapshot of today, Republicans have taken the lead in the fight to control Congress, 50%-44%.

Another sign of restlessness with Pres. Obama comes at the very end, revealing the same challenges he had in 2008.

Meanwhile, one in five Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they would have preferred a nominee other than Obama, who didn’t face a primary challenge. They include one in four white voters.

That number, 25%, of white Democratic-leaning independents who say they’d prefer another nominee is a problem, because they could choose to stay home, along with the tiny minority of religious conservative African Americans, who oppose his marriage equality stance, even though it doesn’t change DOMA at all.

Women are listening to Mitt Romney on economics, because that’s the issue that will drive most votes.

Throughout Pres. Obama’s first term, he has had no economic message at all, opting instead for a reactionary strategy to Republican proposals, which now is met by Mitt Romney’s relentless repetition that he’s been successful, he has, knows how to create jobs, been there and destroyed some on the way, and Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing, with the success of the auto bailout proving otherwise. Unfortunately, Pres. Obama’s continual rightward shift benefits Republicans across the board.

It’s impossible to over emphasize the damage done by Pres. Obama’s lack of economic message to his own reelection efforts.

However, there’s still no evidence yet Mitt Romney has the political talent to beat an incumbent president, which is a very difficult thing to do.

Mitt Romney is dead wrong on economics, but he’s strong and sure in his messaging, something Pres. Obama has never been. There was another guy who Democrats didn’t think had a prayer to win the presidency and he was a strong and wrong as Romney, winning two terms. George W. Bush endorsed Mitt Romney today.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Voting for Lesser Evilism And Expecting Good Results

By on 15 May 2012

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

If you choose the lesser of two evils voting path, then what’s next? Pushing the lesser evil to do better? Or not pushing the lesser evil for fear the greater evil might win next time? If our lesser evil guy / gal says he or she will work for, say, single payer health care, and becomes an Elected, do we keep pushing for single payer, or mostly / only keep kind of quiet, because we’re more afraid of greater evil than the perceived lesser evil of not getting what we were promised?

Clearly I’m in high cynical, or just realistic, mode. Presidential election year politics tend to push me even further that direction. Our political / corporate / media meld very successfully turns each election cycle into drama for the consumption of the masses – that’s us. We’re the audience to be entertained and distracted, encouraged to cheer or jeer (both sides are needed for the drama to work), based on lesser-evildom framing.

Of course, not everyone actually goes along with this game. There are probably lots of people who do “go along,” but know what they’re “going on” with, and try to make it at least somewhat better. And, there are people who seek reforms, if not rebel and revolt. These folks, especially on the rebel and revolt end of things, are generally not favored by the media, by legacy parties, and certainly not by the Elites who buy elections. Well, except as used as a foil, or a scary distraction.

Some recent reading got me thinking about all of this. Again.

David Swanson, at OpEdNews:

Hopelessly Devoted

You’d never know it from watching television, but there are many thousands of people in the United States who take peace, justice, environmental protection, and government of the people so seriously that they don’t censor themselves whenever the president is a Democrat.

Obviously Swanson is writing on the Left side of things, looking at a book by Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank, a collection of 56 essays from prior to Obama’s election through the “quite recent,” entitled, Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion. Drawing on the essays, he provides a lengthy list of “charges against Obama” through a “Declaration of Independence like list of grievances,” ranging from accepting “massive funding from Wall Street” to “sabotag(ing) efforts to protect the earth’s climate” to “dramatically escalated drone killings.”

I think he’s largely correct in saying “you’d never know” about the people who “don’t censor themselves,” and you certainly wouldn’t know about their actual arguments, if you relied on MSM.

Swanson also wrote Elections: What Are They Good For?, which includes a discussion of the evil / lesser evil framing. It seems to me that We the People have largely accepted that framing as something we can’t change, that’s just the way it is, and furthermore, anyone who thinks differently is naive, impatient, and probably unpatriotic, since loyalty to one side of the Duopoly is tantamount to being a “good American.”

Swanson writes:

… lesser-evilism inverts representative government even when there’s no election anytime soon. People make themselves the servants of their public servants. Organizations ask the government what they should rally their members to demand of the government. Pressuring elected officials from the Good Party is forbidden or heavily restricted as supposedly assisting the Bad Party. …

What to do, Swanson asks, then beings his answer with this:

… first of all, we focus on the other 729 days in every two-year period. …

I advocated for increased activism, which you’d think would make sense … especially if you’d elected less evil office holders. Shouldn’t you try to end war when you’ve elected someone you fantasize might do it, and not exclusively when you believe there’s no chance?

Of course there are those who do keep pushing. During Obama’s term, for example, the environmental activists have been visible with the Keystone Pipeline protests. Immigration reform activists have been vocal, along with the LGBT communities. And, of course, there’s the Occupy / 99% movements, which are focused on the need for a changed system, not just who gets the larger measure of evilist power every few years.

There are others who make more direct decisions, like Rob Kall:

I’m Dumping the Democratic Party, Personally

I’m switching my voting registration from Democrat to independent. I’m doing it to send a message … that I’m not happy with the way they operate, … with their leadership and … with their pseudo-liberalism and the pro-corporatist policies that they have embraced. I’m changing to independent because the two party system is killing America and killing democracy. …

I realize that many of my liberal and progressive friends will continue to be Democrats, continue to work on Democratic campaigns and I respect that decision. …

The most persuasive arguments that have converted me have been my observations of the lies and failures to fulfill promises that Obama and the Democrats engaged in, and conversations about lesser of two evilism. …

… I’ve become a real believer in bottom up approaches and processes. The two party system is VERY top-down. Joining any party gives more power to the top of that party. Remaining an independent retains YOUR power. Now, if there were ways to join together and wield independent power. That would be something.

So far, Evilism has prevented that “something” from happening in a consistent manner. But every time someone or some group challenges Duopoly claims of “representative democracy,” from my perspective, that’s a good thing. And even as torturously slow and difficult as it is, it’s better than accepting lesser evilism as the only “good” option.

( Comic via American Extremist)

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Americans Elect Primary Bombs

By on 15 May 2012

TOP DOWN DEMOCRACY is a loser and if you doubted it see Americans Elect. David Axelrod once described the efforts as “uber-democracy meets back room bosses.”

From Politico:

The group had qualified for the general election ballot in 27 states, and had generated concern among Democrats and Republicans alike that it could wreak havoc on a close election between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

But just after a midnight deadline Monday, the group acknowledged that its complicated online nominating process had failed to generate sufficient interest to push any of the candidates who had declared an interest in its nomination over the threshold in its rules.

Ken Vogel reports on the big shots fueling the efforts, which include New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman and Manhattan private equity tycoon Peter Ackerman. Some of the donors to Amercians Elect reportedly gave sums as high as $20 million, though it’s hard to know, because they don’t disclose their donors.

There is a real thirst for an outside effort to compete with Democrats and Republicans, but the Americans Elect model that’s top down, then let’s people pick from the likes of Sens. Joe Lieberman or Lamar Alexander, the worst of the senatorial breeding chamber, with former Gov. Buddy Roemer pleading daily for attention, is not anyone’s idea of an alternative to the big two corporate political parties.

Adding candidates like Ron Paul, who won’t dislodge himself from the Republican party, which could be as much about his son’s future as his own, as well as Sen. Bernie Sanders, who isn’t interested, doesn’t make the roster stronger.

Who is Michealene Risley, one of their declared candidates and the second woman to do so after Michele Bachmann? You get a hint through this video…

What will Americans Elect do now? We’ll know after their May 17 meeting. Question is whether anyone really cares. Why anyone would be interested in a bunch on insiders when that’s what the American voter has to choose from already is nonsensical.

However, if I had one question I’d put to Americans Elect insiders I’d ask: Where was the media campaign? Perhaps they should just give it up and nominate the perpetual presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. He’s good at getting his mug on every show there is, he’s known and he might at least make a run of it without further destroying Americans Elect herculean efforts to get on 27 state ballots.

Because what would be a real drag is having yet another outside push to challenge Ds & Rs go bust.

Statement from Americans Elect (emphasis added):

Statement by Americans Elect CEO Kahlil Byrd

Over the past two years, Americans Elect has focused on achieving three clear goals:

Gaining nationwide ballot access for a third presidential ticket to compete in the 2012 race; Holding the first ever nonpartisan secure national online primary at AmericansElect.org; and Fielding a credible, balanced, unaffiliated ticket for the 2012 presidential race.

Through the efforts of thousands of staffers, volunteers, and leadership, Americans Elect has achieved every stated operational goal. Despite these efforts, as of today, no candidate has reached the national support threshold required to enter the “Americans Elect Online Convention” this June. (Read a detailed summary of the AE process here and the full rules here.)

Because of this, under the rules that AE delegates ratified, the primary process would end today. There is, however, an almost universal desire among delegates, leadership and millions of Americans who have supported AE to see a credible candidate emerge from this process.

Every step of the way, AE has conferred with its community before making major decisions. We will do the same this week before determining next steps for the immediate future. AE will announce the results of these conversations on Thursday, May 17.

As always, we thank everyone who has participated in this effort and will honor the work, efforts and trust so many people have placed in Americans Elect.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

German Voters Reject Conservative Austerity, But Will America?

By on 14 May 2012

WILL AMERICANS embrace austerity through Mitt Romney’s candidacy and his advocacy for Paul Ryan’s budget, just as Europe is turning away from austerity after having learned it doesn’t work?

It’s the 2012 $64,000 question.

Merkel’s loss comes in the wake of socialist and anti-austerity candidate François Hollande’s victory in France, with the American presidential election being played out across the pond on similar turf.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives suffered a crushing defeat on Sunday in an election in Germany’s most populous state, a result which could embolden the left opposition to step up its criticism of her European austerity policies. – Reuters

Part B of the question is whether voters will buy that Pres. Obama doesn’t have his own austerity lane.

It’s seen through his continued focus on debt instead of raising revenue, “Simpson-Bowles” and the ludicrous notion that entitlements are the problem, when it begins with revenue and the Pentagon, while Pres. Obama uses the fake bogie man of entitlement “reform” to suck up to conservative independents, while handing out goodies to his base as pacifiers. Considering progressives and other Democrats act like children when it comes to progressive economics, as well as individual rights, it’s what they deserve.

Obama’s triangulating populist hypocrisy that’s being trotted out for his reelection is obviously going to make partisans feel warm and cuddly in the “lesser of two evils” electoral sweepstakes, but it doesn’t stand up to the reality that Obama’s in the business of protecting the American Wall Street game, which is in direct conflict with strengthening the middle class.

It’s seen through Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, not to mention passing up Elizabeth Warren for the CFPB, but also through Jamie Dimon and the JPMorgan Chase loss of $6 billion, which proves nothing has really changed during Pres. Obama’s tenure.

Also gnawing should be Obama’s back room deals with private insurance and Big Pharma, as well as the Stupak Amendment that codified the Hyde Amendment into ACA, taking it out of the yearly HHS budgetary process, not to mention Obama choosing conservatism over science on Plan B. The first time a sitting Democratic president ignored the F.D.A. and facts, preferring emotional fiction.

Contraceptive coverage was a huge move, as was signing the Ledbetter Act, though that’s something any Democrat would have done, coupled with DADT, and all deserve to be lauded, which I have, without which there would be no liberal case to even consider Pres. Obama.

Turning to Andrew Sullivan’s most fawning rhetorical fellate of Pres. Obama since his “face” scribblings, as much as I applaud Pres. Obama evolving on marriage equality, policy hasn’t changed one whit. The credit deserves to be shared with the much more heart felt, honest and damned with faint praise candor of V.P. Joe Biden, who on “Meet the Press” had an epiphany in plain sight, which was the most refreshing instant of truth in American politics, which of course is considered a gaffe due to its obvious transparency, not the least of it because it was said by a devout, practicing Catholic in a statement that defied the Pope.

When we turn to foreign policy, between Obama’s convenient Libya involvement, juxtaposed against the inconvenience of Syrian war crimes, with our Afghanistan financial investment continuing until 2024, a positively ludicrous economic commitment that Americans should be protesting in the streets, it’s hard to see any difference between right and left, which is all about ease not purpose, and why the world game of risk never changes. We place our bets on outdated military outposts, drone strikes and assassinations instead of economic weaponry that’s clearly in the American arsenal to use. Our dirty little secret being our leaders, both political and financial, evidently don’t know how to employ the military if they bring them home, because they don’t have the brains to utilize investment and education instead of bombs, at home and around the world.

Of course, if you think Obama’s bad, Romney would embrace a similar austerity plan that’s brought the euro-zone to the brink, and make much of what is even worse, especially where women’s individual freedoms are concerned. This sets the picture on the paucity of choices facing American voters, with which they continue to be satisfied because Americans never threaten to take the Democratic and Republican purchase of the presidency on directly.

Amid this climate team Obama has released a campaign video (seen above, with the longer version below) to go at Mitt Romney on his tenure at Bain, which today seems like synchronicity. Job creation lays at the feet of both candidates, with American economic competitiveness in the world at issue. The Obama ad is yet another indictment of Romney’s choices that puts shareholders above the middle class; the very people who are the economic engine of this country. Pres. Obama’s efforts toward the American car industry versus the Romney bankruptcy model would be a worthy topic for any debate. It would pit the top 2012 issue, economics, and Obama’s restructuring against what Romney said occurred, which he believes was actually a restructured bankruptcy for the industry. I’m just wondering if there’s a moderator out there who could navigate it.

If the middle class can’t spend our economy won’t move. It all revolves around a living wage, not just shareholder value. Two jobs to cover the bills isn’t the answer and neither is bailing on universal health care, something both parties have done.

The other issue is that concerning Wall Street, neither Pres. Obama or Mitt Romney are the men to alter the reality, because both bring their own brand of austerity economics to the presidency, coupled with a cozy relationship with the very people who have made our economic pain terminal.

With Congress a feckless hallow unable to challenge the Executive branch on anything, because instead of an equal branch they’ve become a propaganda organ, America is poised to continue moving slowly in place when urgency, action and foundational change are what’s required.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Ron Paul Now Focusing on Yada-Yada-Yada

By on 14 May 2012

DROPPING OUT? Jesse Benton, Ron Paul’s campaign spokesman replies:

“Absolutely not! We are focusing our efforts squarely on winning delegates and party leadership positions at state conventions.”

Paul’s statement, via Buzzfeed:

As I reflect on our 2012 Presidential campaign, I am humbled by the supporters who have worked so hard and sacrificed so much. And I am so proud of what we have accomplished. We will not stop until we have restored what once made America the greatest country in human history.

This campaign fought hard and won electoral success that the talking heads and pundits never thought possible. But, this campaign is also about more than just the 2012 election. It has been part of a quest I began 40 years ago and that so many have joined. It is about the campaign for Liberty, which has taken a tremendous leap forward in this election and will continue to grow stronger in the future until we finally win.

Our campaign will continue to work in the state convention process. We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that Liberty is the way of the future.

Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted. Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have. I encourage all supporters of Liberty to make sure you get to the polls and make your voices heard, particularly in the local, state, and Congressional elections, where so many defenders of Freedom are fighting and need your support.

I hope all supporters of Liberty will remain deeply involved – become delegates, win office, and take leadership positions. I will be right there with you. In the coming days, my campaign leadership will lay out to you our delegate strategy and what you can do to help, so please stay tuned.

Whenever I hear Ron Paul talk about “Liberty” I laugh out loud. Paul’s one of the people who think “Liberty” is just for men. If you’re of the Libertarian ilk, your best bet is Gary Johnson, who at least is consistent when it comes to “Liberty.”

Paul’s obviously got definition problems.

May 10, 2012, New York, NY – Libertarian nominee for President and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson today said he’s “disappointed” with President Obama’s position on gay marriage. Obama told ABC Wednesday he would let each individual state decide the gay marriage question instead of seeking federal protection of the right to marry. Johnson noted that more than 30 states already ban same sex marriage in one way or another.

In a statement, Johnson said, “Instead of insisting on equality as a U.S. Constitutional guarantee, the President has thrown this question back to the states. When the smoke clears, Gay Americans will realize the President’s words have gained them nothing today, and that millions of Americans in most states will continue to be denied true marriage equality. I guess the President is still more worried about losing Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia than he is in doing the right thing. What is the President saying — that he would eat a piece of cake at a gay wedding if the state the happy couple lives in allows it ?. Where is the leadership? While I commend him for supporting the concept of gay marriage equality, I am profoundly disappointed in the President.”

I wait with breath held on the pending moment of Andy Sullivan’s fluffing of Gary Johnson. Also for other gay conservatives to rally ’round Johnson instead of Romney.

As for Paul’s announcement today, I guess it all depends on what your definition of dropping out is.

graphic h/t Dave Weigel

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Occupy Arrests Over 7200, But The Banks Are ‘Too Big to Jail’

By on 14 May 2012

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

A comparison is one way to get some perspective. There’s certainly something of an “apples to oranges” dynamic going on here. But that there is a different treatment for “white collar” and “street” crimes is surely not in question. And when the comparison is between the very expensive collars of the ultra-wealthy banksters, and the mass produced collars of many of the street activists, the comparisons, and contrasts, are very evident.

At Occupy Arrests:

A running total of the number of Occupy protestors arrested around the U.S. since Occupy Wall Street began on Sep. 17, 2011.

There have been at least 7,208 Arrests in 114 different cities (As of May 9, 2012)

Note: Only confirmed arrests are included.

The totals are listed by date, with links provided for each entry.

At HuffPo:

‘The piling on of Occupy arrests can be seen as a barometer of this government’s intolerance for the First Amendment. Aggressive policing tactics, including frequent gratuitous assaults on protesters and bystanders, are making our parks and streets hostile to the Constitution,’ says Heidi Boghosian, director of the National Lawyers Guild … .’ The National Lawyers Guild monitors Occupy protests and has offered pro-bono legal assistance to thousands of ordinary Americans who have been swept up in arrests. …

Despite use of mass arrests, pepper spray, stun grenades, many Americans report being inspired, not deterred from the experience of being arrested while participating in Occupy actions. (Boghosian) ‘Civil disobedience plays a key role throughout U.S. history; the colonists disobeyed the Crown, the abolitionists disobeyed enslavers, the Black Freedom movement resisted segregation. …’

The guesses I’m seeing are that arrests will increase with the NATO Summit in Chicago and the G8 Summit at Camp David, and at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

Meanwhile, there are the financial institutions of the “too big to fail” size, so far above the law that there isn’t even much pretense of justice being served. Point fingers at those scary socialist Occupiers, or by now even more likely, tell yet another election year story, and ignore the cozy relationship between Electeds and Extra Special Elites.

Shelly Bernal, as Nation of Change:

Wall Street and Their Purchased Representatives

How is it that two years after passage of the much acclaimed Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform (four years after economic crash), Too Big To Fail (TBTF) institutions are not only bigger, but also too big to regulate and too big to jail? Don’t be fooled into believing that because a law has been passed by Congress and signed by the president, it has actually been implemented.

Keep in mind that Congress controls the funding for the federal regulators who are charged with carrying out the reform — Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities Exchange Commission. What would possess members of Congress, who bragged about banning banks from gambling with taxpayer money, to force regulators to strategically surrender significant rules by threatening budget cuts?

Answer: their livelihoods. … What better motivation is there than your career and financial future of your family? The financial sector is far and away the largest source of campaign contributions to federal candidates and parties, with insurance companies, securities and investment firms, real estate interests, and commercial banks providing the bulk of that money. In this 2012 election cycle alone, this industry has already donated $122 million to campaigns of members of Congress.

Campaign contributions are just one piece of the ‘too big to fail / jail’ picture. As Bernal writes, there’s also the “billions of dollars to lobby Congress” and “the high-income revolving door.”

Although Congress wields power over the legislative process and thus, the non-implementation of Wall Street reforms, the White House wields power over the law enforcement process. What would possess a President, who proclaimed loudly that those causing the economic crisis would be held accountable, to not hold TBTF accountable? Answer: his livelihood.

Thinking of the 7200+ arrests and the mostly free ride for the less than 1% at the very top, a follow-up question from those asked by Bernal: what would possess an Occupier to engage in activist / advocacy work? Answer: his or her livelihood. Along with issues of fairness, equality, and justice.

(Poster via Occupy Posters)

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Ignore the Following

By on 14 May 2012

As far as Michelle was concerned, Oprah’s billions and her elite lifestyle disqualified her as an adviser to Barack, who had no truck with wealthy people, except as a source of campaign contributions, and was a redistributionist at heart. – Excerpt of “The Amateur,” by Edward Klein

SPEAKING OF AMATEURS, a word about Edward Swiftboat Writer Masquearading as Truth Klein.

Just one of the quotes in his fireplace fodder against Hillary Clinton, “The Truth About Hillary,” was anonymously dropping that “she’s been botoxed to the hilts,” allegedly from some “New York physician who had knowledge of such matters” (page 220). “Those matters” being botox, not Clinton.

So, no one should be surprised that Klein treats his readers to a cat fight Democratic style, this time starring Michelle Obama and Oprah, with Valerie Jarrett having a supporting role. The man’s a pig, no offense to the pink cuties.

The line emphasized in bold at the top is a perfect example of a Kleinism. Obama “had no truck with wealthy people”? Epic phrase that rendered me into fits of laughter.

Klein’s stuff about Rev. Wright in the New York Post about being “bribed” with $150,000 is priceless. If Wright had actually been offered the money by “one of Barack’s closest friends,” the woman or man who offered it would have been a hero if Wright had taken it. Wright was a perpetually exploding rhetorical grenade, so any person on team Obama would have been committing professional malpractice not to have offered cash to Wright to be quiet.

The rest of the Regnery drivel is likely just as bad, though I really hope Klein has finally learned to write chapters over four or five pages in length. Guess the publisher feels for the reader and believes keeping the chapters short, the reader’s gag reflex won’t lock due to overuse.

Read full story · Comments { 34 }

Queer Talk: Newsweek Names Obama the ‘First Gay President’

By on 13 May 2012

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

To this point, maybe the best reaction I’ve seen to this cover for the latest Newsweek is from John Aravosis: “Hmmm.”

Of course the “first gay president” is recalling Toni Morrison naming Bill Clinton the “first black president.”

The story was written by Andrew Sullivan, who was on today’s Chris Matthews Show. From Mediaite:

Through muted tears, Sullivan explained the impact of Obama’s announcement for gay Americans like himself:

‘Beforehand, I was kind of steeled. I was like, ‘I didn’t care; he’s going to disappoint us again.’ And then I sat down and watched our president tell me that I am his equal. … And to hear the president who is in some ways a father figure speak to that – the tears came down like with many people in our families.’

Hmmm.

Okay, that really wasn’t my first reaction. That was more in the line of “over-reach” – both on the cover and on Sullivan’s comments. I haven’t read the story, so can’t comment on that. I also thought about Newsweek marketing and, of course, 2012 politics.

( Photo via Newsweek )

Read full story · Comments { 23 }

Dimon’s Disgrace is on Congress

By on 13 May 2012

The biggest blow-up between Wall Street and Washington since 2010, when Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act to tighten oversight of the financial industry, comes just as regulators are drafting new rules governing banks. A signature feature of the law is the Volcker Rule, a prohibition on banks engaging in speculative bets. The authors of the act say the measure might have prevented JPMorgan’s bad trades had it been in effect. – JPMorgan losses reignite clash between Wall Street and Washington

Regulators are investigating potential civil violations surrounding the $2 billion loss that JPMorgan Chase disclosed on Thursday, raising further questions about trading activities at the nation’s biggest bank. – S.E.C. Opens Investigation Into JPMorgan’s $2 Billion Loss

JAMIE DIMON APOLOGIZED to David Gregory for his very first interview for “Meet the Press” this weekend, when he sat down to talk, but because of disclosure rules omitted the whopping $2 billion loss on derivatives that landed on Thursday, the day after his first taping session. Dimon sat down again with Gregory after the loss was announced.

“We know we were sloppy. We know we were stupid,” Mr. Dimon said. Of the S.E.C.’s investigation, he said, “Regulators should look at something like this – that’s their job.”

After news of the massive trading losses hit on Thursday, Mr. Dimon called Mr. Gregory to apologize for omitting the information during their earlier interview, Mr. Gregory said in an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box Friday morning.

“He was very forthcoming,” Mr. Gregory said. “This was a big-time screw-up, in his words.”

This proves Wall Street hasn’t changed at all.

For the second Sunday in a row, Gregory has the interview of the week, Dimon’s first on “Meet the Press,” even if Biden’s didn’t start out that way, but ended up rocking politics.

Few get to see Eliot Spitzer, the former sheriff of Wall Street on Current TV, the replacement for Keith Olbermann, but he’s as good on substance as any television show on cable and well beyond the infotainment partisan class we all are forced to view or see no political TV at all. His enemies on Wall Street found his weakness and brought him down by it and now he’s on Current TV, after dismal ratings on CNN, because his PBS style of anchoring doesn’t have enough flash for the infotainment circuit.

Jamie Dimon was one of the leading voices against the Volker Rule. Dimon is the biggest example of why neither Democrats or Republicans are the answer for what ails this country, because it’s clear both parties are so in the Wall Street tank they’ll never hold them accountable for much of anything.

But don’t tell partisans this, because they’re too busy blowing their guy’s horn, instead of championing what needs to be done to get our economic house in order and pressuring politicians to do it or lose the vote. It has absolutely nothing to do with the debt, but revolves around cutting Pentagon bloat instead of the Paul Ryan insanity conservatives of both parties voted to do in the House this week, which was to replace the sequestration or the automatic cuts built in to give more to the Pentagon. The Bush tax cuts need to be rescinded, including for the middle class, with the smart move no one will make is taxing income for Social Security above the current $164,000 cap, while raising taxes on the top 2%.

Mission accomplished, no thanks required.

Except that Paul Ryan and the Republicans refuse to raise revenue, with Republican and Democratic conservatives both making sure the Volker Rule was weakened. Who’s your Wall Street daddy?

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Obama to Voters: ACA Rebate Checks are in the Mail

By on 12 May 2012

THE KAISER FOUNDATION estimates that 16 million insurance policyholders will receive $1.3 billion in rebates.

If insider Mark Halperin is writing positively about ACA, you know something is about to hit.

But the rebate provision of the law — the fruits of the so-called “80/20 rule” — is about to kick in big time, as millions of Americans receive rebate checks or premium reductions from insurance companies who have failed to spend enough on patient care. This cash could be a true game changer in public attitudes about whether the law actually is beneficial and good public policy. The rebate provision of the law has been known and discussed in health care policy circles for months, but has largely flown below the radar in the political world and for voters—until now.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius explains the measure in a Friday blog post on the department website: “You can be sure that insurance companies are spending generally at least 80 cents of every dollar you pay in premiums on your health care or activities that improve health care quality,” she writes. “If the insurance company fails to meet this standard, or the ‘medical loss ratio,’ in any year, they have to pay you a rebate.”

It’s an important part of the goody package in Obama’s health care plan that was needed a long time ago to form a buttress against the negative talking points that have already built up in many minds.

Better late than never and in an election year that can be enough.

Now we wait for what the Supreme Court decides next month.

Next week is women’s health week. Do something to improve your health no matter how small it sounds. It takes more than a “diet.” It’a about a healthy lifestyle. That’s why diets don’t work.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

The Bain Bully

By on 11 May 2012

WITH EVERY EXCRUCIATING day that passes in this interminably long march to November, it’s clear that Mitt Romney really is as bad as his Republican opponents said he was during the primaries.

It doesn’t take a Washington Post “hit piece” on a decades-old event to prove Mitt had the stuff for the vulture capital market from the start.

If anything is indicative of the kind of economic hatchet man Mitt Romney would be as president, his high school bullying story reveals it. Consider yourself this kid he targeted, with you’re economic world being chopped up by the bully who backs the Paul Ryan austerity plan.

Republicans are squealing like little girls over this story, which is old news being broken under the cover of vetting. Their problem is that it confirms a character issue that surfaces every time you think of Mitt Romney and his theory of the American dream, which is not even trickle down, because he’s actually going to cut away the ground beneath us.

Read full story · Comments { 43 }

Queer Talk: Obama & Marriage Equality – The “Personal is Political,” but It Isn’t Necessarily Policy

By on 11 May 2012

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

Since Obama’s announcement that “at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” I’ve been as fascinated by the ways the decision, and the timing, is being discussed, analyzed, praised, and condemned as by the story itself. It’s always interesting to see which “gay” stories grab mainstream – media and in general – attention.

As for the decision itself, I still think what I wrote on Wednesday : It finally became more politically harmful than helpful for Obama to continue the “evolving” process. I’m glad he finally got there, though what it “means” has a lot of interpretations, including the “it was part of a brilliant plan” conjecture. As I also said earlier, I still think it’s the grassroots people, local, state and national organizations, LGBT media, with allies, of course, who did the work that made it possible.

Obama’s emphasis on this being his “personal” view made me think of, among other things, that feminist assertion, “the personal is political.” Yes, it is. But neither the “personal” nor the “political” guarantee what an Elected’s policies will be. It’s policies and laws that spell out the meaning and realities of equality. Along with court decisions. Campaigns are about getting elected. They’re about the political and the personal, but what they tell us about eventual policies is sketchy at best.

Rachel Maddow did a segment in which she emphasizes that policy is more important than personal views. She compares what Obama has actually done toward LGBT equality – which is significant, even if I think he, as Electeds often do, gets credit for work done by others – and compares the Obama policy actions to the personal “I actually like gays” pronouncements by other presidents.

Whatever you think of all of this, the fight goes on. Advocacy, fierce and otherwise, doesn’t have an off season. Strategies and tactics change, depending on the strength and decisions – and policies – of your team, but the advocacy continues. Obama moved because Obama was pushed to move. The Right quickly jumped on this as a “flip-flop” weakness, a subject you’d think they’d want to avoid.

Anyway, I think it’s fair to point out that it took a lot of time and energy and effort by LGBT’s and allies, and it took the majority of Obama’s first term, to get to this point. If this is the big deal so many say it is – pro and con – then it’s also a big deal that he waited to do it.

At Buzzfeed Zeke Miller wrote:

After three years of political compromise on issues from health care reform to spending cuts, Obama delivered a surprise gift to what many of his core supporters view as the civil rights issue of the day … .

No, damn it, it wasn’t a “gift.” It’s a very hard earned acknowledgement of a right. The statement of his “personal” belief is great, it can have real consequences, and I mean beyond the boost in political campaign fundraising (which began immediately). But equality isn’t a “gift” to be bestowed by an Elected personally and/or politically inclined to do so. It’s a right, one that requires policies and the enactment of laws to make practical, defendable differences.

I’d guess that Obama’s campaign move – and that’s what it was, of course – is based in some real conviction that it’s the “right thing to do,” as Electeds are so fond of telling us. And I know, from reading around the web and talking with lots of people the last few days, that many are excited by this. But I wonder if the fact that it’s the work of many who made this Obama Moment possible isn’t getting lost. More, is this really a “very risky” political step, as I’ve read in several places, especially considering the ever further Right movement of the Republican presidential hunt?

Is saying you support marriage equality early in your political career but then saying you don’t when you run for the presidency really an “example of courage” or a “model” for how to be an LGBT equality ally, as is being fairly widely proclaimed? Or, does this incremental, cautious approach simply represent the process followed by many on their way to being an out LGBT supporter? Maybe that’s one reason for the “he’s a hero” attitude for admirers, and the “he’s a threat” attitude from some on the Right, including Romney.

Whatever your conclusions about that, remember: Obama said something in addition to expressing his personal belief. As Darren Hutchinson writes:

… (Obama) also qualified this position in a way that is very important from a legal standpoint. Obama believes that states should have the power to decide this issue on their own.

Which means it was okay when North Carolina joined so many other states in putting a decision regarding who deserves, and doesn’t deserve, equality up for a popular vote.

Basically, I take such moments as Obama’s “coming out” for marriage equality with what to me is simply a realistic qualifier: after many years of advocacy work, that’s one step forward we’ve earned. But don’t be surprised when there’s a step or two backward (not just by Obama), and be even less surprised when there are extended periods of running in place, or shifting of feet. And that’s a description of the Electeds working for equality. There’s the other whole group who are actively opposing it.

When Electeds act for equality on the basis of the hard work of advocates, give the Electeds the credit deserved. I don’t discount the significance of Obama’s statement. It’s important, to the point of being considered newsworthy in the MSM. But I don’t assign it heroic status. That goes to the people doing the daily grind of grassroots advocacy.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Hillary’s Vogue

By on 11 May 2012

“I feel so relieved to be at the stage I’m at in my life right now. Because you know if I want to wear my glasses I’m wearing my glasses. If I want to wear my hair back I’m pulling my hair back. You know at some point it’s just not something that deserves a lot of time and attention. And if others want to worry about it, I let them do the worrying for a change” – Secretary Hillary Clinton in an interview with CNN Foreign Affairs Correspondent Jill Dougherty

from Fox News

CLINTON’S STYLE QUAKE has shifted the American universe and provided yet another Hillary Effect moment, one that rattled the confines of post-feminism and the concept of raw power among girls. There is no woman on planet earth who could cheerfully, defiantly and unflinchingly remove the stigma of a working woman’s persona from being tied to glam duty more thoroughly.

Here’s the hub of it. Women being able to choose their look, without expectations of false eyelashes and mandatory movie-esque makeup, when sometimes less of all of it is who she is. Rachel Maddow wouldn’t wear Gayle King’s high heels and bright hues, but the style Maddow opts for works for her, same for King.

Drudge began the latest conversation with the “Hillary Au Naturale” headline (seen below), which Fox News and others picked up (see above), launching another salvo in the war on women, this one targeting our looks and age as vulnerabilities. Expectations that because a female doesn’t appear dolled up it’s worthy of headline news instead of a deliberate decision because it suits her.

Teens and twenty-somethings get away with a scrubbed face, but aging shouldn’t relegate us all to chasing the vanity mirror unless we want to.

It follows what Drudge did when Clinton was a presidential candidate, which is covered in my book, with both he and Rush Limbaugh getting the scrutiny they deserve. Flashing back on the event when candidate Clinton was eviscerated on Drudge for a picture showing her natural wrinkles, which comes with age regardless of gender. Progressive new media blogs were also guilty of posting unflattering pictures of Clinton on purpose, but none came close to the Drudge-Rush treatment. As the Kathleen Hall Jamieson of Annenberg Public Policy Center relayed to Bill Moyers in 2007, negative images are purposefully used in politics to make the onlooker feel bad about a politician. However, when it’s done to a woman through highlighting her age it hits our juvenile nation in its solar plexus, though the air it knocks out is that of the woman being targeted, while telling other femmes to stay in the beauty box.

When Rush picked up on the Drudge wrinkle photo back during the ’08 race, he used his signature shrill sexism for the occasion.

“Will Americans want to watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis? And that woman, by the way, is not going to want to look like she’s getting older, because it will impact poll numbers. It will impact perceptions.” – Rush Limbaugh (December 2007, source: The Hillary Effect)

“America loses interest in you,” Rush opined.

Today, where Hillary is concerned, nothing could be further from the truth.

Virginia Clinton Kelly, William Jefferson Clinton’s late mother, had moments of pause upon meeting Hillary Rodham, because Mrs. Kelly was a full makeup kind of girl. Hillary wasn’t. She now isn’t again, at least at times.

Just be careful when trying this if you’re plodding up the professional ladder, because we all know how long it took Hillary to ascend and be accepted, what it cost, and people still have expectations. But the Hillary Effect just might make it easier to decide to be different.

That Drudge got creamed this time ’round from all quarters was a thing of beauty to watch. That Clinton gave him the middle finger with a casual smile in an interview while she was on yet another grueling globetrotting tour as America’s chief diplomat was a fitting and long overdue f-you.

We’ve come a long way from ABC’s headline in 2007 asking “Is It Sexist to Discuss Hillary’s Wrinkles?” to articles in the Washington Post defending her, to Jezebel’s Hillary “GIVES ZERO FUCKS” graphic.

But that won’t stop outlets like the UK Daily Mail from doing the misogynistic deep dive on “Make-up free Clinton shows the strain of her busy travel schedule,” complete with pictorial walk-through over the last months and years meant to prove she’s worse for wear.

There’s not one woman who doesn’t know what the “tired” trap means. It means she can’t take the heat, because she looks like she’s melted without makeup. The girl’s not up to it. It’s the ultimate sexist slap driven into our confidence that we can’t matter once we’re beyond youth and motherhood, because of our mind alone. That the way we think isn’t actually a huge part of our beauty, with the confidence to live originally making us hotter with age, because the fact is it does.

The people I’ve talked with who know Secretary Clinton have said she is exhausted and looks forward to a long holiday and rest, which has been reported in every outlet you can name; some supporters puzzled over her relaxed hair and makeup. It’s not for everyone and it shouldn’t have to be. You fly 700,000 miles doing a pressure cooker job and see how you feel about every two to three weeks keeping a short haircut maintained and daily sculpted, highlights regularly, the mask of cosmetics every morning, even when you’ve had little sleep, it’s hot as hell where you are and you couldn’t name where that is without an aide. I’m not saying Clinton can’t name it, but I’ve had jet lag on puny little holiday trips, so I can’t imagine reality with her itinerary.

America is an airbrush nation.

When the first HD TV blasted across the country we all got a look at the infotainment pundits and talking heads who shouldn’t be blamed if they started looking for plastic surgeons, dermatologists, or doctors who practice laser therapy, women in particular.

Look at the films and the few female actresses who continue to work over 40.

It’s a testament to the women in film and television who have stood up and shown what they look like before they get their glamour on. KLG and Hoda did it, Natalie Morales and Meredith Vieira, too. Trendy magazines have done pictorials of actresses without makeup, with People the latest, which included Jessica Paré, who plays Don Draper’s wife on “Mad Men.” Her freckles are fabulous. In the Golden Age of Hollywood that fact would have been hidden on pain of the publicist’s life. A way to an Oscar is also seen through beauties going beastly who are considered brave. Remember Charlize Theron in “Monster”?

But not everyone is a Hollywood actress, let alone the brilliant Hillary Rodham Clinton, who’s seen more pressure come her way on looks than most and finally rejected the reviews outright.

Could yet another part of the glass ceiling have cracked when Hillary “au naturale” hit the headlines this time? Traditional and new media, as well as most of television, minus misogynist central on the traditional right, didn’t just shrug, but said you look good to us, Hillary.

Taking the cue from Secretary Clinton, we backed her up and because of it some of us over 40 or 50 and beyond, took note. A space had been made to breathe. A moment crafted where the most admired American female leader said, whether I have makeup on or not in the middle of a work day “it’s just not something that deserves a lot of time and attention.” Let others worry about the trivial, I’m helping run the world, or my family while juggling a job, or running a small business.

As a girl who chose the pageant system to help pay for college, did the national commercial and Broadway babe thing where talent and looks combined made a difference, then on from there to eventually write about things that matter, all the while trading on talent and face to help get in doors or in a talking head chair to help pitch my points, I’m now at an age where it takes a lot more work for a lot less bang for my MAC buck. Sometimes I enjoy the paint and sometimes not, but I never go public in my work without it.

Let’s hope Hillary cracking the makeup ceiling shatters convention.

I’m never going to forget it and am grateful for it.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Why Occupy Should / Shouldn’t Be the Left’s Tea Party

By on 10 May 2012

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

It’s surely no surprise that my response to whether Occupy should or shouldn’t “be the left’s tea party” is the latter. That’s my Two Party Front for the Oligarchy perspective. The status quo-ed corporate Duopoly system is working just fine for those for whom it’s designed to work just fine. Serious challenges and changes require efforts from within and without that system. Occupy is creating “outside” space.

Last week Josh Harkinson, at Mother Jones, wrote Why Occupy Should Be the Left’s Tea Party. Harkinson has reported on the Occupy movement for months, but in this piece writes as a “pundit.”

A few days later, Max Berger – an “Occupy organizer” – wrote at OWS, Why Occupy Can’t and Shouldn’t Become the Progressive Tea Party.

From Harkinson:

… if the movement is going to sustain the kind of momentum that captured the nation’s attention six months ago, it must begin to evolve in a different direction. …

I have the utmost respect for original OWS organizers … who took the art of calling bullshit on the political system way further than the chattering classes thought it could go. …

In the early days … Occupy Wall Street seemed poised to grow in any number of directions. There were people who wanted to make concrete political demands or get involved in electoral politics, and people who didn’t. … (M)any of them were happy to collaborate with more mainstream groups, such as labor unions, on protests against common enemies like Wall Street.

For a while I believed that this kind of limited partnership could be enough to keep the Occupy movement relevant. … This has certainly happened to a degree … .

Though politicians don’t always fulfill their promises, history shows that social movements tend to advance when they help elect people who at least feel compelled to listen to them. …

Since the Occupy movement probably can’t stomach campaigning for Obama, it could instead loan its 99 percent message to MoveOn.org and the unions and progressive PACs … . But while occupiers are justifiably skeptical of Obama, they’re also unjustifiably paranoid about being co-opted by Obama supporters … .

Occupy activists … seem to think that MoveOn is taking its orders from the White House. In reality, MoveOn polls its 7 million members on which candidates to support … . What Occupy really ought to do … is plunge directly into electoral politics on the local, state, and congressional level. It ought to co-opt the Democratic Party.

Though Occupy could support many sympathetic candidates in Democratic primaries, some pundits haven’t pushed the idea because they worry about a tea party effect on the left, with liberal Democrats losing to Republicans in the general election. …

… Occupy has drawn attention to the rigging of the political system by boycotting it. Now it can campaign against that political system … by working to elect people who will unrig it.

From Max Berger:

As long as there has been a thing called Occupy Wall Street, there have been people who’ve suggested it should become the left’s version of the Tea Party. Josh Harkinson’s piece is a notable contribution to the conversation … suggest(ing) that Occupy should recruit and run candidates … . According to this logic, it doesn’t matter if Occupy does this itself or essentially outsources the job to our progressive allies … .

(Before Occupy) … I didn’t see how the left could create real change in America without taking control of the Democratic Party. Now I think it’s important to recognize that the problems we face … can’t be solved … even by electing more good Democrats. A progressive Tea Party would be a welcome addition, but it wouldn’t be nearly enough to create the kind of change we need. …

… Starting a progressive Tea Party is a completely legitimate, useful goal—but it’s something for the progressive institutions to take on. …

… the unfortunate reality is that our political system as presently constructed is simply incapable of responding to people’s needs. … The Democrats’ inaction (following 2008) proved that our political system was designed to serve the whims of the market … .

My generation doesn’t … hate the player, so much as we hate the game. … The system is fundamentally incapable of healing itself. …

Occupy transformed the public debate by naming the problem —gross inequality of wealth and power—and the cause: the power of Wall Street. …

…The Occupy Movement would be derelict if we focused on the electoral at the expense of systemic change. The entirety of civic life cannot be reduced to a get-out-the-vote campaign. …

… Like the civil rights, women’s rights, environmental movements before us, we can’t afford to ignore the electoral realm, but we also shouldn’t expect to succeed by voting alone. …

For all those who think it’s essential to work within the progressive established ways and methods of doing things, do that. For all who think it’s essential to work outside that system, do that. Harkinson and Berger show it’s possible to disagree without attacking the other, and to see merit in the other’s perspective. Expecting Occupy to do your progressive electoral work for you would make no more sense than Occupy expecting the progressive establishment to do its non-electoral focused work for them.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

George Clooney Goes ‘Jack Bauer’ Security for POTUS Bash

By on 10 May 2012

IT’S THE 1% of the 1% tonight at a $40,000-a-plate dinner catered personally by Wolfgang Puck.

Get a load of this from TMZ:

We’re told the LAPD is even planning to bring in its special Counter Terrorist Unit — Jack Bauer style.

Los Angeles is a target rich environment for the Secret Service, so what I want to know is who’ll be watching them?

Kidding.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Republicans Already Lost Hispanics, Now Shoot for Losing Next Generation

By on 10 May 2012

“While President Obama has played politics on this issue, the Republican Party and our presumptive nominee Mitt Romney have been clear. We support maintaining marriage between one man and one woman and would oppose any attempts to change that.” – Reince Priebus, RNC

Fox Nation headline, via Media Matters (It was changed within an hour.)

IT’S GOING TO BE A HOT TIME at George Clooney’s Hollywood fundraiser for Pres. Obama tonight.

May the gods bless V.P. Joe Biden, who laid down a solid roll out for Barack Obama by speaking out on “Meet the Press” that was followed by a statement from the President that made history.

Even Alex Castellanos on CNN, after Obama’s statement became breaking news, questioned the intelligence of Republicans being against love, which will leave the next generation out of reach. Yes, Alex Castellanos actually said that, though he also said Obama will lose “Reagan Democrats, the cultural blue-collar Reagan Democrats in states like Ohio and North Carolina and Pennsylvania — important swing states.” Evidently, Mr. Castellanos missed the jailbird vote in West Virginia from Tuesday, because the voters he cites are already long gone for Obama.

If you want to be cynical, the President’s statement on marriage equality will excite Obama’s Democratic base, if anything, which is really what he needs to do right now.

Obama’s statement of support for marriage equality also lands same sex couples in a position to put states rights on trial through their pocketbooks. Because if you’re gay or lesbian and in a committed partnership or want to be, there’s no reason to continue to live in a state that doesn’t respect your civil right to form a legal family, proving it doesn’t deserve your money. Jobs make it rough to bolt, but living openly and being legally protected in a loving family should become an economic issue for states, because that’s where the battles will now be fought.

A message from Pres. Obama is important, but it won’t change everything, because we all know Congress is worthless, with Pres. Obama making the decision his administration would no longer defend section 3 of DOMA over a year ago.

So, with all this to talk about, it makes perfect sense that an article from Politico, written by Glenn Thrush and Carrie Budoff Brown, surfaced casting “blame” on Biden. Because we all have to keep churning stuff out no matter how ridiculous and Politico couldn’t seem to think outside their insider bubble to cast a net toward Republicans and what it means for them. Instead, the high school version was assigned, with thesaurus at the ready, on how Biden “forced” Obama’s hand, “deeply annoyed Obama’s team,” followed by the weirdly written phrase “nor did it tickle anyone” that Joe had been caught on video being Joe. It was followed by “chafed,” to once again describe the Obama team’s reaction to V.P. Joe Biden’s remarks. All of this came after an initial piece from Politico reporting “Biden forced Obama’s hand”… blah, blah, blah.

Politico’s Thrush and Budoff Brown dumbed it all down to this: “But the damage control was anything but a joke.”

When does a statement of support delivered by the president of the United States to people who love one another, encouraging acceptance of them to be able to form a family with legal protections, including for children, require “damage control”?

Maggie Haberman reports what I believe is the strongest angle in the whole unwinding, which didn’t begin this week, whether we’re talking Biden or Arne Duncan, but was a cumulative evolution that was helped exponentially by the strong views of First Lady Michelle Obama, along with an assist from Valeria Jarrett. These two women have given Pres. Obama his best council, most of which surfaced in action well after Rahm Emanuel’s departure, in case anyone is keeping track.

Then there was Barack Obama’s two young daughters, Sasha and Malia, the next generation capable of teaching each of us where the future lies if we listen. Is it so hard to believe their dad did just that?

However, if any one thing was the trip wire for Obama speaking out now it was just as likely to have been the painful and obviously disastrous White House press briefing by Jay Carney. If that didn’t shock Pres. Obama into moving nothing would, because it unfolded in a manner that proved the subject was never going to be tamped down.

The most important story beyond Pres. Obama making history is where this leaves the Republican party and Mitt Romney.

In the dust of things undone from the 20th century and they’re evidently not going to budge. This is the story, because it’s a jolting moment for the GOP, as the Democratic party lays down yet another historic civil rights marker, this time for activists to follow in states across the country.

Mitt Romney’s comments were predictably small, because they’re moored in religious conservatism, well outside the fulcrum of civil rights.

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, while challenging Obama on marriage equality, which has now been met by the President, easily wipes the floor with Romney on the issue, who’s becoming a less attractive presidential candidate every day.

“Well, when these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts, I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name,” Romney told KDVR. “My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not.” – Yahoo! News

We can no longer accept or tolerate religious interference in the business of progress, because as a nation we can no longer afford the price we pay in productivity.

It’s like the entire world is moving to a place in the 21st century that encourages the expansion of civil rights and human rights, while Republicans hold fast to the notion that “Leave it to Beaver” can be recreated off a Hollywood set in a century that will leave the U.S. behind if we don’t empower every American to their best self, their best life, which includes bringing more and more families, as well as forgotten children, together, uniting loved ones in honor, dignity and protected status so that no person feels excluded from the pursuit of happiness and the American dream.

Fox Nation screencapture via Media Matters.

Read full story · Comments { 84 }