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 | Democrats

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

By on 06 February 2012

“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

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

The Super Bowl ad above has caused quite a ruckus.

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 { 9 }

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 { 4 }

And Republicans Wonder Why Turnout is Down

By on 06 February 2012

This cannot end well for him, particularly doing this claiming to be a Christian. And it might not end well for the rest of us either. Barack Obama has gone to war with Christians’ consciences and he is perverting God’s word in the process to get his way on public policy. – The Perversion of the Words of Our Lord Jesus Christ by the Sinner Barack H. Obama, by Erick Erickson

Erick Erickson reveals one of the fundamental problems with Republicanism today. It’s not conservative at all anymore.

In a rambling, self-importantly arrogant post, Erickson pontificates on what he thinks he knows about being a Christian through a literal analysis of the Bible. Then he stands in judgment over Pres. Obama.

The self-righteous never see irony coming.

There is nothing Christian in Erickson’s harangue against Pres. Obama. There is also nothing conservative about it.

Conservatism has a measure of grounding when you listen to analysis of it from people who don’t wrap their religion through their conservative ideology.

A religious conservative can be against abortion. But an ideological conservative, while being against abortion and not wanting to fund it, cannot simultaneously take a person’s liberty away by forcing pregnancy on a woman when natural law protects her right to personal autonomy.

The very notion of conservatism is rooted in personal liberty. Whether religious conservatives like it or not, to be true to conservatism, they must honor that liberty. Today, they do not.

Any conservative with intellectual or political integrity would understand that conservatism of any depth must be rooted in the fundamental idea that interrupting the freedoms of any person through the intrusion of government, whether federal or state, is abridging a person’s autonomy in a manner that is the anti-thesis of conservatism.

Religious conservatism or fundamentalist-based Republicanism is actually a self-righteous marketing attempt to make people like Erickson and his ilk think they are on higher ground and have the ultimate interpretation of right and wrong. You hear it through Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and the rest of the self-righteous radio crowd.

It’s the blatant hypocrisy to claim to be a conservative, but think religious dogma should hold more sway than an individual who’s privacy and personal freedoms are innate to being a person in the first place.

Conservatism without religion can make sense.

Add religion, however, and conservatism becomes authoritarian in nature, relegating women to non-persons, second class citizens and slaves, because the state or federal government, through religious dictates, is now in charge.

Conservatism’s very nature is about doing less, leaving the individual alone to prosper and live without interference, which certainly should include women.

However, since Ronald Reagan invited the “Moral Majority,” which was neither moral or a majority then or now as it exists in other forms, conservatism was bastardized into something that now includes a campaign to take over the domain of a woman’s very body through means of the state or federal government.

Erick Erickson sees no problem with this, because he’s a religious conservative, not a conservative.

You can be religious and you can be a conservative, but once you put the two together in an ideological philosophy you lose the moorings of anything that has integral grounding in what conservatism actually means.

Not even Ron Paul passes this test as a Libertarian. He’s said before that he’s against abortion, because it’s violent, which is perfectly acceptable, but that he’d allow the states to decide the law governing abortions. This fails the basic autonomy test and the very notion of liberty that’s in Libertarianism, which he proved in an interview with Piers Morgan.

The biggest impediment to curtailing abortions is the refusal of religious conservatives and fundamentalist Republicans to accept the primary component to being a person, which is the body that houses the soul, assuming it exists, is something over which no other, certainly no politician, clergy or the state, has control.

This is about personal autonomy and living freely without any dependencies, the first component of personhood. It’s not abortion, but includes it, because religious fundamentalists are using political means to wage a war against the very notion of women’s individual freedom.

If people believing in true liberty don’t start taking religious conservatives on, whatever party they are in, over their fundamentalism, women’s autonomy won’t be sacrosanct one day.

This includes taking on people like Pres. Obama when he decides that a safe pharmaceutical like Plan B can be used as a stick to the contraceptive carrot that came afterward, because women’s individual freedoms remain a bargaining chip for politicians and their supporters.

The ultimate example of this was seen through the Susan G. Komen fiasco this past week, when Komen decided to make ideology more important than the health of women, especially poor women, who have been a political football since the Hyde Amendment. Yes, Pres. Obama used poor women as a football too, and he did it through the religious conservative playbook that created Hyde in the first place.

This column has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 29 }

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 }

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 }

Susan G. Komen Puts Romney’s ‘Not Concerned About the Poor’ In Perfect Context

By on 02 February 2012

The decision, made in December, caused an uproar inside Komen. Three sources told me that the organization’s top public health official, Mollie Williams, resigned in protest immediately following the Komen board’s decision to cut off Planned Parenthood. ..Three sources told me the organization’s top public health official, Mollie Williams, resigned in protest immediately following the Komen board’s decision to cut off Planned Parenthood. – Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Warning if you watch the video above, you’ll need a seat belt to escape the spinning by Nancy Brinker, founder of Komen, who has disgraced herself through her decision to take a McCarthyite House investigation as gospel.

The Democrats and progressive advocates of Planned Parenthood act as if they’ve never heard of Sun Tsu. But every battle is won before it’s waged. That’s how this entire conversation moved right to the point where Komen feels it has cover to adopt ideology over public health priorities.

One question that remains worth asking, even if I’m the only one asking it, is why was there no outlet or relationship to tap for those inside Komen to reach out to progressive allies to prepare or fight off the defunding of Planned Parenthood? How could Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood be caught so totally flat-footed on a decision that impacted the organization so profoundly? Is it possible Richards knew it was coming and decided taking the battle on after it was decided was the only option she had? If that’s remotely possible, the left is worse than even I imagined.

But if ever two events represented the right’s relationship today with the 99% they are the dueling events of Nancy Brinker of Komen and Mitt Romney for the 1%.

Mitt Romney talked about not being concerned about the very poor, because they have a safety net.

Brinker and Susan G. Komen damaging one of those safety nets for poor women by pulling funding for Planned Parenthood reveals what a Mitt Romney presidency might mean.

Meanwhile, Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave $250,000, which goes on top of the money so many are donating to Planned Parenthood since Komen flipped wingnut.

The primary function of Planned Parenthood is reproductive health care, which lives well beyond abortion, with the funds received by Susan G. Komen kept separate from abortion services, which is a fraction of what it does. Now, Megan McArdle is talking about the funds being fungible:

It is, as Josh Barro noted, absurd to pretend that abortion is somehow incidental to Planned Parenthood’s services, and since money is fungible, giving them money is probably helping to fund abortion provision.

Why is it absurd? McArdle’s lazy analysis of “probably helping to fund abortion” flippantly ignores the impact when a woman is denied any reproductive treatment she cannot afford.

The upper crust analyst class is a scourge.

It also doesn’t begin to deal with the investigative yarn being used by Komen to ostracize Planned Parenthood, which is the primary goal of the right, no matter who gets hurt. That the biggest anti Planned Parenthood contingent also absurdly believes abortion is linked to breast cancer proves how far out on the limb these people will go.

Democrats and progressives are outwitted and outgunned in this department, because they simply won’t wage the fight, always careful to appear moderate while clinging to the coveted centrism above principle or any philosophical foundation.

I’ve made it perfectly clear that I believe this event was allowed to happen through negligence and careless naivete of Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood, but also their progressive and Democratic allies. They should have seen this coming, because it’s been in the works for years.

What could they have done? State unflinchingly and unapologetically that the rights of women where our own bodies are concerned are nothing less than a basic human right. That means you fight equally on every front and don’t apologize.

However, Democrats and progressives have not only not been diligent, but they’ve become increasingly and embarrassingly meek to the point of weakness in standing on a line and refusing to compromise on a woman’s basic human right to control her own body. That’s how the right carved out an investigative position over which to wage the Komen battle.

“Our donations are up 100 percent in the past two days. With all of the emotion around these issues — which we understand, we get emotional too, we do this every single day of our lives,” Brinker said, explaining that they do not make decisions to be popular, they make them to fight cancer. – Daily Caller

You don’t “fight cancer” by cutting out cervical screenings and mamograms to women who can’t afford them.

“I’m not concerned about the very poor” is the flag under which Susan G. Komen, Mitt Romney and their conservative apologists stand.

This never would have happened if the left was as strong in refusing to compromise on human rights issues of women’s individual freedoms. Compromising this fundamental purpose is how Planned Parenthood got in this position.

You can’t carve out portions of the women’s human rights philosophy because it makes you uncomfortable or you don’t have the spine to make the argument. Well, you can, but the result is that the right beats you and the least able to fend for themselves get crushed.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Preparing for the Spring Occupation

By on 02 February 2012

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

Last week I wrote about The Rahm Emanuel way, and the Occupy way, to get ready for the Chicago G8 / NATO Summit. That summit takes place in May, and that month appears to be a very significant part of the future planning of Occupy / 99% and related movements around the world. On the other side of the globe it will be a Fall rather than Spring offensive of course, but international efforts to coordinate are taking place.

It isn’t as if things haven’t and won’t happen between now and then, but a significant part of what will happen is focused on May as a month of global action. For some of the anti-Occupiers who are aware of this, it very quickly became, of course, tied to “communist Russia,” a phrase I’ve seen in several places. The burning of a U.S. flag by one person participating in the Oakland Occupy / PD skirmishes over the weekend resulted in the same arguments made a few decades ago, although most of what I saw on the OWS Twitter feed were of the “this proves all Occupiers hate America” variety. A good number of condemnations along those lines show up on that feed, so that’s nothing new.

Most likely more of the same will appear following the planned “Feb 4th Day of Mass Action to Stop U.S. War on Iran,” as described at Occupy Seattle. According to the post, “over 23 cities” have indicated participation. Given how the anti-war actions all but disappeared with Obama’s election, and given all that’s happened since – including the sad and scary increased use of drones – it will be interesting to see how much attention this Saturday’s efforts will gain. Actually, two other “givens” – 2012 elections and Super Bowl – it’s likely anti-war actions will be lucky to even be noticed. Priorities, you know.

Related to attention given is the consistent and growing use of police to curtail freedom of the press. Reporters Without Borders, based on just such actions, significantly lowered the U.S. standing in their Press Freedom Index.

This also seems related, via OWS News:

Another subpoena to Twitter for Occupy related account

Twitter today (January 30) informed user @destructuremal that the State of New York had issued a subpoena for his account information. The account holder, Malcolm Harris of New York City, is an Occupy Wall Street activist who has been involved in movement organizing since at least September 2011.

Some planned actions between now and May are ongoing, such as the “move your money” step. From Adbusters:

When the G8 meet in Chicago in May, it will be a major moment of truth for the global economy.

Already there are all sorts of ideas percolating – Robin Hood tax, banning high frequency flash trading, a true cost economy, bio-economics – that will lead to reform of the global financial system.

But in the meantime there is something we can all do to set the stage for #Occupy Chicago, and that is the personal action to move our money away from the big banks.

Some of the Occupy actions are probably more surprising than others, in terms of the focus. For example, via Common Dreams: “OWS Stands With Farmers, Says Enough! to Monsanto.” The huge corporation controls the genetics of almost 90% of corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and sugar beets.

… in New York City, the Occupy Wall Street movement is calling for protests to support 60 family farmers, small and family-owned seed businesses, and agricultural organizations that are challenging Monsanto’s patents on genetically modified seed in federal court.

And among other recent Occupy happenings:

Via the Miami Herald, Cops break up Occupy Miami camp:

Scores of police swept through the downtown location of Occupy Miami Tuesday night, ejecting several dozen demonstrators and arresting a few of them while shutting down the protest camp after three and a half months.

The police, wearing riot gear and banging batons on their plastic shields as they advanced, cleared demonstrators from within half a-dozen blocks of the camp site … .

Several Miami Occupiers indicated they already had plans to move to other Occupied sites.

Directly related to May planning, from Occupy News:

Occupiers from NYC are visiting occupations in 16 northeast cities to help organize for a spring offensive.

About that “offensive,” from a global perspective, via Take the Square:

Spring is coming – US Occupy call for a General Strike on May 1

More from Take the Square:

Global Assembly …

The date and time for our next May 2012 common actions meeting will take place next Saturday, the 4th of February at 19:00 UTC.

A list of participants includes those from the U.S., Brazil, Europe, Western Africa, New Delhi, Beijing and Australia.

And from Indignados/Occupy/Anonymous:

May 2012 #12M12 #15M12 – INDIGNADOS/OCCUPY/ANONYMOUS JOIN THE GLOBAL SWARM

Following discussions in international forums, on-line … as well as face to face, it was decided that 12th May should be the next global action day, and May 15, the day of a new transnational form of mobilization.

On a practical and political (if those two things can actually be considered together) basis: I’m wondering how all of this will influence the 2012 campaigns, including congressional. More importantly to me, I’m wondering how all of this will influence what I think is a desperate need to get out from under the domination of the two parties who routinely pledge allegiance to their Corporate masters, but keep getting elected anyway.

(May 2012 poster via Occupy Pix
American Spring poster via OWS Posters)

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Pres. Obama Already has Your Vote and He Knows It

By on 02 February 2012

This article was first published for U.S. News & World Report, under the title “Time for a Tea Party of the Left”.

President Obama takes his base for granted on issues like the Bush tax cuts, Plan B, and the economy

Here we are at the beginning of Pres. Obama’s reelection and what do we find? The Bush tax cuts that, back in 2008, candidate Obama pledged he’d fight to repeal, but which as president he extended. Considering not extending them began as his base position, three years into his first term it’s not too much to ask how Democrats allowed themselves to get twisted into this policy pretzel.

That’s exactly where Obama’s got his Democratic and progressive base, which has absolutely no resemblance to the Tea Party, who began challenging the Republican establishment back during George W. Bush’s term. The efforts finally ended up making history in 2010, with state legislatures across the country went Republican. It started an assault on the middle class, unions, as well as a war on women’s freedoms that ended up turning Wisconsin and Ohio upside down, but boy did it change the debate.

Now Newt Gingrich, once a speaker of the House, is running on an anti-establishment, anti-Washington platform spouting Tea Party populism as the new change message. In South Carolina, Newt sang the Tea Party’s tune and the right wing base rewarded him with a win, leaving the establishment mouths agape.

Where’s the Democratic version of the Tea Party? You’d think after Obama’s anti-progressive economics, foreign policy, and adoption of Bush antiterrorism policies (though to a more methodically lethal, anti-progressive effect), the Democratic base would have taken the Tea Party template and run with it by now.

Obama got away with the healthcare plan, which was bargained behind closed doors with private insurance and drug companies, manifesting a product that hasn’t kept costs down. He negotiated with himself, as he did on the stimulus, instead of using the majority he had in Congress to press the case for a public option that would have tackled healthcare costs, our biggest foe. It was never considered.

When Obama recently decided not to relax restrictions on the emergency contraceptive Plan B, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi gave him a pass, while the Colorado Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette, a member of the so called “Pro-Choice Caucus,” stated she was “disappointed.” There are never any repercussions for such decisions on the left, while repercussions have defined the Tea Party and its power on the right.

Understand that Plan B has nothing to do with abortion. It simply makes a female’s womb inhospitable for implantation and has been found absolutely safe by the F.D.A. However, as an ode to independents in an election season, Obama made a decision that any Republican would have made.

But not to worry, a carrot wasn’t far behind. The Department of Health and Human Services recently announced that universal contraceptive coverage will now be part of every employer healthcare plan, with religious-affiliated hospitals and institutions getting a one-year delay to comply. It could have been done earlier, but an election year is prime time.

During the debate around Bowles-Simpson, entitlement “reform” was broached first by Obama, with cost-of-living increases on Social Security being considered by the White House. That this would hit women hardest and put them in poverty was evidently missed by the administration. It was scuttled when all hell broke loose.

There wasn’t a woman in the room during the debt ceiling debate, a time when entitlement “reforms” were being considered. Pelosi was only added after women’s groups held a conference call and writers started complaining.

Obama also cut home heating assistance for the poor at a time when the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are in place.

During Obama’s first term, he’s sucked on the straw of cutting the deficit, while ignoring Democratic economics. The bully pulpit for progressive economics wasn’t used until re-election season, when he took to the stage at Osawatamie, Kan., channeling the Occupy Wall Street message while launching his 2012 campaign.

There’s the latest action on the Keystone XL Pipeline, at least a short-term win, but it’s not like he came out with gusto against it. Obama said no for now then blamed the Republicans for not giving him enough time to consider the environmental impact. Activists from the grass roots to Robert Redford applauded. We don’t even know if it’s a definite decision.

The Democratic base has a passive-aggressive relationship with Obama that resembles a dysfunctional love affair. He has all the power and the base has absolutely none, unless you count the gay and lesbian contingent which was as good a model as the Tea Party on how to get it done. It’s not that progressives couldn’t have power; it’s that they refuse to wield any.

So they cannot pressure Obama at election time because he knows his Democratic base will be there. After all, they’re not the Tea Party. It doesn’t matter if they’re unhappy, all that matters is he’s got their vote and he knows it.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

“Warning: There is an occupier entering the building,” and others are Occupying the Super Bowl

By on 01 February 2012

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

The Occupy / 99% movement is about some very serious things. The police actions in Oakland and DC are among them. So is the effort in Indiana to, as WaPo puts it, bring the state into the “right-to-work era,” an interesting choice of words.

But first, because sometimes I just need a respite from the very serious, a focus on the absurd and the creative.

The People’s Library, which originated in Zuccotti Park, continues working to provide reading material, lectures, publication of original works, and creating mobile “libraries,” placing a few books on a park bench. Not without NYPD attention. A post at the The People’s Library, The Sad Story of Five Imprisoned Children’s Books, illustrates something of the absurd direction “police protection” sometimes goes. Obviously planned to make a point, last week Stephen Boyer and some 20 other people, armed with the receipt given at the time the books were confiscated, marched to One Police Plaza, to liberate them. The books, that is. Only Boyer was allowed to enter. He writes:

My fellow occupier cohorts were lucky to have stayed behind, as the NYPD took my photo using facial recognition software upon entering the building, they made copies of my ID, they radioed to officers throughout the building, ‘WARNING: THERE IS AN OCCUPIER ENTERING THE BUILDING.’

Alas, neither the ID nor the receipt proved sufficient to free the books from police custody. Boyer and other Occupiers left bookless, and NYC impressionable children were riot-gear protected from suspicious literature.

From Rolling Stone, news about “Occupy This Album.”

Occupy Wall Street now has an A-list soundtrack: the compilation Occupy This Album … will be released sometime this spring. …

Several of the contributors, including Joan Baez and Crosby and Nash, performed at the New York OWS site while it was still active. Proceeds from Occupy This Album will benefit the Occupy movement … .

In addition to Baez, Crosby and Nash, contributors include Debbie Harry, Jackson Browne, Yoko Ono, Third Eye Blind, Willie Nelson, Steve Earle, Tom Morello, Devo, Lucinda Williams, Yo La Tengo, Loudon Wainwright III, and Junkyard Empire.

Okay, I know this next one is a stretch, but I was thinking of the absurd, and so Newt Gingrich came to mind. On the campaign trail in Florida, Newt said: “I am an American, and Americans are instinctively grandiose.” That was him cleverly responding to Romney, of course. But here’s the thing: the crowd cheered. Maybe they don’t know what “grandiose” means. Maybe they’re grandiose. Maybe it had nothing to do with what Gingrich was saying. The line was followed by a pause, and so they responded to the cue to clap and cheer.

The fact that Newt, post-Florida, is talking about his first day in the White House, just adds to the surreal-but-unfortunately-typical game that is our “only choice” by which we play our carefully restricted role in determining which half of the Duopoly gets to be the WH representative of the oligarchy for the next four years.

Newt’s “Americans are instinctively grandiose” reminded me of those photos from the early days of OWS, with Wall Street-ers ostentatiously sipping champagne as they stood on the balcony above the Occupiers. Or similarly, the business school students, pretentiously looking down on Occupiers, with their “Get in my bracket” sign.

Which also brought me back to the NYPD’s “Warning: There is an occupier entering the building” announcement. There should be similar notices regarding political wannabe’s, and sitting Electeds. Something like, “Warning: There are instinctively grandiose individuals trying to buy your attention.”

Occupy the Super Bowl

And speaking of grandiose, there’s the Super Bowl, where the “world champion” of teams that only exist in one nation is very expensively crowned.

From Dave Zirin at The Nation:

The sheer volume of the Super Bowl is overpowering: the corporate branding, the sexist beer ads, the miasma of Madison Avenue–produced militarism, the two-hour pre-game show. But people in the labor and Occupy movements in Indiana are attempting to drown out the din with the help of a human microphone right at the front gates of Lucas Oil Stadium.

The labor and Occupy efforts are related to

… the Republican-led state legislature aims to pass a law this week that would make Indiana a ‘right-to-work’ state. …

This has drawn peals of protest throughout the state, with the Occupy and labor movement front and center from small towns to Governor Mitch Daniels’s door at the State House. …

Just as the parties start a week in advance, so have the protests. More than 150 people—listed as seventy-five in USA Today, but I’ll go with eyewitness accounts—marched through last Saturday’s Super Bowl street fair in downtown Indianapolis … .

Zirin writes about

the reality of life for working families in the city of Indianapolis. Unemployment is at 13.3 percent, with unemployment for African-American families at 21 percent. … Such pain amidst the gloss of the Super Bowl and the prospect of right-to-work legislation is, for many, a catalyst to just do something.

Quoting a local Occupier, April Burke:

‘I see right-to-work for what it is: an attack on not only organized labor but on all working-class people … . Rushing the passage of RTW in the State of Indiana on the eve of the Super Bowl is an insult to the thousand of union members who built Lucas Stadium as well as the members of the National Football League Players Association who issued a statement condemning the RTW bill.’

Just because things are absurd doesn’t make them any less powerful. In fact, given the ongoing success of the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy, I’d say absurdity sells very well.

( Occupy This Album via Music for Occupy
Wall Street-ers Sipping Champagne photo via AlterNet
Get In Our Bracket photo via Think Progress )

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Komen Move to Defund Planned Parenthood Not a Surprise

By on 01 February 2012

Planned Parenthood confirms that Komen is the first, and only, organization to cut off funding since the Congress began debating the issue in earnest last winter. Komen said it could not continue to fund Planned Parenthood because it has adopted new guidelines that bar it from funding organizations under congressional investigation. The House oversight and investigations subcommittee announced in the fall an investigation into Planned Parenthood’s funding. – Why Komen defunded Planned Parenthood

While the right was laying ground for what just happened, the left was giving ground.

This Komen–Planned Parenthood relationship has long been a target of pro-life activists and, media bias aside, this appears to be a remarkable turning point. – Kathryn Lopez

Kathryn Lopez is correct and the abortion rights opponents earned it. Democrats and progressives have no one to blame but themselves.

Nothing happens suddenly on issues this large or in a vacuum. There is always a methodology to this type of madness and when you cede territory to people on a mission you rarely get it back.

In a statement by Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood, she says she’s “shocked and saddened.” How embarrassing for her. Others write words like “creep up” to describe what has been systematic strategy utilizing tactics that the left is too squeamish to consider.

As a liberal, all I can say is that the female leaders we have today not only aren’t up to the task, but progressives have failed immeasurably and completely to defend the ground stronger women who came before won.

This fight has been around for decades and revolves around abortion rights not cancer screening. But a tipping point occurred during the health care debate when Democrats chose to allow the Hyde Amendment to be codified into law. Until the Affordability Care Act, the Hyde Amendment had to be voted on yearly in the budget.

It signified Democrats and progressives had blinked and the right got the message.

At the time, Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards wasn’t bothered by the move in ACA or the decisions by Democrats. But when Rep. Bart Stupak was given ground by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the first female speaker of the House in U.S. history who also empowered the Catholic Church during health care negotiations, something fundamental shifted on the game board. Mr. Stupak was then elevated further through an unnecessary executive order signed by Pres. Obama and the message was sent and received by people who never give ground that Democrats weren’t going to suit up for the fight.

The Susan G. Komen decision is the result of getting beaten, with women across this country the victims because Ms. Richards, Ms. Pelosi, Rep. DeGette and the so-called progressive “pro-choice” caucus, along with many, many others never understood what compromise on issues of bedrock principle to the right would mean in the long-term.

We’ve seen it with Pres. Obama’s actions time and again.

The Susan B. Komen decision is about the abortion rights opponent forces winning a battle through squeezing the foundation, starting with getting them ostracized. Here’s the background if you’re interested. Komen’s current senior vice president public policy person is Karen Handel, a woman who wasn’t going to stop until the defunding of Planned Parenthood was a reality.

These are not people who capitulate and compromise for the sake of anything, unlike Democrats and progressives in Congress and their allies who set this scene up.

An entire chapter in my book, “Is Freedom Just for Men,” was written because I saw the erosion of women’s rights, which began with the Hyde Amendment decades ago. It then crescendoed with it being not only codified into law, but women are expected to find emergency insurance outside the normal routes, shrinking the pool of insured and opening the door to unavailability. In this chapter in my book, I cite all the “mini-Stupak” laws that have spread in a contagion across this country, because of the message sent by Democrats.

Susan G. Komen Foundation made the decision on Planned Parenthood because the right won critical seats in the 2010 midterms in a rabid campaign that Democrats didn’t engage fully, including on economics. It allowed Republicans to corner Planned Parenthood, which set up the investigation, which was written into Komen as something that disqualified an organization from funding.

As I wrote in “The Party’s Over,” for over 30 years Democrats have said women needed to vote for them to keep our rights secure. I’ve done that, trusted them, and with Democrats the only game in politics who aren’t cut out for the current fight, now look what has happened. What I was promised would never occur if I voted Democratic.

When you have female leaders so weak on fundamental issues of women’s individual freedoms that they are willing to give away foundational concessions on issues won through the courts it’s only a matter of time before you lose them. Putting party loyalty above all else is how this unfolded.

This was very well played strategy by the right whose tactics should have been seen a long way out. That the head of Planned Parenthood is “shocked” says it all.

Needless to say, I’m not.

Next you’ll hear a rallying cry from Democrats and others to fight back and that women’s rights are at stake! The mean anti-women’s coalition is targeting us all! Give money now!

Any organization taking your money to fund political prerogatives over the mission they’re touting doesn’t deserve one dime.

It goes beyond hypocrisy. It’s a betrayal of trust and purpose, using women as the coin.

This column has been edited.

Read full story · Comments { 22 }

Mitt’s ‘America the Beautiful’ Moment

By on 31 January 2012



A confident Mitt Romney sings “America the Beautiful,” and very recently Obama riffed on Al Green.

More and more polls show two things: (1) tonight Mitt Romney will win Florida and (2) Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum will combined get more votes. – Erick Erickson

There’s absolutely no reason Newt or Rick Santorum should get out after Florida.

Some delegate math: After tonight, just 115 delegates will have been awarded — out of 2,286 total delegates. So just 5% – Mike Murray, NBC News tweet

Neither the flaming Democratic rich man hyperbole about Mitt Romney or the Republican flailing to find a message against Obama, means a thing this far out.

We’ll still likely be left choosing between a gazillionaire and a millionaire, both backed by corporations and Wall Street, which is the contest fitting where American politics stands today.

It’s why Occupy remains the wild card worth watching. Obama can benefit from it, as it nails Mitt Romney if he’s seen through that lens. However, if Romney figures out how to harness the message and use it to market himself as a turn-around expert, you never know what can be sold to the American voter out of options.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Who Are We Today?

By on 30 January 2012

What Secy. Panetta described on 60 Minutes as Obama administration policy is nothing close to what candidate Obama said he’d be as president.

But I wonder how many people watching Secy. Leon Panetta found anything at all wrong with what he’s saying in the video above.

Whatever Barack Obama once stood for as a constitutional lawyer no longer exists in his presidency.

That Democrats continue making excuses for him and sounding like neoconservatives when they do says all you need to know about the Democratic Party in the Obama era.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Police use tear gas, beanbag projectiles and tasers on Oakland, DC occupiers

By on 30 January 2012

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

Oakland and DC were the sites of another round of arrests. Other Occupy sites rallied in support. See here and here.

There’s a sense that these Occupy actions, and city responses, while significant in themselves, are also a sign of things to come. A “Spring Uprising” is one phrase I’ve seen.

Earlier I wrote about steps Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is taking in preparation for the G8 / NATO Summit in May, which are not that out of line with what’s been happening for years. Protests are restricted to specific, out of sight, places. Protestors are “kettled.” Sometimes the next step is arrests, and that’s included arrests of appropriately credentialed media. All of this was seen in one or both of the DC and Oakland Occupier and police actions over the weekend.

Some background, from TruthOut, published on January 28:

LA Police Department Conducts Joint Exercises with the Military

… The LA Police Department … and the U.S. military conducted joint ‘tactical exercises’ in downtown LA this week. One Black Hawk … and four OH-6 choppers … flew over the city during the exercise. …

‘The Los Angeles Police Department will be providing support for a joint military training exercise in and around the great Los Angeles area,’ the release stated.’ …

Joint military exercises have also been conducted over Boston, Massachusetts and Little Rock, Arkansas over the past six months.

The article, by Dan Bacher, includes analysis of the National Defense Authorization Act, and ties the joint operations to

… the repression of the Occupy movement by police departments throughout the nation.

One other bit of background, for Oakland, from Huffington:

Oakland Police Department Only Weeks Away From Being Placed Into Federal Control

Nearly a decade after the city of Oakland was first threatened with losing control of its police force, Judge Thelton Henderson has severely curtailed the independence of the Oakland Police Department, saying that it could placed under federal receivership as soon as this March.

As best as I can tell from reading multiple descriptions and reports about what happened in Oakland, there were examples of both those among the Occupiers and those among the Oakland PD who broke their own rules. Estimates ranged from 1000 to 2000 protestors, across the events of the day, with about 400 total arrests. The day began with the well publicized – including a letter to Oakland Mayor Jean Quan – efforts to “re-purpose” a building, abandoned for six years, as an Occupied “community center.” After being blocked from doing that, the actions moved into other parts of the city.

For a variety of coverage, read Mother Jones; LA Times; Occupy Oakland; OWS; News Dissector; USA Today; NY Times via TruthOut; Reuters; AP via OWS.

For some Occupiers, who threw objects at the police, broke into City Hall and reportedly engaged in some vandalizing, it was a serious break of the non-violence which has largely defined the movement. For some Oakland Police officers, it was a serious disregard of the rules they’re suppose to follow, reportedly including illegal use of batons and numerous uses of unnecessary force in general – tear gas; smoke grenades and bean bag projectiles among other things.

Mayor Quan, unsurprisingly, strongly supported the actions of police officers, though the following, from the AP article above, is interesting:


Quan blamed the destruction on a small ‘very radical, violent’ splinter group within Occupy Oakland.

A few people – for whatever motives – can use violence to the detriment of many others. And those “few” can be both police and protestor. That the arrest of even credentialed journalists – see Gavin Aronsen’s “Journalists—Myself Included—Swept Up in Mass Arrest at Occupy Oakland” at Mother Jones — add another serious dimension. As do NDAA and some city mayor’s working with Homeland Security and the military.

In DC today, the story continues to unfold, as the National Park Service distributed flyers, stating they will begin to clear the two Occupy camps today. From OpEdNews:

It took just 72 hours for the National Park Service and their Director, Jonathan Jarvis, to cave-in to Republican pressure to remove the Occupy protesters who are camping at Freedom Plaza and McPherson Park. …

Despite Director Jarvis’ statements to Congress that there had been no less than two previous long-term encampments on Washington DC property the National Park Service bowed to Republican pressure. Vehement support for the Occupiers was given by committee Democrats including Eleanor Holmes Norton, whose district these camps are in, and Elija Cummings, the ranking member on the committee.

And yes, I notice the focus in this statement is pro-Democratic, anti-Republican. I don’t generalize from that, however, to conclude Occupy as a whole is signaling a change in its take on electoral politics in general.

Danny Schechter has been covering the Occupy movement from very early on. After the events in Oakland on Saturday, Schechter wrote:

One thing is clear already: if this illegitimate wave of repression is allowed to stand. if the powers-that-be succeed in suppressing or marginalizing this new movement. if people are once again ‘penned in-both literally and symbolically-things will be much worse.

What Occupiers, 99%-ers, and others do; and what mayors, cities and police departments, as well as state and federal governments, decide to do, are obviously central to where things are come the Spring Uprising. Lennon’s words still seem pertinent.

( We’re Here To Help poster via Occupy Pix
Occupy Oakland Kettled via OWS
Lennon Quote via OWS News )

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Election Year January Snapshot: Romney Up in Florida, Advantage Pres. Obama

By on 29 January 2012

Gingrich is badly trailing Romney by 11 percentage points, garnering just 31 percent of likely Republican voters heading into Tuesday’s presidential primary, according to a Miami Herald/El Nuevo Herald/Tampa Bay Times poll released late Saturday night. – Poll: Romney holds big lead over Gingrich in Florida, via the Miami Herald

On ABC’s “This Week” with Jake Tapper today, Newt Gingrich trumpeted the endorsements of Herman Cain and Rick Perry, while parroting Rush Limbaugh and basking in the words of Sarah Palin. His harangue against Mitt Romney, who’s clearly gotten in his head, sounded desperate.

Jake Tapper even did Mitt Romney the favor of playing Romney’s Tom Brokaw ad on national TV. It’s the kind of free media you just can’t buy.

To Newt Gingrich and the right wing Republicans behind him, Pres. Obama and his reelection team simply want to say, thank you and keep it coming.

Things haven’t looked this good for the Democrats in a long time.

From the latest NBC/WSJ poll released on Friday, as we end the first month of 2012:

And for the first time in six months, more people approve of the job the president is doing (48 percent) than disapprove (46 percent).

“The psychology about the economic conditions has switched,” Hart said. “The old saying is a rising tide lifts all boats then clearly, this economic optimism has clearly lifted Obama’s ratings.”

As I’ve written for a very long time, including in my new book, Pres. Obama is beatable. However, it won’t be easy and can’t be done without a Republican Party unified behind one candidate.

Right now, there’s enough animosity being stoked by the Tea Party hard right that this may not be possible.

As I’ve written before, I’m not supporting any candidate for president. However, there are worse things than Pres. Obama being reelected and at the top of that list is Newt Gingrich.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Queer Talk: Mayors for Marriage Equality

By on 28 January 2012

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

Freedom to Marry, an organization working for marriage equality, recently announced a new campaign: Mayors for the Freedom to Marry. About 100 mayors – Democrats, Republicans and Independents – have signed on. The campaign is designed to reflect growing support for marriage equality, and put some pressure on others to join in the efforts.

From Chris Johnson, at Washington Blade:

Around 15 members of the coalition … spoke at a news conference at the Capital Hilton during the 89th Winter Meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors about the importance of allowing gay couples to marry.

The coalition is chaired by Michael Bloomberg (New York City); Thomas M. Menino (Boston); Annise Parker (Houston); Jerry Sanders (San Diego) and Antonio Villaraigosa (Los Angeles). It includes mayors of Lima, OH; Kalamazoo, MI; Kansas City, MO; Eugene, OR, and Franklinton, NC. Rahm Emanuel recently added Chicago to the list.

It doesn’t include Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings. Dallas is the largest city whose mayor hasn’t signed the pledge. GetEQUAL planned last night’s (January 27) rally outside Dallas City Hall, and according to the Dallas Voice, Rawlings is scheduled today to meet with 20-25 LGBT leaders, who said

… they’ve been very alarmed by the language and tone Rawlings has used in defending his decision not to sign the pledge in the media.

Most recently, on Wednesday, Rawlings told WFAA-TV that the marriage pledge … was an example of ‘getting off track’ and that the issue of marriage equality is not ‘relevant to the lion’s share of the citizens of Dallas.’

‘Sadly, I think the more he talks about this in the press, the more he digs in as completely out of touch,’ said Patti Fink, president of the Dallas Gay and Lesbian Alliance.

There’s still a lot of that “out of touch-ness” around, unfortunately, though it continues to shrink. The stress on the bipartisan support would be important at any point, but coming in the midst of 2012 election rhetoric, it’s particularly significant. From the coalition of mayor’s:

We are honored to lead this bipartisan group of mayors who support ending marriage discrimination at all levels of government. While we will each have different strategies for pursuing that end, we all agree on the goal: securing the freedom to marry and upholding equal rights for all citizens.

All of which, of course, raises questions about President Obama, and where he is in his “evolving” position on marriage equality. I’m among those who don’t think he’ll announce he’s completed the process before November.

From WSJ:

When he ran for president in 2008, Mr. Obama opposed to gay and lesbian marriages. He has said the matter should be decided by each state—knowing that most states have banned the marriages. But he has also spoken warmly about those states that have legalized same-sex marriage … . He also directed his Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal benefits for same-sex unions. The president has said his own views on marriage are evolving, leading many on both sides of the issues to conclude that he now supports marriage rights but is holding back for political reasons.

Maybe Mayor Rawlings, and President Obama, would be helped along by reading the Mayors for the Freedom to Marry statement, and the personal comments provided by some. Two examples, from the Washington Blade:

Houston Mayor Annise Parker, who two years ago became the first openly lesbian mayor of a major U.S. city, talked about her own life experience as a reason for why same-sex marriage should be legalized.

Parker said she and her partner, Kathy Hubbard, on Monday celebrated their 21st anniversary. She also noted her 35-year-old son, whom she said was 16 and living on the Houston streets when they adopted him because he had been thrown by his family. Parker also said her two adopted daughters, who are now 16 and 21, had previously spent five years in foster care ‘with very few prospects of a loving, stable home.’

‘We had to navigate insurance challenges and custody challenges in the school districts,’ Parker said. ‘One simple thing would have made tremendous difference in the lives of my family and, truly, the lives of millions of Americans, and that is access to the rights and privileges of marriage.’

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, a Republican, was also among those who appeared at the news conference to voice his support from marriage.

In 2007, Sanders made headlines when he reversed his position on marriage equality before signing a City Council resolution intended to overturn the city’s ban on same-sex marriage. The mayor gave a tearful speech in which he said he couldn’t tell his daughter Lisa that her same-sex relationship wasn’t as important as that of straight couple.

… ‘Fairness means giving people the same rights and treating them the same as everyone else,’ Sanders said. ‘There’s no such thing as fair enough; it’s either fair, or it’s not.’

I think a lot of people would agree with that. Including, I’d guess, Mildred Loving. I strongly encourage you to check out this story at Yahoo, “Tender Photos Unearthed from a Turbulent Time.” It’s about Mildred and Richard Loving, whose 1958 marriage eventually resulted in a 1967 Supreme Court decision striking down laws which banned interracial marriage.

On the 40th anniversary of the ruling, (Mildred) Loving issued a statement that read, ‘I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life.’

I’ll never understand why some people treat equality as if there was only so much to go around.

(Freedom To Marry Logo via Freedom To Marry
Mayors For Marriage photo via Freedm to Marry)

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

A Word About the ‘Israel Firster’ Debate

By on 27 January 2012

From Spencer Ackerman in The Tablet:

Some on the left have recently taken to using the term “Israel Firster” and similar rhetoric to suggest that some conservative American Jewish reporters, pundits, and policymakers are more concerned with the interests of the Jewish state than those of the United States. Last week, for example, Salon’s Glenn Greenwald asked Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg about any loyalty oaths to Israel Goldberg took when he served in the IDF during the early 1990s. (On Tuesday, writer Max Blumenthal used a gross phrase to describe Goldberg: “former Israeli prison guard.”) The obvious implication is that Goldberg’s true loyalty is to Israel, not the United States. For months, M.J. Rosenberg of Media Matters, the progressive media watchdog group, has been throwing around the term “Israel Firster” to describe conservatives he disagrees with. One recent Tweet singled out my friend Eli Lake, a reporter for Newsweek: “Lake supports #Israel line 100% of the time, always Israel first over U.S.” That’s quite mild compared to some of the others.

“Israel Firster” has a nasty anti-Semitic pedigree, one that many Jews will intuitively understand without knowing its specific history. It turns out white supremacist Willis Carto was reportedly the first to use it, and David Duke popularized it through his propaganda network. And yet Rosenberg and others actually claim they’re using it to stimulate “debate,” rather than effectively mirroring the tactics of some of the people they criticize.

…and the ruckus on the left beats on.

As I’ve written before, this is about a very real battle on the left and in progressive circles, with American Jews pushing back very, very hard on being called anti-Semitic when they criticize Israeli policy.

Giving the right and so-called analysts of the Middle East who interpret any criticism some of their own medicine to see how they like it is exploding the debate, but also making an important point. Ackerman’s take seems to miss this point entirely.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

The Rahm Emanuel way, and the Occupy way, to get ready for the Chicago G8 / NATO Summit

By on 27 January 2012

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

This May Chicago will host a summit already attracting the attention of Wall Street-ers and Occupiers both. Preparations are being made. First, from the Occupied perspective, via Adbusters:

Against the backdrop of a global uprising that is simmering in dozens of countries and thousands of cities and towns, the G8 and NATO will hold a rare simultaneous summit in Chicago this May. The world’s military and political elites, heads of state, 7,500 officials from 80 nations, and more than 2,500 journalists will be there.

And so will we.

On May 1, 50,000 people from all over the world will flock to Chicago, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and #OCCUPYCHICAGO for a month. With a bit of luck, we’ll pull off the biggest multinational occupation of a summit meeting the world has ever seen.

I don’t know if 50,000 is close to reasonable, though I hope it is. I do think it’s safe to guess that the Occupiers will be numerous. It’s probably also safe to guess that most of the G8 and NATO summit attendees won’t be paying direct attention to the Occupation. But the international gathering won’t and can’t avoid the messages of the public spaces created by the Arab Spring, Occupy, 99% and more.

From the same Adbuster’s piece:

And when the G8 and NATO meet behind closed doors on May 19, we’ll be ready with our demands: a Robin Hood Tax; a ban on high frequency ‘flash’ trading; a binding climate change accord; a three strikes and you’re out law for corporate criminals; an all out initiative for a nuclear-free Middle East; whatever we decide in our general assemblies and in our global internet brainstorm – we the people will set the agenda for the next few years and demand our leaders carry it out.

And if they don’t listen; if they ignore us and put our demands on the back burner like they’ve done so many times before; then, with Gandhian ferocity, we’ll flashmob the streets, shut down stock exchanges, campuses, corporate headquarters and cities across the globe; we’ll make the price of doing business as usual too much to bear.

Predictable reaction to the above: what makes you think the attendees will pay any attention? What seems like an obvious response to me: because they already are. See State of the Union address and World Economic Forum.

Also, see Rahm Emmanuel, Chicago’s mayor. From Truth Out:

Following weeks of public pressure against Chicago’s changes to the city ordinance by Occupy groups and concerned citizens, the City Council voted Thursday to adopt the ordinance changes introduced by Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Critics say the ‘sit down and shut up’ ordinance, as it has been called, seeks to chill protest and civil liberties in Chicago … .

When the ordinance was first introduced, it was said to be only a measure for the NATO/G8 conference to be held in Chicago in May, but it was later revealed that the ordinance change is expected to be permanent.

The TruthOut piece lists specifics of the approved ordinance, citing the Chicago Independent Media Center. Those include:

Virtually every street protest in the downtown would be designated a ‘large parade,’ requiring $1 million liability insurance …

Demonstration organizers would be required to have one marshal for every 100 participants.

Under a wholly new section of the municipal code …, even gatherings on sidewalks, with no presence in the streets, would now be subject to demands that they get permits, giving the City extraordinary latitude to dictate what union and other pickets occur or get shut down by police action.

Allow the police Superintendent to deputize FBI, DHS, ATF, and DOJ employees as Chicago police officers.

There was a lot of pushback on Emanuel’s original plan, and there was at least one concession, as Common Dreams reports. The mayor did drop an increase in minimum fines from $25 to $200, and from doubling the maximum fine to $1000. Common Dreams also provides a quote from Chicago Police Superintendent Gary McCarthy:

‘We don’t want to give the impression that we’re looking to do anything about the 1st Amendment except protect it.’

A Sun Times story includes this about Chicago’s preparations:

Deb Kirby, chief of international relations for the Chicago Police Department, estimated that as many as 10,000 protesters would descend on Chicago to protest the back-to-back summits.

That’s significantly less than Adbuster’s estimate of 50,000, and it may well be that the actual number will fall somewhere in-between. Either way, there will likely be significant numbers of people, from around the world, in Chicago when the G8 and NATO come together. I don’t know if Emanuel shares what sounds like the “foreigner” concerns of Finance Committee Chairman Edward M. Burke, quoted in the Sun Times piece:

‘These aren’t the home-grown, backyard, vegetable garden protesters. They’re gonna be coming from Europe. They’re gonna be coming from Asia. And they’re gonna be coming from Latin America.’

Perhaps a part of Mr. Burke’s preparation will be learning to say, “sit down and shut up” in multiple languages.

Adbusters is not only preparing and pushing for this, but are talking more, and more openly, about the need for “political action.” Adbusters doesn’t direct or control the movement, but it’s certainly influential. More about that later. For now, May in Chicago is one of the biggest Occupy (and related) actions yet planned. Coming in the midst of the 2012 political games, it could get very interesting.

(Occupy Chicago poster via Adbusters)

Read full story · Comments { 12 }