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

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 }

Reporters Without Borders lowers U.S. media ranking

By on 27 January 2012

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

‘Crackdown’ was the word of the year in 2011. Never has freedom of information been so closely associated with democracy. Never have journalists, through their reporting, vexed the enemies of freedom so much. Never have acts of censorship and physical attacks on journalists seemed so numerous. The equation is simple: the absence or suppression of civil liberties leads necessarily to the suppression of media freedom.

The above is a quote from “Crackdown on Media,” the “2011-2012 Press Freedom Index” released on Thursday by Reporters Without Borders. One of the things it points out is what Occupiers, and those following the OWS movement, including some reporting on it, have been saying for the last three months or so: police departments have been instructed to “crackdown” on media, mainstream and new, when covering the Occupy stories. It also points out that, like too few choices in political parties, there are, if not too few, then at least questions to be asked about the Fourth Estate.

From a pdf of the report:

The worldwide wave of protests in 2011 also swept through the New World. It dragged the United States (47th) and Chile (80th) down the index, costing them 27 and 47 places respectively. The crackdown on protest movements and the accompanying excesses took their toll on journalists. In the space of two months in the United States, more than 25 were subjected to arrests and beatings at the hands of police who were quick to issue indictments for inappropriate behaviour, public nuisance or even lack of accreditation.

This isn’t new information. But if you haven’t heard much, or anything, about it, it’s not a surprise. From a piece at HuffPo:

The treatment of journalists by police was well documented throughout 2011. Reporters were beaten, arrested and prevented from covering police action against Occupy protesters. Tensions heightened so much that the New York Police Department had to meet with journalists and remind its officers not to mistreat them.

At the same time journalists experienced everything from being blocked by police to being beaten and arrested, others in the media ignored or downplayed it, as they did the Occupy movement in general. Taken together, both say something rather significant about “freedom of the press.”

Some examples, the first from a mid-December piece at TruthOut:

Even after a solid two weeks of this Occupation, corporate media largely blacked it out. What coverage there was depicted protesters as drug-abusing hippies (the Fox News spin—Hannity, 10/10/11), or, in the ‘liberal’ version, as directionless naifs with no message (New York Times, 9/23/11).

Also see: Getting beyond the primary means for con-trol: Mass media propaganda at Intrepid Report.

NYPD Continues to Block Journalists from Covering Occupy Protests at Media Bistro.

Via TruthOut, in “Low Friends in High Places: Triad of Business, Cops and Politicians Attack Occupy,”

Playing supporting roles was a noisy media chorus repeatedly echoing pretexts of various municipal health, park and police regulations that were allegedly being violated.

A media related, January 18 story seems worth mentioning, just for a bit more context. From Public Policy Polling, the “3rd Annual TV News Trust Poll”:

… finds that Fox News tops the list for both the source Americans trust the most and the one they trust the least.

Obviously some trust it, some don’t, but Fox appears at the top of the list for both groups. I’m not sure that really tells us anything new, but it’s one indication of the 2012 condition of the Fourth Estate.

As does the fact that some members of the press who tried to cover OWS were blocked, arrested, and beaten, as the drop in ranking in the Press Freedom Index made clear. Other members of the press spin the whole OWS movement, basically, in the way governments – city and beyond – and corporate heads want them to do. It all leads me to wonder about the choices we have regarding the Fourth Estate. The Two Corporate Parties provide too few political choices, but the choices provided by much of the media, mainstream in particular, are equally questionable. And fairly often, it seems, complicit.

( Photo via ThinkProgress )

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

The 0.1% at WEF are talking about jobs, taxes and a “crisis of leadership”

By on 26 January 2012

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

I included something about this yesterday, but it’s worth further consideration. One take on the World Economic Forum, from the originators of the Occupy Wall Street movement, Adbusters, “Capitalisms’ Cinderella’s Ball”:

This years’ World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, marks the start of the perennial capitalist meet-and-greet summit season.

The economic equivalent of the Oscars, the WEF is a time for the 0.1% to celebrate the achievements and successes of free-markets, and to discuss how to keep the crumbling ship from running ashore … .

Nestled in the picturesque Swiss Alps where the melting glaciers are deceptively intact and the hotels serviced by an army of invisible temporary workers, approximately 2000 global elites discuss everything from redistributing their obscene profits (a.k.a philanthropy) and environmental sustainability, to forecasting new areas of expansion and the future of capitalism.

In an interview on NPR’s Morning Edition today,

Renee Montagne talks to Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Global Insight, about key issues dominating this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. With Europe on the brink of recession, the mood at the meeting is not as upbeat as it was last year.

Behravesh said there are lots of panels on income inequality, and attention to Obama’s SOTU focusing on the same kind of things. But, he said, there’s not much attention to the Occupy WEF group. Really? Does the guy not get that the panels and concerns he mentions, as well as much of Obama’s SOTU, are direct reflections of the Occupy message? Oh, they can ignore the igloo village, like many ignored the Occupy camps. Or they can, as has been widely done, shut down the camps. But neither ignoring or “making them go away” eliminates the inequalities or the people determined to keep those inequalities out in the open. When WEF attendees, along with Electeds and Wannabe’s, feel compelled to acknowledge what Occupiers have made very public, they reveal the power of the movement.

For a very interesting read, check out “Davos man weighs future of capitalism” here, which includes:

A survey of 1,200 experts the WEF published on Monday showed fear of a major geopolitical disruption over the next year has risen significantly to 54 percent from 36 percent last quarter.

Not a particularly philanthropic, feel my neighbor’s pain kind of concern, but definitely something to get the attention of those at the top. “Major geopolitical disruptions” aren’t good for business (except for the “military industrial complex,” including “riot gear” sales to police departments).

In a ‘Call to Action’ ahead of Davos, 11 leaders of international organizations … said economic growth, jobs and protectionism are the top three worries at the start of 2012. …

Of 30 video messages from Davos co-chairs and partners posted by the WEF ahead of the meeting, all are from men, with only a few Asian or Middle Eastern faces among the ranks of middle-aged white males. … One is Arif Naqvi, chief executive of Abraaj Capital, a private equity manager that specializes in emerging markets.

‘We have a crisis of leadership,’ Naqvi said. ‘The Occupy Wall Street movement is going to gain momentum in different cities simply because of the inequality issue and we need to address it.’

There’s more to show that the “Davos man” is aware that he has a problem.

‘Rising inequality is one of the major risks to our future prosperity and security,” said OECD Chief Economist Pier Carlo Padoan …’ .

A participant in one WEF debate, Sharan Burrow, general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, said:

‘It is too simplistic to say we need a new system. The system is not working because of extraordinary greed, extraordinary inequality and attacks on workers’ rights that are leading to a crash in demand.’

Another WEF participant pointed out how

capitalism’s original distinction between the entrepreneur and the salaryman has been corrupted by excessive pay. …

Remember, these are the words of those who meet the wealth standard to attend WEF. And again, it sounds much more like “we’re going to be hurt” rather than “we’re hurting the masses” is behind these comments, but clearly these people have moved beyond “ignore it or dismiss it and it will go away.”

‘There is a tremendous risk of social discohesion with the slow growth in the economy that is currently happening so job creation for companies is tremendously important,’ said Unilever (ULVR.L) chief executive Paul Polman in a WEF video message. …

“Discohesion.” I just wanted to point out the word. Back to WEF concerns:

Along with creating more jobs, the OECD also urges governments to consider raising taxes on the rich to reduce inequality, a move already endorsed by billionaires Warren Buffett and L’Oreal SA … heiress Liliane Bettencourt. …

Klaus Schwab, who initiated WEF in 1971, was asked whether anyone from the Occupy WEF had been invited to address the attendees.

… Schwab said that the forum wanted to engage, but not with those who only criticise.

‘We are looking for such people who can make an interesting contribution. The problem is sometimes if you look at ‘Occupy Davos’ or ‘Occupy Wall Street’ or whatever it is, it’s a movement but who are really the significant representatives?’

The “Davos man” acknowledges there’s a problem, but doesn’t want to hear about it from anyone actually involved in making the problem so obvious it can’t be ignored.

Come May, in Chicago, there will be more such people, totally unwilling to be ignored or controlled. More about that tomorrow, when I’ll look at the upcoming G8 and NATO summit, and the plans for an international Occupation.

(Occupy WEF poster via Occupy WEF)

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Hillary Clinton has Attended Last SOTU as Obama’s SoS

By on 26 January 2012

“I think after 20 years — and it will be 20 years — of being on the high wire of American politics and all of the challenges that come with that, it would be probably a good idea to just find out how tired I am.” – Secy. Hillary Clinton

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton meets with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., on January 25, 2012. State Department photo/ Public Domain

I tweeted about this likelihood on Tuesday. She’ll no doubt work up until the very last second on her very last day, for which Pres. Obama is no doubt grateful, as are we all.

We can only imagine that it’s “a little odd for me to be totally out of an election season,” as she also admits she “didn’t watch any of those debates.”

After she leaves State, Hillary Clinton will be able to rest, write, and then assess other options. This includes, come 2014, coming to grips on whether she’s ready to walk away from another run for the White House and possibly being the first female president of the United States.

There will be a different breed bidding for the Democratic presidential spot in 2016. However, no one in politics would be more prepared. She would, however, have to defend her continued militaristic foundation, whether it’s Libya or her continued belief in the war in Afghanistan. Her close relationship to the Pentagon and the U.S. defense industry would also be at issue. Mrs. Clinton’s closeness to Israel’s leaders and the trust built between them, would, however, hold great possibilities. Her involvement during the Libya bombing proved unparalleled, as she worked to convince Arab leaders to come on board. It would be a serious campaign, not a walk in the park, at least with progressive primary voters, though there would also be great emotions on the left to making a Democratic female a seminal part of American history.

Mrs. Clinton has also said time and again she will not run for president again.

TM NOTE: An international women’s foundation, raising money from all sides, like her husband’s CGI, and impacting women’s lives in countries around the world, is one very good bet, which I’d put money on myself.

Taylor Marsh is the author of The Hillary Effect, which traces the history of the near twenty years of press coverage and political events that followed Hillary Clinton into the 2008 presidential race and helped make her candidacy as impossible as it was part of her destiny.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

U.S. News & World Report Op-Ed

By on 25 January 2012

Closeup photo of Taylor Marsh

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

It’s written by yours truly.

They chose the title.

Here’s a teaser, but it’s an exclusive for US News, so you’ll have to click the link above to get the rest. (I hope you do.)

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…

On a side note, it’s interesting to find myself with an op-ed in a property owned by Mort Zuckerman. They gave me free rein and it’s the exact piece I wanted to write, so I’ve got no complaints.

Share it, tweet it, just check it out. I’d like them to know people are reading it!

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Wish I had some magic answers, but hard work will have to do

By on 25 January 2012

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

If you aren’t a Harry Potter fan, then “Expect Us Patronum” won’t make sense. Let’s just say it’s a reference to a spell, Expecto Patronum, which provides a defense, and repels the bad guys. Seeing the clever take-off made me laugh, then made me wistfully think about a magic solution to the super grim unfair tale that is our political and governing systems.

It is something akin to magic, when people like Occupiers refuse to believe the fairy tales we’re consistently told by Electeds and Elites, including the “if you work hard and play by the rules, you, too, can fulfill the American Dream.” You, too, they imply, can join, well, maybe not the 1%, but how about the 10%. Or at least maybe you can find a job, or keep the one you have.

And then there are the ramped up fairy tales specific to incumbents and Wannabe’s. The 2012 version of these ridiculous claims we’re suppose to accept as truth is impossible to avoid. We’re expected to cheer, while vigorously clapping, kind of like hoping Tinker Bell will return and all our wishes will come true.

In last night’s SOTU, Obama included:

… no matter what party they belong to, I bet most Americans are thinking the same thing right now: Nothing will get done this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that, because Washington is broken.

Well, yes, that does about sum it up. Except the “because Washington is broken” bit could be more honestly stated by taking responsibility for the “breaking.” But that kind of assumption of responsibility by Electeds is really wishful thinking. As it would have required some kind of magical spell for Obama to have explicitly cited the Occupy / 99% movement, though he certainly used the language.

In what is a much more positive spin on last night’s speech than I think is accurate, David Corn does, nevertheless, point out the president’s use of Occupy points. At Mother Jones:

In a feisty speech, Obama pitched a patriotic, quasi-populist, OWSish progressivism to set up his 2012 reelection campaign. …

Obama took up the call of the Occupy Wall Street movement, decrying unfair tax breaks for millionaires. He adopted a modified version of the OWS 1-vs-99-percent message … .

The president decried Wall Street pirates and announced a new Financial Crimes Unit. His language could have come off a cardboard sign in Zuccotti Park: ‘We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.’ …

In the past year, Obama has moved from a compromiser-in-chief looking to cut deals with the Republicans … to a semi-populist battler for the middle class who is eager to defy Republicans over issues of economic fairness and the role of government.

Or maybe he’s just moved to campaign mode. No magic needed to make that guess.

Some SOTU thoughts from the OWS Twitter feed:

The State of the Union in 2012: nyti.ms/Abs3Vl #OWS #ochi You have indeed impacted the conversation! Full steam ahead.

RT @democracynow: ‘He is a political coward,’ says @Ralph_Nader of @BarackObama not discussing #OWS in #SOTU. democracynow.orgabout

@democracynow @Ralph_Nader @BarackObama #OWS does not want Obama to co-opt its message.

Good to see the NYT name drop #OWS – very unlikely we’d be talking abt 15%v30% effective tax w/o #Occupy nyti.ms/yQx4yn

Given the entrenched nature of the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy, including their very successfully sold fairy tale that “we have no other choice,” any time anyone is willing to call them out, it’s almost like magic. Last night’s SOTU could have every Elected there unclothed, and it would still be something of a miracle for many to recognize that the servants of the Corporate Emperors “have no clothes.” And by the way, sorry about that visual.

Two Occupy stories, that at least for me, tell very different, and much more authentic, stories. The first from Occupy WEF:

Join the igloo camp in Davos, Switzerland …

Every year, self-proclaimed «global leaders» allegedly committed to improving the state of the world meet up for the World Economic Forum (WEF) in the Swiss mountains to propagate their own businesses and network amongst the so-called global economic elite.
This year, we will not let them exclude us, the 99%! We say: occupy WEF!

The Occupy WEF began on January 22, with Occupiers building igloos, and staying them, and in heated tents. The WEF runs from January 25th to 29th. According to Common Dreams:

This year, there’s more than a hint of irony in the event that created the concept of the quintessential ‘Davos Man’, that global super-achiever into disrepute after 2008: some of the richest people in the world, and companies who have paid millions to sponsor the event, will pontificate on the failings of capitalism and inequality before slipping off for vintage champagne dinners and parties.

There’s something rather magical about the setting, if nothing else. More importantly to me is that there are people making efforts to point out, among other things, the “irony” of the super rich spending some time talking about the “failings of capitalism and inequality.”

Finally, this from The Root:

Occupy Atlanta Helps Save Historic Black Church …

A historic black church in northwest Atlanta was saved by the help of the Occupy Atlanta movement. Higher Ground Empowerment Center, a church opened in 1903, is part of Atlanta’s Vine City, which has been economically battered over the last few years.

The 99% are saying, “Expect us.” And then they’re showing up. Doing that, doing the hard work of activism, can create something kind of like magic.

(Expect Us Patronum poster via OWS News
Occupy WEF Davos poster via Occupy Pix
Occupy WEF Igloo photo via OWS News)

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

File This Under Predictable

By on 25 January 2012

It comes from Fox and nobody should be surprised.

It won’t help Mitt Romney win the nomination, because he’s having so much trouble explaining himself I’m not sure anything can at this point, but it does give you an idea of the demagoguing on Romney’s wealth.

It also is illustrative for why many Americans are sick of both political parties and their unhinged partisan warfare.

WHO’S GREEDY? Obama Gave 1% to Charity, Romney Gave 15%

I wrote the headline first yesterday: How Many Democratic Millionaires Pay 10% to their Church or Charity? So, needless to say I knew this was coming.

No one can argue that the Swiss bank, Cayman account bingo slick Mitt is playing looks bad. That Newt Gingrich, a rich fat cat lobbyist and access peddler, is teeing off on it is as expected as the Democratic response.

Let’s just not pretend Democrats don’t play the same game.

Mitt Romney is simply the general election whipping boy on wealth in an era of Occupy.

But considering he’s one man among many, including Obama’s chief financial architects, this is quickly and predictably turning into an unseemly spectacle brimming with hubris and hypocrisy.

It’s just one reason the Occupy movement doesn’t want to identify with either Democrats or Republicans.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Obama says it’s “make or break” time: What’s your choice?

By on 24 January 2012

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

Time limited political campaigns as usual are a much easier sell than indefinite work of activism, but you get what you pay for. Or more accurately, if you go the politics as usual route, you get what major donors pay for.

In spite of denials to the contrary, Occupy / 99% has had an impact on 2012 politics, whether by way of efforts of rejection, co-optation, or taking the Occupy concerns seriously. One perspective, from Lynn Parramore at AlterNet:

Will the Mitt/Newt Slugfest Boost the Occupy Movement?

The Occupy Movement brought key issues like economic inequality, Wall Street greed, and political corruption to the table. And we may have the GOP front runners to thank for keeping them there. …

Newt leveled three sets of charges at his rival on economic issues, all of which resonate with core Occupy Wall Street concerns. The first two were key in the South Carolina primary, and the third may be important in the next phase as Newt attempts to draw Ron Paul supporters into his camp. They are:

1) Taxes (OWS concern = economic inequality)
2) Private equity (OWS concern = Wall Street predation, ruthless capitalism, senseless job destruction)
3) Federal Reserve (OWS concern = power of big banks over government)

Each of these issues, of course, is viewed through somewhat different lenses by left and right-leaning populists.

Another perspective, from Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, via TruthOut:

In 2012, the Real Conversation Will Be in the Occupations, While Corporate Candidates Have a False Conversation …

The irrelevance of the political debate, primarily between two-corporate approved candidates, will become more evident as the voices of the people grow. …

The truth is for the vast majority of Americans their presidential vote is pre-ordained. Due to the Electoral College in all but about a dozen states we can already definitively predict where your vote is going. This should be greatly freeing to most Americans – we do not have to vote for either corporate candidate out of the manipulation created by fear of the greater evil. We are free to send a message to both corporate parties that we do not accept their money-dominated campaigns. …

The main job of the Occupy Movement during this election year will be to change the conversation from a mostly irrelevant debate between two corporate approved candidates to one relevant to the American people. We need to show that the pre-scripted, focus-group, corporatized rhetoric of the presidential campaign is a false conversation – and the people of the United States are having the real conversation about our future. In the end, whoever is elected will need constant pressure from the Occupy Movement to put the people’s necessities first. So, our job is to build a strong independent movement in 2012 and beyond.

Populist spin, or attempts at it, is politics as usual. We hear it from Right and Left. We hear, in different ways, from Romney, Gingrich and Paul. We’ll hear yet another version from Obama in tonight’s State of the Union address. From the National Journal, Obama Previews State of the Union Address to Supporters, in which Obama talked about

‘ … the central mission we have as a country, and my central focus as president. And that’s rebuilding an economy where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded, and an America where everybody gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everybody plays by the same set of rules.’

He will cast this as ‘a make-or-break moment for the middle class’ and will warn that the country ‘can go in two directions. One is towards less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for where I think we need to go: building an economy that works for everyone, not just a wealthy few.’

Ah yes, “everyone, not just the wealthy few.” It isn’t that Occupy is anywhere near the first to call attention to the inequities in our economic and governing systems, but without question, Occupiers have played a huge role in making it a key part of the 2012 campaign. My take, unsurprisingly I’m sure, regarding the “make or break” framing is that both parties are on the make, and it’s up to us to break their assumed power.

Waiting until after the next election to hold your Party of choice responsible is not a strategy, it’s a surrender.

(Don’t Make Us Go Wisconsin poster via Occupy Pix)

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

How Many Democratic Millionaires Pay 10% to their Church or Charity?

By on 24 January 2012

The Wall Street Journal got an early peek at Mitt Romney’s tax returns. I wonder how many conservative Christians gave over 10% to their church in 2010. How many Democratic millionaires gave that much to their church or their favorite charity?

Did Mitt Romney abuse the tax code? No, it’s made for him. Newt Gingrich would have lowered what Romney paid to zero. George W. Bush, then Obama, by extending the Bush tax cuts, made it possible.

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney paid a 14% effective income tax rate in 2010 after making $3 million in tax-deductible charitable donations and drawing most of his income from investments, according to a summary of Mr. Romney’s 2010 tax form provided by his campaign.

Mr. Romney reported $21.7 million in income. He paid $3 million in federal taxes, slightly more than the $2.98 million he made in charitable donations. At least $1.5 million of his charitable donations went to the Mormon Church.

Of Mr. Romney’s 2010 income, he noted a capital gain of $12.6 million, taxable interest of $3.3 million, ordinary dividends of $4.9 million and smaller sums of gains and losses on business income, refunds and other income.

His 2010 return also showed that he had a financial account in Switzerland that was closed in 2010 and that he generated income from overseas investments. He also reported financial accounts in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.

What a layup for Democrats.

The disagreements I have with Mitt Romney on the issues are wide and long. However, the fact that Gov. Romney is a fat cat millionaire who gives a lot more than most people to his church, while playing the system set in place and prolonged by Bush, Obama and those who came before, isn’t one of them. I got news for Democrats, it won’t be to most Americans either.

Romney’s problem isn’t taxes, it remains Mitt Romney.

As for disagreements, did you hear Romney’s ridiculous answer on Afghanistan last night? How do you handle Afghanistan? “By beating them,” Romney said and “By standing behind our troops and making sure we have transitioned to the Afghan military a capacity for them to be successful in holding off the Taliban. Our mission there is to be able to turn Afghanistan and its sovereignty over to a military of Afghan descent, Afghan people that can defend their sovereignty. That’s something we can accomplish in the next couple of years.”

One of his biggest boosters, Jennifer Rubin, was ecstatic on Twitter: “by beating them? BEST answer on afghanistan EVER.”

“A couple of years” has turned into over 10, with no end in sight.

If before November anything remotely related to national security happens he’ll get his clock cleaned by Pres. Obama. Newt Gingrich would give a standard neoconservative reply, but he’ll sound credible doing it. If the economy wasn’t the issue Mitt Romney wouldn’t be running.

Looking at Newt Gingrich, with his tens of millions multiples, his lobbying and hypocrisy, right wing conservatives may choose to side with a man who’s anger is genuine, but he’s just the bookend to happy warrior Herman Cain, except Newt’s channeling the god of war. Neither man is remotely suited for the presidency and neither man can win a general election against Pres. Obama. It’s not about electability. It’s about credibility.

But a Swiss bank account and a Cayman account, really Mitt? You’ve been running for president since 2008 and you couldn’t have cleaned this up sooner?

Pres. Obama couldn’t have a better set up for his Osawatomie 2.0 State of the Union speech. He’s reportedly going to offer a word salad to make Democrats smile. Candidate Obama did the same thing in 2008 and won the election with it.

Just don’t expect reelecting Pres. Obama will give us anything different than we’ve gotten in his first term, except he’ll have no restraints whatsoever on his Republican conservatism. He’ll finally be free and unfettered to enact entitlement “reform,” something he served up first. At least it won’t be a registered Republican doing it, right?

…while our foreign policy militarism revs up and on, draining us of the resources required to do what’s required of our government here at home. Unthinkable that the amount of income taxed for Social Security should be lifted for multi-millionaires.

Obama versus Mitt or Newt, this isn’t a choice, it’s our problem.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

A “Wall Street Fraternity” parties like they have money to waste

By on 23 January 2012

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

“What kind of person would waste their time Occupying?”

I heard that question recently, and today, I’m providing some answers, mostly by way of photos.

But first, for some context and contrast, a story about the recent exclusive “Wall Street fraternity,” Kappa Beta Phi’s, black-tie dinner at the St. Regis Hotel in Manhattan. I wish I had photos, but don’t, so I’m using the Trickle Down, via Occupy Pix. With the story, it paints a picture in stark contrast to the Occupiers and 99%-ers.

Kevin Roose, in a January 20th piece at Dealbook:

Kappa Beta Phi, an exclusive Wall Street fraternity whose members include big-name bankers, hedge fund billionaires and private equity titans, met at the St. Regis Hotel in Manhattan on Thursday night for its 89th annual black-tie dinner and induction ceremony.

Roose reports that some members of the “fraternity,” organized in 1921, chose not to attend,

wary of taking part in an event that could be construed as tone-deaf to the economic woes facing the country … .

But those who did were treated with after-dinner skits, performed by inductees dressed in “wigs, gold-sequined skirts and skin-tight tops.” And of course, Occupy was a source of amusement, with an “Occupier” dressed in “raggedy clothes,” confronted by a “wealthy baron.”

Barney Frank was another target, because of his advocacy for financial regulation. But the Kappa roast primarily targeted “fellow financiers.” Oh the fun that can be had when money provides you with a view far above the masses and the fallen. From the “Grand Swipe” this year, billionaire investor Wilbur Ross Jr.:

‘We have members from every firm that has failed, as well as members from those that will fail in the future,’ he said to loud laughter.

And then there were the “musical spoofs,” including “Bailout King” (a rewrite, of course, of “Dancing Queen”). In the finale, inductees sang

a parody of ‘I Believe,’ a song from the hit Broadway show ‘The Book of Mormon.’

In the original version of the song, a down-and-out Mormon missionary offers a passionate defense of his faith. On this night, though, the financiers turned it into a playful paean to their industry. (‘I believe that the Lord God created Wall Street. I believe he got his only son a job at Goldman Sachs.’)

Before turning to a view of the Occupation by way of some participating in the movement, one quick story, to illustrate the variety of things Occupiers are doing, in this case, in St. Louis, though similar protests are happening around the nation:

Members of Occupy St. Louis and the Council on American-Islamic Relations joined forces Sunday afternoon to protest outside the Kirkwood Walmart and Lowe’s over advertising dispute.

Organizers say they are protesting Lowe’s decision to pull its advertising funds from TLC’s television series ‘All-American Muslim’.

Protesters are accusing Lowe’s of pulling the ads after pressure from the Florida Family Association.

And now, to those photos. As with my occasional selection of tweets, these photos are only a few from many choices.

One Occupier stereotype, of course, is of the young, lazy, dirty unemployed by choice individual. So, “Greatgrandma,” at a recent Occupy the Courts event, via Occupy Pix:

Also from Occupy Pix, at an Occupy Tampa event. This one is also about the generations and demograpahics that characterize the movement. Starting young, and hey look, all neat and clean, too.

This next photo is very much about the story from one of the 99%, with a direct link to the failures ofour health care system, via Occupy Pix:

I am a match to donate a kidney to a friend.

I am also unemployed & have no health insurance (laid off of my job of 20 years).

Was told by the hospital, largest in MD, & friend’s health insurer, that I must pay for pre-op exams.

I am the 99%, Occupywallstreet.org

Finally, 48 Years Of Hope from We Are the 99%:

16th January 2012

I am 48 years of hope hoping for hope that things will eventually get better
I am almost a half-century’s worth of being sick and tired of being sick and tired and quite frankly I am sick and tired of it …
I think fairness is a plate of food and a warm bed for all
I think people should be recognized and loved not discarded …
I want to make more of an impact not minimum wage …
I do not give up or quit
I do think I can make it though if only I’d get noticed
I hate the fact that I don’t count …
I thank you for sharing the pathway to purpose
I am now on that path
I am being counted
I am…the 99%

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Financial Shenanigans Amid Gingrich-Romney War

By on 23 January 2012

It’s happy days on Wall Street, while main street struggles on.

In the Obama era, like the Bush era, Wall Street is an alternate financial reality.

While the political world is riveted on Newt Gingrich’s win in South Carolina and his surge in Florida, there is an intense battle going on over holding banks accountable for the carnage they caused. The Financial Times reported on the proposed settlement on Friday.

An interesting report from a group called The New Bottom Line is revealing, though unsurprising. Co-director Tracy Van Slyke explains the findings:

The nation’s top six banks — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs — paid out $144 billion in bonuses and compensation for 2011, second only to the record $147 billion they paid out in 2007 at the height of the economic boom, according to a report released today by The New Bottom Line. Four banks – Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley – were awarded record high bonuses and compensation in 2011, despite their bleak stock performance during the year.

“Even though top bank executives have claimed that bonuses are down as much as 30 percent for 2011, total compensation has not decreased at all,” according to The New Bottom Line’s report, “Pulling Back The Curtain: The 1% Behind The 2011 Big Bank Bonuses.”

Many banks made up for smaller bonuses by increasing base salaries. For example, base salaries for named executive officers at Goldman Sachs more than tripled in 2011. At JPMorgan Chase, named executive officers saw salaries go up 50 percent.

There’s a meeting in Chicago that’s lighting up the progressive world, which revolves around what’s being characterized as a potential “sweetheart deal” for the banks.

Yves Smith over at Naked Capitalism blasts Pres. Obama and the administration today:

The president seems to labor under the misapprehension that crimes by members of the elite must be swept under the rug because prosecuting them would destablize the system. What he misses is that we are well past the point where coverups will work, and they may even blow up before the November elections. If nothing else, his settlement pact has a non-trivial Constitutional problem which the Republicans, if they are smart, will use to undermine the deal and discredit the Administration.

To add insult to injury, Obama is apparently going to present his belated Christmas present to the banking industry as a boon to ordinary citizens. He refused to appoint a real middle class advocate, Elizabeth Warren, to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but he’s not above stealing her talking points.

[...] The story did not outline terms, but previous leaks have indicated that the bulk of the supposed settlement would come not in actual monies paid by the banks (the cash portion has been rumored at under $5 billion) but in credits given for mortgage modifications for principal modifications. There are numerous reasons why that stinks. The biggest is that servicers will be able to count modifying first mortgages that were securitized toward the total. Since one of the cardinal rules of finance is to use other people’s money rather than your own, this provision virtually guarantees that investor-owned mortgages will be the ones to be restructured. Why is this a bad idea? The banks are NOT required to write down the second mortgages that they have on their books. This reverses the contractual hierarchy that junior lienholders take losses before senior lenders. So this deal amounts to a transfer from pension funds and other fixed income investors to the banks, at the Administration’s instigation.

It seems obvious that the meeting in Chicago coming the day before the State of the Union is in hopes of wrenching a deal in place so Pres. Obama can announce it tomorrow night. Whether than can happen is another story.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Where Davos Meets Dueling Narratives on Possible Bank Deal

By on 23 January 2012

The idea was to get a settlement with these banks that could bring in billions of dollars in aid for hundreds of thousands of troubled homeowners who’d been served faulty foreclosure documents, some of them including forged signatures. But the shape of this agreement disturbed Schneiderman. He said banks were looking for a release from investigation and prosecution on other mortgage practices: how huge volumes of bad loans were made to begin with, and the creation of toxic mortgage-backed securities. Federal-State Meeting Planned to Rally for Foreclosure Accord (h/t David Dayen)

A “consequential” meeting in Chicago? It’s all very nebulous.

This comes during the week of Davos, where news is already being made.

“We have a general morality gap, we are over-leveraged, we have neglected to invest in the future, we have undermined social coherence, and we are in danger of completely losing the confidence of future generations,” said Klaus Schwab, host and founder of the annual World Economic Forum.

“A general morality gap” certainly applies on the U.S. foreclosure crisis, which is why some activists are sounding the most recent alarm.


Van Jones and George Goehl have one version:

Rumor has it that on Monday, after months of negotiation with big banks, the White House may announce a settlement that would let the banks off the hook for their role in the foreclosure crisis — paying a tiny fraction of what’s needed in exchange for blanket immunity from future lawsuits.

We hope these rumors are untrue.

President Obama has the ability to stop and change the direction of this sweetheart deal. He should reject any deal that benefits the one percent and lets the big banks get away with their crimes. Instead, the president should stand with the 99 percent and push for real accountability and a solution that will help millions of people in this country.

Bloomberg started the story rolling:

State attorneys general are being invited to meet with U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan and a Justice Department official to rally support for a proposed settlement with banks over foreclosure practices, said the Iowa Attorney General’s Office.

Materials about the proposed deal are being sent to all states, and Democratic attorneys general have been asked to meet on Jan. 23 with Miller, Donovan and Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, said Geoff Greenwood, a spokesman for Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller.

It’s unclear whether this is really coming to a head or a fake out, but enough people are concerned that it has Van Jones sounding the warning cry, with protesters ready, while there were reports last week that heavy weights like A.G. Schneiderman hadn’t yet committed to being present.

From what is available to read it sounds to me the attorneys general who want banks to be investigated for robosigning and fraudulent tactics are being squeezed. There’s little evidence that they’re falling for it.

But pressure like Van Jones is applying preemptively, isn’t a bad thing, because we’ve all seen the Obama administration time and again side with moneyed interests.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Newt Gingrich Can’t Beat Barack Obama

By on 21 January 2012

NEWT GINGRICH WINS SOUTH CAROLINA

Memo to GOP Star Chamber. RE: Not Losing the *(&#! House and Senate GOP Majority w/ Newt Disaster. Time for a Secret Meeting. – Mike Murphy tweet

UPDATE (10:00 p.m.): Once again I want to make it very clear, I do not have a candidate in the race in 2012. I will not support any candidate this year. The headline is simply a statement based firmly in reality.

Romney got clocked in South Carolina. Gingrich was in full grandiosity swoon that doesn’t lend itself to synopsis. But his characterization of Pres. Obama is unrecognizable & loopy. GOTV jet engine for Democrats. If Newt doesn’t implode it’s a first. The graph on CNN with women & men listening in Florida went sky high for males, plus for women, but lower. Earlier, priceless Chris Matthews on Gingrich in Florida: “vibraphone of erogenous zones,” referring to playing all the ethnic richness of the state.

A great mentor of mine used to say you can’t win until you’ve lost the fear of failure. Mitt Romney as underdog, could he turn into a force? Republicans sure hope so.

Rick Santorum serves up working class red meat, making the pitch for vice president.

Ron Paul seems to be talking not just about 2012, but addressing what he hopes will be a revolutionary movement that will be passed, I believe, to his son Rand Paul.

_____original post below_____

America does not love Romney, but boy do they hate Newt. – Washington Examiner



The polling compilation from the Washington Examiner article linked above won’t surprise many, especially the girls around here.

Fox News, 1/12-1/14:
Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5
Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29

CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17:
Obama, fav/unfav, 38%/45%, -7
Romney, fav/unfav, 21%/35%, -14
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17%/49%, -32

PPP, 1/13-1/17:
Obama, app/dis, 47%/50%, -3
Romney, fav/unfav, 35%/53%, -18
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26%/60%, -34

Mr. Cool versus Mr. Ice Mitt Romney, who’s now trying to hold on instead of trying to win, at the very least represents the corporate Wall Street decay in both parties for all to see. There’s some educational benefits to this contest.

Mr. Cool versus Mr. Ick Newt Gingrich reveals the rot of Republicans, but it also lets Pres. Obama off the hook on any substantive challenge that won’t be reduced to race baiting “food stamp presidency” invective.

Maybe that’s what the America people have earned for their laziness and lack of involved citizenship. People don’t seem to care that indefinite detention is real and that we continue to hold people at Gitmo without trial, because we’re too squeamish to incarcerate them with murderers in maximum security prisons. The ideals on which this country was founded are less important than the fear factor pushed by both Democrats and Republicans, with Pres. Obama’s refusal to lead continually revealing what ails us.

Leading from behind didn’t start with the bombing of Libya, though it is the first time our sleepy national press picked up on it. Pres. Obama’s entire leadership style is to lead from behind so as not to put himself too far out in front on any issue. With a majority in Congress his first two years he negotiated with himself on the stimulus, while bargaining with private insurance and drug companies, never stepping out on health care, until he sided with Stupak for optics. Leading up to the 2010 midterms, Obama hung back on offering an economic message, then extended the Bush tax cuts when he got shellacked. On the Keystone Pipeline decision this week, it wasn’t made boldly on the side of principle and the potentially dangerous environmental impact; instead it was no for now, blaming his decision on Republicans who wouldn’t give him more time, with the win more to do with activists raising a ruckus than anything. On contraception, which could have easily been embedded earlier in ACA, the decision came down just yesterday on the heels of a report that had an Obama official warning that the budget to come wouldn’t be liked by the left. This requires warning? Pres. Obama works through delivering carrot (contraceptive coverage) and stick (scuttling Plan B) tactics that depend on his political needs (the coming budget to woo independents) and have a foundation in austerity, choosing conservatism as his guide.

However, up against Newt Gingrich little would matter beyond the ick factor of this despicable man.

When it comes to women, Mr. Ick, who’s always had a problem with female voters and for very good reasons, doesn’t stand a chance against Mr. Cool.

Oh, and the video above has gone viral. …as well it should. Did you hear those squeals?

Read full story · Comments { 102 }