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 | Republicans

Some of The President’s Faith Allies

By on 08 February 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Santorum Sweeps

By on 08 February 2012

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Money should come flowing in to Rick Santorum today.

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

Read full story · Comments { 26 }

Women Want Their Birth Control

By on 07 February 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From a new poll by PublicReligion.org:

Majority Support Requirement that Employer Health Care Plans Include Contraception Coverage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title has been changed.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

When the media is a part of the news …

By on 07 February 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And from Intrepid Report:

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

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

(Freedom of Speech poster via Occupy Design)

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Susan G. Komen Fiasco Delivers Karen Handel Resignation

By on 07 February 2012

**UPDATED**

Source: Susan G. Komen 2009-2010 Annual Report
via Mother Jones

From the AP: Karen Handel, Susan G. Komen official, resigns after Planned Parenthood dispute

Karen Handel, the charity’s vice president for public policy, told Komen officials that she supported the move to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood. She said the discussion started before she arrived at the organization and was approved at the highest levels of the charity.

“I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it,” Handel said in her letter. “I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen’s future and the women we serve.”

Translation: I am deeply disappointed that I and Ari Fleischer got caught helping Susan G. Komen implement our religious conservative strategy at the expense of women. I openly acknowledge that I believe women do not deserve the same freedoms as men, starting with controlling our own bodies.

Don’t let the door hit in you on the way out.

The fight for full women’s freedom continues, but one villain has been slain.

Read full story · Comments { 25 }

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

By on 06 February 2012

**UPDATED**

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

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

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

By on 06 February 2012

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

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

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

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

On another occasion, Zinn said:

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

And this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few thoughts from a few people for your consideration.

(Media Report sign via OWS News)

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

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 { 34 }

Mitt Romney Minute: Roll that Gafferiffic Footage

By on 04 February 2012

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

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

By on 04 February 2012

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

UPDATED AT END

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

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

From HRC:

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

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

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

At NYTimeOut:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a related press release:

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

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

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

Some, of course, count more than others.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Romney Gets Even for New York Times Story

By on 03 February 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Super Bowl Occupations

By on 03 February 2012

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

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

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

Via Interoccupy, from Occupy the Super Bowl:

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

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

These ad profits alone would totally pay off 1101 homes.

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

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

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

Or as Dave Zirinon writes, at The Nation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Komen Caves? Not Really.

By on 03 February 2012

**UPDATED**

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

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

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

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

From the New York Times:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 22 }

Economic News Buoys Obama, as Israel & Iran Chatter Grows

By on 03 February 2012

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

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This election year is primed for shock waves.

This column has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

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

By on 03 February 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

( Photo via ThinkProgress )

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

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 }

Media Made a Laughingstock Chasing The Donald’s Endorsement

By on 02 February 2012

TM NOTE: HostGator botched its hosting duties, so I have been able to write today, but I’m finally back in now (though I still can’t get emails). Onward…

As the Las Vegas Review Journal predicts a massive win in Nevada (pronouced Neva-as in cat-da) by Mitt Romney, traditional and new media outlets fell over themselves last night and today trumpeting The Donald’s endorsement of Newt Gingrich, or so they thought.

There’s only one reason I didn’t write about the pending Donald Trump endorsement last night. It’s because when the news of a Newt Gingrich endorsement started ricocheting across the internets, I simply didn’t think it rang true. The Donald’s ego would never allow him to be caught being so absolutely wrong about something that happens to matter to his crowd, the 1%.

As I wrote earlier, no candidate needs to drop out, because there haven’t been near enough delegates allotted. However, that doesn’t mean Newt Gingrich isn’t over in every other sense. He can still drag his pompous patootie all the way to the convention, but considering he split Tea Party voters with Romney in Florida, I’d say it’s going to get very lonely for Gingrich long before Super Tuesday in March, which could be good for him. That he doesn’t have the organization will become apparent quickly, so his whole charade of a candidacy depends on the generosity of Sheldon Adelson.

Politico’s Maggie Haberman went with “Trump to endorse Newt” at around 9:30 p.m. last night, but that became “Trump to endorse Newt…or Romney?” when Politico figured out they’d gotten it wrong. Haberman, who is as good as it gets, went with this cover: The Times, in fact, went first.

Indeed they did. This is what Political Wire wrote yesterday: Update: The New York Times reports Trump will endorse Newt Gingrich.

That’s the only remaining evidence that they did, because the original announcement has been papered over with something that now reads like this:

10:37 a.m. | Updated RENO, Nev. — Newt Gingrich swept into Nevada on Wednesday trailing far behind Mitt Romney in state polls and lacking much campaign organization, but his aides were ready to boast of a flashy new endorsement: Donald Trump was supposed to announce his support of Mr. Gingrich on Thursday in Las Vegas, according to a senior campaign official.

But today came word that Mr. Trump – at least for now – was preparing to endorse Mitt Romney.

The confusion may reinforce impressions of disarray in the Gingrich campaign in Nevada, evident as the candidate hit the ground after a daunting defeat in the Florida primary and immediately became embroiled in a dust-up over a canceled meeting with Nevada’s governor.

Only the Wall Street Journal remained smartly circumspect in “Donald Trump: An Endorsement?”

Wingnut blogs and many others ran with the Newt endorsement, following the crowd.

The person who remains the one to watch on Romney news, Matt Drudge, had the facts from the start. The Donald backs Mitt Romney and if he wins the nomination there will be no third party or independent run for Mr. Trump.

Today begins the ratcheting down of the Republican circus parade that’s been so entertaining for the last year. Not too many weeks from now it’s going to get deadly serious.

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 }