teaching and background materials on employee ownership. The Institute's Curriculum Library on Employee Ownership (CLEO) includes books, articles, case studies and teaching materials. The Aspen Institute’s Center for Business Education hosts CLEO with support from the Foundation for Enterprise Development and the Employee Ownership Foundation.
Resource: Teaching about Employee Ownership
The Aspen Institute hosts the largest online academic repository of
teaching and background materials on employee ownership. The Institute's Curriculum Library on Employee Ownership (CLEO) includes books, articles, case studies and teaching materials. The Aspen Institute’s Center for Business Education hosts CLEO with support from the Foundation for Enterprise Development and the Employee Ownership Foundation.
teaching and background materials on employee ownership. The Institute's Curriculum Library on Employee Ownership (CLEO) includes books, articles, case studies and teaching materials. The Aspen Institute’s Center for Business Education hosts CLEO with support from the Foundation for Enterprise Development and the Employee Ownership Foundation.
Federal Budget: "I would rather have no deal than a bad deal"
Wolf Blitzer appears never to have met a principled liberal before.
They're rare enough. Maybe he never has.
They're rare enough. Maybe he never has.
Resource: Citizens for Legitimate Government
"A multi-partisan activist group established to expose and resist US imperialism, corpora-terrorism, and the New World Order:" http://www.legitgov.org/index.html
Resource: Workers' Cooperatives
Cooperatives: A Tool for Community Economic Development, a manual produced by The University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, is designed to provide a comprehensive overview of cooperatives: what they are, how they work, and how to start one. It includes numerous examples of co-ops in Wisconsin and other states that are successfully meeting the needs of their members and their communities.
Resources:
The University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives
Other academic centers that focus on cooperatives include The Ohio Employee Ownership Center at Kent State and Southern New Hampshire University's Community Economic Development Department
American Worker Cooperative: an inventory of people, organizations, writings, media, and tools
U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives
Regional federations and support organizations in the Bay Area, Madison, the Pioneer Valley, Austin, and New York City
The Canadian Worker Cooperative Federation
The Workers' Paradise blog
Arizmendi Association of Cooperatives' worker cooperative resources
CooperationWorks!, a national organization of cooperative development centers and practitioners
Resources:
The University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives
Other academic centers that focus on cooperatives include The Ohio Employee Ownership Center at Kent State and Southern New Hampshire University's Community Economic Development Department
American Worker Cooperative: an inventory of people, organizations, writings, media, and tools
U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives
Regional federations and support organizations in the Bay Area, Madison, the Pioneer Valley, Austin, and New York City
The Canadian Worker Cooperative Federation
The Workers' Paradise blog
Arizmendi Association of Cooperatives' worker cooperative resources
CooperationWorks!, a national organization of cooperative development centers and practitioners
Economy: Vast inequalities of wealth undermine society
Why is it important that, finally, a movement has arisen to resist the slo-mo counter-revolution that since the 1970s has seized political and economic control of the United States?
Since before the Revolutionary War, economic inequality has been a fact of American economic life, and indeed the Founders went out of their way to institutionalize the advantages of wealth, but in recent decades the gap between rich and poor has widened to a pathological degree. Today, more than 40% of total income is going to the wealthiest 10%, and the oligarchs have purchased control of government at every level to cement in place the status quo.
By every measure -- infant mortality, longevity, health, productivity, democratic governance, crime -- the social and political repercussions on society of economic inequality are devastating. Like a cancer, economic injustice eats away at civil society, weakening democracy and destroying the quality of life for most citizens.
The evidence shows that it is not possible to have a functioning civil society and a vibrant economy when a tiny oligarchy absconds with nearly all the benefits. In this TED talk from Richard Wilkinson, who with Kate Pickett wrote The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger, demonstrates graphically how inequality damages societies.
Until now, the majority of Americans has acquiesced in the corporate raid on America. We sat quietly for decades while the progressive tax was flattened; the labor unions were defanged; public education deteriorated; the infrastructure rotted away; public services were rolled back or privatized; the prison system metastasized. We watched as the public weal was stolen, tuning in while plane loads of cash -- sometimes literally -- vanished. We watched as democracy was transformed into kleptocracy.
Until now.
Occupy Wall Street is the middle class' way of shouting "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more." Americans are articulating, even as the oligarchs are too befuddled by greed to comprehend, the simple fact that the current system is unsustainable.
Welcome to the Golden Age of Signage
Although the media has done its best to obscure the message of the Occupy movement, anyone interested in finding out what the demonstrations are about has only to look at the astonishingly articulate signs in the "what do they want" videos and newsphotos. Or you can download the following video of Michael Moore being interviewed on lower Broadway by CNBC's Carl Quintanilla (to the network's credit, for a full eight minutes).
Moore isn't confused by the protests, as the pundits pretend to be. Don’t the American people deserve some answers and some justice?, he asks. Where did their money go? Who stole it? Everybody down at Occupy Wall Street wants the wealthy to be taxed more. They want Glass-Steagall reinstated. They want the money out of politics. They want to know where the jobs went. They want to know if the jobs coming back.
“I’m not even sure equality of opportunity is there anymore," he says.
It's the Inequality, Stupid: Eleven charts that explain what's wrong with America by Dave Gilson and Carolyn Perot (Mother Jones March/April 2011)
Inequality.Org
Since before the Revolutionary War, economic inequality has been a fact of American economic life, and indeed the Founders went out of their way to institutionalize the advantages of wealth, but in recent decades the gap between rich and poor has widened to a pathological degree. Today, more than 40% of total income is going to the wealthiest 10%, and the oligarchs have purchased control of government at every level to cement in place the status quo.
By every measure -- infant mortality, longevity, health, productivity, democratic governance, crime -- the social and political repercussions on society of economic inequality are devastating. Like a cancer, economic injustice eats away at civil society, weakening democracy and destroying the quality of life for most citizens.
The evidence shows that it is not possible to have a functioning civil society and a vibrant economy when a tiny oligarchy absconds with nearly all the benefits. In this TED talk from Richard Wilkinson, who with Kate Pickett wrote The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger, demonstrates graphically how inequality damages societies.
Until now, the majority of Americans has acquiesced in the corporate raid on America. We sat quietly for decades while the progressive tax was flattened; the labor unions were defanged; public education deteriorated; the infrastructure rotted away; public services were rolled back or privatized; the prison system metastasized. We watched as the public weal was stolen, tuning in while plane loads of cash -- sometimes literally -- vanished. We watched as democracy was transformed into kleptocracy.
Until now.
Occupy Wall Street is the middle class' way of shouting "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more." Americans are articulating, even as the oligarchs are too befuddled by greed to comprehend, the simple fact that the current system is unsustainable.
Welcome to the Golden Age of Signage
Although the media has done its best to obscure the message of the Occupy movement, anyone interested in finding out what the demonstrations are about has only to look at the astonishingly articulate signs in the "what do they want" videos and newsphotos. Or you can download the following video of Michael Moore being interviewed on lower Broadway by CNBC's Carl Quintanilla (to the network's credit, for a full eight minutes).
Moore isn't confused by the protests, as the pundits pretend to be. Don’t the American people deserve some answers and some justice?, he asks. Where did their money go? Who stole it? Everybody down at Occupy Wall Street wants the wealthy to be taxed more. They want Glass-Steagall reinstated. They want the money out of politics. They want to know where the jobs went. They want to know if the jobs coming back.
“I’m not even sure equality of opportunity is there anymore," he says.
It's the Inequality, Stupid: Eleven charts that explain what's wrong with America by Dave Gilson and Carolyn Perot (Mother Jones March/April 2011)
Inequality.Org
Must read:
"Like an odorless gas, economic inequality pervades every corner of the United States and saps the strength of its democracy. Over the past three decades, Washington has consistently favored the rich -- and the more wealth accumulates in a few hands at the top, the more influence and favor the rich acquire, making it easier for them and their political allies to cast off restraint without paying a social price."
The rest of the story:
The Broken Contract: Inequality and American Decline by George Packer (Foreign Affairs)
Extra credit:
The Class War Has Begun by Frank Rich (New York)
The rest of the story:
The Broken Contract: Inequality and American Decline by George Packer (Foreign Affairs)
Extra credit:
The Class War Has Begun by Frank Rich (New York)
2012: If he wishes to continue in office, President Obama needs to get passionate about change.
Americans are mad as hell and they aren't going to take it -- more of the same -- any more.
If 2008 had been a normal political year, John Edwards would have been the standard-bearer of the Democratic Party. He was young, attractive, articulate, far more liberal than his opponents, and had been the party's 2004 candidate for vice-president; it would have been unsurprising if he had captured the top spot in 2008. Disastrous, too, of course, but we didn't know about Rielle Hunter then. In the event, Edward's log-cabin story was overwhelmed by two other narratives, those of the first woman and the first black to make plausible candidates for President of the United States.
As he prepares to run for reelection, President Obama apparently hopes to resuscitate the rhetoric of hope and change he used to sweet-talk his way to the Oval Office. But it is going to be a lot harder than the White House imagines to recast this business-as-usual politician once again as an agent of change. The big donors, the corporate shills and Blue Dogs in Congress, and the "pragmatists"
running the campaign may think the president can ride the same hot-air balloon to victory, but the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party will need something a lot more audacious than mere hope to get it fired up again.As support for the Occupy protests makes clear, Americans still long for change. They want a government that treats them fairly and acts on their behalf; they want well-paying, meaningful employment; they want criminals imprisoned rather than enriched; they want safe streets, functioning schools, bridges that don't fall down; they want those who benefit from the system to pay their fair share for its upkeep.
In 2008, I argued that Barack Obama had no "politics," meaning that he was not animated by a vision of a better America; that he was not driven, as were many who voted for him, to make our nation more equitable, more just, more democratic; that, despite all the talk, he had no passion for change. Having politics, in this sense, is not about pursuing a particular set of policies; it is certainly not about elections. Rather, it is a kind
of faith in the transformative power of collective action, a belief that acting together we can make the world a better place. If he cannot find that passion in the next few months, it's very unlikely he will gain reelection.Eight years ago at the Democratic Convention, accepting the nod for vice-president, John Edwards had that passion. As a child of the working class, Edwards understood that there were two Americas, one that was benefiting unduly from the system; one that was benefiting little or not at all. He believed, and he made you believe, that it doesn't have to be that way. "We have much work to do," he told the convention.
Because the truth is, we still live in two different Americas: one for people who have lived the American Dream and don't have to worry, and another for most Americans who work hard and still struggle to make ends meet.
It doesn't have to be that way.
It doesn't have to be that way, he said. And it's wrong, he said. Inequality is wrong. Poverty is wrong. Lack of opportunity is wrong. Injustice is wrong. John Edwards had the passion -- the anger, the commitment -- we require now in our president. Barack Obama needs to get angry. Not annoyed. Not testy. Not petulant. Outraged. Pissed off. Passionately, righteously angry.
Barack Obama needs to get mad as hell. Or he's not going to be president any more.
There is very little time left for the president to "get it." If Obama had lost in 2008, it would not have been because he is too much like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, but because he is too much like Al Gore and John Kerry. Inaccurate or unfair as this may be, he comes across as cold, aloof, arrogant, privileged; he does not appear to understand the fears and hopes of ordinary people. He was quick to rescue the miscreants who nearly broke the system; he has still not responded adequately to the need to create jobs and to help folks whose lives were damaged or destroyed by the financial crisis. More people are living in poverty today than were there at the start of his term of office; this is not a fit record for a Democrat to run on. The perception is that Obama fought passionately for Goldman Sacks; now he needs to tap in to some of the passion that made ordinary people believe that John Edwards was mad enough to fight for them.
Barack Obama has been very lucky in his opponents. Taking nothing from his fine-tuned operation in 2008, the candidate had only to get past Hillary Clinton's disastrously managed effort before he was up against the hapless duo of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Also filling his sails were an imploding economy, an unprecedented advantage in fund-raising (tellingly, mostly from Wall Street and Big Pharma), unpopular wars, and what was viewed at the time as a failed Republican incumbency. And he had a large portion of the voting public ready to indulge a candidate who based his appeal on the promise that this time would be different. Yet, in the perfect political storm, he couldn't crack 53% of the vote.
This time, opinion is widespread that he is the failed incumbent. He now owns the war in Afghanistan, and if things go wrong in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia or Libya, he'll own them, too. He also owns the economy. If the jobless rate is still eight or nine percent at this time next year, well, he's the president. Though he has not been unproductive as chief executive, he has spent far too much of his political capital legitimizing his opponents instead destroying them. Until Occupy changed the topic, he and the Republicans were bickering about budget caps and spending cuts, not jobs programs and infrastructure spending, austerity not prosperity.
A lot of energy that went into the Obama campaign in 2008 will be focused this year on issues campaigns, Occupy, and retaking the House of Representatives. And while it can be said that Obama is still lucky in his opponents, unfortunately the least clownish of the Republican aspirants appears destined to be the GOP candidate (the Mormon cult may be an issue in the primaries, but the conservatives will anoint the Church of Latter Day Saints a mainstream Christian faith within 24 hours of Romney's elevation).
While it's possible that Mitt's empty suit will leave room for the president to squeak past, it's more than likely that Romney's blandness and serenity will make him hard to beat. The former governor is presenting a facade strikingly similar to the blank slate Obama displayed three years ago. If you, the average voter, are offered two candidates with more or less the same personality who appear to favor more or less the same policies, do you pick the one who has presided over four years of decline and is surrounded by controversy -- he's a socialist; he's from Kenya; he wants to take your guns; he wants to raise your taxes; he favors death panels and death taxes; he has no birth certificate? Of course not. Where there's smoke there could be fire; you go with the new guy.
Occupy 2011: From sea to shining sea
For daily updates -- minute to minute, really -- about Occupy Wall Street and its satellites around the world, follow Greg Mitchell's Occupy USA blog at The Nation. See, also: OccupyTogether.
Winter is acummin early to the Northeast and "[i]t's been dumping snow here in NYC all day, high winds and 3 inches of slush on the ground. With the NYPD and FDNY confiscating six generators on Friday and this unprecedented October snow, those occupying Liberty Plaza in downtown NYC are in need of emergency supplies crucial for cold weather survival (and occupation). We've made a lot of headway on getting winter gear here in the last 48 hrs but definitely need more. Please help by purchasing or donating supplies directly. Winter gear and other necessities can be dropped off in person, delivered, or shipped." -- New York Urgent: Winter Donation Needs (OccupyWallStreet 2011-0-29).
From Atlanta and Boston to Portland, OR, and points in between like Nashville, Austin, Denver and Oakland, the local gendarmes are earnestly cooperating with demonstrators to raise consciousness about which %'s interests are paramount in the current contretemps: "In Denver," the AP reported,
Wounded Iraq vet awake after Oakland protest injury (Reuters 2011-10-28).
One of the motivators of the Occupy movement is the realization by the college and immediately post-college generation that they have been sold a bill of goods.
See, also: Sallie Mae Locks Out Student Protesters As Occupy DCMarches Against Skyrocketing Student Debt (Think Progress 2011-10-28).
Detroit may have been particularly hammered by the financial crisis, but protests there are representative of what's happening across the country. The message is the same -- the system isn't working:
Winter is acummin early to the Northeast and "[i]t's been dumping snow here in NYC all day, high winds and 3 inches of slush on the ground. With the NYPD and FDNY confiscating six generators on Friday and this unprecedented October snow, those occupying Liberty Plaza in downtown NYC are in need of emergency supplies crucial for cold weather survival (and occupation). We've made a lot of headway on getting winter gear here in the last 48 hrs but definitely need more. Please help by purchasing or donating supplies directly. Winter gear and other necessities can be dropped off in person, delivered, or shipped." -- New York Urgent: Winter Donation Needs (OccupyWallStreet 2011-0-29).
From Atlanta and Boston to Portland, OR, and points in between like Nashville, Austin, Denver and Oakland, the local gendarmes are earnestly cooperating with demonstrators to raise consciousness about which %'s interests are paramount in the current contretemps: "In Denver," the AP reported,
the clashes between demonstrators and the police were some of the most intense since the protest groups began gathering in a downtown park more than a month ago. The police used pepper spray on the protesters, some of whom surged toward police lines....In Nashville, where state law enforcement officials arrested 29 people on Saturday, the issue was a curfew imposed last week that barred protesters from inhabiting a downtown park near the State Capitol. The legality of the curfew has been questioned, and a magistrate judge immediately released the protesters, who had been charged with trespassing, saying that the state had no authority to create such a restriction." See, Occupy Protesters Regroup After Mass Arrests (New York Times 2011-11-31)See, also:Occupy Wall Street Arrests In Texas, Oregon (Reuters 2011-10-30) and
Wounded Iraq vet awake after Oakland protest injury (Reuters 2011-10-28).
One of the motivators of the Occupy movement is the realization by the college and immediately post-college generation that they have been sold a bill of goods.
We were told to work hard and stay in school, and that it would pay off. We are not lazy. We are not entitled. We are drowning in debt with few means of escape.Support OWS Student Debt Day 11/12 (OccupyStudentDebt).
We would give anything to pay our debt, but we are un(der)employed due to the jobs crisis and lack of consumer protections and refinancing rights make things extremely difficult.
The student loan bubble may not burst with a bang, but it is slowly suffocating us.
Please share your story. We stand in solidarity with the 99 percent.
See, also: Sallie Mae Locks Out Student Protesters As Occupy DCMarches Against Skyrocketing Student Debt (Think Progress 2011-10-28).
Detroit may have been particularly hammered by the financial crisis, but protests there are representative of what's happening across the country. The message is the same -- the system isn't working:
Many are recent college grads, frustrated by a lack of jobs and saddled with student debt. Others work full-time, stuck with low wages. And some are middle-age Detroiters who are unemployed after working decades in the auto industry.In a few places, though, the protests are too cheerful to be called confrontational. Take Fort Lauderdale:
Despite their diverse backgrounds, the protesters with Occupy Detroit -- now camped out in Grand Circus Park for two weeks -- are united in their efforts to send a message: The system isn't working for them.
The protesters are part of a movement of people upset at the growing concentration of wealth. Income inequality in the U.S. is at its highest since at least 1967, when the census started recording household income. Challenges Don't Deter Occupy Detroit Protesters From Getting Out Their Message by Niraj Warikoo (Detroit Free Press 2011-10-29).
If America's ultra-rich are feeling unappreciated, a trip to this weekend's Fort Lauderdale International Boat Show seemed to offer some solace. After all, it's the world's premier annual showcase for yachts, and the city bills itself unabashedly as the "Yachting Capital of the World."Despite the weather, Occupy Wall Street is in a holiday mood:
But this year, not all the residents were in a welcoming mood. Members of Occupy Fort Lauderdale staged a demonstration Saturday afternoon, taking their placards on a nearly 3-mile march from downtown to the beach, where the boat show is being held. See, Occupy That Yacht by Thomas Francis (Salon 2011-10-30).
Anti-Wall St protesters plan to join New York City's Halloween parade on Monday and although several people have been arrestedThe Occupy movement will need your help to survive winter weather. Get information on what's needed here or stop by an Occupy site near you.at recent rallies for wearing masks, demonstrators will have a free pass for the holiday....
Occupy Wall Street has set up Occupy Halloween and said on its website, www.occupyhalloween.org, that protesters had been invited to join the 39th annual Village Halloween Parade....
Occupy Halloween urged protesters to organize costume-themed blocs, suggesting ideas such as Wall Street zombies, corporate vampires and V-masks -- the Guy Fawkes mask made popular by the graphic novel "V for Vendetta." -- Anti-Wall Street Protesters to Join NY Halloween Parade (Reuters 2011-10-26).
2012: Imagine President Cain
You don't even want to try
It's true that in a newspaper column limning Christ as the "perfect conservative" (He came up with all those loaves and fishes without any help from an oppressive central government), Herman Cain claimed that a "liberal court" killed Jesus (ThinkProgress.org). But, honestly, how can that hurt him? It only underscores how thoroughly he belongs in the pack of fact-phobic, anti-science, climate change-denying, Bible-thumping, creationist Republican presidential postulants.
Now the front-runner, Cain may be just self-infatuated enough to sit comfortably for four years as one of our serial royals. Take, for example, this passage from his optimistically titled This Is Herman Cain! My Journey to the White House (talk about your audacity of hope):
Herm Cain is our Jimmie Davis, our Michel Martelly. This is better than Bill Clinton Plays the Blues, better than if John McCain, Orrin Hatch and John Ashcroft started a band (and you know you want to hear them harmonize For What It's Worth).
Next up: Herman Cain's rendition of Revolution No 9-9-9.
For the video complete with the Godfather Singers & Dancers, see Herman Cain channels John Lennon by Dan Case (Dan Casey's Blog/Roanoke Times 2011-10-12)
And before we get too carried away: Herman Cain: ‘I’m Very Proud Of The Relationship That I Have With The Koch Brothers’ by Alex Seitz-Wald (Think Progress 2011-10-18)
It's true that in a newspaper column limning Christ as the "perfect conservative" (He came up with all those loaves and fishes without any help from an oppressive central government), Herman Cain claimed that a "liberal court" killed Jesus (ThinkProgress.org). But, honestly, how can that hurt him? It only underscores how thoroughly he belongs in the pack of fact-phobic, anti-science, climate change-denying, Bible-thumping, creationist Republican presidential postulants.
Now the front-runner, Cain may be just self-infatuated enough to sit comfortably for four years as one of our serial royals. Take, for example, this passage from his optimistically titled This Is Herman Cain! My Journey to the White House (talk about your audacity of hope):
I was sitting in my new office on the 31st floor of the World Headquarters one day when I looked out the window and saw that the inflatable dome of the new Minneapolis stadium had collapsed. I realized, as I sat there, staring out the window, that what had kept me happy and motivated was the excitement, challenge, and risk of the past few years.While there is no daylight between him and the other GOP nullities on policy, he has shot to a lead in the polls because he comes across, despite significant barriers of logic and language, as nicer and funnier than his cohort. What other candidate of either party is capable of this?:
Herm Cain is our Jimmie Davis, our Michel Martelly. This is better than Bill Clinton Plays the Blues, better than if John McCain, Orrin Hatch and John Ashcroft started a band (and you know you want to hear them harmonize For What It's Worth).
Next up: Herman Cain's rendition of Revolution No 9-9-9.
For the video complete with the Godfather Singers & Dancers, see Herman Cain channels John Lennon by Dan Case (Dan Casey's Blog/Roanoke Times 2011-10-12)
And before we get too carried away: Herman Cain: ‘I’m Very Proud Of The Relationship That I Have With The Koch Brothers’ by Alex Seitz-Wald (Think Progress 2011-10-18)
Alternatives: Beyond Capitalism
The Alternative Economy Cultures (alt.econ.cult) program last spring brought together leading international and Finnish thinkers, cultural practitioners and activists to present alternative economic visions. The aim was to tackle not just financial, but social, cultural, institutional, human, material, emotional and intellectual forms of capital; not just individual gain, boosting, balancing or bail-outs, but common good, peer-to-peer, shared wealth and appropriate reward-for-effort.
"Parecon" stands for Participatory Economics, a vision for an alternative way to operate an economy, neither capitalism nor twentieth century socialism. Here, activist and economist Michael Albert introduces Parecon to the gathering in Finland.
"Parecon" stands for Participatory Economics, a vision for an alternative way to operate an economy, neither capitalism nor twentieth century socialism. Here, activist and economist Michael Albert introduces Parecon to the gathering in Finland.
Occupy 2011: What do they want?
Ask the Los Angeles City Council
Local cops and city officials have been less than supportive of the consciousness-raising efforts of OccupyLA. Unlike police in Boston and New York City, say, who helpfully club, mace, arrest and otherwise harass demonstrators on a daily basis, the LAPD, county sheriffs and municipal leaders have gone out of their way to clear the path for protestors in front of Los Angeles' city hall. The city council went so far as to pass by a vote of 11-0 a resolution, written by councilmember Richard Alarcon, that is a model response to efforts by citizens to air grievances. The gist:
The Los Angeles city council resolution
The OccupyUSA Blog by Greg Mitchell (The Nation)
City Council Unanimously Passes Occupy L.A. Resolution -- Protesters Struggle to Distance Themselves From Democrats, Unions by Simone Wilson (LA Weekly 2011-10-12)
Occupy Los Angeles
OccupyLA
Occupy Wall Street
OccupyBoston
Police, protesters adjust as occupations expand (Associated Press 2011-10-15)
Local cops and city officials have been less than supportive of the consciousness-raising efforts of OccupyLA. Unlike police in Boston and New York City, say, who helpfully club, mace, arrest and otherwise harass demonstrators on a daily basis, the LAPD, county sheriffs and municipal leaders have gone out of their way to clear the path for protestors in front of Los Angeles' city hall. The city council went so far as to pass by a vote of 11-0 a resolution, written by councilmember Richard Alarcon, that is a model response to efforts by citizens to air grievances. The gist:
...Angelenos, like citizens across the United States, are reeling from a continuing economic crisis that threatens our fiscal stability and our quality of life...."Occupy Wall Street"['s] first official Resolution on September so", 2011, available at http://occupywallst.org/forum/first-official-release-from-occupywall-street/, provid[es] an overview of the goals and unifying principles of the "Occupy" movement....[T]he "Occupy" demonstrations are a rapidly growing movement with the shared goal of urging U.S. citizens to peaceably assemble and occupy public space in order to create a shared dialogue by which to address the problems and generate solutions for economically distressed Americans....[T]he causes and consequences of the economic crisis are eroding the very social contract upon which the Constitution that the United States of America was founded; namely,...allowing every American to strive for and share in the prosperity of our nation through cooperation and hard work...[T]oday corporations hold undue influence and power in our country....[O]ur economic system can only be called broken when one considers that currently, over 25 million Americans who seek work are unemployed; more than 50 million Americans are forced to live without health insurance; and, even using our current poverty measure that is widely recognized to be inadequate and outdated, more than 1 in 5 American children are growing up poor in households that lack access to resources that provide basic survival needs, such as food, clothing, and shelter....[T]he U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) released a "CDC Health Disparities & Inequalities Report - United States, 2011" revealing that income inequality in the United States is the highest in the world among any advanced industrialized nation, with wide-spread inequities in U.S. health outcomes by income, race, and gender....[O]ver the past 30 years, both the average and the median wage in America has remained almost stagnant while the average individual worker contribution to GDP has soared to 59% and the economy has doubled, all after adjusting for inflation; and highest in the world among any advanced industrialized nation, with wide-spread inequities in U.S. health outcomes by income, race, and gender....[A]lmost all the gains to the economy have accrued to the very top income earners-largely the top 1%, who now control 40% of the wealth in the United States, in great part as a result of policy changes that are reversible such as taxation; and...the Institute for Policy Studies indicates that the top 1 percent of Americans own half of the country's stocks, bonds and mutual funds; and...the 400 richest Americans at the top control more wealth than the 180 million Americans at the bottom....[T]he Los Angeles County Federation of Labor has officially endorsed "Occupy Los Angeles" and "Occupy Wall Street" in a statement of support saying: "The Los Angeles labor movement stands with its sisters and brothers occupying Wall Street, downtown Los Angeles, and cities and towns across the country who are fed up with an unfair economy that works for 1% of Americans while the vast majority of people struggle to pay the bills, get an education and raise their families...The Occupy Wall Street movement is mobilizing for a fair economy across the country including in Los Angeles. This movement is taking a stand against the corporate bullies, banks and investment firms that not only created our economic collapse in 2008, but continue to take advantage of it today, making billions in profits while demanding further wage and benefit cuts from American workers."...Americans must resolve some of the divisive economic and social realities facing our nation in a peaceful way to avoid the further deterioration of our greatest asset -- our human capital....[O]ne of the factors spurring recent violent revolutionary protests in the Middle East is high income inequality, though the sobering reality is that income inequality in the United States is even higher than that of some of the countries torn asunder by violent revolution; for instance, according to the C.I.A. World Fact Book, the United States Gini coefficient, which is used to measure inequality, is higher than that of Egypt's pre-Revolution....[T]he fiscal impact of the continuing economic crisis is disastrous to education, public services, infrastructure and essential safety-net services that have historically made America successful, with school class sizes growing while teachers are laid off and forcing Cities and States to make sobering choices that just a few years ago would have been unthinkable, such as how to cut hours and services from public safety provision, delaying or neglecting to maintain essential physical infrastructure including roads, sewers, and water and power delivery; and cutting services provided by our libraries, recreation, and park facilities....[O]ne of the largest problems causing our economy to continue to flounder is the foreclosure crisis, with some banks continuing the use of flawed, and in some cases fraudulent, procedures to flood the housing market with foreclosures, such as the recent revelations of widespread foreclosure mismanagement by mortgage servicers who fail to properly document the seizure and sale of homes, in some cases foreclosing without the legal authority to do so, prompting the 50-state Attorney General investigation of foreclosure practices....California has been particularly hard-hit by the foreclosure crisis, with: • 1 in 5 U.S. foreclosures in California; and • 1.2 million foreclosures in California since 2008, with a projection of a total of 2 million California foreclosures by the end of 2012; and • More than a third of California homeowners locked in an underwater mortgage, with few banks offering any type of principal reduction modification, even given Federal, State and City programs offering to split the balance of a modification with the bank....[T]he costs of the foreclosure crisis to California taxpayers includes: • Property tax revenue losses estimated at $4 billion; and • Local, county and state government losses to respond to foreclosure-related costs estimated at $17 billion --including costs such as the maintenance of blighted properties, sheriff evictions, inspections, public safety, trash removal, and other costs at $19,229 for every foreclosure....[W]ith the concurrence of the Mayor,...the City of Los Angeles hereby stands in support for the continuation of the peaceful and vibrant exercise in First Amendment Rights carried out by "Occupy Los Angeles"....You could slap Michael Bloomberg and Boston mayor Thomas Menino upside the head with this declaration without much hope they'd get the message. (Totally parenthetically, it's worth pointing out that L.A.'s response demonstrates the superiority of legislative government over the executive model: it is difficult to imagine a group of citizens arranging a face-to-face with the mayor of a big eastern city the way the organizers of OccupyLA were able to with their council representative. Like members of state assemblies and Congress, councilors are more likely to be responsive to voters than are mayors -- or governors or presidents). It is also worth noting that Los Angeles is practically the only locale being occupied that has suffered no major confrontations between police and protesters.
The Los Angeles city council resolution
The OccupyUSA Blog by Greg Mitchell (The Nation)
City Council Unanimously Passes Occupy L.A. Resolution -- Protesters Struggle to Distance Themselves From Democrats, Unions by Simone Wilson (LA Weekly 2011-10-12)
Occupy Los Angeles
OccupyLA
Occupy Wall Street
OccupyBoston
Police, protesters adjust as occupations expand (Associated Press 2011-10-15)
Occupy 2011: When OWS Protesters Become Trespassers
by Jeff Norman
Is fighting economic injustice such a righteous pursuit that it entitles Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protesters and their disciples to indefinitely control whatever space they invade? Even though the whole movement is centered around the word “occupy,” deciding which property to take over, or how long to monopolize it, doesn’t seem to be based on any guiding principle. Occupiers need to clarify what, in their eyes, makes terrain seizable.
The owners of Zuccotti Park in New York are apparently authorized to prohibit camping and similar activities, and yesterday they gave entrenched demonstrators a day’s notice to vacate the park long enough for workers to clean and inspect it. Thereafter, they warned, only those who obey park rules will be allowed to use the premises.
The decision announced early this morning to postpone the scheduled cleaning, made no mention of those rules.
The protesters say the City of New York should neither enforce the rules nor “evict” occupiers from the park. But what they haven’t explained is how the police could legally or morally justify ignoring a property owner’s trespass complaint.
Although occupiers pride themselves on adhering to a strict and democratic decision-making method, it’s not clear how – or if – that procedure honors the wishes of park owners, besieged neighbors and various non-OWS users of the park.
The movement’s overall mission has great legitimacy, but its land grabbing policy requires some elucidation.
This article was also published by Citizen Jeff and The Huffington Post.
____________________
Rights trump 'interests.'
"The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," enshrined in the Constitution, is a sacred privilege of citizenship. It must be protected more ferociously than, oh, say, private property.
"Land grabbing" is a loaded description of the Occupy Movement's ad hoc encampments. When Proudhon declared La propriété, c'est le vol!, he didn't have in mind temporary occupations of public or, as in the case of Zucotti Park, quasi-public spaces (nor, in the spirit of Proudhon, should private property be exempt from occupation if circumstances warrant). The inconveniences engendered by occupiers are insignificant when measured against the wrongs that are being protested.
"Behind every great fortune there is a crime," Balzac wrote. It hardly needs mentioning in present company that Occupy exists only because crimes of epic proportions perpetrated by the oligarchs who control the political mechanisms of this republic continue unabated despite the havoc they wreak on most of its inhabitants. Fixating on Occupy's possible violations of health codes, noise ordinances or park regulations misses the bigger picture. To ask the protestors to expend time and energy explaining the legal or moral -- moral? really? -- justifications of the occupations is to ask them to take their eye off the ball.
The guardians of public order and private property -- from cops on the beat to prosecutors to magistrates -- make judgements all the time about which rules and regulations need to be enforced, to what degree and against whom. It is for the City of New York to explain why the unimpeded flow of vehicular traffic or a prohibition against handing out food in a park exceeds the right of the people peaceably to assemble. Besides, the demonstrators, as proper heirs to Gandhi and MLK, are not attempting to avoid prosecution; they just don't want dangerous unnecessary confrontations with armed police and private security personnel.
In any case, this is a political fight, not a legal confrontation or debate about right and wrong. Physically "occupying" is a political tactic; it requires no legal sanction. In fact, like sit-ins, it draws much of its power from the willingness of the occupiers to defy authority. That the demonstrators hold the high moral ground, as I believe, is beside the point. The outcome, as always, will be determined by who is strong not who is right.
For now, the good guys are winning. The oligarchs and their political camp followers are nervous and confused and, in most locales -- Oh, Oakland! -- overreacting. This is a "which side are you on?" moment, as the old Labor anthem had it. (It seems to me that the Oakland "general strike" and the shut down of the port is to be celebrated. It is only when the confrontation begins to really cost the oligarchs that they will be willing to relinquish some of their power.) The Occupy Movement has already changed the focus of the political debate and transformed public opinion; if it goes on long enough and gets big enough, the occupiers might even force a change in the arrangement of power. It would be a shame if the movement gets distracted by nitpicking in its own ranks.
Parenthetically, the Constitution does not mention that the people's cause must meet some standard of righteousness. You and I may believe that to be for economic justice is to be on the side of the angels; John Paulson and his cohort would probably beg to differ (okay, "beg" is the wrong word). It wouldn't matter if the assembled were petitioning for free Jujubes, wax lips, Zagnuts, candy cigarettes and Sugar Babies for all; the right to do so would stand. -- John Gabree
Pictures of Occupy.
Is fighting economic injustice such a righteous pursuit that it entitles Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protesters and their disciples to indefinitely control whatever space they invade? Even though the whole movement is centered around the word “occupy,” deciding which property to take over, or how long to monopolize it, doesn’t seem to be based on any guiding principle. Occupiers need to clarify what, in their eyes, makes terrain seizable.
The owners of Zuccotti Park in New York are apparently authorized to prohibit camping and similar activities, and yesterday they gave entrenched demonstrators a day’s notice to vacate the park long enough for workers to clean and inspect it. Thereafter, they warned, only those who obey park rules will be allowed to use the premises.
The decision announced early this morning to postpone the scheduled cleaning, made no mention of those rules.
The protesters say the City of New York should neither enforce the rules nor “evict” occupiers from the park. But what they haven’t explained is how the police could legally or morally justify ignoring a property owner’s trespass complaint.
Although occupiers pride themselves on adhering to a strict and democratic decision-making method, it’s not clear how – or if – that procedure honors the wishes of park owners, besieged neighbors and various non-OWS users of the park.
The movement’s overall mission has great legitimacy, but its land grabbing policy requires some elucidation.
This article was also published by Citizen Jeff and The Huffington Post.
____________________
Rights trump 'interests.'
"The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," enshrined in the Constitution, is a sacred privilege of citizenship. It must be protected more ferociously than, oh, say, private property.
"Land grabbing" is a loaded description of the Occupy Movement's ad hoc encampments. When Proudhon declared La propriété, c'est le vol!, he didn't have in mind temporary occupations of public or, as in the case of Zucotti Park, quasi-public spaces (nor, in the spirit of Proudhon, should private property be exempt from occupation if circumstances warrant). The inconveniences engendered by occupiers are insignificant when measured against the wrongs that are being protested.
"Behind every great fortune there is a crime," Balzac wrote. It hardly needs mentioning in present company that Occupy exists only because crimes of epic proportions perpetrated by the oligarchs who control the political mechanisms of this republic continue unabated despite the havoc they wreak on most of its inhabitants. Fixating on Occupy's possible violations of health codes, noise ordinances or park regulations misses the bigger picture. To ask the protestors to expend time and energy explaining the legal or moral -- moral? really? -- justifications of the occupations is to ask them to take their eye off the ball.
The guardians of public order and private property -- from cops on the beat to prosecutors to magistrates -- make judgements all the time about which rules and regulations need to be enforced, to what degree and against whom. It is for the City of New York to explain why the unimpeded flow of vehicular traffic or a prohibition against handing out food in a park exceeds the right of the people peaceably to assemble. Besides, the demonstrators, as proper heirs to Gandhi and MLK, are not attempting to avoid prosecution; they just don't want dangerous unnecessary confrontations with armed police and private security personnel.
In any case, this is a political fight, not a legal confrontation or debate about right and wrong. Physically "occupying" is a political tactic; it requires no legal sanction. In fact, like sit-ins, it draws much of its power from the willingness of the occupiers to defy authority. That the demonstrators hold the high moral ground, as I believe, is beside the point. The outcome, as always, will be determined by who is strong not who is right.
For now, the good guys are winning. The oligarchs and their political camp followers are nervous and confused and, in most locales -- Oh, Oakland! -- overreacting. This is a "which side are you on?" moment, as the old Labor anthem had it. (It seems to me that the Oakland "general strike" and the shut down of the port is to be celebrated. It is only when the confrontation begins to really cost the oligarchs that they will be willing to relinquish some of their power.) The Occupy Movement has already changed the focus of the political debate and transformed public opinion; if it goes on long enough and gets big enough, the occupiers might even force a change in the arrangement of power. It would be a shame if the movement gets distracted by nitpicking in its own ranks.
Parenthetically, the Constitution does not mention that the people's cause must meet some standard of righteousness. You and I may believe that to be for economic justice is to be on the side of the angels; John Paulson and his cohort would probably beg to differ (okay, "beg" is the wrong word). It wouldn't matter if the assembled were petitioning for free Jujubes, wax lips, Zagnuts, candy cigarettes and Sugar Babies for all; the right to do so would stand. -- John Gabree
Pictures of Occupy.
2012: talk is cheap
The Democrats are circling Zucotti Park like cold-eyed vultures hungry to feed on the flesh of its idealism and passion. Already, bits and pieces of the heartfelt conversation inside the Occupy Movement about purposes and principles are being cut-and-pasted into the stump speeches of Democratic pols from Barack to Barney. But we are long past talking about hope of change.
"The country needs," Franklin Roosevelt said in May 1932,
"The country needs," Franklin Roosevelt said in May 1932,
and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands, bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something. The millions who are in want will not stand by silently forever while the things to satisfy their needs are within easy reach.Roosevelt in 1932 was no more a radical than was Obama in 2008. But FDR demanded solutions. He made plenty of mistakes in his fight for a new deal for the American people, but unlike Obama he was hamstrung neither by lack of imagination nor an obsession with process. It's still a long time until the 2012 election. Are we in for another 12 months of homilies about the need for change? Or will Barack Obama flex the powers of his office and "try something?"
Occupy 2011: "They have justice on their side."
Michael Lewis and Todd Gitlin visit Occupy Wall Street:
Occupy 2011: They have no message
Says who?
Bill Maher, having celebrated the assassination of an American citizen earlier in the week, last night joined conservative humorist P.J. O'Rourke in ridiculing Occupy Wall Street. But neither smugster had accounted for the presence of the indomitable Alan Grayson:
Bill Maher, having celebrated the assassination of an American citizen earlier in the week, last night joined conservative humorist P.J. O'Rourke in ridiculing Occupy Wall Street. But neither smugster had accounted for the presence of the indomitable Alan Grayson:
Privatization: keep your eye upon the donut, not upon the hole
In the wake of massive of tax giveaways, governments are having trouble maintaining public services.
The Right will use this crisis to achieve a long-time goal: privatization (through tax cuts, many billions of dollars that belong to the public have been privatized already).
This is how privatization will go.
Businesses will use some of their new cash surpluses to buy public services (roads, bridges, parks, stadiums, libraries, water and waste water systems, trash collection operations, prisons, police/fire/rescue departments,
power generation and distribution setups, etc.).
Many will be sold at fire-sale prices. Or given away.
Once in private hands, services that were created with public wealth and have worked well for generations (roads, bridges, parks, stadiums, libraries, water and waste water systems, trash collection operations, prisons, police/fire/rescue departments, power generation and distribution setups, etc.) will be milked, trashed, bled to death.
The public will continue to transfer more tax revenues to private hands for continuing operations or will pay directly for services through fees, tolls, etc.
The services will decline. They will reach the point where new money will need to be invested to keep them going. Business noggins will not regard this as money well spent.
The services will be returned to the public. They will not be sold at fire-sale prices. Nor will they be given away. The companies will demand -- and receive -- compensation, not only for the value of the land, buildings and "improvements," but also for "lost future revenues."
The service infrastructure will be repurchased by the public using tax dollars.
New taxes will be needed to restore the infrastructure to the condition it was in before privatization.
This story happened to appear today: Private services gaining toehold in Tucson (Arizona Star 2011-10-02).
The Right will use this crisis to achieve a long-time goal: privatization (through tax cuts, many billions of dollars that belong to the public have been privatized already).
This is how privatization will go.
Businesses will use some of their new cash surpluses to buy public services (roads, bridges, parks, stadiums, libraries, water and waste water systems, trash collection operations, prisons, police/fire/rescue departments,
power generation and distribution setups, etc.). Many will be sold at fire-sale prices. Or given away.
Once in private hands, services that were created with public wealth and have worked well for generations (roads, bridges, parks, stadiums, libraries, water and waste water systems, trash collection operations, prisons, police/fire/rescue departments, power generation and distribution setups, etc.) will be milked, trashed, bled to death.
The public will continue to transfer more tax revenues to private hands for continuing operations or will pay directly for services through fees, tolls, etc.
The services will decline. They will reach the point where new money will need to be invested to keep them going. Business noggins will not regard this as money well spent.
The services will be returned to the public. They will not be sold at fire-sale prices. Nor will they be given away. The companies will demand -- and receive -- compensation, not only for the value of the land, buildings and "improvements," but also for "lost future revenues."
The service infrastructure will be repurchased by the public using tax dollars.
New taxes will be needed to restore the infrastructure to the condition it was in before privatization.
This story happened to appear today: Private services gaining toehold in Tucson (Arizona Star 2011-10-02).
The Economic Crisis: Lies. Damned Lies. And Statistics.
We have a jobs crisis not a regulatory uncertainty problem. "The demand for goods and services is depressed because of the collapse of the housing and stock market bubbles—the financial crisis—that has led to both a deleveraging (paying off debts) of households and a cratering of the construction sector. The initial shock of the bubble’s burst then cascaded into non-construction business investment that dried up as customers disappeared. Finally, all of this led to state and local governments cutting back services and jobs as tax revenues plunged." Regulatory uncertainty: A phony explanation for our jobs problem by Lawrence Mishel (Economic Policy Institute 2011-09-27).
2012: Straight talk on the campaign trail
Elizabeth Warren is leading débutant Republican Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts. In case you're wondering why:
Elizabeth Warren for Massachusetts (campaign site)
Donate to the Warren campaign (ActBlue)
I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever.’ No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.Elizabeth Warren: "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own" by Lucy Madison (CBS News 2011-09-22)
You built a factory out there? Good for you.But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.
Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.
- Elizabeth Warren
Elizabeth Warren for Massachusetts (campaign site)
Donate to the Warren campaign (ActBlue)
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, and I'm probably the Labor Movement.
If there had a been a political version of the reality TV show "Biggest Loser" during the 2008 presidential race, the hands down "winner" would have been the unions. While the rest of us projected our hopes and dreams onto the blank face of the Obama campaign, Big Labor was trading phone banks, door knocking and hard cash for influence. But while the rest of us have only ourselves to blame for conjuring up a fantasy hero to change everything in Washington, Big Labor got snookered. As Randy Shaw wrote this week,
Not every spark turns into a firestorm, of course. But where there's smoke there's fire. Okay. Whatever. The point is that 2012 may not be a repeat of 2008. Even if the Democrats manage to scare many progressives to vote for their ticket on election day with phantasmagoria about the demons on the other side, it's already clear that there will be less enthusiasm, and less money than in 2008. Obama couldn't crack 53% in the political equivalent of the perfect storm; the Democrats will find it hard to repeat even if the Republicans offer another unattractive and transparently incompetent contender, their typically empty-suitor.
The national Democrats' difficulties are not a problem but an opportunity. Even if Obama had been the second coming of FDR, wresting control of the Democratic Party from the banksters and their cohort would have problematic; having a corporate Democrat in the White House makes it impossible. But should the Democrats lose the executive, the way may be clearer to increasing Labor's sway over public policy.
From: Labor Idle As Obama, Democrats Back “Raw Deal” for Working People by Randy Shaw (BeyondChron 2011-08-04)
See, also: Labor's Revival Depends on Workplace Organizing, Not Electoral Politics by Randy Shaw (BeyondChron 2011-06-13)
...labor is the big spender on the left, and as 2012 approaches, are unions really going to pour another $200 million into Obama’s campaign? And millions more into Senate Democrats, not one of whom (Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who did speak out, is not a Democrat) spoke out strongly and tried to organize actions against the debt deal?At least some unions seems to have learned a lesson from shadow boxing with the Democrats. The International Association of Fire Fighters, to take one example, decided in April to pull back from national politics (as Jeanne Cummings reported in Politico):
Labor made the right decision to pour massive resources into electing Democrats in the 2008 elections. But this strategy failed. Now unions must redirect resources to ongoing organizing, and make it clear to Obama’s campaign that it should look to the “independents” whose support it so desperately seeks, rather than the union members whose agenda it scorns, for money and volunteers in 2012.
As newly elected Republican state legislatures aggressively push a slew of anti-union measures, the International Association of Fire Fighters is freezing its federal political spending and shifting all resources toward its beleaguered state and local colleagues.The fire fighters' PAC spent more than $4 million in the 2010 midterms and was still writing checks at the beginning of this year. “But until we see our friends in Congress be as committed to standing and fighting with us with the same level of intensity and ferocity as our enemies are trying to kill us, I’m turning the spigot off,” Schaitberger told Politico. Cummings reported Schaitberger was particularly ticked off that Senate Democrats killed a firefighter grant program that his members had helped push through the House despite GOP control.
“With the survival of our union and the ability to preserve and protect the rights, wages, and benefits our members deserve in jeopardy in the states, we have re-evaluated how to get the best results from our political dollars,” IAFF President Harold A. Schaitberger said...in an email blast to members....
Not every spark turns into a firestorm, of course. But where there's smoke there's fire. Okay. Whatever. The point is that 2012 may not be a repeat of 2008. Even if the Democrats manage to scare many progressives to vote for their ticket on election day with phantasmagoria about the demons on the other side, it's already clear that there will be less enthusiasm, and less money than in 2008. Obama couldn't crack 53% in the political equivalent of the perfect storm; the Democrats will find it hard to repeat even if the Republicans offer another unattractive and transparently incompetent contender, their typically empty-suitor.
The national Democrats' difficulties are not a problem but an opportunity. Even if Obama had been the second coming of FDR, wresting control of the Democratic Party from the banksters and their cohort would have problematic; having a corporate Democrat in the White House makes it impossible. But should the Democrats lose the executive, the way may be clearer to increasing Labor's sway over public policy.
From: Labor Idle As Obama, Democrats Back “Raw Deal” for Working People by Randy Shaw (BeyondChron 2011-08-04)
See, also: Labor's Revival Depends on Workplace Organizing, Not Electoral Politics by Randy Shaw (BeyondChron 2011-06-13)
The New Democratic Party? The People's Party? The Progressive Party? The Not-The-Democratic Party?
The left has to end its codependent relationship with the Democratic Party.
"Nasty Jefferson/Madison vs Hamilton contretemps created new US politics," I tweeted the other morning, exasperated at reading news about the federal budget negotiations. "Will current political impasse inspire #thirdparty? #progressives."
Gary Gordon replied: "Sitting on the sidelines wondering if someone will create a third party will not create a third party. C'mon Michael Moore, Jim Hightower, Jodie Evans, Medea Benjamin, Dennis Kucinich, John Nichols, Katrina Van Heuval, Tom Hayden, Robert Scheer, Bobby Seale, Oliver Stone, Matt Damon, Joe Conasan, Thom Hartman, Mike Malloy, et al [I'd add AFL-CIO prez Richard Trumka and his cohort - ed]: WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU?"
Gordon is on point. It is not news to anyone on his list that our political system is failing. Left leaders who participate in the charade that the Democratic Party will provide the mechanism for rescuing the system will be as guilty as the corporatists and militarists who now and will forever run the party.
There are members of Congress -- people like Raúl Grijalva, George Miller, Barbara Lee, Pete Stark, Jared Polis, John Lewis, Bobby Rush, Jan Schakowsky, Elijah Cummings, Jim McGovern, John Conyers, Emanuel Cleaver, Donald Payne, Ben R. Luján, Jerry Nadler, Nydia Velázquez, Carolyn Maloney, José Serrano, Louise Slaughter, Marcy Kaptur, Peter DeFazio, David Cicilline, Peter Welch, Jim McDermott, Tammy Baldwin, Gwen Moore, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, to name a few -- who give the impression that they'd feel more at home in a progressive party.
"Nasty Jefferson/Madison vs Hamilton contretemps created new US politics," I tweeted the other morning, exasperated at reading news about the federal budget negotiations. "Will current political impasse inspire #thirdparty? #progressives."
Gary Gordon replied: "Sitting on the sidelines wondering if someone will create a third party will not create a third party. C'mon Michael Moore, Jim Hightower, Jodie Evans, Medea Benjamin, Dennis Kucinich, John Nichols, Katrina Van Heuval, Tom Hayden, Robert Scheer, Bobby Seale, Oliver Stone, Matt Damon, Joe Conasan, Thom Hartman, Mike Malloy, et al [I'd add AFL-CIO prez Richard Trumka and his cohort - ed]: WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU?"
Gordon is on point. It is not news to anyone on his list that our political system is failing. Left leaders who participate in the charade that the Democratic Party will provide the mechanism for rescuing the system will be as guilty as the corporatists and militarists who now and will forever run the party.
There are members of Congress -- people like Raúl Grijalva, George Miller, Barbara Lee, Pete Stark, Jared Polis, John Lewis, Bobby Rush, Jan Schakowsky, Elijah Cummings, Jim McGovern, John Conyers, Emanuel Cleaver, Donald Payne, Ben R. Luján, Jerry Nadler, Nydia Velázquez, Carolyn Maloney, José Serrano, Louise Slaughter, Marcy Kaptur, Peter DeFazio, David Cicilline, Peter Welch, Jim McDermott, Tammy Baldwin, Gwen Moore, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, to name a few -- who give the impression that they'd feel more at home in a progressive party.
From the Won't-Be-Fooled-Again desk:
Published on Thursday, August 4, 2011 by The San Francisco Chronicle
SAN FRANCISCO - There have long been rumblings that the liberal
base is ticked off at President Obama, but the Progressive Caucus of
the California Democratic Party just put that frustration into writing:
They've passed a resolution exploring calling for a primary challenge to
Obama.CA Dem Party Progressives Explore Primary Challenge to Obama
President Obama challenged from the left in a primary? Karen Bernal, chair of CDP's Progressive Caucus, doesn't plan to ask the full California Democratic Party to approve the resolution. It was meant more as a statement of conscience than a desire to back a rival to Obama, she said. "Is there a sense of desperation in this?" Bernal said. "I would have to say yes." Now, this is largely symbolic, but it's heavy nonetheless. They're ticked that Obama hasn't ditched the Bush tax cuts, has continued drone attacks overseas, and hasn't ended the foreclosure crisis, among other sins listed below. The straw that broke their collective caucus backs, Caucus chair Karen Bernal told us Wednesday, was Obama's -- as the resolution put it -- "unilateral closed-door budget offer to slash Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which endangers the New Deal and War on Poverty safety nets."
"Our silence," Bernal told us, "is a price that's too high to pay."
So last weekend -- July 30 -- at a meeting in Anaheim, the Prog Caucus broke their silence.
But doesn't Bernal remember when Teddy Kennedy challenged incumbent Prez Jimmy Carter in 1980...who lost to President Reagan later that year? Isn't she afraid that, as a Democrat, a primary challenge could weaken Obama and possibly lead to a Republican president?
"We already have one in so many of his policies," Bernal said.
Ouch.
Actually, the resolution itself is a bit more restrained -- or nuanced, if you prefer -- than that. Passed last weekend, it says that the Caucus....
"...will begin the process of contacting other Democratic organizations, Democratic Party members and public organizations that share our views on the issues and which seek to alter the course of history by exploring other steps to effect a necessary change, including a possible primary challenge to President Obama."
Bernal doesn't plan to ask the full California Democratic Party to approve the resolution. It was meant more as a statement of conscience than a desire to back a rival to Obama, she said. "Is there a sense of desperation in this?" Bernal said. "I would have to say yes."
The caucus, according to a spokesman, hopes that "Obama would rework his priorities to respond to the needs of working class Americans in order to get progressive support in 2012."
California Democratic Party chair John Burton --- who supported Kennedy versus Carter in 1980 -- told us that he doesn't agree with this resolution.
Caressing the Queen's English in a way that only the Chairman can, Burton told us that he doesn't think that a primary challenge to Obama will help the president's re-election chances.
"F---- no, what is that going to do?" Burton told us.
So a little competition won't help Obama advocate more strongly for core Democratic Party principles?
"Yeah, I'm sure. If the debt limit (debate) showed something, it showed what an absolute f------ disaster it would have been if there had been a Republican president," Burton said. "The people who sat on their hands or voted Republican in 2010, most of them are going through buyer's remorse right now."
What about the frustration the liberal base -- and the Caucus -- feels about the war and...
"A lot of people are frustrated about the war. People talk about cutting Social Security and they're not talking about paying for the war. People are frustrated about a ton of stuff," he said.
"It's how they feel. There's discontent," Burton said. "There's a frustration in the country. Look at the f------ polls. So f---, that's news to somebody?"
But couldn't this be damaging to Obama, coming from his safe blue haven in California?
(The resolution) "is a reflection on the part of liberals in the California (Democratic) Party to the point that they talk about or fantasize about a primary challenge with the hope that it will end the war, have a single-payer health plan, do away with the Bush tax cuts, take Social Security tax cuts off the table," Burton said.
Here's the full resolution:
WHEREAS, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party recognizes the challenge presented by President Obama's negotiating away Democratic Party principles to extremist Republicans, we are challenged by President Obama in the following ways:
His unilateral closed-door budget offer to slash Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which endangers the New Deal and War on Poverty safety nets.
His determination to escalate U.S. militarism through illegal secret CIA drone attacks and unauthorized wars.
His willingness to extend the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and bail out big banks without ending the foreclosure crisis that displaces American working families.
His insistence on pushing a health insurance bill which enriches private insurance companies while ignoring growing support for single-payer health care or robust public options.
His continuance of President Bush’s assault on civil liberties with an extension of the repressive Patriot Act.
His failure to restore due process, including the protection of whistleblowers and habeas corpus.
His numerous failures to adhere to international law.
The continuing practice of nationwide FBI raids of anti-war progressive protestors.
His decision to increase the arrests and deportations of undocumented workers.
His facilitation of the privatizing of the public sphere, which includes education and housing, among others.
His disregard of his promises to the Labor movement.
His failure to adequately protect the environment and adequately address climate change.
WHEREAS, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party recognizes the historical significance of the Eugene McCarthy/Robert F. Kennedy anti-war challenge to President Lyndon Johnson. The challenge followed President Johnson's decision to escalate U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, betraying his campaign promise to end a war that polarized America. Similarly, we recognize the danger and betrayal that the current "Grand Bargain" represents to the legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's signature gift to all Americans, Social Security and the New Deal, a point of pride for all Democrats.
WHEREAS, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party is committed to the understanding that an interest in a 2012 Democratic presidential primary challenge will not interfere with President Obama's ability to govern and not limit his ability to do so in ways that include invoking Constitutional options, we recognize that this will, in fact, raise debate on important issues without risking the ability to mobilize and energize the base of the Democratic Party to elect a triumphant leader to counter the far-right agenda.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, to make our views heard, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party will begin the process of contacting other Democratic organizations, Democratic Party members and public organizations that share our views on the issues and which seek to alter the course of history by exploring other steps to effect a necessary change, including a possible primary challenge to President Obama.
I've got a bridge you can buy
It looks like this is the deal the Dems traded for a raise in the debt ceiling of up to $2.8 trillion:
Spending cuts of roughly $1 trillion
Vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment
Special committee to recommend cuts of $1.8 trillion before Thanksgiving
Automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare, if recommended cuts not approved by Dec
No new tax revenue
Spending cuts of roughly $1 trillion
Vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment
Special committee to recommend cuts of $1.8 trillion before Thanksgiving
Automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare, if recommended cuts not approved by Dec
No new tax revenue
Action: Martin's Art
No matter how cruel the day was, the sun will rise tomorrow for a new day.
For Martin Thuku, a 19-year old Kenyan artist who grew up at the Kandara Children's Home after the deaths of his parents, art provides a reminder that, whatever hardships we have endured, we are still the creators of our own destiny.
For Martin Thuku, a 19-year old Kenyan artist who grew up at the Kandara Children's Home after the deaths of his parents, art provides a reminder that, whatever hardships we have endured, we are still the creators of our own destiny.
2012: California referendum to capture oil drilling revenues
This is the text of a proposed California ballot initiative:
Oil Extraction Tax to Rescue EducationOrganizations supporting the referendum effort include labor unions, teacher and student associations, and progressive political groups. Anyone interested in participating can download a petition here and flyers here. For more information, visit the sponsoring organization at Rescue Education California.
Maintaining California's competiveness in the new global economy
California's Educational System, Kindergarten through College and University, has been cut to the bone. Overcrowded classrooms, textbook shortages, teacher and professor lay-offs, and reduced or eliminated college class sections have made it impossible for millions of talented students to graduate. For example, Long Beach Unified School District eliminated computer literacy classes as a graduation requirement.
University of California student's' tuition fees are being raised 8% and California State University students' tuition fees are being raised by 15% percent for Fall 2011. California Community College students are facing a proposed tuition fee increase of 38% (to $540) per semester minimum, up to 154% ($990) per semester for fall 2011. Californians must act now to save our once world renowned Educational System.
Education is the foundation of a strong economy. California Governors Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger enjoyed tuition free education at UC Berkley and Santa Monica College, respectively. In the 1960s and 1970s, California's Educational System was the envy of the world. During this time, public higher education was essentially tuition free, as mandated by Governor Pat Brown's Master Plan for Higher Education, and California's economy grew to the 5th largest in the world, supporting a large vibrant middle class.
Today, California's middle class is endangered, and California's economy has fallen to 8th position in the world because of a lack of investment in education and technology. China recently invented the world's fastest computer (server) and produces the largest number of solar panels, while South Korea produces the best electric car batteries using cutting edge technology. California's K-12 spending per pupil has dropped to 43rd out of 50 states. College and university graduates are saddled with huge debt. If California is to successfully compete with states and countries such as China, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and India, California's Educational System must again be adequately funded, offering more classes and programs in cutting-edge technology, skilled manufacturing, alternative energy, and the arts. California Community Colleges need adequate funding to continue training Nurses, and preparing Firefighters and Teachers.
Unbelievably, California has failed to employ a widely used revenue source that can address this crisis in our education. This revenue source is employed by every major oil producing state, except California. This untapped source of revenue is an extraction fee on oil pumped in California, onshore and offshore. Since California is the nation's third largest producer of oil, after Texas and Alaska, a 15% oil extraction fee (midway between that of Texas and Alaska) would raise approximately $3.6 billion each year, at 2011 oil prices. This has not been a partisan issue in other states. For example, Governor Sarah Palin, with a Republican legislature, raised Alaska's oil extraction fee to 25%, bringing in billions of dollars. Texas's and Alaska's gasoline prices were not affected by their oil extraction fees, and in March 2011, their price per gallon of gasoline was lower than California's. From 1901 to 2008, oil companies have extracted over 10 billion barrels of oil from California's territory. Based on 2011 per barrel crude oil prices ($100 per barrel), oil companies have extracted over $1 trillion worth of oil. At the current world market price, this oil extraction fee would have raised over $150 billion. This type of fee is the economic standard in every major oil producing state and nation around the world. California can no longer afford to give preferential treatment to oil companies compared to how they are treated elsewhere.
This initiative requires that California apply a 15% oil extraction fee on the value of each barrel of oil, California's common resource, extracted onshore and offshore. Following Texas' example of devoting this oil revenue to its Educational System, the revenue generated by this fee shall be appropriated for non-capital purposes in the following amounts: K-12 shall receive 30% (approximately $1.08 billion). The California Community College System (approximately 3,000,000 students) shall receive 48% (approximately $1.72 bill). The California State University System (approximately 412,000 students) shall receive 11% (approximately $400 million). The University of California System (approximately 200,000 students) shall receive 11$ (approximately $400 million). This will reduce college and university tuition fees, and restore cut class sections. The funding increases will pay to rehire professors, laid-off teachers, and reduce K-12 class sizes.
This proposition, along with existing anti-trust and anti-collusion laws, prohibits oil companies from passing on the oil extraction fee to oil refineries, gasoline stations, and consumers (the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that States can prohibit oil companies from passing on fees such as this to consumers). This fee will enable California to capture $3.6 billion that would have left California. This additional money will help rejuvenate California's stagnant economy. This fee will have minimal impact on oil company profits which total in the hundreds of billions of dollars. For example, Exxon Mobile reported record profits of $45 billion in 2008, and Shell Oil reported profits of $31 billion in 2007.
If oil companies illegally pass on the oil extraction fee, a fine shall be assessed equal to the amount passed on. The dollar amount recouped shall be equally distributed to each Californian as a rebate check at the end of each year. The State Attorney General is bound by this proposition to examine the books of oil companies operating in the state of California, if they appear to be breaking this law.
The revenues from this proposition exclusively constitute a Competiveness Education Fund and cannot be commingled with, or lent to, the State General Fund. The State shall not be allowed to reduce its regular education funding corresponding to the additional revenue produced by this proposition. The revenues from this Competiveness Education Fund shall be deposited in a Special Account and distributed, on a monthly basis, by the California State Treasurer to each of the California Educational Systems involved. Passage of this proposition will once again ensure a bright future for this generation and succeeding generations of Californians who have to compete in the new global economy.
2012: Are progressives learning how to get their message out?
Although the decline of the middle class has been discussed for decades, if Netroots Nation is any indication political progressives are settling on the notion of the American Dream as their metaphor for what's at stake in the current struggles in state and federal legislatures over issues like taxes, public spending, union rights and gay marriage, and what can be won or lost in the next election. Van Jones has been advancing the idea (here is the closing section of his speech this weekend at Netroots) of branding the hundreds -- thousands? -- of progressive organizations that work for change the American Dream Movement (apparently, Equal Rights-Economic Justice-Labor-GLBT-Women's-Peace-Reproductive Rights-Environmental-Veterans-Corporate Accountability-Death Penalty Movement is seen as unwieldy).
Throughout the Netroots gathering, restoring or reviving the American Dream was used as a shorthand by union and economic justice activists to describe their determination to upend the Right's assault middle and working class Americans. Just today, Change to Win, a labor research and organizing coalition that focuses on the plight of middle class, introduced this video:
This afternoon in Minneapolis, progressive congressmembers, represented today by Reps. Raúl Grijalva, Keith Ellison and Jared Polis, launched a series of teach-ins -- Speakout for Good Jobs Now: Rebuild the American Dream -- that will travel the country in the next few months to hear how the economy is affecting average people and to build support for progressive Democrats running for Congress.
On Thursday at 8pm (est), Jones will join MoveOn.org Civic Action and others to launch a Rebuild the Dream campaign to kick start the American Dream Movement.
The American Prospect devoted its March 2011 issue edited by Robert Kuttner to America's Endangered Middle Class: Why saving it is ground zero of American Politics. If progressives want a winning theme that the Right can't match, as Jacob Hacker argued in the issue, this is it.
Update: Sen. Al Franken was joined by AFSCME Secretary-Treasurer Lee Saunders, Wisconsin Education Association Council President Mary Bell, SEIU President Mary Kay Henry, UFCW President Joseph Hansen and Bob Kuttner for a keynote session entitled "Attack on America's Middle Class and the Plan to Fight Back," moderated by Ari Melber of The Nation.
Throughout the Netroots gathering, restoring or reviving the American Dream was used as a shorthand by union and economic justice activists to describe their determination to upend the Right's assault middle and working class Americans. Just today, Change to Win, a labor research and organizing coalition that focuses on the plight of middle class, introduced this video:
This afternoon in Minneapolis, progressive congressmembers, represented today by Reps. Raúl Grijalva, Keith Ellison and Jared Polis, launched a series of teach-ins -- Speakout for Good Jobs Now: Rebuild the American Dream -- that will travel the country in the next few months to hear how the economy is affecting average people and to build support for progressive Democrats running for Congress.
On Thursday at 8pm (est), Jones will join MoveOn.org Civic Action and others to launch a Rebuild the Dream campaign to kick start the American Dream Movement.
The American Prospect devoted its March 2011 issue edited by Robert Kuttner to America's Endangered Middle Class: Why saving it is ground zero of American Politics. If progressives want a winning theme that the Right can't match, as Jacob Hacker argued in the issue, this is it.
Update: Sen. Al Franken was joined by AFSCME Secretary-Treasurer Lee Saunders, Wisconsin Education Association Council President Mary Bell, SEIU President Mary Kay Henry, UFCW President Joseph Hansen and Bob Kuttner for a keynote session entitled "Attack on America's Middle Class and the Plan to Fight Back," moderated by Ari Melber of The Nation.
Watch live streaming video from freespeechtv at livestream.com
See, also: Progressives Push For Job Growth On Tour by Sarah Kenigsberg (Huffington Post 2011-06-18).
2012: Apparently, we can't
Okay. Let's get this out of our system now. Because in just a few months we're going to be invited again to ignore our lying eyes and vote to extend for four more years what historians will one day call the Bush-Obama Era. And it would be nice, wouldn't it, if we didn't fall for the same bullshit twice.
2012: The United States is an economic basket case.
This can't be good for incumbent Democrats.
Despite what you read in the funny papers, the U.S. economy is still plummeting down Corbet's Couloir. During the 23 months of the bogus "Obama recovery," the average number of jobs created has been about 23,000 a month, a fraction of the 150,000 or so jobs a month it takes just to keep up with population growth, let alone grow the economy. Spending on infrastructure, a key to both job and business recovery, is virtually nil. "In 2010," writes Michael Snyder, "more homes were repossessed than ever before, more Americans were on food stamps than ever before and a smaller percentage of American men had jobs than ever before."
The rich are getting vastly richer while average Americans struggle to get by. Yet the Democrats are betting that the electorate won't be able to stomach pulling the lever for one of the graduates of the GOP's political clown school. But in 2012, once again only one item will be on the agenda: jobs, jobs, and jobs. And if past history is any guide, voters may once again think their only choice is to opt for "change."
The rest of the story: 20 Questions To Ask Anyone Foolish Enough To Believe The Economic Crisis Is Over by Michael Snyder (Business Insider 2011-05-30).
Despite what you read in the funny papers, the U.S. economy is still plummeting down Corbet's Couloir. During the 23 months of the bogus "Obama recovery," the average number of jobs created has been about 23,000 a month, a fraction of the 150,000 or so jobs a month it takes just to keep up with population growth, let alone grow the economy. Spending on infrastructure, a key to both job and business recovery, is virtually nil. "In 2010," writes Michael Snyder, "more homes were repossessed than ever before, more Americans were on food stamps than ever before and a smaller percentage of American men had jobs than ever before."
The rich are getting vastly richer while average Americans struggle to get by. Yet the Democrats are betting that the electorate won't be able to stomach pulling the lever for one of the graduates of the GOP's political clown school. But in 2012, once again only one item will be on the agenda: jobs, jobs, and jobs. And if past history is any guide, voters may once again think their only choice is to opt for "change."
The rest of the story: 20 Questions To Ask Anyone Foolish Enough To Believe The Economic Crisis Is Over by Michael Snyder (Business Insider 2011-05-30).
Social Change: Blowing in the wind?
People around the world are mad as hell. And some of them, at least, won't take it anymore. Tyrants -- and oligarchs -- beware!
In Budapest in April, I happened on a remarkable demonstration by tens of thousands of trade unionists and socialists protesting the austerity budgets being imposed on European Union member states by the financial interests controlling the region's economies. Marching along Andrassy from Heroes' Square to a demonstration and speechifying at the Octagon, protestors from all over the EU sang, shouted, waved banners, banged drums, and deployed noise makers (including remarkably effective vuvuzelas) to decry government austerity plans that will worsen job loss and lower wages, weaken labor standards, and result in greater social inequality. To a visitor from the United States, where the most knowledgeable and engaged political expression of late has involved voting for the next American Idol, the demands for economic and social justice were a heartening reminder that the struggle for a fairer, more democratic social system is not happening in isolation. The quote above from the protestor in Madrid could have come as easily this spring from the streets of Madison or Columbus, of Sidi Bouzid or Cairo or Deraa, of Reykjavik or Athens. The forces of social reform, on the defensive for four decades, are showing renewed vigor across the globe. 2011 is shaping up to be the new 1968. Will the outcome this time be different?
If you had told me a few months ago that thousands of people would take to the streets to complain about our political system,I would have found it hard to believe, because it looked like we were an apathetic generation that was incapable of responding to a crisis even when it was destroying our jobs like a tsunami.the message has surely gone through to politicians that they can't just keep ignoring our frustrations and pretend that nothing has changed. -- María Subinas, a participant in demonstrations in Madrid's Puerta del Sol anti-austerity movement (Spain's governing party suffers heavy losses - New York Times 2011-05-23)
In Budapest in April, I happened on a remarkable demonstration by tens of thousands of trade unionists and socialists protesting the austerity budgets being imposed on European Union member states by the financial interests controlling the region's economies. Marching along Andrassy from Heroes' Square to a demonstration and speechifying at the Octagon, protestors from all over the EU sang, shouted, waved banners, banged drums, and deployed noise makers (including remarkably effective vuvuzelas) to decry government austerity plans that will worsen job loss and lower wages, weaken labor standards, and result in greater social inequality. To a visitor from the United States, where the most knowledgeable and engaged political expression of late has involved voting for the next American Idol, the demands for economic and social justice were a heartening reminder that the struggle for a fairer, more democratic social system is not happening in isolation. The quote above from the protestor in Madrid could have come as easily this spring from the streets of Madison or Columbus, of Sidi Bouzid or Cairo or Deraa, of Reykjavik or Athens. The forces of social reform, on the defensive for four decades, are showing renewed vigor across the globe. 2011 is shaping up to be the new 1968. Will the outcome this time be different?
quote unquote: John Stuart Mill on the limits of individualism
"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, 
either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." -- John Stuart Mill (On Liberty)
either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." -- John Stuart Mill (On Liberty)
quote unquote
Michael Bloomberg's ban on smoking in parks is just one more attack on the working class, which, along with the occasional hipster, is the last redoubt of tobacco use in our selectively puritanical nation. You want clean city air? Ban cars. -- Barbara Ehrenreich post on Facebook
2012: Who will represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party?
Barack Obama's feckless leadership, apparently intended to position him as a moderate in his bid for a second term, won't get him reelected. The Republicans know that nothing they can throw at him, no matter how ridiculous or how ugly, will blow back on them. And covered as he will be in GOP crap, he won't pass the "smell test" for many voters; they won't be able to tell you exactly what, but something surely is wrong with a guy who causes this much controversy. Whoever the GOP nominee is, he won't need to begin every morning of the campaign by hosing off yesterday's political dirt.
Not to say the president won't win another term. He's been very lucky in his opponents thus far -- Hillary! McCain!! Palin!!! -- and there is no reason to think that the Republicans won't help him out again, as they did when they selected John McCain over Mike Huckabee. The GOP doesn't have much of a bench to draw on, after all, so whomever they nominate is unlikely to stand up well cara a cara with Obama. Even so, the Democrats like to run with a handicap by obscuring their differences with their opponents or campaigning on Republican ideas, as if it would be unfair somehow to give the voters a clear choice (between Social Darwinism and, say, the New Deal). Instead of drawing parallels as he seems determined to do between himself and the great bloviator Ronald Reagan, if Obama is looking for a role model he might do worse than to look to fighting Harry Truman, a leader who didn't need Gangs of Six to tell him where the buck stopped.
Not to say the president won't win another term. He's been very lucky in his opponents thus far -- Hillary! McCain!! Palin!!! -- and there is no reason to think that the Republicans won't help him out again, as they did when they selected John McCain over Mike Huckabee. The GOP doesn't have much of a bench to draw on, after all, so whomever they nominate is unlikely to stand up well cara a cara with Obama. Even so, the Democrats like to run with a handicap by obscuring their differences with their opponents or campaigning on Republican ideas, as if it would be unfair somehow to give the voters a clear choice (between Social Darwinism and, say, the New Deal). Instead of drawing parallels as he seems determined to do between himself and the great bloviator Ronald Reagan, if Obama is looking for a role model he might do worse than to look to fighting Harry Truman, a leader who didn't need Gangs of Six to tell him where the buck stopped.
Privacy: All Your Data Are Belong To Us
This week Dropbox changed its terms of service, as reported by the essential Business Insider. Under its new policy, Dropbox says that it will cooperate with “United States law enforcement when it receives valid legal process” and may, if necessary, decrypt the private files in Dropbox folders, allowing them to be read by government snoops.
Not that Dropbox deserves to be singled out, except that I had just gotten around to using it. As David Gerwirtz points out on ZDNet's government blog, the lead could have cited Gmail. Or any Google app requiring sign-up. Or Amazon’s cloud. Or Hotmail. Or any of Yahoo’s many services. Or almost any other online service.
The rest of the story: If you have something to hide from the government, don't use Dropbox by David Gewirtz (ZDNet Government 2011-04-18)
Not that Dropbox deserves to be singled out, except that I had just gotten around to using it. As David Gerwirtz points out on ZDNet's government blog, the lead could have cited Gmail. Or any Google app requiring sign-up. Or Amazon’s cloud. Or Hotmail. Or any of Yahoo’s many services. Or almost any other online service.
The rest of the story: If you have something to hide from the government, don't use Dropbox by David Gewirtz (ZDNet Government 2011-04-18)
Must Read: How the US Government Strikes Fear in Its Own Citizens and People Around the World
In a recent speech, Glenn Greenwald discussed how the government and media treatment of WikiLeaks is symptomatic of a total lack of respect for the law and government transparency by the secret consortium of government and corporate power that runs the United States.
[Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from the transcript of a speech delivered by Constitutional lawyer and Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald at the Lannan Foundation on March 8. The speech was transcribed by the blog Contumacious. Please visit AlterNet to read the entire speech.]
by Glenn Greenwald
...[P]olitical controversies and political issues never take place in isolation. They're always part of some broader framework, that drives political outcomes, and that determines how political power is exercised. And so it doesn't really matter which specific topic, or which specific controversy of the day you want to discuss, the reality is, you can't really meaningfully discuss any of them without examining all the forces that shape political culture, and that shape how political outcomes are determined. So, in order to talk about any issue, you end up speaking about these same, broad themes, that are shaping, and I think plaguing, the political discourse in the United States.
This is something that I first realized when I started writing about politics in late 2005. One of the very first topics on which I focused was the scandal about the Bush administration eavesdropping on American citizens without the warrants required by law. This was first exposed by the NYT in December of 2005, so it happened around six weeks after I began writing about politics. I had this very naïve idea that this was going to be very straightforward and simple political controversy. The reason I thought that in my naiveté, was because what the Bush administration got caught doing [eavesdropping on Americans without warrants from the FISA court] is as clear as could possibly be a felony under American law. You can actually look at the criminal law that existed since 1978, when FISA was enacted. It says that doing exactly what the Bush administration got caught doing, is a felony in the U.S., just like robbing a bank, or extortion or murder, and that it's punishable by a prison term of five years or a $10,000 fine for each offense.
The report that the NYT published was that there were at least hundreds and probably thousands of instances where American citizens were eavesdropped on illegally and in violation of the law. So, I thought that this was going to be a fairly straightforward controversy, because I had this idea that if you get caught committing a felony, and the NYT writes and reports on that and everybody's talking about that, that that's actually going to be a really bad thing for the person who got caught doing that. I know it was really naïve. I'm actually embarrassed to admit that I thought that, but that really is was I thought at the time. I also thought that basically everybody would be in agreement that that was a really bad thing to do....that thing that the law said for 30 years was a felony and punishable by a prison term and a large fine. And, as it turned out (and I realized this fairly quickly) none of that actually happened. It wasn't a really bad thing for the people who got caught committing that felony.
And, not only did everyone not agree that that was a bad thing, very few people actually agreed that that was a very bad thing. So, what I thought I was going to be able to do was to take this issue and write very legalistically about it, and demonstrate that what the Bush administration had done was a crime, that it was a felony under the statute and that the legal defenses for it that they had raised were frivolous and baseless and that would be the end of the story. Crime committed, investigation commenced, punishment ensues. So what immediately happened, when I realized that none of that was really going on, of course then the question became why. Why was my expectation about what would happen so radically different than what in fact happened?
So, then I needed to delve into that dynamic, that I began by referencing that determines political outcomes. I had to examine the fact that we have a political faction inside the U.S. [the American Right] that is drowning in concepts of nationalism, and exceptionalism, in tribalism that leads them to believe that whatever they and their leaders do is justifiable inherently because they do it, and in a complete lack of principle...this is the same faction that impeached a democratically elected president not more than 10 years earlier on the grounds that the rule of law is paramount and we can't allow our presidents to break the law. And, yet, here they were defending it.
Please read the entire address at How the US Government Strikes Fear in Its Own Citizens and People Around the World by Glenn Greenwald (AlterNet 2011-03-21).
Glenn Greenwald is a constitutional law attorney and chief blogger at Unclaimed Territory. His forthcoming book, How Would a Patriot Act: Defending American Values from a President Run Amok will be released by Working Assets Publishing next month.
[Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from the transcript of a speech delivered by Constitutional lawyer and Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald at the Lannan Foundation on March 8. The speech was transcribed by the blog Contumacious. Please visit AlterNet to read the entire speech.]
by Glenn Greenwald
...[P]olitical controversies and political issues never take place in isolation. They're always part of some broader framework, that drives political outcomes, and that determines how political power is exercised. And so it doesn't really matter which specific topic, or which specific controversy of the day you want to discuss, the reality is, you can't really meaningfully discuss any of them without examining all the forces that shape political culture, and that shape how political outcomes are determined. So, in order to talk about any issue, you end up speaking about these same, broad themes, that are shaping, and I think plaguing, the political discourse in the United States.
This is something that I first realized when I started writing about politics in late 2005. One of the very first topics on which I focused was the scandal about the Bush administration eavesdropping on American citizens without the warrants required by law. This was first exposed by the NYT in December of 2005, so it happened around six weeks after I began writing about politics. I had this very naïve idea that this was going to be very straightforward and simple political controversy. The reason I thought that in my naiveté, was because what the Bush administration got caught doing [eavesdropping on Americans without warrants from the FISA court] is as clear as could possibly be a felony under American law. You can actually look at the criminal law that existed since 1978, when FISA was enacted. It says that doing exactly what the Bush administration got caught doing, is a felony in the U.S., just like robbing a bank, or extortion or murder, and that it's punishable by a prison term of five years or a $10,000 fine for each offense.
The report that the NYT published was that there were at least hundreds and probably thousands of instances where American citizens were eavesdropped on illegally and in violation of the law. So, I thought that this was going to be a fairly straightforward controversy, because I had this idea that if you get caught committing a felony, and the NYT writes and reports on that and everybody's talking about that, that that's actually going to be a really bad thing for the person who got caught doing that. I know it was really naïve. I'm actually embarrassed to admit that I thought that, but that really is was I thought at the time. I also thought that basically everybody would be in agreement that that was a really bad thing to do....that thing that the law said for 30 years was a felony and punishable by a prison term and a large fine. And, as it turned out (and I realized this fairly quickly) none of that actually happened. It wasn't a really bad thing for the people who got caught committing that felony.
And, not only did everyone not agree that that was a bad thing, very few people actually agreed that that was a very bad thing. So, what I thought I was going to be able to do was to take this issue and write very legalistically about it, and demonstrate that what the Bush administration had done was a crime, that it was a felony under the statute and that the legal defenses for it that they had raised were frivolous and baseless and that would be the end of the story. Crime committed, investigation commenced, punishment ensues. So what immediately happened, when I realized that none of that was really going on, of course then the question became why. Why was my expectation about what would happen so radically different than what in fact happened?
So, then I needed to delve into that dynamic, that I began by referencing that determines political outcomes. I had to examine the fact that we have a political faction inside the U.S. [the American Right] that is drowning in concepts of nationalism, and exceptionalism, in tribalism that leads them to believe that whatever they and their leaders do is justifiable inherently because they do it, and in a complete lack of principle...this is the same faction that impeached a democratically elected president not more than 10 years earlier on the grounds that the rule of law is paramount and we can't allow our presidents to break the law. And, yet, here they were defending it.
Please read the entire address at How the US Government Strikes Fear in Its Own Citizens and People Around the World by Glenn Greenwald (AlterNet 2011-03-21).
Glenn Greenwald is a constitutional law attorney and chief blogger at Unclaimed Territory. His forthcoming book, How Would a Patriot Act: Defending American Values from a President Run Amok will be released by Working Assets Publishing next month.
quote unquote: Brandeis on metasticizing wealth
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." -- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
