Electronic Pen

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

When Andy Borowitz captures the truth of the moment, using satire, you know the ruling elite are on the defensive. There's something all too pathetically ironic about Borowitz's daily headline: "Libyan Government Warns NYPD to Exercise Restraint: Urges NATO Action to Protect American Dissidents."

In a riveting unmasking of hypocrisy, a YouTube video has appeared that masterfully shows the blatant hypocrisy of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton in applying one standard for attacks on protesters overseas - and quite another in the US.

While Obama has given some lip service to the Occupy Wall Street movement, he has qualified that with an upholding of the status quo of a financial sector that cratered the US economy. And he has said nothing about the police brutality in attempts, particularly in New York, to suppress the "right of redress" protests.

Nicholas Kristof wrote in The New York Times:

But anyone who believes in markets should be outraged that banks rig the system so that they enjoy profits in good years and bailouts in bad years.

The banks have gotten away with privatizing profits and socializing risks, and that's just another form of bank robbery.

Yet, President Obama even used Martin Luther King to project a narrative that it's really a bunch of "good people" on Wall Street who made a few mistakes. In his King memorial dedication speech on October 16, Obama predicted that if Martin Luther King were alive today, "I believe he would remind us that the unemployed worker can rightly challenge the excesses of Wall Street without demonizing all who work there."

First of all, this is not just an issue of struggling unemployed workers; it's an issue of a financial system that needs systemic reform. Second of all, it's not a minor issue of "excesses" as if the chairman of the Bank of America had an extra bottle of champagne for dinner on the company account. It is, as Kristof writes, "another form of bank robbery." Obama, his Treasury secretary and his attorney general are doing very little to prosecute those who conducted the bank robberies, but they are tolerating the arrests of those who are witnesses to the crime.

The reality is that Obama believes in this financial system, even when it has de facto disproved that it can offer much to growing the American economy. It is fossilized, state-sanctioned and subsidized greed. For Obama, who is looking to a record campaign war chest to offset low ratings and a stalled economy, Wall Street money is essential.

The duopoly of the American two-party system, as this video reconfirms, will go to war for the rights of protesters overseas, but champions putting them in jail at home.

****

If you'd like to receive these commentaries daily from Truthout/BuzzFlash, click here. You'll get our choice headlines and articles too.

read more

JIM BLOCK FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Light at the End?

Finally, serious opposition has emerged against the full-scale, right wing and corporate takeover of American society. The initial target of Occupy Wall Street outrage is the dismantling of the New Deal by the emerging plutocracy. Defending the American people's right to basic social welfare, government regulation, and full employment against growing dominance by the rich and powerful is a hopeful beginning. To regain the political initiative, however, progressives must reignite the broader demand for a just society.

The deep popular discontent, symbolized by the growing protests, represents an unparalleled opportunity for progressive renewal. Americans yearn more than ever for a more humane society. They want communities where individual fulfillment is cultivated by a nurturing childhood and with meaningful work. They want a social safety net and a restored social fabric to provide security and connectedness.

Progressives must move beyond their cautious pragmatism. Once they retreated during the Reagan era from seeking a more just and emancipated society, they were limited to opposing the conservative onslaught. To heed this call, progressives must go beyond the self-defeating assumptions of the past: the false choice between social justice and individual freedom. The institutions that protect our basic social needs have the power to nurture our full human and democratic potential.

Given the scale of contemporary society, America's once vibrant individualism can only flourish - despite what conservatives want us to believe - when the public sector creates the conditions for self-realization, social justice, and democracy. This essay offers a new "deep frame" in George Lakoff's terms, a "new moral narrative" for the regeneration of progressive initiative. Conservatives will call this expression of our common will a new feudalism, for they hope to derail the only - popular - alternative to corporate and organizational authoritarianism.

Challenging Progressive Assumptions

Why did twentieth century, social reform lose momentum? The right acquired power by playing on widespread fears of organizational society. Manipulating the traditional myth of the unrestrained individual, they blame every social ailment and personal limit on public constraints. Yet, progressives and liberals have equally associated freedom and democracy with a simpler time of individuality, local government, and accessible opportunity. The choices were either complicity in the conservative illusion, or social justice at the cost of European-style statism. Unable to connect with popular aspirations for genuine individualism and an accountable public, the movement for change collapsed.

Progressives must learn from history. The New Deal also refused to link freedom and opportunity with a sustained public role. Rather than create significant alternatives to the market, government was a necessary, but temporary evil to help people back on their feet. Not surprisingly, once these programs brought about the modern middle class, Republicans intensified their theological campaign to root out, rather than consort with such evil. Progressives could only watch as generations of Americans boosted into the middle class hearkened to their rechristening as self-made entrepreneurs, and began cutting away the floor - the public sector - from beneath their own feet.

read more

A BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT NEWS ALERT

Washington - Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said the Commodity Futures Trading Commission should adopt a rule with real teeth to limit oil speculators, not a watered-down measure set for a vote on Tuesday.

The commission is slated to consider a rule that Sanders said "will do little or nothing" to limit traders who artificially drive up gasoline and home heating oil prices. "At a time when the American people are experiencing extremely high oil and gas prices, this would be simply unacceptable," Sanders wrote in a letter to Chairman Gary Gensler.

Sanders said the weak proposal before the commission falls short of what Congress intended in last year's Wall Street reform law. The Dodd-Frank Act required the commission to finalize rules on speculators by last Jan. 17. "If the CFTC had done its job and obeyed the law, consumers would have received real relief at the gas pump during the past nine months, particularly during the summer driving season. Unfortunately, this did not happen."

The commission still could act in time to substantially lower heating oil prices this winter. "This is more important now than ever," Sanders said. He cited new projections by the Energy Information Administration that heating oil prices in the Northeast will set a new record this winter and climb to more than $3.70 a gallon. Vermonters could pay up to $4 a gallon for heating oil this winter, he added. "If these projections are accurate, it will be harder than ever for Vermonters and nearly 7 million other Americans who heat their homes with fuel oil to stay warm this winter. We need the CFTC to be vigilant and make sure that this does not happen," Sanders said.

read more

TONY PEYSER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

This makes Herman's "maverick" status
Officially become a joke:
In any taste test, we can now assume that
He'd shun Pepsi for Koch.

http://news.yahoo.com/long-ties-koch-brothers-key-cains-campaign-110518961.html

PAUL BUCHHEIT FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

With 99% of America standing up to them, the super-rich probably don't feel very funny right now. But they have a history of humorous statements, as demonstrated by Mitt Romney's reference to Occupy Wall Street as "class warfare."

Yes, Mitt, class warfare has been waged since 1980, as almost
all of America's new income has gone to the richest 1%, who have tripled
their share, mainly through tax cuts and deregulation. If the average
American family had just kept up with U.S. productivity, it would be
making almost DOUBLE what it is now.

More conservative humor can be found in the statement "Don't tax the rich
- they're job creators," which ignores the fact that the total
unemployment/underemployment rate has increased from 15% to 30% in just
five years while middle-class household wealth has dropped 36%.

Then there's the notion of downtrodden rich people. Someone making
"$200,000 is not a rich person,"stated Barbara Lang, president of the D.C.
Chamber of Commerce. "$500,000 is not a lot of money, particularly if
there is no bonus," said James F. Reda, director of a compensation
consulting firm. "In some parts of the country," $250K "is middle class,"
suggested CNN reporter Kiran Chetry.

While the rich are just getting by, the poor, according to some
conservatives, are doing quite well. "What are they complaining about?"
asked CNN's Carol Costello, citing a Heritage Foundation study that
suggested poor Americans were reasonably comfortable. Sen. Orrin Hatch
(R-Utah) claimed that "The poor...need to share some of the
responsibility." Berkshire Hathaway's Charlie Munger got right to the
point: the poor should just "suck it up and cope."

Taxes, while usually not funny, bring out the best in corporate
spokespeople. Like Anne Eisele of General Electric, which paid no taxes
from 2008 to 2010: "G.E. is committed to acting with integrity in relation
to our tax obligations...GE did not pay US federal taxes last year because
we did not owe any." And Ken Cohen of Exxon Mobil, which paid 2% in taxes
from 2008 to 2010: "Any claim we don't pay taxes is absurd...ExxonMobil is
a leading U.S. taxpayer." And John Watson of Chevron, part of an industry
with the lowest federal tax rate: "The oil and gas industry pays its fair
share in taxes" And Paul Ryan on Boeing, which paid no U.S. taxes on over
$4 billion of income in 2010: "Their tax rate is extremely high, far
higher than their competitors.

Next is the Orwellian "war is peace" humor, as in the claim by Mitch
McConnell and Mitt Romney that tax cuts increase revenue and help to
reduce the deficit. And the contention by Mackubin Thomas Owens of the
Foreign Policy Research Institute that high gas prices cause low gas
prices (because of the increased incentive to open up new drilling sites).

Finally, this writer's personal favorite, full-delusional humor. Lloyd
Blankfein, chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, assures us that "Everybody
should be, frankly, happy...the financial system led us into the crisis
and it will lead us out."

It's all so funny it hurts.

Paul Buchheit is the founder and developer of social justice and
educational websites (UsAgainstGreed.org, PayUpNow.org,
RappingHistory.org), and the editor and main author of "American Wars:
Illusions and Realities" (Clarity Press). He can be reached at
paul@UsAgainstGreed.org.

read more

ANN DAVIDOW FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Well here we are in another of those wasteful congressional meet-ups where endless talk adds up to meaningless partisan chatter - - another week of inflammatory rhetoric that lacks clarity and fails to define the main objectives of our national debate. How can so much sound and fury add up to so little substance and yet demand so much media attention? What makes the pretense that surrounds our political deliberations resonate in the minds of the electorate even when, in the aftermath of all the verbal nonsense, we are left asking ourselves ‘how's that again?"

There is growing concern about the part money plays in deciding our elections. Recent decisions that equate cash with free speech have turned our electoral processes into spending free-for-alls that fail to do justice to our system, no pun intended. Of equal concern should be the increasing emphasis on religion in our political world. However we came to occupy this twisted historical moment it is surely time we took ourselves out of the unhealthy fusion of religious fervor and ideological tumult.

read more

WALTER BRASCH FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Newspaper columnist Ann Coulter, spreading the lies of the extreme right wing, called the Occupy Wall Street protestors, "tattooed, body-pierced, sunken-chested 19-year-olds getting in fights with the police for fun." She claimed the protestors, now in the thousands in New York, are "directionless losers [who] pose for cameras while uttering random liberal clichés, lacking any reason or coherence." (Several hundred thousand of these "directionless losers" are expected to attend rallies in more than 650 cities, Oct. 15.)

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), House majority leader, called the protest nothing more than "growing mobs," completely oblivious to his myriad statements that he supports "mobs" when they are from the Tea Party. Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, tacking as far right as possible to avoid anyone thinking he was once a moderate, called the protest "dangerous."

Republican presidential contender Herman Cain, in a moment that demonstrated how out of touch he is with the economic reality of the five-year recession, argued, "Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks; if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself!"

Glenn Beck, too irrational even for Fox News, which terminated him less than two years after it tried to make him a TV superstar, told his radio audience, the protestors "will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you."

Lauren Ellis of Mother Jones, at one time a cutting edge magazine for social justice, believed that the protestors have a "lack of focus." Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, wrote, "A protest without an objective is like a party or a picnic of the unemployed and the indolent. Unless you have an objective, what are you doing out there?"

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

According to the New York Times, Mayor Bloomberg's girlfriend, Diana L. Taylor, sits on the board of Brookfield Properties, the owner of Zucotti Park (AKA Liberty Park). But that's hardly the ownly tie that has resulted in Brookfield becoming an active partner in Bloomberg's efforts to close down Occupy Wall Street.

The current gambit of, in essence, closing the public headquarters of the movement under the guise of "cleaning up" the park, and then imposing rules that would prohibit anything other than pedestrian traffic and sitting on benches, is now delayed. (It had originally been scheduled for 7 AM EST Friday.)

Occupy Wall Street put out a call last night for people to join them in preventing the New York Police Department -- allegedly acting at the behest of Brookfield Properties -- from effectively shutting down the active "headquarters" of the anti-Wall Street corruption and economic inequality groundswell uprising.  In addition, the public advocate for New York City -- a position not well known out of Manhattan, but one with considerable influence in city politics -- challenged Bloomberg's coordinated effort with Brookfield to render inoperative the anti-Wall Street beachhead.

"Bill de Blasio, the city's public advocate," according to the New York Times, "had expressed concern over the city's actions as he inspected the park Thursday afternoon and listened to protesters' complaints."

Bloomberg had first tried to use the NYPD -- and perhaps others -- to infiltrate and perhaps bait the Occupy Wall Street protesters into some sort of violent act, which would turn public opinion against them, and allow him to use the sort of excessive police force employed in "The Battle of Seattle" several years ago to cut off the head of the populist surge that has put corporations and Wall Street on the defensive.  That didn't work, even though hundreds of people were arrested after claiming that the police led them onto the street level of the Brooklyn Bridge and then arrested them.

But plan "B" was for Brookfield Properties, which technically owns the public park as a result of it being built in return for zoning variations in the area, to "ask" for police help if plan "A" didn't pan out.

Just two weeks ago, Bloomberg -- worth $19.5 billion and whose fortune comes from an information software and device used by financial firms (along with a growing media empire, with an emphasis on business) -- spoke of a "sanitation crisis" in a rambling attack on Occupation Wall Street on a New York radio program. He implicitly threatened that he would close the site down.  Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Brookfield Properties was expressing "deep" concern about the sanitation conditions in the park.  This was not a coincidence: it was a public relations meme.

Newspaper accounts of the now delayed Zuccotti Park clean up generally accept that the City of New York was planning to have the NYPD arrest protesters who didn't clear the park as a response to a "request" from Brookfield Properties -- and it is true that there is such a written request.

But this is not Brookfield Properties acting on its own.  It could have done that a long time ago.  In fact it could have employed private security guards to clear the park of "temporary residents," by some legal interpretations of its rights as "owner" of the property.

Brookfield Properties is a multi-billion dollar commercial real estate company that is as tight as a tick with  Bloomberg and the Wall Street plutocracy.  It can't make a move in New York City to develop new projects without the approval of City Hall.  It didn't make a move on Zucotti Park (named after the chairman of Brookfield) until the mayor got his ducks in a row and his public relations and legal people felt they could use the "sanitation" ruse, while the mayor claimed -- for media consumption -- that he was in support of the constitutional right to protest. You can bet your last dollar that Brookfield Properties was asked to write its letter to City Hall at the time it did directly by City Hall.  The fact that the mayor's girlfriend is on the board of Brookfield is just symbolic icing on the cake of the oligarchy's symbiotic relationship.

However, due to factors already cited, and the strong legal possibility that the the NYPD could not be called in to Zucotti Park unless Brookfield Properties obtained a court order allowing for such a move, the mayor's office announced just before their scheduled de facto eviction that the police clear-out was being "delayed."

As BuzzFlash at Truthout noted in a commentary last week, "With the price of milk rising so high that many low-income New Yorkers can't afford it anymore, it's hardly comforting to know that...the priority of the multibillionaire mayor of New York is 'helping the banks.'"

Brookfield Properties does not make a move or a statement in regards to Zucotti Park without direction from Mayor Bloomberg's office.  Of this you can be certain.

Nearly every financial firm and multi-national corporation in America is relying on Bloomberg to be their fellow multi-billionaire point man in putting an end to this "insurrection," just like the British Tories tried to do with the American revolution.

read more

RICHARD POWER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Burning Man isn't what you think it is. Well, OK, Burning Man is more than you think it is. Much more. There is a powerful, new narrative developing within the legend of Burning Man, one that moves beyond Black Rock City and into the daily lives of some dedicated Burners.

What is this new narrative? And what does it offer those working to overcome the challenges of this troubled era? To answer these questions, I visited the offices of the Burning Man Project, on Market Street in downtown San Francisco, conducted numerous interviews with burners, and yes, drove up into the Nevada desert to immerse myself in Burning Man 2011.

Ethos and Pathos

Merriam-Webster defines pathos as "an element in experience or in artistic representation evoking pity or compassion," and ethos as "the distinguishing character, sentiment, moral nature, or guiding beliefs of a person, group, or institution." We are currently awash in pathos, but severely deficient in ethos.

As 50,000 burners headed to Black Rock City, the National Guard was airlifting food and water to the citizens of thirteen Vermont towns cut-off for days, without electricity or potable water, in the aftermath of Hurricane Irene. (NYT, 9-1-11) With four months to go in 2011, the U.S.A. has experienced a record 10 weather disasters causing at least $1 billion each in damages. (AP, 9-3-11)

As 50,000 burners headed to Black Rock City, James Hansen, the NASA's leading climate scientist was getting himself arrested outside the White House, in an act of civil disobedience aimed at urging President Obama to block the XL tar sands oil pipeline. Hansen says that the project would translate into "game over" for the climate upon which human civilization has been predicated for millennia. (Climate Progress, 6-25-11) Shouldn't NASA's leading climate scientist be inside the White House advising the President, rather than outside the White House, with thousands of other citizens, trying to get the President's attention?

Within the dominant culture of "the default world" (a term many burners use to refer to the world beyond Black Rock City), the cable news networks recently offered 24 hour coverage of Hurricane Irene as it hit NYC, but did not mention climate change once; similarly, earlier this year, U.S. President Barack Obama dared not even mention it once in his 2011 State of the Union address.

Friends, we are on our own.

read more

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

The Occupy Wall Street protests are shining a national spotlight on the most powerful, dangerous, and secretive economic and political force in America.

If this country is to break out of the horrendous recession and create the millions of jobs we desperately need, if we are going to create a modicum of financial stability for the future, there is no question but that the American people are going to have to take a very hard look at Wall Street and demand fundamental reforms.  I hope these protests are the beginning of that process.

Let us never forget that as a result of the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall Street, this country was plunged into the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.  Millions of Americans lost their jobs, homes, and life savings as the middle class underwent an unprecedented collapse.  Sadly, despite all the suffering caused by Wall Street, there is no reason to believe that the major financial institutions have changed their ways, or that future financial disasters and bailouts will not happen again.

More than three years ago, Congress rewarded Wall Street with the biggest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world. Simultaneously but unknown to the American people at the time, the Federal Reserve provided an even larger bailout. The details of what the Fed did were kept secret until a provision in the Dodd-Frank Act that I sponsored required the Government Accountability Office to audit the Fed's lending programs during the financial crisis.

As a result of this audit, the American people have learned that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in low-interest loans to every major financial institution in this country, huge foreign banks, multi-national corporations, and some of the wealthiest people in the world.

In other words, when Wall Street was on the verge of collapse, the federal government acted boldly, aggressively, and with a fierce sense of urgency to save our financial system from collapse with no strings attached.

Now that the middle class is collapsing and a record-breaking 46 million Americans are living in poverty, the Federal Reserve has failed to act with the same sense of urgency to make sure that small businesses receive the affordable loans needed to put millions of Americans back to work and prevent millions of Americans from losing their homes.

As a result, Wall Street is back to making record-breaking profits, handing out record-breaking compensation packages, and taking the same risks that caused the financial crisis in the first place.  Meanwhile, 25 million Americans are unemployed or under-employed; middle class families are making $3,600 less than they did ten years ago; the foreclosure rate is still breaking new records; and the American people are still paying over $3.40 for a gallon of gas.

The financial crisis and the jobs crisis have demonstrated to the American people that we now have a government that is of the 1 percent, by the 1 percent and for the 1 percent, as Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz eloquently articulated.  The rest of the 99 percent are, more or less, on their own.  We now have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major, advanced country on earth.  The top one percent earn more income than the bottom 50 percent and the richest 400 Americans own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans.

Now that Occupy Wall Street is shining a spot light against Wall Street greed and the enormous inequalities that exist in America, the question then becomes, how do we change the political, economic and financial system to work for all Americans, not just the top 1 percent?

Here are several proposals that I am working on:

read more

BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Simultaneous with its recently concluded Values Voter Summit, the FRC announced the launching of its Values Voter Bus Tour aimed at registering and mobilizing new voters. Tony Perkins' group is operating on all cylinders and intends to drive voters to the GOP.

It has just concluded what it's calling the most successful Values Voter Summit in its history, and is now getting ready to launch a year long Values Voter Bus Tour aimed at influencing both the Republican Party's presidential primaries and the 2012 presidential election.

It is a 12-million dollar a year operation run by a very capable leader who rides the airwaves - the 24/7 cable news networks and conservative talk radio - like a veteran broncobuster. It has outlasted a number of other religious right groups (think Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition), and is outpacing the financially troubled, and once mighty, Focus on the Family.

It is one of the most outspokenly - and outrageously -- anti-gay organizations in the country.

Welcome to the world of Tony Perkins' Family Research Council (FRC), where the definition of family is circumscribed, and the research is suspect.

read more

WINSLOW MYERS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

The seemingly intractable discord between Israel and Palestine not only continues to cause enormous suffering and anxiety, but also to reverberate around the planet as a kind of symbol of all our conflicts in what we might call the post-nuclear age.

The mid-20th century superpowers were forced to admit, especially after the Cuban Missile Crisis, that war at the nuclear level was self-defeating, a victory only for war itself, not for the participants.

Isn't that ultimately true for all wars, large or small? Yet the world, including the superpowers, continues to divide along the Israeli-Palestinian fault-line, almost as if one had to have an adversary to be clear in one's identity.

The conflict has functioned as an iconic symbol of general feelings of fear or powerlessness or injustice, let alone claims to the same territory, that give rise to the best or the worst in us as we humans try to resolve our endless differences.

It is symbolic in a darker and more specific sense for the Arab world, where - even as the Arab Spring flourishes - the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has encouraged anti-Semitic stereotypes and still energizes the hatred of extremist groups like Al Quaeda.

Not all conflicts involve sides with equally legitimate aspirations. Few would recognize the legitimacy of drug cartels to dominate and corrupt the governments of whole nations like Mexico or Afghanistan.

And in the United States, there is a growing recognition that some financial institutions have profited obscenely by betting against markets and throwing millions into poverty, avoiding criminal prosecution through their power over elected officials. Even now a new "Arab Spring"-like protest against insufficiently regulated corporate power is growing in many cities across the United States.

read more

MARK VORPAHL FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Fueled by a long simmering anger over the economic crisis, the continuing enrichment of a tiny corporate elite who brought this crisis on, and the lack of any political voice for the great majority of people, the Occupy Wall Street Movement has spread to hundreds of cities across the nation, mobilizing hundreds of thousands in an undeniable display of strength. The growing involvement of unions in these developments both testifies to how broad this discontent is and its potential power to mobilize and organize millions. The 99 percent have had enough, and growing numbers are now taking to the streets to make an impact.

We are witnessing the birth of a social movement that has the potential to win economic justice. Having only recently exploded onto the scene, there are many directions this movement may take. The only certainty is that, since the conditions that fueled it are not going away any time soon, it is, at the very least, a harbinger of larger struggles to come.

Some have argued that the Occupy Wall Street Movement has a relationship to the Democratic Party similar to the Tea Party's relationship to the Republicans. This is wrong on several counts. The Tea Party and its message was cooked up, funded, and molded by corporate interests such as the Koch brothers. It attempted to mobilize people by tapping into their fears of where the country is going while dressing up a corporate political agenda in populist rags. There was never a doubt that this would eventually strengthen the far right in the Republican Party who quickly identified with the Tea Party's cause.

Relations stand very differently between the Occupy Wall Street Movement and the Democratic Party. This movement has no big Wall Street interests channeling funds into their organizing activities. By targeting economic inequality and injustice brought on by Wall Street's rule, the movement has placed itself in direct opposition to the largest financial contributors to and policy makers of the Democratic Party. While Democratic Party politicians may mouth support for some of the issues that have united the movement, any measures they can effectively promote will not come close to adequately addressing working peoples real needs.

read more

BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Before this weekend' SB 185 veto by Gov. Jerry Brown, which would have opened the door for UC administrators to consider race, gender and other issues in the admissions process, Ward Connerly, the king of anti-affirmative action initiatives, showed up on the UC Berkeley campus to bless the "Increase Diversity Bake Sale,' and grab a few more minutes in the spotlight.

You're Ward Connerly. You were once a member of the University of California Board of Regents. You were the King of Anti-Affirmative Action initiatives; chiefly responsible for the 1996 California Civil Rights Initiative (Prop. 209) which passed with 54% of the vote. A year later, you founded, and became the chairman of, the Sacramento, California-based American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI). In 2003, you placed Proposition 54 on the ballot, an initiative which aimed to prohibit the government from classifying any person by race, ethnicity, color, or national origin, except for medical purposes, and which the voters rejected. You showed up all over the country pushing anti-affirmative action initiatives. You became a darling of the conservative movement; called by some, "the champion of equality."

You're Ward Connerly. In 2006 your Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, a measure banning affirmative action in state "hiring, contracting, and admissions to public schools" passed by 58-42 percent. Two years later, however, your anti-affirmative action campaigns came to a screeching halt, as your Super Tuesday for Equal Rights campaign, which the Colorado Independent called "a nationwide thrust to dismantle affirmative action programs in five states," failed dismally. "In three of those states, [Connerly's] measure failed to make it onto the ballot, and [on the] Thursday [after election day] ... it collapsed in Colorado. Nebraska was the only state ... to approve the proposal," The Colorado Independent reported.

In an interview with The Colorado Independent shortly after the 2008 election, "Connerly said that he might curb his 12-year-long effort, which produced wins in California, Michigan and Washington state in years past and in Nebraska this year. 'Well, I love to read. I love to write. I do have other interests,' he said. 'I would like to pursue those things. I would rather do those things than get involved in these initiatives.'

"'Contrary to what is said, I don't need this for my financial well-being. I don't need it for my psychological well-being,' he added, referring to an allegation that he paid himself $7 million from the two nonprofits that funded his Super Tuesday for Equal Rights campaign. Connerly spent more than $350,000 in Colorado this year, according to campaign finance reports."

In 2006, according to The Colorado Independent, Connerly's "salary totaled $1.6 million, a figure that prompted members of Congress to call for an investigation as to whether or not Connerly has excessively profited from his organizations."

You're Ward Connerly. You've never lacked funding for your mission. According to People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch, "The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee gave Connerly $700,000 in 2001 for the anti-affirmative action campaign in California. That same year he got $200,000 from Richard Mellon Scaife, and another $150,000 from the Olin Foundation. In 2005, Connerly was named a 'Bradley Prize' honoree by the Bradley Foundation and awarded $250,000 by the right-wing foundation." Media Transparency reported that between 1997 and 2004, Connerly received nearly $3.8 million from ACRI.

You're Ward Connerly and you haven't been in the news for a while.

Now, you've been reduced to being the poster child for a racist bake sale.

read more

DANNY SCHECHTER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Who is behind the Wall Street protests?

The Republican minority leader, Eric Cantor, has searched up and down in his usual rigorous manner and found the culprit.

In his knee-jerk view, it's President Obama.  His latest crime: encouraging these "mobs:"

In one sentence, he blamed the President who, in GOP conspiracy think, is to blame for everything, including bad weather. He also not so subtly conjures up the memory of the Mafia, New York's perennial bad guys.

In one phrase, Obama stood accused of encouraging these.... pause for righteous indignation-MOBS!

Never mind that if you spend any time at Occupy Wall Street, you will encounter as many criticisms of the President's policies---save the questions about his birth and "real Americaness" -- as you would at a conclave of the Tea Party.

Only the criticism is different. In the latter world of make-believe, he is a hard line Socialist. In the former, he is, in effect, a Republican, a backer of the Wall Street capitalists the occupiers are battling.

And if my memory of history has not faded, wasn't it the British who called the original Tea Party a "mob?"

Let's not let the facts get in the way of a partisan shmear.

read more

Why not be completely honest about our political bona fides and tell it like it really is and come clean with the American people. The time for pretense has long since passed. Right-wing pols and their media advocates should come right out and tell everyone that they plan to keep lying their way into office, just as they have in the past. And the rest of us should admit we will probably let them get away with it.

How about putting a retrospective of Republican lies and deceptions together - a primer on how to survive the wages of truth in the golden age of the 21st century. After all while some of us were shocked by the antics of then president Bush searching behind lecterns and under tables for WMDs at Washington's annual press-conference dinner, laughter could be heard from many of the guests. If that behavior in the midst of the blood bath under way in Iraq couldn't elicit at least a few boos of outrage, clearly Americans had already begun to lose their moral perspective. Unfortunately, questions about our invasion of Iraq were masked by false patriotic fervor that kept our mistakes from being realized until it was way too late, and a terrible blunder became part of our flawed decision-making process.

It didn't seem to matter though as time wore on. Despite what many experts declared was a failure to accurately assess the importance of engaging in the right course of action in the right field of battle over the right issues, President Bush and his 'policy experts' continued their misguided wartime strategy. And to this day members of the former administration insist that the wrong stuff was actually the right stuff and weren't we lucky to have a team of hardliners leading the way.

Kudos, they say, to former vice president Cheney for asserting once again in his book that torture in the semantic guise of enhanced interrogation was a brilliant tour-de-force. We may have chosen the wrong course of action, trashed our reputation along the way and exacerbated an economic meltdown by misdirecting funds and cutting taxes during an ill-defined military action. Nevertheless Cheney insists he wouldn't have changed a thing. We were duped into accepting insultingly flawed policies by a glib leadership that continues to flaunt stupidity and waste as the price it says for keeping us safe. What is even more amazing than our failure to detect the flawed nature of that administration's policies is the fact that a grinning Cheney and his daughter can be found at Republican events trying to take credit for the Obama administration's recent foreign-policy coups and more amazing still, being greeted with standing ovations.

So let's be honest from here on in. If, as it is said, fifty is the new forty isn't failure the new definition of success? We have fallen for the Orwellian version of world events and have become quite comfortable with it. It doesn't seem worth the struggle, then, to whip ourselves into a frenzy trying to cleanse the past until it more closely resembles the version of ourselves we find most politically pleasing and useful. Let's not bother spending time examining the choices we have made or even taking the time to rewrite history because people are often happy to just let bygones be bygones. We have turned mediocre leaders into heroes and used fear instead of logic to make the case for whatever strategy serves the political needs of the moment for candidates and office-holders alike.

Threading our way through the thicket of lies and innuendo isn't, as a rule, a gratifying use of our time and probably isn't a worthwhile pastime in any case. If we are unwilling to exercise our minds and follow a train of thought through to its logical conclusion we had better throw in the towel now and stop acting as if we cared about 'getting-to-the-bottom of-things.' If we are content to back away from difficult issues because the battle of ideas is just too daunting and we don't have the stomach for it then we might as well stop pretending we are after finding a better way.

The voices of unreason have been hard at work on the right. Progressives should be working just as hard to bring intellect and wisdom back into fashion or simply admit we aren't up to the challenge.

JACQUELINE MARCUS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Summarized by the environmental organization, Friends of the Earth, the Canadian oil and gas company TransCanada hopes to begin building a new oil pipeline that would trek close to 2,000 miles from Alberta, Canada to Texas. If constructed, the pipeline, known as the Keystone XL, will carry one of the world's dirtiest fuels: tar sands oil. Along its route from Alberta to Texas, this pipeline could devastate ecosystems and pollute water sources, and would jeopardize public health.

Friday, October 7, 2011, hundreds of people from across the country were given an opportunity to voice their concerns about the pipeline at a State Department hearing, ahead of President Barack Obama's final decision. I watched the selected speakers, representing millions of Americans opposed to the Keystone pipeline, give powerful explanations on why it should not go through as planned. The reasons were grounded in science, and from oil-history lessons that were never learned by this government: Oil spills happen. There is no way to prevent them and when they do happen, the oil companies have no sufficient way of cleaning the crude oil from the ocean, fresh water and land they contaminate. When spills happen, they permanently destroy our precious resource of clean water and agricultural land. The toxins are cancer producing chemicals that poison the wildlife, seafood, and eventually humans. For example, the 2010 BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the largest oil spill in history, has left the Gulf an ongoing toxic dead zone.

read more

WILL DURST FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Ah, October. Patio umbrellas down. Storm windows up. The turning of the leaves. The crisping of our ears. Playoff baseball. Halloween just a few weeks off. We'll get back to the most bracing month of the year a bit later, but first a few words about the recent decision by major banks to charge customers five bucks a month to use ATM cards for routine purchases. And those few words are, "You greedy stinking ravenous money-grubbing avaricious pigs."

How much dough do you have to make? I mean, I get it. You are not non-profit organizations. Few of us are. Your task is to find new ways to make more moolah. Same here. You just happen to be a whole lot better at it than the rest of us. And with the scratch to rewrite the rules, the skids get greased in your favor. Good for you. But, do you really need all the greenbacks? Every single dime? Really?

What were your profits last year? Like a bazilliondy dollars? Shouldn't that be enough? Do stockholders require double-digit returns every quarter? Incredibly foolish to expect hubris after causing the worst financial crisis in 80 years, but wouldn't it be wiser to leave behind a couple of bucks for the rest of us? You know, so we can do business with you. Commerce. Otherwise you'll have all the capital, no customers and be forced to restrict all your interactions to other banks, and trust me, you're not going to like that.

Or is that the ultimate goal? To gather together all the money in the world, becoming a money museum? Then we pony up pretty colored stones just to look at the money we no longer have. And you know what happens then? You make it your mission to control the world's supply of pretty colored stones. Go ahead. We'll switch to smooth pointy sticks.

This is not your money we're talking about. This is my money. You're supposed to pay me for your use of my money. That's the deal. What's the interest rate on savings accounts now, .02%? Oh right, the fed is maintaining artificially low interest rates to boost economic climes. But shouldn't that mean the interest rate on my credit cards goes down too? I'm paying 20%. In some states that's known as usury, and is illegal. For crum's sake, you can strike a better deal on the street with Vinnie.

read more

ROBERT CREAMER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

As most Americans know by now, the new law that limits the amount that big Wall Street banks can gouge from merchants (and ultimately their customers) every time they receive payment from a debit card went into effect October first.

Up until then the banks were charging merchants an average of $.44 per transaction - almost four times their average $.12 cost.

The new law, sponsored and passed by Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, despite vicious pressure from the banks, gave the Federal Reserve the power to set a "swipe fee" that would allow banks to cover their costs and receive a "reasonable" profit. The Fed ultimately decided - over consumer group objections - that a 100% profit was "reasonable" and allowed big banks to charge an average of $.24 per card swipe.

A hundred percent profit on revenue would be considered a pretty sweet deal by most small businesses, but it wasn't enough for some of the big banks - most notably Bank of America. B of A decided that to offset its lost ability to siphon money out of middle class pockets by way of merchant fees, they would be more direct. They announced that to make up for their lost revenue, they would begin charging customers who used debit cards a flat fee of $5 per month.

Durbin - and consumer groups - immediately responded with a suggestion that the best way to protest the new fee was for consumers to vote with their feet - leave B of A and get another bank that didn't charge such a fee.

That suggestion certainly makes sense. My wife, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, left Bank of America over a year ago to protest their opposition to the Dodd-Frank bill and moved her business to a community bank.

But, there is a problem. The reason why the Durbin regulation on debit card fees was necessary in the first place is that the debit card market is totally uncompetitive. Before the law was passed, "swipe fees" were set by Visa and MasterCard - who control 80% of all card transactions. In other words, they were not subject to competitive market pressure of any sort. They were fixed by the Visa-MasterCard duopoly.

According to FDIC data, five banks - Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citi Corp, and US Bank - now control 57.86% of the retail banking deposits in the United States. The top ten banks control 70.7% of deposits.

Bank of America by itself controls almost 20% of the market. That's not competition, that's oligopoly. And that allows the big banks to think they can assess their customers more and more in fees because there is so little competition in the retail banking sector to stop them. Not only does each of these banks have a disproportionate share of the banking business, but the big banks are counting on consumers deciding that it's just too much trouble to change banks.

Once you're a bank's customer it's not just a matter of withdrawing your funds and opening an account somewhere else. You have to change your automatic payments to vendors that many people now pay online. You have to change your direct deposits. Maybe you have a loan at a bank, or credit cards or some other incentive to stay put. Let's face it, in the modern world it's a pain to change banks.

The combination of the difficulty in changing banks and the limited competitive pressure that results from an oligopoly truly stifles price competition.

For the discipline of a competitive market to work, traditional competitive theory requires that several key criteria be met. A truly competitive market in the classic sense requires that products are interchangeable (like commodities), that consumers have perfect information - and most important that no single market participant control a large enough share of the business to set the "market price." If the conditions for competitive markets pertain then classic economic theory holds that the "market price" should settle at the marginal cost of each new product.

read more

STEVE JONAS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

So there was Mitt, addressing the cadets and faculty at The Citadel, in Charleston, SC. You know, that Charleston, the capitol of the first state to secede from the Union, on December 20, 1860. Why they were so concerned that the spread of slavery into the territories might be slowed or even stopped that they couldn't even give Lincoln the courtesy of waiting until he was inaugurated the following March. You know, that Charleston, which celebrated the 150th anniversary of that day just last year, as if it were a national holiday, not a mark of the start of a rebellion. You know, that Charleston, from whence in the 2000 Presidential GOP primaries Karl Rove spread the rumor that Sen. McCain had fathered a black (ohmygosh) baby. You know, that Charleston, where the debate as to whether to fly the rebel battle flag over the State capitol is still ongoing. That's where Mitt took the opportunity to tell the world, that "God created the United States," has in the past led the world, and that under his presidency, in the 21st century, the US was going to continue to lead it, whether "the world" liked it or not.

He would do this by, in his first hundred days, among other things "review" the timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan (and it would not appear that for him shortening it would be a considered option), restore cuts in missile defense, permanently deploy carrier groups off the coast of Iran, increase military spending over all and increase the armed forces by 100,000 men. (He apparently didn't mention how he would go about financing these measures or how he would recruit the additional troops, but that's another story.) And he told the assembled throng that yes indeed, God created the United States, to be a world leader, not a follower. It is on these latter two points that one might in particular raise some questions.

read more