The German translates to "Germany is Free". German propaganda always talked a lot about "freedom".Share
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Freedom
The German translates to "Germany is Free". German propaganda always talked a lot about "freedom".Share
One people united
The German translates to "One People, One Reich, One Fuhrer". Authoritarian propaganda always demands "unity". A free democracy is just the opposite, in that its acceptable for people to have differing views.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Wow, A Senator Read the Constitution.
There's an excellent article up on The Atlantic, Ceding Liberty to Terror, about the recent vote by the US Senate to give the US government gestapo-like powers to sieze and detain anyone. A majority in the US Senate believes that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights magically dissappear as soon as any government agent or official utters the magic word "terrorist". They don't even have to wave a wand or click their heels together three times to perform such magic.
The article quotes Sen. Kirk (R-IL) from the debate. Read it closely. Some day you might be able to tell your grand-kids about when the Senate used to have debate.
The article quotes Sen. Kirk (R-IL) from the debate. Read it closely. Some day you might be able to tell your grand-kids about when the Senate used to have debate.
Sen. Kirk had some grounding words to say about the Constitution:
I took the time, as we all should from time to time, serving in this body, to re-read the Constitution of the United States yesterday. The Constitution says quite clearly: 'In the trial of all crimes -- no exception -- there shall be a jury, and the trial shall be held in the State where said crimes have been committed.' Clearly, the Founding Fathers were talking about a civilian court, of which the U.S. person is brought before in its jurisdiction.
They talk about treason against the United States, including war in the United States. The Constitution says it "shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
The following sentence is instructive: No person -- 'No person,' it says -- 'shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.' I would say that pretty clearly, 'open court' is likely to be civilian court.
Further, the Constitution goes on, that when a person is charged with treason, a felony, or other crime, that person shall be 'removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime' -- once again contemplating civilian, state court and not the U.S. military. As everyone knows, we have amended the Constitution many times. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is instructive here. It says: 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures' -- including, by the way, the seizure of the person -- 'shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, except upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
Now, in section 1031(b)(2), I do not see the requirement for a civilian judge to issue a warrant. So it appears this legislation directly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution with regard to those rights which are inalienable, according to the Declaration of Independence, and should be inviolate as your birthright as an American citizen.
Recall the Fifth Amendment, which says: 'No person' -- by the way, remember, 'no person'; there is not an exception here. 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment,' hear the words, 'of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War' -- meaning there is a separate jurisdiction for U.S. citizens who are in the uniformed service of the United States. But unless you are in the service of the United States, you are one of those 'no persons' who shall be answerable for a 'capital' or 'infamous crime,' except on 'indictment of a Grand Jury.'
The Sixth Amendment says: 'In all criminal prosecutions' -- not some, not by exception, in all criminal prosecutions -- 'the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed' ... I go on to these because I regard all of these rights as inherent to U.S. citizens, granted to them by their birth in the United States.
Does your senator agree with all that? If not, isn't it about time that you elected someone who does?
Monday, November 28, 2011
Rights Alienable by the Federal Government
No Free Speech at Mr. Jefferson’s Library by Peter Van Buren
An outstanding article on the case of Morris Davis. Morris Davis was at one time the chief military prosecutor at Gitmo. He stated publicly that he would not use evidence obtained by torture. Then a pro-screaming-in-pain-and-mortal-fear general was put in as his commanding officer. Rather than wait for the inevitable order to try to put people to death by using evidence obtained while the witness was screaming in pain or shaking in fear of their life, Mr. David resigned his commission in the US military.
Mr. Davis then took a job as a researcher at the Library of Congress. But, he also continued to speak out about Gitmo in articles and letters to the editor. He was fired for this. His bosses at the Library of Congress, an institution founded by Thomas Jefferson, claimed that by using his right to express his political views showed poor judgement on Mr. Davis' part. Mr. Davis is suing, and amazingly American courts have so far let this come to trial.
The whole article is outstanding, and should be read in full. If you are only going to read one article today, this is the most important one. Well, this and the articles (left and right) about how Goldman Sachs is taking over Europe in the midst of the crisis in the financial markets largely controlled by Goldman Sachs and its former employees in government jobs.
But here's a taste ...
Actually, Mr. Van Buren is wrong on the last part. Since he refers to the Library of Congress properly as Mr. Jefferson's library, perhaps he should go visit and read some of Mr. Jefferson's more memorable words.
.
.
An outstanding article on the case of Morris Davis. Morris Davis was at one time the chief military prosecutor at Gitmo. He stated publicly that he would not use evidence obtained by torture. Then a pro-screaming-in-pain-and-mortal-fear general was put in as his commanding officer. Rather than wait for the inevitable order to try to put people to death by using evidence obtained while the witness was screaming in pain or shaking in fear of their life, Mr. David resigned his commission in the US military.
Mr. Davis then took a job as a researcher at the Library of Congress. But, he also continued to speak out about Gitmo in articles and letters to the editor. He was fired for this. His bosses at the Library of Congress, an institution founded by Thomas Jefferson, claimed that by using his right to express his political views showed poor judgement on Mr. Davis' part. Mr. Davis is suing, and amazingly American courts have so far let this come to trial.
The whole article is outstanding, and should be read in full. If you are only going to read one article today, this is the most important one. Well, this and the articles (left and right) about how Goldman Sachs is taking over Europe in the midst of the crisis in the financial markets largely controlled by Goldman Sachs and its former employees in government jobs.
But here's a taste ...
More broadly, the Davis case threatens to give the government free rein in selecting speech by its employees it does not like and punishing it. It’s okay to blog about your fascination with knitting or to support official positions. If you happen to be Iranian or Chinese or Syrian, and not terribly fond of your government, and express yourself on the subject, the U.S. government will support your right to do it 110% of the way. However, as a federal employee, blog about your negative opinions on U.S. policies and you’ve got a problem. In fact, we have a problem as a country if freedom of speech only holds as long as it does not offend the U.S. government.
Morris Davis’s problem is neither unique nor isolated. Clothilde Le Coz, Washington director of Reporters without Borders, told me earlier this month, “Secrecy is taking over from free speech in the United States. While we naively thought the Obama administration would be more transparent than the previous one, it is actually the first to sue five people for being sources and speaking publicly.” Scary, especially since this is no longer an issue of one rogue administration.
Government is different than private business. If you don’t like McDonald’s because of its policies, go to Burger King, or a soup kitchen, or eat at home. You don’t get the choice of federal governments, and so the critical need for its employees to be able to speak informs the republic. We are the only ones who can tell you what is happening inside your government. It really is that important. Ask Morris Davis.
Actually, Mr. Van Buren is wrong on the last part. Since he refers to the Library of Congress properly as Mr. Jefferson's library, perhaps he should go visit and read some of Mr. Jefferson's more memorable words.
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
- that all men are created equal,
- that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
- that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
- --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
- --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
- Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
- But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security
Perhaps the most important concept of America, perhaps the most fundamentally 'American' thing in all of history is the belief that we do indeed get to choose our federal government. That power really does come from and justly resides with We The People. Not the government. Not some King or President. Power comes from We The People, and we have the right and the duty to our great nation of America to choose our Federal government and to choose it well.
.
.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Obama's War.
The “Left” and Libya by ALEXANDER COCKBURN
Sometimes one gets the impression that God must have a sense of humor, and that God probably does enjoy a good game of dice with the universe.
It turns out that one of the big supporters of the Iraq and Libya wars is the, wait for it .... "Paterno Family Professor" at Penn State University. No big surprise really. After all, its not a huge leap from protecting someone who rapes 10 year old boys to supplying the endowment that pays for a professor that supports the rape of foreign countries.
That's a God who's a patient practical jokester spending years setting this up so maybe we can simultaneously laugh and become enlightened to see how wrong and evil all this violence and killing really is. Of course, one would have thought sending his son to get murdered trying to teach us not to kill each other might have gotten the message through to us monkeys, but apparently neither crucifiction nor practical jokes is enough to keep us monkeys from finding new ways to be horribly evil to each other. I hope God is infinitely patient, because any mere mortal's patience would probably be wearing a bit then with us murdering monkeys by now.
Here in America, we stay so far away from the wars. Our wars are sanitized. We get reports of victory from the battlefields. We hear accounts of our wonderful allies and their struggle for victory. Of course, our virtuous allies in the Northern Alliance ended up putting people in container trucks and leaving them in the sun with no food or water to torture and kill their vanquished opponents. And now the tales of retribution from the wonderful saints we supported in Libya are starting to come forward. But still, we usually just hear stories of our great victories. So, read this quote that comes from this article to get a good close-hand look at what our Nobel Peace Prize winning President has really done in the world.
That's Obama's war. A close up and dirty look at who the anti-war movement voted into office and exactly what he's doing in the world. If you vote Democratic in the upcoming elections, you are voting for more bombings of hospitals full of sick pregnant women. This is what you get when you vote Democrat these days.
The sad part is that we are broke as a nation. We are laying off teachers. We are letting our infrastructure crumble. How many billions did we spend on regime change in Libya? And exactly how does that improve the lives of ordinary Americans who are struggling to find work? How did it improve the lives of Americans who haven't had a raise in years? How does new leadership in Libya improve the lives of Americans who are fighting to save their homes from being seized by Obama's friends on Wall $treet? And yet, Obama and the Democrats are supporting the plans of a far-right-wing former Senator to gut social programs and steal from our children's and grandchildren's retirement in order to pay for this. Americans are told not only that we can't have any help, but that we have to pay the bill for this madness. And now they want a war with Iran. And now they are sending a carrier to Syria. It never ends.
We know Republicans aren't the answer. We know Democrats aren't the answer. Oh, there's a few decent people in each party who know this is wrong. The Ron Paul's and the Barbara Lee's who stand against this madness. But, those types are sidelined and scorned by the bulk of their own parties. The key thing Americans have to learn is that generally voting neither Democrat nor Republican will end this cycle of wars that has been approved by the vast majority of politicians in both parties. Its time to try something different.
Sometimes one gets the impression that God must have a sense of humor, and that God probably does enjoy a good game of dice with the universe.
It turns out that one of the big supporters of the Iraq and Libya wars is the, wait for it .... "Paterno Family Professor" at Penn State University. No big surprise really. After all, its not a huge leap from protecting someone who rapes 10 year old boys to supplying the endowment that pays for a professor that supports the rape of foreign countries.
That's a God who's a patient practical jokester spending years setting this up so maybe we can simultaneously laugh and become enlightened to see how wrong and evil all this violence and killing really is. Of course, one would have thought sending his son to get murdered trying to teach us not to kill each other might have gotten the message through to us monkeys, but apparently neither crucifiction nor practical jokes is enough to keep us monkeys from finding new ways to be horribly evil to each other. I hope God is infinitely patient, because any mere mortal's patience would probably be wearing a bit then with us murdering monkeys by now.
Here in America, we stay so far away from the wars. Our wars are sanitized. We get reports of victory from the battlefields. We hear accounts of our wonderful allies and their struggle for victory. Of course, our virtuous allies in the Northern Alliance ended up putting people in container trucks and leaving them in the sun with no food or water to torture and kill their vanquished opponents. And now the tales of retribution from the wonderful saints we supported in Libya are starting to come forward. But still, we usually just hear stories of our great victories. So, read this quote that comes from this article to get a good close-hand look at what our Nobel Peace Prize winning President has really done in the world.
A team of Russian doctors wrote to the president of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Medvedev, as follows:
“Today, 24 March, 2011, NATO aircraft and the U.S. all night and all morning bombed a suburb of Tripoli – Tajhura (where, in particular, is Libya’s Nuclear Research Center). Air Defense and Air Force facilities in Tajhura were destroyed back in the first 2 days of strikes and more active military facilities in the city remained, but today the object of bombing are barracks of the Libyan army, around which are densely populated residential areas, and, next to it, the largest of Libya’s Heart Centers. Civilians and the doctors could not assume that common residential quarters will be about to become destroyed, so none of the residents or hospital patients was evacuated.
“Bombs and rockets struck residential houses and fell near the hospital. The glass of the Cardiac Center building was broken, and in the building of the maternity ward for pregnant women with heart disease a wall collapsed and part of the roof. This resulted in ten miscarriages whereby babies died, the women are in intensive care, doctors are fighting for their lives. Our colleagues and we are working seven days a week, to save people. This is a direct consequence of falling bombs and missiles in residential buildings, resulting in dozens of deaths and injuries, which are operated and reviewed now by our doctors. Such a large number of wounded and killed, as during today, did not occur during the total of all the riots in Libya. And this is called ‘protecting’ the civilian population?”
That's Obama's war. A close up and dirty look at who the anti-war movement voted into office and exactly what he's doing in the world. If you vote Democratic in the upcoming elections, you are voting for more bombings of hospitals full of sick pregnant women. This is what you get when you vote Democrat these days.
The sad part is that we are broke as a nation. We are laying off teachers. We are letting our infrastructure crumble. How many billions did we spend on regime change in Libya? And exactly how does that improve the lives of ordinary Americans who are struggling to find work? How did it improve the lives of Americans who haven't had a raise in years? How does new leadership in Libya improve the lives of Americans who are fighting to save their homes from being seized by Obama's friends on Wall $treet? And yet, Obama and the Democrats are supporting the plans of a far-right-wing former Senator to gut social programs and steal from our children's and grandchildren's retirement in order to pay for this. Americans are told not only that we can't have any help, but that we have to pay the bill for this madness. And now they want a war with Iran. And now they are sending a carrier to Syria. It never ends.
We know Republicans aren't the answer. We know Democrats aren't the answer. Oh, there's a few decent people in each party who know this is wrong. The Ron Paul's and the Barbara Lee's who stand against this madness. But, those types are sidelined and scorned by the bulk of their own parties. The key thing Americans have to learn is that generally voting neither Democrat nor Republican will end this cycle of wars that has been approved by the vast majority of politicians in both parties. Its time to try something different.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
49 Congresspeople Who'd See You Starve to Save a Warplane.
Caucus forms to save the F-35 from budget cuts by T.W. Farnam @ Washington Post.
We are told over and over again that there is no money to help Americans. Bankers got bailed out, but everyone else is told 'tough luck'. There's no money for jobs. There's no money to stop foreclosures. There's no money to extend unemployment benefits. There's no money for anything like a New Deal for Americans. In fact, not only are we told that there's no money to provide any help at all to struggling Americans, but we are told that we are the ones who have to pick up the bill from the deficit caused by the bank bailouts, the wars and the runaway defense budget.
In the midst of this situation, this group of 49 congresspeople stands up and basically gives the finger to the American people. They declare that a hunk of metal in the shape of a warplane, a warplane that has absolutely no role in what we are told is the great threat to Americans, ie, the Terror Wars, is more important that the jobs, homes and survival of Americans.
Want to know why America is in so much trouble these days? Here's 49 reasons why.
Reps. Kay Granger (R-Tex.) and Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) announced the formation of a Congressional Joint Strike Fighter Caucus with 49 members from both parties. Its purpose: to protect funding for the F-35 stealth fighter. The plane, as the most expensive weapons program in history, is one of the biggest potential targets in the defense budget.
The members of the caucus are also some of the top recipients of political money from the company that designs and builds the fighter, Lockheed Martin. The company’s political action committee and its employees have given the caucus members $1.3 million in political contributions over their careers, according to a Washington Post analysis of data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
We are told over and over again that there is no money to help Americans. Bankers got bailed out, but everyone else is told 'tough luck'. There's no money for jobs. There's no money to stop foreclosures. There's no money to extend unemployment benefits. There's no money for anything like a New Deal for Americans. In fact, not only are we told that there's no money to provide any help at all to struggling Americans, but we are told that we are the ones who have to pick up the bill from the deficit caused by the bank bailouts, the wars and the runaway defense budget.
In the midst of this situation, this group of 49 congresspeople stands up and basically gives the finger to the American people. They declare that a hunk of metal in the shape of a warplane, a warplane that has absolutely no role in what we are told is the great threat to Americans, ie, the Terror Wars, is more important that the jobs, homes and survival of Americans.
Want to know why America is in so much trouble these days? Here's 49 reasons why.
Torture, Obama style
Report Confirms Bahrain’s Brutal Crackdown, Use of Torture
Meanwhile, the Obama administration is trying to overcome opposition and get a $53 billion arms deal for Bahrain to go through. Pressure from people who don't like murderers and torturers nearly as much as Obama does has gotten the deal 'delayed'. But remember, the deal wouldn't exist at all without Obama and official Washington support. So, 'delayed' just means that Obama thinks the heat is on and he wants to delay it until some slow news day like around Christmas when no one is paying attention. Obama worked the same tactic on his aid to the murderers and torturers in Honduras when Obama supported their overthrow of the democratically elected government and tried to quash the radical concept of the people having a say in their own constitution there.
Apparently being a murderer and a torturer is the way to get to be Obama's buddy. There's not a leftist nor peace activist in the world that he apparently will talk to. One never hears of peace activists being invited to the White House to have a long and frank talk with the President. But, he's happy to talk with Republicans. Obama has protected all of Bush era torturers from any prosecution, and he seems to love people like the King of Bahrain who go out and turn loose the secret police on his own people.
Of course, since Obama is doing the exact same thing to the Occupy movement here in the states, I guess that isn't really a surprise. Or shouldn't be. I'm sure there are still plenty of Obama-bots out there who manage to never to see Obama's love of torturers and who probably support Obama's turning the police loose on Americans who want simply freedom, democracy, change and hope.
An independent commission in Bahrain has issued a report on the massive crackdown on pro-democracy protesters earlier this year, faulting the government for brutality against the dissidents as well as the broad use of torture against detainees.
“A number of detainees were tortured,” confirmed the commission’s head, M. Cherif Bassiouni. The report detailed the use of electric shocks and beatings against arrested protesters, and that at least 700 of the detainees are still in custody.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration is trying to overcome opposition and get a $53 billion arms deal for Bahrain to go through. Pressure from people who don't like murderers and torturers nearly as much as Obama does has gotten the deal 'delayed'. But remember, the deal wouldn't exist at all without Obama and official Washington support. So, 'delayed' just means that Obama thinks the heat is on and he wants to delay it until some slow news day like around Christmas when no one is paying attention. Obama worked the same tactic on his aid to the murderers and torturers in Honduras when Obama supported their overthrow of the democratically elected government and tried to quash the radical concept of the people having a say in their own constitution there.
Apparently being a murderer and a torturer is the way to get to be Obama's buddy. There's not a leftist nor peace activist in the world that he apparently will talk to. One never hears of peace activists being invited to the White House to have a long and frank talk with the President. But, he's happy to talk with Republicans. Obama has protected all of Bush era torturers from any prosecution, and he seems to love people like the King of Bahrain who go out and turn loose the secret police on his own people.
Of course, since Obama is doing the exact same thing to the Occupy movement here in the states, I guess that isn't really a surprise. Or shouldn't be. I'm sure there are still plenty of Obama-bots out there who manage to never to see Obama's love of torturers and who probably support Obama's turning the police loose on Americans who want simply freedom, democracy, change and hope.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
"And our country’s been at war ever since"
"Armistice Day" By Anthony Gregory.
and ending with ...
Those who follow the link will find that this is from a right-wing/libertarian leaning website. Some people on the left have a bad habit of thinking in narrow-minded stereotypes, and by doing so they forget that there is and long has been an anti-war stance from the Libertarian point of view.
Me, I'm in the very strange state of having changed my voting registration from Green to Republican. The reason being that when the Presidential nomination caucuses occur in CO, the only 'anti-war' option is that of supporting Ron Paul on the Republican side. Since CO runs 'closed' primaries, if I want to support an anti-war voice during the nomination stage of this set of Presidential elections, I had to change my registration to Republican to do so.
For someone whom the first Presidential campaign they can remember was that of George McGovern, I find it both shocking and very revealing that the Democrats are offering no anti-war choice at all to their voters this time around. The Democrats are now firmly and undeniably a pro-war party. Heck, you'll need at least a smartphone's computing power just to keep up with all the new wars that the Democrats will have started in these four years. I don't expect the Republicans to be an anti-war party, but at least on that side there's someone with the guts and the convictions to stand up and fight for what they believe in. The very best you can say about the Democrats these days is that not a single person in that party cares enough about ending these wars to even stand up and try to oppose Obama.
On November 11, 1918, the world finally had enough of the irrational killing spree known as World War I. Fifteen million individual human beings had perished in what was the largest military conflict the world had yet seen. Armistice Day, marking the end of the war, was declared a holiday by the Allied nations. Some countries still observe it every November 11.
Although the day was memorialized by governments whose integrity in the whole matter we can question, there is no doubt that there was much to celebrate in the end of hostilities. World War I convinced much of the world of the insanity of war.
Thanks mostly to mutual defense treaties among nations that had no real reason to fight each other, what started out as a royal family feud and regional squabble exploded into a global bloodbath. Serbia was joined by Britain, France, Belgium, Greece, Romania, Italy, Russia, Portugal, Montenegro, Japan, Brazil and, eventually, the United States, to fight Austria-Hungary’s alliance, which included Germany, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria. This madness was triggered when a Bosnian Serb secessionist, sponsored by members of the Serbian military, assassinated Archduke Ferdinand of Austria. One act of violence—over one localized territorial dispute—resulted in the loss of lives, property and liberty of tens of millions of human beings.
and ending with ...
At the end of the Korean War, President Eisenhower signed a bill in 1954 that changed the name of the national holiday to Veteran’s Day. Perhaps it made no sense any more to honor an Armistice that had been overshadowed by World War II and the beginnings of the Cold War. Whereas after World War I, the United States brought its armed forces home, the war against Communism guaranteed that the United States would henceforth have little interest in armistice, in truce, in peace.
And our country’s been at war ever since, with more and more veterans to observe every November.
Those who follow the link will find that this is from a right-wing/libertarian leaning website. Some people on the left have a bad habit of thinking in narrow-minded stereotypes, and by doing so they forget that there is and long has been an anti-war stance from the Libertarian point of view.
Me, I'm in the very strange state of having changed my voting registration from Green to Republican. The reason being that when the Presidential nomination caucuses occur in CO, the only 'anti-war' option is that of supporting Ron Paul on the Republican side. Since CO runs 'closed' primaries, if I want to support an anti-war voice during the nomination stage of this set of Presidential elections, I had to change my registration to Republican to do so.
For someone whom the first Presidential campaign they can remember was that of George McGovern, I find it both shocking and very revealing that the Democrats are offering no anti-war choice at all to their voters this time around. The Democrats are now firmly and undeniably a pro-war party. Heck, you'll need at least a smartphone's computing power just to keep up with all the new wars that the Democrats will have started in these four years. I don't expect the Republicans to be an anti-war party, but at least on that side there's someone with the guts and the convictions to stand up and fight for what they believe in. The very best you can say about the Democrats these days is that not a single person in that party cares enough about ending these wars to even stand up and try to oppose Obama.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Video of the Year
My vote for Video of the Year. If this doesn't win like the Noble Prize for Songwriting,then its got to be because the voting is rigged and the North Korean judge voted for the Chinese gymnast because of an outdated sense of Marxist solidarity. This one goes on my blog for the best reason of all ... so I can find it again later. :)
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Democrats move to the Right of Alan Simpson.
The Democrats on the 'super-committee' are following the typical pattern we've seen under Democratic leadership for at least the last decade. They've voluntarily moved their position on 'deficit-reduction' so far to the right that its now to the right of a proposal cooked up by ultra-right-wing former Senator Alan Simpson and Wall Street's Erskine Bowles.
Democrats Offer Significant Concessions -Plan Is to the Right of Bowles-Simpson and Gang of Six
Of course, one thing to realize is that these millionaire Democrats conceded nothing of their own. What they are 'conceding' is our money and the few parts of the US budget that actually benefit some Americans. And remember, these are the same millionaire Democrats who already took the Bush tax cuts for millionaires (ie, themselves) and the trillion plus dollars a year we spend on war and defense off the table.
For those too young to remember, that's Ronald Reagan's economic theory. Cut spending to the bone and refuse to raise revenue. Today's Democrats are running Ronald Reagan's playbook.
Politics in this country is going to remain stuck in this constant pro-war, pro-wall street cycle until people finally wake up and realize that this bunch of Democrats is not the answer. Voting for a party that has given you Ronald Reagan's economic policy combined with Dubya's policy of declaring wars all over the world is not going to fix anything.
Democrats Offer Significant Concessions -Plan Is to the Right of Bowles-Simpson and Gang of Six
Of course, one thing to realize is that these millionaire Democrats conceded nothing of their own. What they are 'conceding' is our money and the few parts of the US budget that actually benefit some Americans. And remember, these are the same millionaire Democrats who already took the Bush tax cuts for millionaires (ie, themselves) and the trillion plus dollars a year we spend on war and defense off the table.
The new deficit-reduction plan from a majority of Democrats on the congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the "supercommittee") marks a dramatic departure from traditional Democratic positions — and actually stands well to the right of plans by the co-chairs of the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission and the Senate's "Gang of Six," and even further to the right of the plan by the bipartisan Rivlin-Domenici commission. The Democratic plan contains substantially smaller revenue increases than those bipartisan proposals while, for example, containing significantly deeper cuts in Medicare and Medicaid than the Bowles-Simpson plan. The Democratic plan features a substantially higher ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases than any of the bipartisan plans.
For those too young to remember, that's Ronald Reagan's economic theory. Cut spending to the bone and refuse to raise revenue. Today's Democrats are running Ronald Reagan's playbook.
Politics in this country is going to remain stuck in this constant pro-war, pro-wall street cycle until people finally wake up and realize that this bunch of Democrats is not the answer. Voting for a party that has given you Ronald Reagan's economic policy combined with Dubya's policy of declaring wars all over the world is not going to fix anything.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
A Dangerous Precedent
A Dangerous Precedent by Ron Paul
and ending with ...
Governments are like serial killers. Once they start killing, they rarely stop killing on their own. Typically someone or some group has to stop them. The reason for this is that killing becomes a way to solve problems for the Government. And, its a very easy and convenient way to solve problems. Its much easier to send a team of assassins in black to kill someone in the dark of night than it is to argue and compete against a person in a free and open democracy which can be time consuming in its dedication to make sure that everyone has a voice and a vote. Its much easier for a Leader or a Government to simply say "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"
And isn't that precisely one of the arguments that one hears about why the assassination of Osama Bin Laden was necessary? Aren't we told that killing him was a better option because a public and fair trial under our constitution would have been so difficult?
Things become bloody and difficult because anyone who wants to stop the reign of killing by the government is viewed by that government as a problem needing to be solved. Thus, not only will a government tend to expand the number and range of problems that its willing to solve 'the easy way' with assassins in the night, but that they will also usually defend themselves by trying to easily solve the problem of those annoying idealists and moralists and just ordinary people concerned for their own safety who insist on this naive notion that Leaders and Governments don't automatically receive a license to kill.
The scary thought from the last time the US government practiced assassination as official policy is that it didn't stay offshore. It wasn't long afterwards that a US Presidential casket draped in black was drawn behind a riderless horse. And it wasn't too long before America was mourning the fact that some of the best and brightest among us, some of those who were willing to try to work to make America a better place for all of us were also the subject of tears at memorial services. This genie doesn't have a history of staying contained in the nice little bottle to which its been assigned by those who think they rule the world.
Last week’s assassination of two American citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, is an outrage and a criminal act carried out by the president and his administration. If the law protecting us against government-sanctioned assassination can be voided when there is a “really bad American,” is there any meaning left to the rule of law in the United States? If, as we learned last week, a secret government committee, not subject to congressional oversight or judicial review, can now target certain Americans for assassination, under what moral authority do we presume to lecture the rest of the world about protecting human rights?
and ending with ...
Awlaki’s father tried desperately to get the administration to at least allow his son to have legal representation to challenge the “kill” order. He was denied. Rather than give him his day in court, the administration, behind closed doors, served as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. The most worrisome aspect of this is that any new powers this administration accrues will serve as precedents for future administrations. Even those who completely trust this administration must understand that if this usurpation of power and denial of due process is allowed to stand, these powers will remain to be expanded on by the next administration and then the next. Will you trust them? History shows that once a population gives up its rights, they are not easily won back. Beware.
Governments are like serial killers. Once they start killing, they rarely stop killing on their own. Typically someone or some group has to stop them. The reason for this is that killing becomes a way to solve problems for the Government. And, its a very easy and convenient way to solve problems. Its much easier to send a team of assassins in black to kill someone in the dark of night than it is to argue and compete against a person in a free and open democracy which can be time consuming in its dedication to make sure that everyone has a voice and a vote. Its much easier for a Leader or a Government to simply say "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"
And isn't that precisely one of the arguments that one hears about why the assassination of Osama Bin Laden was necessary? Aren't we told that killing him was a better option because a public and fair trial under our constitution would have been so difficult?
Things become bloody and difficult because anyone who wants to stop the reign of killing by the government is viewed by that government as a problem needing to be solved. Thus, not only will a government tend to expand the number and range of problems that its willing to solve 'the easy way' with assassins in the night, but that they will also usually defend themselves by trying to easily solve the problem of those annoying idealists and moralists and just ordinary people concerned for their own safety who insist on this naive notion that Leaders and Governments don't automatically receive a license to kill.
The scary thought from the last time the US government practiced assassination as official policy is that it didn't stay offshore. It wasn't long afterwards that a US Presidential casket draped in black was drawn behind a riderless horse. And it wasn't too long before America was mourning the fact that some of the best and brightest among us, some of those who were willing to try to work to make America a better place for all of us were also the subject of tears at memorial services. This genie doesn't have a history of staying contained in the nice little bottle to which its been assigned by those who think they rule the world.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
The Occupation Heard Round the World
I tend to read a lot of history. Thus, as I stand with the #OccupyDenver occupation in support of #OccupyWallStreet, I am struck by the similarities with the 1st American Revolution.
Events happened more slowly back in the days when it might take a month for a piece of paper like a letter or a law to cross the Atlantic Ocean on a sailing ship. Thus, the American Revolution which is often thought to have begun in 1775 (not 1776 btw), actually began with the Boston Tea Party in 1773.
The British Parliament had passed an Act called the Tea Act which was designed to help rescue a failing corporation called the East Indian Corporation. The Act gave the East Indian Company the right to ship tea directly to the American colonies, and a legal monopoly on its sale. I guess even the tyrannical King George III wouldn't go so far as to mandate that people have to be the customers of a corporation. It also reignited the fight over taxation as many colonists felt it was another way of the British to impose taxation without representation. The act definitely had the effect of harming American based small businesses in the tea-trade in order to give more profits to the EIC which was highly politically connected in Parliament and the Royal Family. One of the main objections of the colonists was that parliament had given a legal monopoly on the tea trade to this connected company, and the colonists felt this had to be resisted before it was expanded to other areas and corporations.
In December, 1773, a dispute arose in Boston about three corporate tea ships that had arrived in the harbor. The people of Boston wanted the ships to turn around and leave. The Royal governor of Boston declared that the ships had to unload and pay the 'tea tax' on the tea on the ships before they could leave.
On the day of the deadline, 7000 citizens of Boston (approx 1/3 the population) rallied, and heard the news that the governor had refused to allow the ships to leave. Shortly after that, a group led by Samual Adams and called the Sons of Liberty dressed as Indians and then staged a direct action against the ships. They took over the ships, and threw some 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor. This is of course known as the Boston Tea Party, and yes, it was a direct action destruction of corporate property. It was also largely non-violent, as no injuries to the crew of the ships is recorded that I can find in a quick search.
The British King and Parliament responded to this with the "Coercive Acts". One effect of these acts was to suspend local democracy in the Massachusetts colony. Up until then, the local courts that handled foreclosures had been overseen by locally elected judges. These Coervice Acts instead gave the King the authority to appoint these judges.
In the summer and early fall of 1774, these Royal judges arrived in Massachusettes to take up the offices that they had purchased from the King in the expectations of the profits to be made as such a judge. The people of Massachusetts rose up to oppose this, and "occupied" the county seats with large crowds that prevented these judges from heading these courts. Crowds of thousands of people in the town squares instead forced these judges to resign their offices and thus return to Boston and to England.
Thus, in the 1770's, when the British Parliament tried to ensure the profits of a politically connected corporation, this led first to direct action that destroyed corporate property, and then to mass popular occupations of towns across Massachusetts by people committed to defending their liberty and their freedom.
Sound familiar? To someone like me who's standing in occupation against a government that currently puts corporate privilidge and profits over the liberties and freedom of ordinary Americans, it sure does.
Where do Paul Revere and Lexington and Concord fit into all of this? That occurred in the spring of 1775. The people of Massachusetts knew that they had committed an act of rebellion against the King. See movies like Braveheart for how the English Kings responded to such rebellions. Thus, the colonists started to stockpile muskets and gunpowder and other weapons with which to defend themselves against Royal retribution. Meanwhile, the King had sent more troops to Boston over the winter.
When the spring came in 1775, these troops marched out from Boston to attempt to raid and seize a stockpile of weapons that they believed was in Concord. Paul Revere was one of several riders who rode out from Boston to try to warn the militias. He was less than successful as he was captured by the British and held in custody. Nonetheless, word of the raid spread through the Massachusetts militias, and they formed at Lexington and Concord to resist this attempt. That was the Shot Heard Round the World.
But, the Shot Heard Round the World was a direct response to what might be called the Occupation Heard Round the World. It was thousands of American citizens standing up for their freedom and liberties over attempted taxation and favoritism to corporations that started the American Revolution.
Events happened more slowly back in the days when it might take a month for a piece of paper like a letter or a law to cross the Atlantic Ocean on a sailing ship. Thus, the American Revolution which is often thought to have begun in 1775 (not 1776 btw), actually began with the Boston Tea Party in 1773.
The British Parliament had passed an Act called the Tea Act which was designed to help rescue a failing corporation called the East Indian Corporation. The Act gave the East Indian Company the right to ship tea directly to the American colonies, and a legal monopoly on its sale. I guess even the tyrannical King George III wouldn't go so far as to mandate that people have to be the customers of a corporation. It also reignited the fight over taxation as many colonists felt it was another way of the British to impose taxation without representation. The act definitely had the effect of harming American based small businesses in the tea-trade in order to give more profits to the EIC which was highly politically connected in Parliament and the Royal Family. One of the main objections of the colonists was that parliament had given a legal monopoly on the tea trade to this connected company, and the colonists felt this had to be resisted before it was expanded to other areas and corporations.
In December, 1773, a dispute arose in Boston about three corporate tea ships that had arrived in the harbor. The people of Boston wanted the ships to turn around and leave. The Royal governor of Boston declared that the ships had to unload and pay the 'tea tax' on the tea on the ships before they could leave.
On the day of the deadline, 7000 citizens of Boston (approx 1/3 the population) rallied, and heard the news that the governor had refused to allow the ships to leave. Shortly after that, a group led by Samual Adams and called the Sons of Liberty dressed as Indians and then staged a direct action against the ships. They took over the ships, and threw some 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor. This is of course known as the Boston Tea Party, and yes, it was a direct action destruction of corporate property. It was also largely non-violent, as no injuries to the crew of the ships is recorded that I can find in a quick search.
The British King and Parliament responded to this with the "Coercive Acts". One effect of these acts was to suspend local democracy in the Massachusetts colony. Up until then, the local courts that handled foreclosures had been overseen by locally elected judges. These Coervice Acts instead gave the King the authority to appoint these judges.
In the summer and early fall of 1774, these Royal judges arrived in Massachusettes to take up the offices that they had purchased from the King in the expectations of the profits to be made as such a judge. The people of Massachusetts rose up to oppose this, and "occupied" the county seats with large crowds that prevented these judges from heading these courts. Crowds of thousands of people in the town squares instead forced these judges to resign their offices and thus return to Boston and to England.
Thus, in the 1770's, when the British Parliament tried to ensure the profits of a politically connected corporation, this led first to direct action that destroyed corporate property, and then to mass popular occupations of towns across Massachusetts by people committed to defending their liberty and their freedom.
Sound familiar? To someone like me who's standing in occupation against a government that currently puts corporate privilidge and profits over the liberties and freedom of ordinary Americans, it sure does.
Where do Paul Revere and Lexington and Concord fit into all of this? That occurred in the spring of 1775. The people of Massachusetts knew that they had committed an act of rebellion against the King. See movies like Braveheart for how the English Kings responded to such rebellions. Thus, the colonists started to stockpile muskets and gunpowder and other weapons with which to defend themselves against Royal retribution. Meanwhile, the King had sent more troops to Boston over the winter.
When the spring came in 1775, these troops marched out from Boston to attempt to raid and seize a stockpile of weapons that they believed was in Concord. Paul Revere was one of several riders who rode out from Boston to try to warn the militias. He was less than successful as he was captured by the British and held in custody. Nonetheless, word of the raid spread through the Massachusetts militias, and they formed at Lexington and Concord to resist this attempt. That was the Shot Heard Round the World.
But, the Shot Heard Round the World was a direct response to what might be called the Occupation Heard Round the World. It was thousands of American citizens standing up for their freedom and liberties over attempted taxation and favoritism to corporations that started the American Revolution.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
The Men Who Crashed the World
The Men Who Crashed the World An Al Jazeera Special Report. This is the link to Pt 1 of 4. Other parts available by clicking on the "Meltdown" link for the series from this page.
Of course, this piece of in-depth investigative journalism is largely unseen in the United States. Al Jazeera is generally banned in America. Too bad, as it most important that reports like this be seen in the United States because we are the center of the problem.
Of course, this piece of in-depth investigative journalism is largely unseen in the United States. Al Jazeera is generally banned in America. Too bad, as it most important that reports like this be seen in the United States because we are the center of the problem.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Letter from a Wall Street Jail
On this nite of the occupation, I've been doing a little reading. Found Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail".
It sounds eirly familiar and relevant to the "Occupy" protests spreading across America. Of course, Dr. King's issue was racial injustice, while today's issue is Wall Street's economic injustice. But the eloquence with which he speaks against injustice still shines through.
To make a more concrete example, here's a small section updated to these more modern times. I'd apologize to Dr. King for these edits, but I don't think he'd mind. He was talking about leading a Poor People's March to #OccupyDC just before he died. His only question if he was here today would probably be what the heck took us so long.
Dr. King's original words:
By making some edits as to the particular injustice involved in the discussion, this becomes what sounds like a very relevant example below. To me, the whole letter can be read in this fashion, on this nite when so many #Occupy protests are spreading across America.
"
It sounds eirly familiar and relevant to the "Occupy" protests spreading across America. Of course, Dr. King's issue was racial injustice, while today's issue is Wall Street's economic injustice. But the eloquence with which he speaks against injustice still shines through.
To make a more concrete example, here's a small section updated to these more modern times. I'd apologize to Dr. King for these edits, but I don't think he'd mind. He was talking about leading a Poor People's March to #OccupyDC just before he died. His only question if he was here today would probably be what the heck took us so long.
Dr. King's original words:
"You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.
In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation."
By making some edits as to the particular injustice involved in the discussion, this becomes what sounds like a very relevant example below. To me, the whole letter can be read in this fashion, on this nite when so many #Occupy protests are spreading across America.
"
You deplore the demonstrations taking place on Wall Street. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals with merely effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place on Wall Street, but it is even more unfortunate that the nation's power structure left the 99% with no alternative.
In any non-violent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exists; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action. We have gone through all of these steps at Wall Street. There can be no gainsaying that economic injustice engulfs our nation. Wall Street's control of our economy, our media and our government is well known. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Americans have experienced unjust treatment in the courts. We are experiencing the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, activists have sought for years to negotiate with Wall Street leaders. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation."
Monday, October 3, 2011
OccupyDenver Encounter with Denver Police
OccupyDenver is a occupation in the middle of the city of Denver in solidarity and support of the OccupyWallStreet action. On Saturday, there was a rally and march in support of what's going on at OccupyWallStreet.
After the speaking portion of the rally, an unpermitted march took off through the nearby 16th Street Mall. As the video below begins, a DPD officer has stopped someone on a bycicle, and appears to be starting to write him a ticket. The crowd comes around, and starts doing various chants in support. If you listen closely, you'll hear a part of the crowd away from the camera chant that "We are Fighting for your Pensions", or something close to that. Just after that, an officer who looks like he's a sergeant with more seniority goes over to the officer writing the ticket and appears to convince him not to write it. Maybe the senior officer is also the union rep? Or maybe he's just a bit closer to pension age.
This struggle is the 99% against the richest 1%. No police officer on a public payroll is ever going to be a part of the richest 1%. The officers of DPD have been wonderful to the OccupyDenver movement so far. Its just a wild guess on my part, but I'm thinking since they are members of a public employees union when cities are cutting back that they don't need any reminding that they are with us in the 99% side of that struggle.
After the speaking portion of the rally, an unpermitted march took off through the nearby 16th Street Mall. As the video below begins, a DPD officer has stopped someone on a bycicle, and appears to be starting to write him a ticket. The crowd comes around, and starts doing various chants in support. If you listen closely, you'll hear a part of the crowd away from the camera chant that "We are Fighting for your Pensions", or something close to that. Just after that, an officer who looks like he's a sergeant with more seniority goes over to the officer writing the ticket and appears to convince him not to write it. Maybe the senior officer is also the union rep? Or maybe he's just a bit closer to pension age.
This struggle is the 99% against the richest 1%. No police officer on a public payroll is ever going to be a part of the richest 1%. The officers of DPD have been wonderful to the OccupyDenver movement so far. Its just a wild guess on my part, but I'm thinking since they are members of a public employees union when cities are cutting back that they don't need any reminding that they are with us in the 99% side of that struggle.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Why We Occupy
In NYC, the 'occupation' of Wall Street is in its third week. And across America, various 'occupations' in support and solidarity have arisen and are growing.
Why are we doing this? I can only speak for myself, but here's what I think.
Wall Street was the perfect target, as its the heart of the evil or disease that has infected America. We live in a country where money dominates all. Money dominates our elections. Democracy has been pushed aside in America to make room for a government of money, by money and for money. The candidate with the most money almost always wins. Politicians certainly believe this, as they want to win and thus they spend their time accumulating donations and talking to people who can give them large quantities of money. Basic American concepts like "one person one vote" have been discarded for a world where money has been legally equated with free speech and corporations have taken the rights of freedom of speech as rights of their own.
Everything in America is for sale. Everything in America is dominated by money. The location of the OccupyWallStreet encampment speaks volumes to this, as old "Liberty Park" in lower manhattan, near where George Washington was sworn in as our first president, and home to the OccupyWallstreet encampment is no longer a public park but has been sold to a corporation.
We live in a country where money makes all decisions. Since elections are dominated by money, our representative bodies and our Presidents, Governors and Mayors all serve money. One gets the distinct impression that the only bills that pass and become law are those that make someone more money. Politics today is more an exercise in fighting over who gets a share of the public money, taken from us with high taxes, than an exercise in democracy.
When we as a nation try to talk about helping the unemployed that have lost their jobs when Wall Street crashed the economy, the political debate is entirely about money. When we as a nation try to talk about giving health care to all Americans like any other civilized nation, the debate is distorted so badly by money that the bill that results could have been named the Big Health Corporations Profit Protection Act of 2009. The one thing that was obvious from the 'health care debate' is that the bedrock that all of our money dominated government could agree on was that the profits of the big corporations in the health care field had to be protected and guaranteeed. Health care for Americans was obviously a secondary concern.
And this is why we occupy. We live in America where its been made very plain that the lives and well-being of Americans is now of secondary (or lower) importance than profits for Wall Street. Across America, citizens are losing their jobs, losing their homes, losing their life savings, and denied health care because profits are much more important than people.
We want an America that is a democracy. That is once again a government of the people, by the people and for the people. We want an America where every human value is not sold for profit. We want an America where if one is sick or injured the first questions asked aren't 'how much money do you have to pay for it?"
That's nothing new. The original American revolution was a revolt against all the big money mercantile interests that had aligned with the King of England. The Boston Tea Party was as much about the East India Companies monopoly on trade as it was about tea. And, when the King and Parliament passed the Punitive Acts that tried to close Massachusetts democratically elected courts (that decided things like foreclosures) with officials who had bought the judgeship from the King of England, citizens of Massachusetts came out in the thousands and met these judges and just said No! That was the real beginning of the American revolution in the summer of 1774.
We want our country back. We don't believe that Wall Street should own America. We do not believe that every question and every decision should be made on the basis of who has the most money.
Why are we doing this? I can only speak for myself, but here's what I think.
Wall Street was the perfect target, as its the heart of the evil or disease that has infected America. We live in a country where money dominates all. Money dominates our elections. Democracy has been pushed aside in America to make room for a government of money, by money and for money. The candidate with the most money almost always wins. Politicians certainly believe this, as they want to win and thus they spend their time accumulating donations and talking to people who can give them large quantities of money. Basic American concepts like "one person one vote" have been discarded for a world where money has been legally equated with free speech and corporations have taken the rights of freedom of speech as rights of their own.
Everything in America is for sale. Everything in America is dominated by money. The location of the OccupyWallStreet encampment speaks volumes to this, as old "Liberty Park" in lower manhattan, near where George Washington was sworn in as our first president, and home to the OccupyWallstreet encampment is no longer a public park but has been sold to a corporation.
We live in a country where money makes all decisions. Since elections are dominated by money, our representative bodies and our Presidents, Governors and Mayors all serve money. One gets the distinct impression that the only bills that pass and become law are those that make someone more money. Politics today is more an exercise in fighting over who gets a share of the public money, taken from us with high taxes, than an exercise in democracy.
When we as a nation try to talk about helping the unemployed that have lost their jobs when Wall Street crashed the economy, the political debate is entirely about money. When we as a nation try to talk about giving health care to all Americans like any other civilized nation, the debate is distorted so badly by money that the bill that results could have been named the Big Health Corporations Profit Protection Act of 2009. The one thing that was obvious from the 'health care debate' is that the bedrock that all of our money dominated government could agree on was that the profits of the big corporations in the health care field had to be protected and guaranteeed. Health care for Americans was obviously a secondary concern.
And this is why we occupy. We live in America where its been made very plain that the lives and well-being of Americans is now of secondary (or lower) importance than profits for Wall Street. Across America, citizens are losing their jobs, losing their homes, losing their life savings, and denied health care because profits are much more important than people.
We want an America that is a democracy. That is once again a government of the people, by the people and for the people. We want an America where every human value is not sold for profit. We want an America where if one is sick or injured the first questions asked aren't 'how much money do you have to pay for it?"
That's nothing new. The original American revolution was a revolt against all the big money mercantile interests that had aligned with the King of England. The Boston Tea Party was as much about the East India Companies monopoly on trade as it was about tea. And, when the King and Parliament passed the Punitive Acts that tried to close Massachusetts democratically elected courts (that decided things like foreclosures) with officials who had bought the judgeship from the King of England, citizens of Massachusetts came out in the thousands and met these judges and just said No! That was the real beginning of the American revolution in the summer of 1774.
We want our country back. We don't believe that Wall Street should own America. We do not believe that every question and every decision should be made on the basis of who has the most money.
Occupation
The Occupation of America is spreading. The #occupywallstreet protests are in their third week and still growing and gaining support. Some media types and celebrities have been showing up in NYC, and more importantly, people are rallying behind this.
Here in Denver, there are #occupyDenver protests in solidarity. Broadway in front of the state capital. Its an occupation, so there are people there 24/7. If you want to experience a democratic general assembly, that's at 3pm and 7pm. Any Americans reading this should do this if they can, as most Americans haven't seen a real democracy in their lifetimes.
#occupytogether is a place to search for other cities around the country. At the last count I heard, there are over 60 cities with protests/occupations in support and solidarity to what's going on on Wall Street.
Like all modern revolutions, its not televised. But it is on facebook and twitter. Go there, or your favorite search engine, and type something like "occupywallstreet", "occupytogether" or "occupydenver", or just about any American city name after the word "occupy" to learn more about what is going on around you in this country right now.
Here in Denver, there are #occupyDenver protests in solidarity. Broadway in front of the state capital. Its an occupation, so there are people there 24/7. If you want to experience a democratic general assembly, that's at 3pm and 7pm. Any Americans reading this should do this if they can, as most Americans haven't seen a real democracy in their lifetimes.
#occupytogether is a place to search for other cities around the country. At the last count I heard, there are over 60 cities with protests/occupations in support and solidarity to what's going on on Wall Street.
Like all modern revolutions, its not televised. But it is on facebook and twitter. Go there, or your favorite search engine, and type something like "occupywallstreet", "occupytogether" or "occupydenver", or just about any American city name after the word "occupy" to learn more about what is going on around you in this country right now.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
NYPD's respect for non-violent protest
For anyone who might stumble across my blog and not have already seen the video of the #occupywallstreet protesters getting pepper-sprayed.
To me, this is torture. The NYPD has guidelines on the use of pepper-spray, and this commander in that police force went far beyond them. Whether its as an act of political intimidation to try to end the protests, or whether he's just a sadist who likes to hear women scream, who knows?
But, one of the interesting things to watch from all of this is whether the NYPD, the City government of NYC, and ultimately the people of NYC tolerate the presence of a know known torturer on the NYPD.
To me, this is torture. The NYPD has guidelines on the use of pepper-spray, and this commander in that police force went far beyond them. Whether its as an act of political intimidation to try to end the protests, or whether he's just a sadist who likes to hear women scream, who knows?
But, one of the interesting things to watch from all of this is whether the NYPD, the City government of NYC, and ultimately the people of NYC tolerate the presence of a know known torturer on the NYPD.
Anonymous: Occupy The Planet
Anonymous: Occupy The Planet
Find a city near you and come out and join the movement. And help promote online and spread the word. There's largely a media blackout on this, so that just means we all have to spread the word ourselves. Through Facebook and Twitter. Through old fashioned emails. Through talking with family and friends. Through posters and leaflets. Spread the word any way you can imagine.
Find a city near you and come out and join the movement. And help promote online and spread the word. There's largely a media blackout on this, so that just means we all have to spread the word ourselves. Through Facebook and Twitter. Through old fashioned emails. Through talking with family and friends. Through posters and leaflets. Spread the word any way you can imagine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)