OCCUPY WALL STREET

[Ebon]

US Senate To Vote On Bill That Will Allow The Military To Arrest Americans On American Soil And Hold Them Indefinitely

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/26/us-senate-to-vote-on-bill-that-will-allow-the-military-to-arrest-americans-on-american-soil-and-hold-them-indefinitely/

Since Occupy Wall Street began, American police officers have arrested thousands of people for exercising their constitutionally protected right to protest. On Monday or Tuesday, the US Senate will vote on a bill that would give the President the ability to order the military to arrest and imprison American citizens anywhere in the world for an indefinite period of time.

A provision of S. 1867, or the National Defense Authorization Act bill, written by Senators John McCain and Carl Levin, declares American soil a battlefield and allows the President and all future Chief Executives to order the military to arrest and detain American citizens, innocent or not, without charge or trial. In other words, if this bill passes and the President signs it, OWS protesters or any American could end up arrested and indefinitely locked up by the military without the guaranteed right to due process or a speedy trial.




http://tribuneofthepeople.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/313069_264749556906573_246310432083819_710650_2129 397606_n.jpg

[SoNotHer]

Are you kidding me? WTF

US Senate To Vote On Bill That Will Allow The Military To Arrest Americans On American Soil And Hold Them Indefinitely

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/26/us-senate-to-vote-on-bill-that-will-allow-the-military-to-arrest-americans-on-american-soil-and-hold-them-indefinitely/






http://tribuneofthepeople.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/313069_264749556906573_246310432083819_710650_2129 397606_n.jpg

[greeneyedgrrl]

if this is true...this seems to me to be the first phase of a civil war, with only one side is armed to the hilt with weapons while the other is not, this concerns me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy

http://inthesetimes.com/uprising/entry/12303/mayors_dhs_coordinated_occupy_attacks/

[Ebon]

if this is true...this seems to me to be the first phase of a civil war, with only one side is armed to the hilt with weapons while the other is not, this concerns me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy

http://inthesetimes.com/uprising/entry/12303/mayors_dhs_coordinated_occupy_attacks/

Come to Texas. You can buy any arms you need and support local business all at the same time.

[persiphone]

It seems that quite often people forget about the Christ part of their Christianity. This is really cool to hear.


if i believed in such things i'd agree with you. i think the idea of a jesus is as bizarre as adam and eve, virgin moms, resurrections, talking snakes, and parting an ocean with a stick. however, the "message" of christianity is to love thy brother. and i'm pretty sure "jesus" was quoted in the bible speaking out against wealth. if i really gave a shit i could look it up. nope...too lazy. neener.

[persiphone]

Are you kidding me? WTF



c'mon.....this isn't really a surprise, is it? told ya...the infrastructure is in place. i mean, they don't make any bones about it and it's obvious (at least to me) what the temperature is on this issue in the white house. this comes on the heels of that other horrid bill about limiting internet access.

[greeneyedgrrl]

Come to Texas. You can buy any arms you need and support local business all at the same time.

uuum... thanks, but no. i'm not a fan of guns... they make it too easy for people to kill people instead of problem solving. if i had my way guns would be made into something useful... like planters. ;)

[SoNotHer]

And of course we are talking about rectal temperature taking...

Thank you for bringing up the internet bill. Folks should be focusing on it -

http://americancensorship.org/

c'mon.....this isn't really a surprise, is it? told ya...the infrastructure is in place. i mean, they don't make any bones about it and it's obvious (at least to me) what the temperature is on this isuue in the white house. this comes on the heels of that other horrid bill about limiting internet access.

[Toughy]

One of the things I am most thankful for has to do with my nephew. He is a NM State Policeman and has been for about 10 years. He is no longer a patrol officer.....thank all powers to be.....he is a detective which means he investigates crimes. He is no longer stopping cars on deserted highways with crappy training.

What I know about cops is this: every single cop is inadequately trained in every area.....but particularly in de-escalation techniques.....it's way to easy to do pepper spray and taser rather than talk......it's way to easy to be a cop/prison guard.

by the way.....tazer kills people every year.....it is not a non-lethal deterrent method and cops should never be told nor trained as if it is non-lethal.....

in my day we talked to the cops and told them when we would be doing arrest worthy acts....the sit-in's at UCDavis are classic examples.....you cuff them and take them away......you NEVER EVER NEVER use military grade (which is what has been used in all cases) pepper spray on non-violent protestors risking arrest.....this is not the 60's....

[persiphone]

China is ripe for its own Occupy protests
Occupy Wall Street protests have not spread to China, but Beijing's crackdown on media coverage and Internet activity related to OWS isn't surprising. What's less predictable are ways that Occupy protests could shake up China’s internal politics, especially among neo-Maoists.

By Daniel K. Gardner / November 8, 2011


Occupy Wall Street protests have not spread to the People’s Republic of China. But word of the protests has, and the Chinese authorities are trying to figure out how to respond.


Their reactions have run the gamut: from gloating denunciations of American capitalism, to a crackdown on all media coverage of Occupy Wall Street (OWS). Of course, there is no real surprise in this sequence of responses. More interesting, and less predictable, are the ways in which the Occupy Wall Street protests could substantively shape China’s internal politics.

In the early days of the OWS movement, when protests were confined to US cities, a China Daily OpEd (Sept. 30) harshly attacked the American media for journalistic hypocrisy, for not giving coverage to protests in their own country even as they had relished covering protests in the Arab world just a few months earlier. A couple weeks later, state-run Xinhua News was harsher still, arguing that the protests in New York's Zuccotti Park “laid bare malpractices of the US government and ailments of its political and economic systems.”


But as the Occupy movement spread globally, the Chinese response shifted. Assault on the silence of the American press gave way to anxiety about the possible effects Chinese media coverage might have on their Chinese audience.

On Oct. 17, a spokesman for China’s foreign ministry, after remarking that the issues raised by OWS may be “worth pondering,” cautioned the Chinese media, saying that their “reflections should be conducive to maintaining the sound and steady development of the world economy.” On the same day, editors of the Chinese Communist Party-run Global Times called for people to “calmly observe the protest movement and the global situation, and not be confused by extreme points of view.”

A few days later, on Oct. 19 and 20, Beijing authorities – setting aside any ambivalence they might have had about the Occupy movement – issued an order to the Chinese media to cease all reporting and commenting on the OWS movement.

What happened? Perhaps Beijing had examined the numbers in the intervening three days, and been reminded that as high as the income gap in the United States is, China’s income and wealth inequality is right up there as well, even higher according to some estimates. Or perhaps recognition had set in that China’s elite 1 percent just might – like America’s 1 percent elite – be open to charges of greed and corruption.

Given, too, that 36 percent of the Chinese people (that’s 481 million people) live on $2 a day or less, the Beijing leadership might have become worried that the Chinese would not remain as “calm” in the face of news about the US protests as the Global Times might wish.

Cyberspace censorship quickly followed after the media gag order. Searches for “Occupy Wall Street” and, more pointedly, for “Occupy Beijing,” “Occupy Shanghai,” “Occupy Guangzhou,” “Occupy Zhongnanhai,” and “Occupy Lhasa,” among a growing list of banned terms, now yield blank screens on microblogging sites like Sina Weibo (China’s version of Twitter).


Such a crackdown was predictable. Since the Arab Spring uprisings, the Chinese leadership, vigilant about any signs of civil unrest at home, has been aggressive in promoting the “harmonious society” that is the Community Party’s mantra.

But tensions in the ruling Chinese Communist Party have surfaced in recent years. New Leftists, sometime called New Maoists, have become more voluble about the widening gulf between rich and poor; corporate and official collusion; the state’s inattentiveness to the needs of the elderly, the infirm, and the impoverished; and the rise in “mass incidents” of protest against official corruption. It is time, the New Leftists suggest, to put the brakes on the liberal reform experiment launched in the post-Mao era by Deng Xiaoping. It is time to resurrect the revolutionary, egalitarian spirit of Chairman Mao.


Will the message or spirit of the Occupy Wall Street protests resonate with China’s 99-percenters and give momentum to China’s New Maoist agenda? OWS has already produced small demonstrations in nearby Hong Kong and Taiwan. If OWS endures and expands its reach to mainland China, savvy politician Bo Xilai, party chief of Chongqing municipality in China’s southwest, would likely have much to gain. The leading figure and public face of the New Maoists, Bo is angling – some would say campaigning – to win a position on the all-powerful nine-member Standing Committee of the Politburo in 2012.

Described as “handsome,” “outgoing,” and “Kennedy-esque,” Mr. Bo has made a name for himself as an activist party chief – even as he has ruffled feathers along the way. He launched a popular campaign targeting organized crime and official corruption in 2009. He also sponsored low-income housing projects and welfare programs for the working class and the poor in Chongqing. This summer, he inaugurated the Red Culture Movement, calling for a renaissance of the revolutionary spirit embodied by Chairman Mao.


Residents of Chongqing are encouraged to come together in parks and stadiums to sing “red songs” – songs extolling the achievements of Mao and the Chinese Communist Party – and to watch the revolutionary dramas that have replaced the soap operas on Chongqing TV. With such efforts, charismatic Bo has struck a strong populist chord in Chongqing and beyond.

But winning acclaim from the people and winning a place on the Standing Committee of the Politburo are two different matters. Bo’s flamboyant style is at odds with the staid style of present members of the Standing Committee (which in a process lacking any transparency will select the replacements for those retiring from the Standing Committee next year).

His support for a more tightly state-controlled economy is at odds with the more liberal state capitalism now in vogue. And his Maoist rhetoric is at odds with the liberal reform rhetoric embraced by the Chinese leadership for the past decade, and especially by current Premier Wen Jiabao. Bo’s words and actions have conjured up, at least for some, the specter of a return to Cultural Revolution days.



Still, in the words of the press, Bo is a “political rock star.” Excluding him from the Standing Committee may be difficult. But should China’s 99-percenters awaken to the call of Occupy Wall Street and coalesce around the movement, excluding Bo from the Standing Committee mix would be more than difficult – it would simply be too risky, even for China’s authoritarian ruling party.

[persiphone]

White House Says Each City Should Determine How To Handle Occupy Protests
By Mary Bruce
Nov 16, 2011 1:01am

Following the police raid on Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York, the White House said it’s up to each city to determine how to handle the demonstrations.

“The President’s position is that obviously every municipality has to make its own decisions about how to handle these issues,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One.

Carney said the President was “aware” from reports that protesters had been evicted early Tuesday morning from Zuccotti Park, where they had camped out for weeks.

“We would hope and want, as these decisions are made, that it balances between a long tradition of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech in this country, and obviously of demonstrating and protesting, and also the very important need to maintain law and order and health and safety standards, which was obviously a concern in this case,” Carney said



srsly? that's the entire article. talk about understatement. complete and utter bullshit. not to mention it was written more than ten days ago.

[persiphone]

http://news.yahoo.com/video/business-15749628/occupy-wall-street-celebrates-thanksgiving-27392988.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Fbusiness-15749628%252Foccupy-wall-street-celebrates-thanksgiving-27392988.html

this is awesome :)

[Diavolo]

if i believed in such things i'd agree with you. i think the idea of a jesus is as bizarre as adam and eve, virgin moms, resurrections, talking snakes, and parting an ocean with a stick. however, the "message" of christianity is to love thy brother. and i'm pretty sure "jesus" was quoted in the bible speaking out against wealth. if i really gave a shit i could look it up. nope...too lazy. neener.

Let me do the heavy lifting for you. ;-)

Mark 10:25

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God"

Matthew 6:19

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal."

Luke 12:15

“Then he said to them, ‘Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.’ ”

Mark 12:43-44

“Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, ‘I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.’ ”

Luke 14:33

“In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.”

Matthew 25:34-40

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"

I think that just about covers it. And it makes it pretty clear what St. Peter's job is as well.

[persiphone]

Court order allows Occupy Wall St. protesters back
By COLLEEN LONG and VERENA DOBNIK - Associated Press Tue, Nov 15, 2011



NEW YORK (AP) — Hundreds of police officers in riot gear raided Zuccotti Park early Tuesday, evicting dozens of Occupy Wall Street protesters from what has become the epicenter of the worldwide movement protesting corporate greed and economic inequality.

Hours later, the National Lawyers Guild obtained a court order allowing Occupy Wall Street protesters to return with tents to the park. The guild said the injunction prevents the city from enforcing park rules on Occupy Wall Street protesters.

At a morning news conference at City Hall, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the city knew about the court order but had not seen it and would go to court to fight it. He said the city wants to protect people's rights, but if a choice must be made, it will protect public safety.

About 70 people were arrested overnight, including some who chained themselves together, while officers cleared the park so that sanitation crews could clean it.

By 9 a.m., the park was power-washed clean. Police in riot gear still ringed the public space, waiting for orders to reopen it.

The city told protesters at the two-month-old encampment they could come back after the cleaning, but under new tougher rules, including no tents, sleeping bags or tarps, which would effectively put an end to the encampment if enforced.

Bloomberg said the evacuation was conducted in the middle of the night "to reduce the risk of confrontation in the park, and to minimize disruption to the surrounding neighborhood."

"The law that created Zuccotti Park required that it be open for the public to enjoy for passive recreation 24 hours a day," Bloomberg said. "Ever since the occupation began, that law has not been complied with, as the park has been taken over by protesters, making it unavailable to anyone else."

Concerns about health and safety issues at Occupy Wall Street camps around the country have intensified, and protesters have been ordered to take down their shelters, adhere to curfews and relocate so that parks can be cleaned.

Hundreds of former Zuccotti Park residents and their supporters marched along Lower Manhattan before dawn Tuesday.

Some paused and locked arms outside the City Hall gates but left peacefully when police in riot gear appeared on the scene. About 300 to 400 kept moving along the sidewalks, taking care not to block them.

Some were chanting, "This is what democracy looks like."

Others chanted: "Hey, hey, ho, ho, our billionaire mayor has got to go."

At about 1 a.m. Tuesday, New York City police handed out notices from Brookfield Office Properties, owner of Zuccotti Park, and the city saying that the park had to be cleared because it had become unsanitary and hazardous.

Paul Browne, a spokesman for the New York Police Department, said the park had been cleared by 4:30 a.m. and that about 70 people who'd been inside it had been arrested, including a group who chained themselves together. One person was taken to a hospital for evaluation because of breathing problems.

Police in riot gear filled the streets, car lights flashing and sirens blaring. Protesters, some of whom shouted angrily at police, began marching to two locations in Lower Manhattan where they planned to hold rallies.

Some protesters refused to leave the park, but many left peacefully.

Ben Hamilton, 29, said he was arrested "and I was just trying to get away" from the fray.

Rabbi Chaim Gruber, an Occupy Wall Street member, said police officers were clearing the streets near Zuccotti Park.

"The police are forming a human shield, and are pushing everyone away," he said.

Hundreds of police officers surrounded the park in riot gear with plastic shields across their faces, holding plastic shields and batons which were used on some cases on protesters.

Police also came armed with klieg lights, which they used to flood the park, and bull horns to announce that everyone had to clear out.

Jake Rozak, another protester, said police "had their pepper spray out and were ready to use it."

Notices given to the protesters said the park "poses an increasing health and fire safety hazard to those camped in the park, the city's first responders and the surrounding community."

It said that tents, sleeping bags and other items had to be removed because "the storage of these materials at this location is not allowed." Anything left behind would be taken away, the notices said, giving an address at a sanitation department building where items could be picked up.

Alex Hall, 21, of Brooklyn, said police walked into the park "stepping on tents and ripping them out."

Occupy encampments have come under fire around the country as local officials and residents have complained about possible health hazards and ongoing inhabitation of parks and other public spaces.

Anti-Wall Street activists intend to converge at the University of California, Berkeley on Tuesday for a day of protests and another attempt to set up an Occupy Cal camp, less than a week after police arrested dozens of protesters who tried to pitch tents on campus.

The Berkeley protesters will be joined by Occupy Oakland activists who said they would march to the UC campus in the afternoon. Police cleared the tent city in front of Oakland City Hall before dawn Monday and arrested more than 50people amid complaints about safety, sanitation and drug use.


another old yet new to me story

[persiphone]

Let me do the heavy lifting for you. ;-)

Mark 10:25

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God"

Matthew 6:19

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal."

Luke 12:15

“Then he said to them, ‘Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.’ ”

Mark 12:43-44

“Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, ‘I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.’ ”

Luke 14:33

“In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.”

Matthew 25:34-40

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"

I think that just about covers it. And it makes it pretty clear what St. Peter's job is as well.

yes, thank you ever so much :)

[persiphone]

The Congress Insider Trading Scandal Is Outrageous
By Henry Blodget Daily Ticker – Tue, Nov 15, 2011 7:23 AM EST


..You cannot read the description of the personal stock trading allegedly conducted by Rep. Spencer Bachus and other members of Congress during the financial crisis and conclude anything other than the following:

Our government is completely corrupt.

Yes, this behavior may be technically legal, because of an absurd loophole that makes insider-trading rules not apply to Congress.

Yes, this behavior may be widespread on Capitol Hill.

But there is no universe in which a reasonable person would consider this behavior ethical or okay. And for the 300+ million Americans who aren't members of Congress, it would be just plain illegal

Many members of Congress seem guilty here, including John Kerry, Dick Durbin, and Jim Moran. But Spencer Bachus takes the cake.

According to a new book called Throw Them All Out by Peter Schweizer, as relayed by Dave Weigel at Slate, Rep. Bachus made more than 40 trades in his personal account in the summer and fall of 2008, in the early months of the financial crisis.

The fact that Bachus personally traded on private information he received as a result of his job is bad enough. The fact that he was the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee at the time is simply outrageous.

In one case, the day after getting a private briefing on the collapsing economy and financial system from Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson, Rep. Bachus effectively shorted the market (by buying options that would rise if the market tanked.)

A few days later, after the market tanked, Bachus sold his position and nearly doubled his money.

If a corporate executive or Wall Street trader did this--cashed in personally after getting private, non-public information from his work--Rep. Bachus and every other member of Congress would be screaming from the rooftops about how the financial system is deeply corrupt and how the executive should be charged with insider trading.

And they would be right.

Rep. Bachus should return whatever money he made by betting on the direction of the markets (or anything else) in the fall of 2008. He should apologize for his behavior and jaw-dropping lack of judgement. He should urge his fellow members of Congress to immediately enact legislation that defends the fairness of the markets by holding Congress to the same insider trading laws as everyone else. He should then resign in disgrace.

Here's the passage from Throw Them All Out, as relayed by Slate's Dave Weigel. According to Weigel, it is only one of many examples of Bachus's insider trading:

On the evening of September 18, at 7 p.m., Bachus received [a] private briefing for congressional leaders by Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Ben Bernanke about the current state of the economy. They sat around a long table in the office of Nancy Pelosi, then the Speaker of the House. These briefings were secretive. Often, cell phones and Blackberrys had to be surrendered outside the room to avoid leaks.

What Bachus and his colleagues heard behind closed doors was stunning. As Paulson recounts, "Ben [Bernanke] emphasized how the financial crisis could spill into the real economy. As stocks dropped perhaps a further 20 percent, General Motors would go bankrupt, and unemployment would rise . . . if we did nothing." The members of Congress around the table were, in Paulson's words, "ashen-faced."

Bernanke continued, "It is a matter of days before there is a meltdown in the global financial system." Bachus was among those who spoke. According to Paulson, he suggested recapitalizing the banks by buying shares.

The meeting broke up. The next day, September 19, Congressman Bachus bought contract options on Proshares Ultra-Short QQQ, an index fund that seeks results that are 200% of the inverse of the Nasdaq 100 index. In other words, he was shorting the market. It was an inexpensive way to bet that the market would fall. He bought options for $7,846 on a day when the Dow Jones Industrial Average opened at 8,604. A few days later, on September 23, after the market had indeed fallen, he sold the options for over $13,000 and nearly doubled his money.

old again but i can't stop reading about it.

[Diavolo]

The Congress Insider Trading Scandal Is Outrageous
By Henry Blodget Daily Ticker – Tue, Nov 15, 2011 7:23 AM EST




Kind of funny in that Blodget was one of the architects of the dot.com bomb when he was the head of global Internet research at Merrill Lynch. Let's see...pets.com, he had a buy on that until the morning they imploded.

[SoNotHer]

I am sorry I don't live in Mass. to vote for her. I always find her inspiring and genuine, and now that she's in Karl Rove's crosshairs, I find her even more so and more essential than ever.

https://secure.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/27666?refcode=actblue_homepage

kE_wj6NHdEQ

[SoNotHer]

Has anyone read this yet, and if so, what did you think?

"Friedman delivers the bad news in lively style, filled with anecdote. In the last 50 years the world's population has almost tripled. By 2054 it will be 9.2 billion. The drive to establish a middle class in India, China, Brazil and Russia to consume and produce goods is inevitable. But the previous way of exploiting resources is not replicable. In the book Carl Pope said it best: "Every previous economic spirit and takeoff in history by one country or a region was nurtured by an unexploited biological commons." Today there are no new virgin commons."

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_eIzSn91JTRw/SgWXLDiUVMI/AAAAAAAACx8/71TFNUdwI6Q/s320/hot_flat_and_crowded.jpg

[atomiczombie]

By Pat Garofalo on Nov 23, 2011 at 12:05 pm


As Occupy Wall Street protestors continue to demonstrate across the country, congress’ fiscal super committee failed to craft a deficit reduction package due to Republican refusal to consider tax increases on the super wealthy. In fact, the only package that the GOP officially submitted to the committee included lowering the top tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent, even as new research shows that the optimal top tax rate is closer to 70 percent.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), who co-chaired the super committee, explained that the major sticking point during negotiations with the GOP was what to do with the Bush tax cuts. With that in mind, the National Priorities Project points out that those tax cuts this year will give the richest 1 percent of Americans a bigger tax cut than the other 99 percent will receive in average income:

The average Bush tax cut in 2011 for a taxpayer in the richest one percent is greater than the average income of the other 99 percent ($66,384 compared to $58,506).

“The super committee failed to grapple with the extraordinarily costly Bush tax cuts for the richest—tax policies that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, cost more in added federal debt than they add in additional economic activity,” explained Jo Comerford, NPP’s Executive Director. Frank Knapp, vice chairman of the American Sustainable Business Council, added in a statement yesterday, “the high-end Bush tax cuts are a big part of the problem – not the solution…It’s obscene to keep slashing infrastructure and services for everybody on Main Street to keep up tax giveaways for millionaires and multinational corporations.”

The Bush tax cuts have done nothing but blow up the federal debt and hand billions in tax breaks to the Americans who needed them least. As a reminder, past grand bargains when it came to the budget included substantial new revenues, to balance the pain of getting the country’s budget in order. Instead of adopting that approach, the GOP wants to continue lavishing tax breaks onto the 1 percent, while asking everyone else to sacrifice.

LINK: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/23/375654/bush-tax-cut-one-percent/

[atomiczombie]

http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz56/atomiczombie/portshutdown.jpg

[AtLast]

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/11/27/occupy-the-plantation-blacks-shun-ows/

Occupy The Plantation? Blacks Shun OWS

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2011/11/26/why-blacks-arent-embracing-occupy-wall-street/

Why blacks aren’t embracing Occupy Wall Street

[Cin]

Yolo Akili- Interviews of African Americans On Occupy Wall Street
RlbT1URioks&feature=player_detailpage

[SoNotHer]

http://movetoamend.org/OccupyTheCourts

January 20, 2012 – Move to Amend Occupies the Courts!
Jan 20, 2012: Occupy the Courts!Call to Action

Inspired by our friends at Occupy Wall Street, and Dr. Cornel West, Move To Amend is planning bold action to mark the second anniversary of the infamous Citizens United v. FEC decision!

http://courts.lohudblogs.com/files/2011/11/otc-ad.png

Occupy the Courts will be a one day occupation of Federal courthouses across the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Friday January 20, 2012.

Move to Amend volunteers across the USA will lead the charge on the judiciary which created — and continues to expand — corporate personhood rights.

Americans across the country are on the march, and they are marching OUR way. They carry signs that say, “Corporations are NOT people! Money is NOT Speech!” And they are chanting those truths at the top of their lungs! The time has come to make these truths evident to the courts.

➤➤ Join us Friday, January 20, 2012 at a Federal Court building near you! Click here to sign up.
Sites (so far)

Buffalo, NY
Cedar Rapids, IA
Cleveland, OH
Columbus, OH
Des Moines, IA
Denver, CO
Dover, DE
East St. Louis, MO
Eureka, CA
Golfport, MS
Houston, TX
Kansas City, MO
Madison, WI
Milwaukee, WI
Minneapolis, MN
Nashville, TN
New York, NY
Oklahoma City, OK
Peoria, IL
Portland, OR
Rochester, NY
San Francisco, CA
San Jose, CA
Savannah, GA
Seattle, WA
Springfield, MO
St Louis, MO
Tampa, FL
Tacoma, WA
Washington, D.C. (US Supreme Court)
Wilmington, DE
Wilmington, NC

Organizing Resources
Locations

List of Federal District Courts
US Court of Appeals
US Supreme Court

Obtaining a Permit

To obtain a permit for your action, contact the Court you will be targeting and submit this application (pdf) to the GSA Facilities Manager. Find out how they want you to submit the permit application, often times it can be done by fax.
Outreach

This folder contains handbills and posters to promote your event. Black & white or color options in each download folder. Click the links to begin downloads.

Poster with text box (with text box to add your local event info) (download zip folder)
Poster (download zip folder)

Handbills have a letter to Occupy events from MTA on the back - if that isn't useful for your outreach just print side one.

Handbills with text box (with text box to add your local event info) (download zip folder)
Handbills (download zip folder)

Action Materials

Instructions to Make a Corporate Personhood Costume (pdf)
Corporate Personhood Skit: Video, Script & Sound Effects
Adapt one of our 4th of July ideas for Occupy the Courts
“Interview with a Corporate Person” Skit (pdf)
Corporate Personhood Song
"As the Country Turns" Skit for a short drama
Build a freeway banner

Informational Resources

Outreach Materials (Petitions, Signs/Posters, Stickers, Brochures)
Declaration of Independence from Corporate Rule
What Could Change if Corporate Personhood Were Abolished?
Why Abolish All Corporate Constitutional Rights

Spread the Word

Corporate Personhood Talking Points
Tips for Using Social Media (pdf)
Tips for Writing Letters to the Editor
How to Hold a News Conference

Additional Resources

Recording of November 2011 Webinar on Occupy the Courts with Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap (MTA Field Director) and Steve Justino (MTA Occupy the Courts Coordinator) (skip to 20:00 mark to avoid pre-meeting logistics)
Move to Amend Local Action Toolkit

➤➤ Join us Friday, January 20, 2012 at a Federal Court building near you! Click here to sign up.

If you have additional questions or ideas contact us: OccupyTheCourts@MoveToAmend.org.

[MsMerrick]

No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women serve in the U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives protecting freedom, and only get 50% of their pay. While Politicians hold their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and receive full pay retirement after serving one term. It just does not make any sense.





Monday we learned that the staffers of Congress family members are exempt from having to pay back student loans. This will get national attention if news networks will broadcast it. When you add this to the below, just where will all of it stop?

This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.

This is an idea that we should address.

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed while citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

If each person that receives this will forward it on to 20 people, in three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message.. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

You (all) are one of my 20+

[atomiczombie]

The Federal Reserve and the big banks fought for more than two years to keep details of the largest bailout in U.S. history a secret. Now, the rest of the world can see what it was missing.

The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its January issue.

Saved by the bailout, bankers lobbied against government regulations, a job made easier by the Fed, which never disclosed the details of the rescue to lawmakers even as Congress doled out more money and debated new rules aimed at preventing the next collapse.

A fresh narrative of the financial crisis of 2007 to 2009 emerges from 29,000 pages of Fed documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and central bank records of more than 21,000 transactions. While Fed officials say that almost all of the loans were repaid and there have been no losses, details suggest taxpayers paid a price beyond dollars as the secret funding helped preserve a broken status quo and enabled the biggest banks to grow even bigger.

‘Change Their Votes’

“When you see the dollars the banks got, it’s hard to make the case these were successful institutions,” says Sherrod Brown, a Democratic Senator from Ohio who in 2010 introduced an unsuccessful bill to limit bank size. “This is an issue that can unite the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. There are lawmakers in both parties who would change their votes now.”
The size of the bailout came to light after Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News, won a court case against the Fed and a group of the biggest U.S. banks called Clearing House Association LLC to force lending details into the open.

The Fed, headed by Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, argued that revealing borrower details would create a stigma -- investors and counterparties would shun firms that used the central bank as lender of last resort -- and that needy institutions would be reluctant to borrow in the next crisis. Clearing House Association fought Bloomberg’s lawsuit up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the banks’ appeal in March 2011.

$7.77 Trillion

The amount of money the central bank parceled out was surprising even to Gary H. Stern, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 1985 to 2009, who says he “wasn’t aware of the magnitude.” It dwarfed the Treasury Department’s better-known $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year.
“TARP at least had some strings attached,” says Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, referring to the program’s executive-pay ceiling. “With the Fed programs, there was nothing.”
Bankers didn’t disclose the extent of their borrowing. On Nov. 26, 2008, then-Bank of America (BAC) Corp. Chief Executive Officer Kenneth D. Lewis wrote to shareholders that he headed “one of the strongest and most stable major banks in the world.” He didn’t say that his Charlotte, North Carolina-based firm owed the central bank $86 billion that day.

‘Motivate Others’

JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon told shareholders in a March 26, 2010, letter that his bank used the Fed’s Term Auction Facility “at the request of the Federal Reserve to help motivate others to use the system.” He didn’t say that the New York-based bank’s total TAF borrowings were almost twice its cash holdings or that its peak borrowing of $48 billion on Feb. 26, 2009, came more than a year after the program’s creation.

Howard Opinsky, a spokesman for JPMorgan (JPM), declined to comment about Dimon’s statement or the company’s Fed borrowings. Jerry Dubrowski, a spokesman for Bank of America, also declined to comment.

The Fed has been lending money to banks through its so- called discount window since just after its founding in 1913. Starting in August 2007, when confidence in banks began to wane, it created a variety of ways to bolster the financial system with cash or easily traded securities. By the end of 2008, the central bank had established or expanded 11 lending facilities catering to banks, securities firms and corporations that couldn’t get short-term loans from their usual sources.

‘Core Function’

“Supporting financial-market stability in times of extreme market stress is a core function of central banks,” says William B. English, director of the Fed’s Division of Monetary Affairs. “Our lending programs served to prevent a collapse of the financial system and to keep credit flowing to American families and businesses.”

The Fed has said that all loans were backed by appropriate collateral. That the central bank didn’t lose money should “lead to praise of the Fed, that they took this extraordinary step and they got it right,” says Phillip Swagel, a former assistant Treasury secretary under Henry M. Paulson and now a professor of international economic policy at the University of Maryland.
The Fed initially released lending data in aggregate form only. Information on which banks borrowed, when, how much and at what interest rate was kept from public view.

The secrecy extended even to members of President George W. Bush’s administration who managed TARP. Top aides to Paulson weren’t privy to Fed lending details during the creation of the program that provided crisis funding to more than 700 banks, say two former senior Treasury officials who requested anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak.

Big Six

The Treasury Department relied on the recommendations of the Fed to decide which banks were healthy enough to get TARP money and how much, the former officials say. The six biggest U.S. banks, which received $160 billion of TARP funds, borrowed as much as $460 billion from the Fed, measured by peak daily debt calculated by Bloomberg using data obtained from the central bank. Paulson didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The six -- JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup Inc. (C), Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) and Morgan Stanley -- accounted for 63 percent of the average daily debt to the Fed by all publicly traded U.S. banks, money managers and investment- services firms, the data show. By comparison, they had about half of the industry’s assets before the bailout, which lasted from August 2007 through April 2010. The daily debt figure excludes cash that banks passed along to money-market funds.

Bank Supervision

While the emergency response prevented financial collapse, the Fed shouldn’t have allowed conditions to get to that point, says Joshua Rosner, a banking analyst with Graham Fisher & Co. in New York who predicted problems from lax mortgage underwriting as far back as 2001. The Fed, the primary supervisor for large financial companies, should have been more vigilant as the housing bubble formed, and the scale of its lending shows the “supervision of the banks prior to the crisis was far worse than we had imagined,” Rosner says.

Bernanke in an April 2009 speech said that the Fed provided emergency loans only to “sound institutions,” even though its internal assessments described at least one of the biggest borrowers, Citigroup, as “marginal.”
On Jan. 14, 2009, six days before the company’s central bank loans peaked, the New York Fed gave CEO Vikram Pandit a report declaring Citigroup’s financial strength to be “superficial,” bolstered largely by its $45 billion of Treasury funds. The document was released in early 2011 by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a panel empowered by Congress to probe the causes of the crisis.

‘Need Transparency’

Andrea Priest, a spokeswoman for the New York Fed, declined to comment, as did Jon Diat, a spokesman for Citigroup.

“I believe that the Fed should have independence in conducting highly technical monetary policy, but when they are putting taxpayer resources at risk, we need transparency and accountability,” says Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee.
Judd Gregg, a former New Hampshire senator who was a lead Republican negotiator on TARP, and Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who chaired the House Financial Services Committee, both say they were kept in the dark.

“We didn’t know the specifics,” says Gregg, who’s now an adviser to Goldman Sachs.

“We were aware emergency efforts were going on,” Frank says. “We didn’t know the specifics.”

Disclose Lending

Frank co-sponsored the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, billed as a fix for financial-industry excesses. Congress debated that legislation in 2010 without a full understanding of how deeply the banks had depended on the Fed for survival.

It would have been “totally appropriate” to disclose the lending data by mid-2009, says David Jones, a former economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York who has written four books about the central bank.

“The Fed is the second-most-important appointed body in the U.S., next to the Supreme Court, and we’re dealing with a democracy,” Jones says. “Our representatives in Congress deserve to have this kind of information so they can oversee the Fed.”

The Dodd-Frank law required the Fed to release details of some emergency-lending programs in December 2010. It also mandated disclosure of discount-window borrowers after a two- year lag.

Protecting TARP

TARP and the Fed lending programs went “hand in hand,” says Sherrill Shaffer, a banking professor at the University of Wyoming in Laramie and a former chief economist at the New York Fed. While the TARP money helped insulate the central bank from losses, the Fed’s willingness to supply seemingly unlimited financing to the banks assured they wouldn’t collapse, protecting the Treasury’s TARP investments, he says.

“Even though the Treasury was in the headlines, the Fed was really behind the scenes engineering it,” Shaffer says.

Congress, at the urging of Bernanke and Paulson, created TARP in October 2008 after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. made it difficult for financial institutions to get loans. Bank of America and New York-based Citigroup each received $45 billion from TARP. At the time, both were tapping the Fed. Citigroup hit its peak borrowing of $99.5 billion in January 2009, while Bank of America topped out in February 2009 at $91.4 billion.

No Clue

Lawmakers knew none of this.

They had no clue that one bank, New York-based Morgan Stanley (MS), took $107 billion in Fed loans in September 2008, enough to pay off one-tenth of the country’s delinquent mortgages. The firm’s peak borrowing occurred the same day Congress rejected the proposed TARP bill, triggering the biggest point drop ever in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. (INDU) The bill later passed, and Morgan Stanley got $10 billion of TARP funds, though Paulson said only “healthy institutions” were eligible.

Mark Lake, a spokesman for Morgan Stanley, declined to comment, as did spokesmen for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.

Had lawmakers known, it “could have changed the whole approach to reform legislation,” says Ted Kaufman, a former Democratic Senator from Delaware who, with Brown, introduced the bill to limit bank size.

Moral Hazard

Kaufman says some banks are so big that their failure could trigger a chain reaction in the financial system. The cost of borrowing for so-called too-big-to-fail banks is lower than that of smaller firms because lenders believe the government won’t let them go under. The perceived safety net creates what economists call moral hazard -- the belief that bankers will take greater risks because they’ll enjoy any profits while shifting losses to taxpayers.
If Congress had been aware of the extent of the Fed rescue, Kaufman says, he would have been able to line up more support for breaking up the biggest banks.

Byron L. Dorgan, a former Democratic senator from North Dakota, says the knowledge might have helped pass legislation to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, which for most of the last century separated customer deposits from the riskier practices of investment banking.

“Had people known about the hundreds of billions in loans to the biggest financial institutions, they would have demanded Congress take much more courageous actions to stop the practices that caused this near financial collapse,” says Dorgan, who retired in January.

Getting Bigger

Instead, the Fed and its secret financing helped America’s biggest financial firms get bigger and go on to pay employees as much as they did at the height of the housing bubble.

Total assets held by the six biggest U.S. banks increased 39 percent to $9.5 trillion on Sept. 30, 2011, from $6.8 trillion on the same day in 2006, according to Fed data.

For so few banks to hold so many assets is “un-American,” says Richard W. Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. “All of these gargantuan institutions are too big to regulate. I’m in favor of breaking them up and slimming them down.”

Employees at the six biggest banks made twice the average for all U.S. workers in 2010, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics hourly compensation cost data. The banks spent $146.3 billion on compensation in 2010, or an average of $126,342 per worker, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That’s up almost 20 percent from five years earlier compared with less than 15 percent for the average worker. Average pay at the banks in 2010 was about the same as in 2007, before the bailouts.

‘Wanted to Pretend’

“The pay levels came back so fast at some of these firms that it appeared they really wanted to pretend they hadn’t been bailed out,” says Anil Kashyap, a former Fed economist who’s now a professor of economics at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. “They shouldn’t be surprised that a lot of people find some of the stuff that happened totally outrageous.”
Bank of America took over Merrill Lynch & Co. at the urging of then-Treasury Secretary Paulson after buying the biggest U.S. home lender, Countrywide Financial Corp. When the Merrill Lynch purchase was announced on Sept. 15, 2008, Bank of America had $14.4 billion in emergency Fed loans and Merrill Lynch had $8.1 billion. By the end of the month, Bank of America’s loans had reached $25 billion and Merrill Lynch’s had exceeded $60 billion, helping both firms keep the deal on track.

Prevent Collapse

Wells Fargo bought Wachovia Corp., the fourth-largest U.S. bank by deposits before the 2008 acquisition. Because depositors were pulling their money from Wachovia, the Fed channeled $50 billion in secret loans to the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank through two emergency-financing programs to prevent collapse before Wells Fargo could complete the purchase.
“These programs proved to be very successful at providing financial markets the additional liquidity and confidence they needed at a time of unprecedented uncertainty,” says Ancel Martinez, a spokesman for Wells Fargo.

JPMorgan absorbed the country’s largest savings and loan, Seattle-based Washington Mutual Inc., and investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. The New York Fed, then headed by Timothy F. Geithner, who’s now Treasury secretary, helped JPMorgan complete the Bear Stearns deal by providing $29 billion of financing, which was disclosed at the time. The Fed also supplied Bear Stearns with $30 billion of secret loans to keep the company from failing before the acquisition closed, central bank data show. The loans were made through a program set up to provide emergency funding to brokerage firms...

[There is more I just couldn't fit it all in]

LINK: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html

[atomiczombie]

‘Regulatory Discretion’

“Some might claim that the Fed was picking winners and losers, but what the Fed was doing was exercising its professional regulatory discretion,” says John Dearie, a former speechwriter at the New York Fed who’s now executive vice president for policy at the Financial Services Forum, a Washington-based group consisting of the CEOs of 20 of the world’s biggest financial firms. “The Fed clearly felt it had what it needed within the requirements of the law to continue to lend to Bear and Wachovia.”

The bill introduced by Brown and Kaufman in April 2010 would have mandated shrinking the six largest firms.
“When a few banks have advantages, the little guys get squeezed,” Brown says. “That, to me, is not what capitalism should be.”
Kaufman says he’s passionate about curbing too-big-to-fail banks because he fears another crisis.

‘Can We Survive?’

“The amount of pain that people, through no fault of their own, had to endure -- and the prospect of putting them through it again -- is appalling,” Kaufman says. “The public has no more appetite for bailouts. What would happen tomorrow if one of these big banks got in trouble? Can we survive that?”
Lobbying expenditures by the six banks that would have been affected by the legislation rose to $29.4 million in 2010 compared with $22.1 million in 2006, the last full year before credit markets seized up -- a gain of 33 percent, according to OpenSecrets.org, a research group that tracks money in U.S. politics. Lobbying by the American Bankers Association, a trade organization, increased at about the same rate, OpenSecrets.org reported.

Lobbyists argued the virtues of bigger banks. They’re more stable, better able to serve large companies and more competitive internationally, and breaking them up would cost jobs and cause “long-term damage to the U.S. economy,” according to a Nov. 13, 2009, letter to members of Congress from the FSF.

The group’s website cites Nobel Prize-winning economist Oliver E. Williamson, a professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, for demonstrating the greater efficiency of large companies.

‘Serious Burden’

In an interview, Williamson says that the organization took his research out of context and that efficiency is only one factor in deciding whether to preserve too-big-to-fail banks.

“The banks that were too big got even bigger, and the problems that we had to begin with are magnified in the process,” Williamson says. “The big banks have incentives to take risks they wouldn’t take if they didn’t have government support. It’s a serious burden on the rest of the economy.”
Dearie says his group didn’t mean to imply that Williamson endorsed big banks.

Top officials in President Barack Obama’s administration sided with the FSF in arguing against legislative curbs on the size of banks.

Geithner, Kaufman

On May 4, 2010, Geithner visited Kaufman in his Capitol Hill office. As president of the New York Fed in 2007 and 2008, Geithner helped design and run the central bank’s lending programs. The New York Fed supervised four of the six biggest U.S. banks and, during the credit crunch, put together a daily confidential report on Wall Street’s financial condition. Geithner was copied on these reports, based on a sampling of e- mails released by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

At the meeting with Kaufman, Geithner argued that the issue of limiting bank size was too complex for Congress and that people who know the markets should handle these decisions, Kaufman says. According to Kaufman, Geithner said he preferred that bank supervisors from around the world, meeting in Basel, Switzerland, make rules increasing the amount of money banks need to hold in reserve. Passing laws in the U.S. would undercut his efforts in Basel, Geithner said, according to Kaufman.
Anthony Coley, a spokesman for Geithner, declined to comment.

‘Punishing Success’

Lobbyists for the big banks made the winning case that forcing them to break up was “punishing success,” Brown says. Now that they can see how much the banks were borrowing from the Fed, senators might think differently, he says.

The Fed supported curbing too-big-to-fail banks, including giving regulators the power to close large financial firms and implementing tougher supervision for big banks, says Fed General Counsel Scott G. Alvarez. The Fed didn’t take a position on whether large banks should be dismantled before they get into trouble.

Dodd-Frank does provide a mechanism for regulators to break up the biggest banks. It established the Financial Stability Oversight Council that could order teetering banks to shut down in an orderly way. The council is headed by Geithner.

“Dodd-Frank does not solve the problem of too big to fail,” says Shelby, the Alabama Republican. “Moral hazard and taxpayer exposure still very much exist.”

Below Market

Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, says banks “were either in bad shape or taking advantage of the Fed giving them a good deal. The former contradicts their public statements. The latter -- getting loans at below-market rates during a financial crisis -- is quite a gift.”

The Fed says it typically makes emergency loans more expensive than those available in the marketplace to discourage banks from abusing the privilege. During the crisis, Fed loans were among the cheapest around, with funding available for as low as 0.01 percent in December 2008, according to data from the central bank and money-market rates tracked by Bloomberg.

The Fed funds also benefited firms by allowing them to avoid selling assets to pay investors and depositors who pulled their money. So the assets stayed on the banks’ books, earning interest.

Banks report the difference between what they earn on loans and investments and their borrowing expenses. The figure, known as net interest margin, provides a clue to how much profit the firms turned on their Fed loans, the costs of which were included in those expenses. To calculate how much banks stood to make, Bloomberg multiplied their tax-adjusted net interest margins by their average Fed debt during reporting periods in which they took emergency loans.

Added Income

The 190 firms for which data were available would have produced income of $13 billion, assuming all of the bailout funds were invested at the margins reported, the data show.

The six biggest U.S. banks’ share of the estimated subsidy was $4.8 billion, or 23 percent of their combined net income during the time they were borrowing from the Fed. Citigroup would have taken in the most, with $1.8 billion.

“The net interest margin is an effective way of getting at the benefits that these large banks received from the Fed,” says Gerald A. Hanweck, a former Fed economist who’s now a finance professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.

While the method isn’t perfect, it’s impossible to state the banks’ exact profits or savings from their Fed loans because the numbers aren’t disclosed and there isn’t enough publicly available data to figure it out.
Opinsky, the JPMorgan spokesman, says he doesn’t think the calculation is fair because “in all likelihood, such funds were likely invested in very short-term investments,” which typically bring lower returns.

Standing Access

Even without tapping the Fed, the banks get a subsidy by having standing access to the central bank’s money, says Viral Acharya, a New York University economics professor who has worked as an academic adviser to the New York Fed.

“Banks don’t give lines of credit to corporations for free,” he says. “Why should all these government guarantees and liquidity facilities be for free?”
In the September 2008 meeting at which Paulson and Bernanke briefed lawmakers on the need for TARP, Bernanke said that if nothing was done, “unemployment would rise -- to 8 or 9 percent from the prevailing 6.1 percent,” Paulson wrote in “On the Brink” (Business Plus, 2010).

Occupy Wall Street

The U.S. jobless rate hasn’t dipped below 8.8 percent since March 2009, 3.6 million homes have been foreclosed since August 2007, according to data provider RealtyTrac Inc., and police have clashed with Occupy Wall Street protesters, who say government policies favor the wealthiest citizens, in New York, Boston, Seattle and Oakland, California.

The Tea Party, which supports a more limited role for government, has its roots in anger over the Wall Street bailouts, says Neil M. Barofsky, former TARP special inspector general and a Bloomberg Television contributing editor.

“The lack of transparency is not just frustrating; it really blocked accountability,” Barofsky says. “When people don’t know the details, they fill in the blanks. They believe in conspiracies.”

In the end, Geithner had his way. The Brown-Kaufman proposal to limit the size of banks was defeated, 60 to 31. Bank supervisors meeting in Switzerland did mandate minimum reserves that institutions will have to hold, with higher levels for the world’s largest banks, including the six biggest in the U.S. Those rules can be changed by individual countries.
They take full effect in 2019.

Meanwhile, Kaufman says, “we’re absolutely, totally, 100 percent not prepared for another financial crisis.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Bob Ivry in New York at bivry@bloomberg.net; Bradley Keoun in New York at bkeoun@bloomberg.net; Phil Kuntz in New York at pkuntz1@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Gary Putka at gputka@bloomberg.net; David Scheer at dscheer@bloomberg.net.

THIS is a crime. It goes against the the spirit of the constitution. Tax payer money can't just be lent out to banks without disclosure and approval of elected representatives. I mean, apparently it can, since it happened, but that is a crime. The 7.77 trillion the FED lent to the big banks makes the 700 billion dollar TARP bail out look like pocket change. THIS is why we need to keep up the pressure with Occupy.

[AtLast]

No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women serve in the U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives protecting freedom, and only get 50% of their pay. While Politicians hold their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and receive full pay retirement after serving one term. It just does not make any sense.





Monday we learned that the staffers of Congress family members are exempt from having to pay back student loans. This will get national attention if news networks will broadcast it. When you add this to the below, just where will all of it stop?

This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.

This is an idea that we should address.

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed while citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

If each person that receives this will forward it on to 20 people, in three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message.. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

You (all) are one of my 20+

I think this should be bumped on a regular basis- as well as any info on an amendment that would make the Citizens United SC decision unconstitutional (that is what it may take to get to public ONLY finance of elections. Merrick (or anyone)- do you have any links to sites with proposed constitutional amendments?

I keep thinking that the only way this movement will advance real change for the 98/99% will be through eventual constitutional amendment. BUT, that is a huge task and with the current division of the US population politically would be one hell of a feat. But I see where the left and right could join in the middle to stop all of the true "waste" of elected officials. I admit, I have a problem even with politicians I align with getting these perks and the fact is that once in office, these folks become millionaires if they didn't start as such.

[atomiczombie]

5n2Aaxe60CY

His asking everyone to stay non-violent is impressive. So glad he is getting his speech back and re-joining with Occupy Oakland!

[atomiczombie]

http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz56/atomiczombie/WestCoastPortBlockade_WallStreet.jpg

[Cin]

This article made me feel sad, a bit worried, and just little sick to my stomach. But then so many things I read lately have that effect. Maybe I need to read less and perhaps play more video games. Video games never make me sad or worried. Well, unless i'm losing badly.

How Zuccotti Park Became Zuccotti Prison: Creeping American Police State

America may not be a traditional police state (yet), but it is an increasingly militarized policed state in which rights are regularly tossed out the window.
November 28, 2011 |

When I arrived at Zuccotti Prison one afternoon last week, the “park” was in its now-usual lockdown mode. No more tents. No library. No kitchen. No medical area. Just about 30 leftover protesters and perhaps 100 of New York’s finest as well as private-security types in neon-green vests in or around a dead space enclosed by more movable police fencing than you can imagine. To the once open plaza, there were now only two small entrances in the fencing on the side streets, and to pass through either you had to run a gauntlet of police and private security types.

The park itself was bare of anything whatsoever and, that day, parts of it had been cordoned off, theoretically for yet more cleaning, with the kind of yellow police tape that would normally surround a crime scene, which was exactly how it seemed. In fact, as I walked in, a young protestor was being arrested, evidently for the crime of lying down on a bench. (No sleeping, or even prospective sleeping, allowed -- except in jail!)

Thanks to Mayor Bloomberg’s police assault on the park, OWS has largely decamped for spaces unknown and for the future. Left behind was a grim tableau of our distinctly up-armored, post-9/11 American world. To take an obvious example, the “police” who so notoriously pepper-sprayed non-violent, seated students at UC Davis were just campus cops, who in my college years, the 1960s, still generally wore civvies, carried no weapons, and were tasked with seeing whether students had broken curfew or locked themselves out of their rooms. Now, around the country, they are armed with chemical weapons, Tasers, tear gas, side arms, you name it. Meanwhile, some police departments, militarizing at a rapid rate, have tank-like vehicles, and the first police surveillance drones are taking to the air in field tests and capable of being weaponized.

And keep in mind, when it comes to that pepper-spraying incident, we’re talking about sleepy Davis, California, and a campus once renowned for its agronomy school. Al-Qaeda? I don’t think so.

Still, terror is what now makes our American world work, the trains run more or less on time, and the money flow in. So why should we be surprised that, having ripped Zuccotti Park apart, destroyed books, gotten a rep for pepper-spraying and roughing up protesters (and reporters, too), the NYPD should propitiously announce the arrest of yet another “lone wolf” terrorist. And can anyone be shocked that we’re talking about a disturbed, moneyless individual -- he couldn’t even pay his cell phone bill, no less rent a place to live -- under surveillance for two years, and palling around with an NYPD “informant” who smoked marijuana with him and may have given him not only a place to build a bomb but encouragement in doing so.

It was a police-developed terror case that evidently so reeked of coaching even the FBI refused to get involved. And yet this was Mayor Bloomberg’s shining moment of last week, as the NYPD declared his home a “frozen” zone, the equivalent of declaring martial law around his house. And who was endangering him? An OWS “drum circle.” In the United States, increasingly, those in power no longer observe the law. Instead, they make it up to suit their needs. In the process, the streets where you demonstrate, as (New York’s mayor keeps telling us) is our “right,” are regularly transformed into yet more fenced-in, heavily surveilled Zuccotti Prisons.

This may not be a traditional police state (yet), but it is an increasingly militarized policed state in which the blue coats, armed to the teeth, act with remarkable impunity -- and all in the name of our safety from a bunch of doofuses or unhinged individuals that its “informants” often seem to fund, put through basic terror courses, and encourage in every way until they are arrested as “terrorists.” This is essentially a scam on the basis of which rights are regularly abridged or tossed out the window.

In twenty-first-century America, “rights” are increasingly meant for those who behave themselves and don’t exercise them. And if you happen to be part of a government in which no criminal act of state -- torture, kidnapping, the assassination of U.S. citizens abroad, the launching of wars of aggression -- will ever bring a miscreant to court, only two crimes evidently exist: blowing a whistle or expressing your opinion. State Department official Peter Van Buren, whose new book about a disastrous year he spent in Iraq, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, learned that the hard way. So did former Guantanamo prosecutor Morris Davis when he got fired from his job at the Library of Congress for writing an op-ed. So may we all.

http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/153235/how_zuccotti_park_became_zuccotti_prison%3A_creepi ng_american_police_state?page=entire

[persiphone]

Occupy L.A. protesters defy eviction
Occupy Wall Street protesters who defied a deadline to remove their weeks-old encampment on the Los Angeles City Hall lawn stood their ground Nov. 29 as they faced uncertainty over when or if police would push them out of the park


http://news.yahoo.com/photos/as-deadline-looms-occupy-la-says-they-ll-stay-1322366691-slideshow/los-angeles-police-department-officers-confront-protesters-media-photo-191717305.html

that's a link to the slideshow, but i can't dig anything up on the story. how many rocks i gotta look under to get the news around here in this country?

[persiphone]

ok here we go.....geeeze....it was buried


Police hold off on eviction of Los Angeles Occupy camp
By Jason Kandel Reuters – 14 hrs ago


LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Throngs of anti-Wall Street activists hunkered down in their Los Angeles camp for another night of uncertainty early on Tuesday as police stayed largely on the sidelines 24 hours after a deadline to vacate passed.

But crowds that had swelled to more than 2,000 at their peak late on Sunday as protesters from outside the City Hall encampment streamed in to help forestall a raid had dwindled to a core group of several hundred by late Monday night.

Compared with the raucous atmosphere at the encampment a day earlier, the mood was subdued on Tuesday, with campers milling about or playing drums and other instruments.

Police in riot gear had closed in on the Occupy LA compound early on Monday as protesters started blocking traffic, but a force of about 300 officers stopped short of clearing the camp and withdrew once they reopened streets for Monday commuters.

Four people were arrested on suspicion of being present at an unlawful assembly.

The Los Angeles encampment, which officials had tolerated for weeks even as other cities moved in to clear out similar camps, is among the largest on the West Coast aligned with a 2-month-old national Occupy Wall Street movement protesting economic inequality and excesses of the U.S. financial system.

Los Angeles Police Department Commander Andrew Smith said the number of tents had declined since the weekend to about 270, down from 500 pitched at their height.

"It's calm as can be over there," he said from a nearby corner on Monday night. Small clusters of officers stood by casually at various intersections at the fringes of the park, with no imminent sign of large-scale police action.

WAITING GAME

Smith declined to say when police might try to enforce the eviction order issued last week by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who gave the activists until 12:01 a.m. on Monday to dismantle their tents and clear out or face forcible removal and arrest.

Occupy campers seemed resigned to the fact that their 8-week-old presence was nearing an end.

"Now, it's like any time they could come in," said Elise Whitaker, 21, one of the organizers of the group. "They're going to come in, and I'm going to be arrested and it's going to be a lot of fun."

Attorneys for Occupy LA asked a federal judge on Monday for a court order barring police from evicting the camp, arguing that city officials had violated their civil rights by ordering it dismantled.

Villaraigosa initially had welcomed the protesters, going so far as to supply them with ponchos for inclement weather. But as city officials complained of crime, sanitation problems and property damage they blamed on the camp, the mayor decided the group had to go.

He issued his eviction notice last Friday after talks on a plan to induce the protesters to leave voluntarily collapsed, setting the stage for the latest showdown between leaders of a major U.S. city and the Occupy movement.

The mayor has promised to find alternative shelter for homeless people who had taken up residence at City Hall and were estimated to account for at least a third of those camped out there since the start of October.

Whitaker said there was widespread speculation that eviction by police might come after the city opens its winter shelters on December 1, a point at which homeless residents of the Occupy LA camp would drift away on their own.

[persiphone]

i thought this was interesting.....


Los Angeles Shows an Alternative Approach to Occupy
Tom Hayden
Posted: 11/29/11 09:31 AM ET on The Huffington Post


Compared with the brutal police crackdowns against the Occupy movement in New York City, Oakland and even the pacific Davis campus of the University of California, the Los Angeles eviction last night was almost entirely peaceful. The question is, why?

One reason was the leadership of the liberal Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who ordered the eviction but also no beatings, tear-gassing or police violence. Another was the leadership of the Los Angeles Police Department, eager to show a new approach after years of controversy. The City Council came out early in support. Organized labor and local clergy joined the Occupiers and insisted the mayor do the right thing. And the Occupiers themselves adhered to a code of non-violence in an effort to keep the focus on Wall Street.

But to believe the writer Naomi Wolf, who was arrested during one of the New York protests, the Occupy movement inevitably faced a brutal crackdown because of its threat to the status quo. Wolf has written in the UK's Guardian that the recent crackdowns on Occupy in multiple cities have been a coordinated conspiracy between local officials, police, the FBI and Homeland Security. As evidence, she points to conference calls between officials and police in 18 cities that preceded the raids. She claims that a "shocking truth" behind the crackdown is the vested interest of Congress in protecting its own insider stock dealings on Wall Street. In one passage, Wolf accuses the White House of blessing the "war on peaceful protesters."

Wolf is not entirely off the mark. But her monolithic conspiracy model needs more investigation and cannot explain the case of Los Angeles.

There is no doubt that the conference calls were conducted, and public records act requests may yet shed light on what was said. The mayor of Los Angeles was not on those calls, and says he didn't want to be.

What is naïve in the Wolf analysis is her notion that crackdowns coordinated by the FBI are new with the advent of Occupy Wall Street. Since the 1999 Seattle protests, the involvement of the FBI with local police has followed a repeated pattern. First, an FBI counter-terrorism task force warns local officials, media and the public that thousands of masked "anarchists" will be invading their cities to break the law, fight the police, break windows and destroy property. They then advise that all protesters be literally fenced into protest cages. To sweeten the coordination, tens of thousands of federal dollars are offered to local police forces for "security" (acquisition of the latest in gas grenades, launchers, surveillance cameras, even paper shredders in one case). Young people and their convergence centers are targeted for prior detention, with the assistance of informants and provocateurs.

The list of cities where this has occurred is a long one, starting with Seattle: Los Angeles (2000 DNC), Washington D.C. (2000 IMF/World Bank, 2002 anti-war/IMF/World Bank), Genoa (2001 G8), Quebec City (2001 FTAA), Oakland (2003 anti-war), Miami (2003 FTAA), New York (2003 anti-war, 2004 RNC), Minneapolis-St. Paul (2008 RNC), Denver (2008 DNC), to list only the most dramatic and recent. None of these are remembered in Wolf's inflated narrative, as if the Occupy movement has been unique in provoking the ruling class to order up repression.

Of course there were earlier eras of FBI-backed repression, deportations, and localized violence. But the current cycle began with Seattle and has morphed into the larger "war on terrorism."

There was one exception to this recent pattern: Mexico's handling of the anti-WTO protests held in Cancun in 2003. Instead of following the FBI's script, Mexico decided to de-escalate the police response, perhaps to protect Cancun's tourist economy, perhaps to improve their security forces' tattered reputation. It was quite remarkable to observe. In spite provocations by the so-called Black Bloc, in spite of protesters taking over the streets, in spite of a horrific ritual suicide by a South Korean farmer, the police and army remained largely disengaged or passive. When they arrested one group for sitting in an intersection, they placed them on an air-conditioned bus, which drove them back to the protest site.

The lesson that was driven home for me in Cancun is that the police, and those who dictate their policy, have enormous discretion over whether a confrontation turns violent. It mostly depends on what image they want to project. That is, it depends on politics.

To return to the case Los Angeles, I am not arguing in favor of the Mayor's eviction order. There was no particular reason for the order to be imposed last night. Left alone, the Occupiers might have decided on their own that it was time to move on. Or they might have descended into negative feuding and folded their tents. There was a serious risk in forcing them out of their encampment. Nor do I believe the mayor bowed to pressure from downtown property owners to clear the encampment. His own explanation as an elected official makes more sense: that sooner or later, an incident would occur at the encampment -- a death, a rape, a fight -- for which he would be held accountable politically.

But the way the LA eviction has been handled so far is a very important achievement for a city plagued by fifty years of police scandals, brutality, corruption, and court-ordered reforms. Only four years ago the LAPD's fabled Metro Division went wild and trampled peaceful protesters and media at a huge immigrant rights rally. The LAPD still stops and frisks hundreds of thousands of inner city youth each year, a potential scandal that is so far invisible.

Under the direction of the mayor and Chief Charlie Beck, however, the LAPD officers last night were as "tactful" as could be, in the phrase one Occupy sympathizer who works at City Hall.

Once considered an "occupying army" projecting a threat against the least disturbance, the LAPD allowed Occupy LA to co-opt their former brand.

The Occupy movement also showed an evolution in thinking about street tactics. A decade ago, the phrase "diversity of tactics" allowed a range of actions from strict nonviolence to "fucking shit up," as certain anarchist factions used to say. Experience showed that such "diversity" only allowed the most violent sensational tactics to dominate the media narrative, despite being employed by a tiny handful of activists (and provocateurs, in some cases).

So far the clearances in LA have been peaceful. Yesterday morning (Monday) the mayor met with a delegation of inter-faith leaders who have been joining the occupiers for several weeks. The clergy communiqué from the meeting commended Chief Beck for "the restraint shown so far by the LAPD," and made a "commitment to sustain the Occupy presence and message in LA going forward," including a promise by the Mayor to use his "bully pulpit" as head of the National Conference of Mayors to push the major themes of the national Occupy movement:

"the need to halt the avalanche of home foreclosures, the need to reverse corporate 'personhood', the need to fully enforce the Dodd-Frank law, and the need to gain needed federal and state tax revenue to support municipal services in LA and throughout the nation."
The dire scenario painted by Wolf in the international media does not tell the story of Los Angeles, where a crack of hope has been opened after one of the country's longest occupations.

[Ebon]

i thought this was interesting.....


Los Angeles Shows an Alternative Approach to Occupy
Tom Hayden
Posted: 11/29/11 09:31 AM ET on The Huffington Post


Compared with the brutal police crackdowns against the Occupy movement in New York City, Oakland and even the pacific Davis campus of the University of California, the Los Angeles eviction last night was almost entirely peaceful. The question is, why?

One reason was the leadership of the liberal Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who ordered the eviction but also no beatings, tear-gassing or police violence. Another was the leadership of the Los Angeles Police Department, eager to show a new approach after years of controversy. The City Council came out early in support. Organized labor and local clergy joined the Occupiers and insisted the mayor do the right thing. And the Occupiers themselves adhered to a code of non-violence in an effort to keep the focus on Wall Street.

But to believe the writer Naomi Wolf, who was arrested during one of the New York protests, the Occupy movement inevitably faced a brutal crackdown because of its threat to the status quo. Wolf has written in the UK's Guardian that the recent crackdowns on Occupy in multiple cities have been a coordinated conspiracy between local officials, police, the FBI and Homeland Security. As evidence, she points to conference calls between officials and police in 18 cities that preceded the raids. She claims that a "shocking truth" behind the crackdown is the vested interest of Congress in protecting its own insider stock dealings on Wall Street. In one passage, Wolf accuses the White House of blessing the "war on peaceful protesters."

Wolf is not entirely off the mark. But her monolithic conspiracy model needs more investigation and cannot explain the case of Los Angeles.

There is no doubt that the conference calls were conducted, and public records act requests may yet shed light on what was said. The mayor of Los Angeles was not on those calls, and says he didn't want to be.

What is naïve in the Wolf analysis is her notion that crackdowns coordinated by the FBI are new with the advent of Occupy Wall Street. Since the 1999 Seattle protests, the involvement of the FBI with local police has followed a repeated pattern. First, an FBI counter-terrorism task force warns local officials, media and the public that thousands of masked "anarchists" will be invading their cities to break the law, fight the police, break windows and destroy property. They then advise that all protesters be literally fenced into protest cages. To sweeten the coordination, tens of thousands of federal dollars are offered to local police forces for "security" (acquisition of the latest in gas grenades, launchers, surveillance cameras, even paper shredders in one case). Young people and their convergence centers are targeted for prior detention, with the assistance of informants and provocateurs.

The list of cities where this has occurred is a long one, starting with Seattle: Los Angeles (2000 DNC), Washington D.C. (2000 IMF/World Bank, 2002 anti-war/IMF/World Bank), Genoa (2001 G8), Quebec City (2001 FTAA), Oakland (2003 anti-war), Miami (2003 FTAA), New York (2003 anti-war, 2004 RNC), Minneapolis-St. Paul (2008 RNC), Denver (2008 DNC), to list only the most dramatic and recent. None of these are remembered in Wolf's inflated narrative, as if the Occupy movement has been unique in provoking the ruling class to order up repression.

Of course there were earlier eras of FBI-backed repression, deportations, and localized violence. But the current cycle began with Seattle and has morphed into the larger "war on terrorism."

There was one exception to this recent pattern: Mexico's handling of the anti-WTO protests held in Cancun in 2003. Instead of following the FBI's script, Mexico decided to de-escalate the police response, perhaps to protect Cancun's tourist economy, perhaps to improve their security forces' tattered reputation. It was quite remarkable to observe. In spite provocations by the so-called Black Bloc, in spite of protesters taking over the streets, in spite of a horrific ritual suicide by a South Korean farmer, the police and army remained largely disengaged or passive. When they arrested one group for sitting in an intersection, they placed them on an air-conditioned bus, which drove them back to the protest site.

The lesson that was driven home for me in Cancun is that the police, and those who dictate their policy, have enormous discretion over whether a confrontation turns violent. It mostly depends on what image they want to project. That is, it depends on politics.

To return to the case Los Angeles, I am not arguing in favor of the Mayor's eviction order. There was no particular reason for the order to be imposed last night. Left alone, the Occupiers might have decided on their own that it was time to move on. Or they might have descended into negative feuding and folded their tents. There was a serious risk in forcing them out of their encampment. Nor do I believe the mayor bowed to pressure from downtown property owners to clear the encampment. His own explanation as an elected official makes more sense: that sooner or later, an incident would occur at the encampment -- a death, a rape, a fight -- for which he would be held accountable politically.

But the way the LA eviction has been handled so far is a very important achievement for a city plagued by fifty years of police scandals, brutality, corruption, and court-ordered reforms. Only four years ago the LAPD's fabled Metro Division went wild and trampled peaceful protesters and media at a huge immigrant rights rally. The LAPD still stops and frisks hundreds of thousands of inner city youth each year, a potential scandal that is so far invisible.

Under the direction of the mayor and Chief Charlie Beck, however, the LAPD officers last night were as "tactful" as could be, in the phrase one Occupy sympathizer who works at City Hall.

Once considered an "occupying army" projecting a threat against the least disturbance, the LAPD allowed Occupy LA to co-opt their former brand.

The Occupy movement also showed an evolution in thinking about street tactics. A decade ago, the phrase "diversity of tactics" allowed a range of actions from strict nonviolence to "fucking shit up," as certain anarchist factions used to say. Experience showed that such "diversity" only allowed the most violent sensational tactics to dominate the media narrative, despite being employed by a tiny handful of activists (and provocateurs, in some cases).

So far the clearances in LA have been peaceful. Yesterday morning (Monday) the mayor met with a delegation of inter-faith leaders who have been joining the occupiers for several weeks. The clergy communiqué from the meeting commended Chief Beck for "the restraint shown so far by the LAPD," and made a "commitment to sustain the Occupy presence and message in LA going forward," including a promise by the Mayor to use his "bully pulpit" as head of the National Conference of Mayors to push the major themes of the national Occupy movement:

"the need to halt the avalanche of home foreclosures, the need to reverse corporate 'personhood', the need to fully enforce the Dodd-Frank law, and the need to gain needed federal and state tax revenue to support municipal services in LA and throughout the nation."
The dire scenario painted by Wolf in the international media does not tell the story of Los Angeles, where a crack of hope has been opened after one of the country's longest occupations.

Sorry I'm with Naomi on this one. I think she put shit out into the open, now the cops want to act right or "learn" how to deal with peaceful protests in a peaceful manner when they should have been doing that in the first place. Why are they evicting them anyway for a peaceful protest? So it's ok for the cops to shut down our freedom of speech as long as they do it peacefully? I call BS.

[persiphone]

i agree with the writer's point that FBI~like assistance in matters like this are not a new thing. and i thought it was interesting that L.A. claims to not have been in on any of the conference calls with PERF by choice even.

[Corkey]

Scott Olsen on Ed tonight.

[persiphone]

Citigroup: Gutsy Judge "Preoccupies" Wall Street
By Steve Denning Forbes – 10 hrs ago


Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.

Margaret Mead

My recent article, What Shall We Do With The Big, Bad Banks, noted how over the last 15 years, some 19 large major financial institutions have been found by the SEC to have broken anti-fraud security laws at least 51 times—laws that they agreed “never again to breach”. The group of offenders included Citigroup [C], Bank of America [BAC], JPMorganChase [JPM], UBS [UBS] Goldman Sachs [GS], Wachovia [WB], and AIG [AIG]. In this period, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has never once brought a contempt of court citation against any of the banks for repeated offences.

The party ends
Yesterday, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of US District Court in Manhattan took a stand. He rejected a $285 million settlement between Citigroup and the Securities and Exchange Commission, in which, once again, Citigroup admitted no wrongdoing and promised “never again to breach the law”.

Judge Rakoff said that he could not determine whether the agency’s settlement with Citigroup was “fair, reasonable, adequate and in the public interest,” as required by law, because the agency had claimed, but had not proved, that Citigroup committed fraud.

According to the SEC, Citigroup created a $1 billion mortgage fund that it sold to investors in 2007 and filled it with securities that it believed would fail so that it could bet against its customers and profit when values declined. The fraud, the agency said, was in Citigroup’s falsely telling investors that an independent party was choosing the portfolio’s investments.

The SEC, Judge Rakoff said, “has a duty, inherent in its statutory mission, to see that the truth emerges.” But it is difficult to tell what the agency is getting from this settlement “other than a quick headline.” Even a $285 million settlement, he said, “is pocket change to any entity as large as Citigroup,” and often viewed by Wall Street firms “as a cost of doing business.” While $285 million sounds like a lot of money, it compares to the $700 million that investors lost and the $160 million that Citigroup made from the deal.

A practice hallowed by history not by reason
Robert Khuzami, the SEC's director of enforcement, said that the decision “ignores decades of established practice throughout federal agencies and decisions of the federal courts.”

Judge Rakoff’s response was that the established practice makes no sense. It is “hallowed by history, but not by reason”and creates substantial potential for abuse.

In his decision, Judge Rakoff called Citigroup “a recidivist,” or repeat offender, for having previously settled other fraud cases with the agency where it neither admitted nor denied the allegations but agreed never to violate the law in the future. Citigroup and other repeat offenders can agree to those terms, the judge said, because they know that the commission has not monitored compliance, failing to bring contempt charges for repeat violations in at least 10 years.

A comfortable club
Judge Rakoff put his finger on a comfortable arrangement that has been going on for many years. A bank commits a fraud and makes a lot of money. The SEC brings a suit for fraud, but settles the case while the bank admits no responsibility and offers a “never again” promise. The judges blesses the agreement. The SEC declares victory. The bank continues with business as usual and commits another fraud. The SEC brings suit and so on, ad infinitum.

Almost everyone is happy. The judges are saved from a series of messy and expensive trials. The SEC gets a headline and a fine. The banks can continue with business as usual.

Who loses? First, the investors suffer continuing losses, as they have little chance of bringing a successful suit against Citigroup when the SEC is unable to extract the slightest admission of doing anything amiss.

Second, the taxpayers also suffer when they are called up on bail out the big banks when the practices become so egregious that they endanger the entire global financial system.

Third, the shareholders also suffer big losses. Citigroup has lost 92 percent of its share value over the last ten years.


The really big winners in this wonderfully comfortable club are the bank executives and traders. Even in 2010, just two years after banks like Citigroup were bailed out by the taxpayers, compensation for the 29 largest financial organizations was an astonishing $135 billion. (That’s billion, not million.)

What if others followed Judge Rakoff’s example?
Other judges are not obligated to follow Judge Rakoff’s opinion.

“The crucial question,” worries Peter Henning in the New York Times, “is whether Judge Rakoff’s decision has led to an end to the S.E.C.’s policy of settling its cases without any admission of liability by the defendant? Although Judge Rakoff is only one federal district judge, his approach may be influential with other judges who do not wish to be seen as mere 'rubber stamps' for the S.E.C.”

What if other judges began rejecting questionable settlements that effectively give a green light to "recidivists" to continue with business as usual?

What if the SEC developed a backbone and started bringing contempt of court cases for “recidivists” like Citigroup?

What if business schools started teaching that maximizing shareholder value systematically results in declining shareholder value?

What if investors wised up just a tad and grasped that investing in banks that systematically “disadvantage’ their customers is a very poor investment decision?

What if banks themselves started to realize that disadvantaging their customers does not make long-term business sense? What if they sent their traders back to Las Vegas where they could continue their taste for gambling without risk to the public, and started focusing their business on activities that would grow the real economy?

What if the banks even began to find ways to delight their customers by practicing radical management?

Would it be so terrible if judges began living more authentic lives by actually implementing the law, and bankers started living lives that were personally worthwhile?

And what if that led to an end to financial crises and in due course to a rebirth of the real economy and the growth of jobs: would that be such a horrible thing?

[persiphone]

Occupy Wall Street Takes Aim at Student Debt
By Giuseppe Giannet Mon, Nov 28, 2011


With the ever-increasing chance of eviction facing "Occupy" movements across the country, Occupy Wall Street has been forced to consider its next step. Whether the movement morphs into a political group capable of reform through the ballot box is yet to be seen. However, some specific action is already taking place. One thing Occupy Wall Street has taken aim at is the growing student loan debt carried by the nation's college students. Here are some interesting facts relating to the "Occupy" campaign and student debt in general.

* According to Washington Square News, protesters in Zuccotti Park are trying to gather one million signatures from students vowing to ignore their loan payments. The campaign is consistent with the "Occupy" movement's larger belief that college education is a fundamental right of citizens.

* The campaign is being run by the Education and Empowerment Committee of Occupy Wall Street.

* The price of studying and living on campus at an average public university rose 5.4 percent for in-state students, or about $1,100, to $21,447 this fall, according to CNNMoney. Meanwhile, community college, which is usually a low cost alternative for lower income students, tuition posted an 8.7 percent gain.

* The New York Federal Reserve Bank puts the total student debt at $550 billion, according to the Economist.

* Sallie Mae, the college loan giant speculates there is $757 billion of outstanding student loans.

* Lending this year alone is projected to be in excess of $112 billion, which will send the total student loan debt owed by American students to over $1 trillion.

* Depending on the estimate, America's students now owe more in college loan debt than Americans owe in credit card debt, reports the USAToday.

* According to the Huffington Post, the average debt students owed in 2010 was $25,250, which represented a 5 percent increase from the previous year.

* Out of the nation's 50 states, New Hampshire had the highest average debt load at $31,048, while Utah had the lowest at $15,509.

* The Obama Administration has tried to deal with the student loan crisis by capping monthly student loan payments to 10 percent of discretionary income. The White House estimates this could assist 1.6 million students in lowering their payments.

[persiphone]

i thought this was super fancy

We Didn't Know About the Fed's $7.7 Trillion Loans To Wall Street
By Robert Lenzner Forbes – Mon, Nov 28, 2011


......"What you see is all there is. We don't react to things we don't know about."

This remarkable but common sense insight is a major theme of economist Daniel Kahneman's new book, "Thinking, Fast and Slow, " just published and already on the best-seller list.

We did not know that the Fed has spent the mind-boggling total of $7.7 trillion in loans to many of the key financial institutions in the world during the 2008 meltdown; including $1.2 trillion in a single day, December 5th, 2008-- after other costly steps had been taken to put capital in the major banks, Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley-- and a host of European banks as well.

Had we known the extent of the money being lent through the Fed open market window-- even though the money had collateral behind it-- would we have been more frightened-- or more secure in our temperament, and so willing to risk our money as well.? I reckon I would have been more frightened, and I'm glad I didn't know.

But, the revelation after the fact is bound to stir up the conspiracy gang and lead to sharp political debate about the independence of the central bank. Thank God Ron Paul has no chance whatsoever.

What we still don't know is whether all that nearly $8 trillion was necessary. Instead of looking backwards, it's more crucial to look forwards.

What don't we know about Europe, about the murky, non-transparent plans to stabilize Italy, France, Portugal, Spain and the U.K.? It's frightening to think what isn't known about the machinations in Paris, Rome, Frankfurt, London and Lisbon All we know is there's a mountain of debt everywhere (see my "The UK has 460% debt to GDP") Both sovereign debt and bank debt-- all interwoven in a web of danger.

We cannot know for certain-- but only imagine-- that the solution will involve that tired warhorse of more debt floated to pay off or service old debt. We can only hope that the ECB, the Bundesbank, the IMF and others will copycat the Fed-- and make funds available.

As our behavior is often ruled by what we can't see, I guess the safest route is to sell European sovereign paper and bank shares. We'll not know the true extent of what is happening in Europe that we can only see on a piecemeal basis-- until we become more aware of what is in store for us.

It all makes me edgy, and wondering about all the other things I don't know-- like the hope that China will have a soft-- not hard landing; that Pakistan's nuclear warheads are indeed under tight, sane control; that Iran is far from developing a nuclear bomb; that the US will resolve the debt crisis at home without going into a lost decade like Japan. That's just the top rung of what we don't know. "What you see is all there is." What level of discount does Kahneman's finding deserve? I'm not sure.


i agree. i think this pit is much deeper than we know about despite all the horrors that have been trotted out thus far. but i've been saying that for a while.

[persiphone]

and in other news...from Denver....



Occupy Denver march halts traffic; no one arrested
By: DAN ELLIOTT 11/17/11 10:59 AM
Associated Press



Boisterous but peaceful Occupy Denver protesters marched through downtown Thursday chanting "We are the 99 percent" and bringing traffic to a halt.

Police followed them on horseback, motorcycles and bicycles but made no move to arrest anyone or clear the streets. Officers in squad cars zipped ahead to block traffic on cross streets once it was clear which direction the crowd was moving.

There appeared to be little or no violence, although one protester threw a small white object at an SUV that darted out of an alley and forced one marcher to jump out of the way.

After a rally outside the Denver City and County Building, protesters streamed down a pedestrian mall, stopping in front of a Federal Reserve branch to denounce big banks and corporate excess. They briefly blocked at least two busy intersections before returning to the downtown park where they started.

The crowd appeared to number about 100. Police said they don't issue crowd estimates.

A similar scene involving a crowd of about 300 played out again in the evening.

The rally and march were among several staged across the nation to mark the date two months ago when the Occupy protests started.

One of the Denver protesters, Claudia Livingston, 63, said she lost her job after eight years and hasn't been able to find another. She had to move out of her home and rent it out to pay the mortgage, she said.

"I can't afford to live in my own home," Livingston said.

She went to Thursday's rally to protest what she called violations of the First Amendment Rights of some Occupy Wall Street protesters.

Some Denver bystanders looked on with amusement and few appeared upset — not even the drivers who were forced to wait while the crowd blocked intersections.

"It's good to be right here and see it," said Kai Syliece, 19, who was driving to a college class when she had to wait for the marchers to pass. "We've been talking about this in class."

Russ Glissmann, 48, watched as four protesters briefly sat in the middle of a street facing a half-dozen police cars before they stood and retreated to the curb.

"I think they're absurd," said Glissmann, who works in information technology.

He said he had no beef with the protesters' message, only their methods.

"They have yet to say how they want (the economic system) changed," he said. "They're causing more problems than they're solving."

Police spokesman John White said he didn't know whether the protesters had a permit to march but said the department has allowed the protesters to stage previous marches without official permission.

Denver Mayor Michael Hancock said that's been the city's position throughout the protests

"The whole idea (is), we're not trying to provoke," Hancock said.

"We believe that their right to free speech and assembly is first and foremost," Hancock said, adding that police have confronted protesters only when a situation threatens the health and safety of the public or the protesters.

Police and protesters have had three run-ins, twice at the protesters' encampment near the state Capitol and once on the Capitol steps.

Three protesters face state felony charges from two of those incidents, prosecutors said Thursday. The charges include inciting a riot, assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest.

Prosecutors said at least 23 others have been issued citations on state misdemeanor charges, and more may have been issued citations for violating city ordinances.

[SoNotHer]

Good and finally...

Occupy Wall Street Takes Aim at Student Debt
By Giuseppe Giannet Mon, Nov 28, 2011


With the ever-increasing chance of eviction facing "Occupy" movements across the country, Occupy Wall Street has been forced to consider its next step. Whether the movement morphs into a political group capable of reform through the ballot box is yet to be seen. However, some specific action is already taking place. One thing Occupy Wall Street has taken aim at is the growing student loan debt carried by the nation's college students. Here are some interesting facts relating to the "Occupy" campaign and student debt in general.

* According to Washington Square News, protesters in Zuccotti Park are trying to gather one million signatures from students vowing to ignore their loan payments. The campaign is consistent with the "Occupy" movement's larger belief that college education is a fundamental right of citizens.

* The campaign is being run by the Education and Empowerment Committee of Occupy Wall Street.

* The price of studying and living on campus at an average public university rose 5.4 percent for in-state students, or about $1,100, to $21,447 this fall, according to CNNMoney. Meanwhile, community college, which is usually a low cost alternative for lower income students, tuition posted an 8.7 percent gain.

* The New York Federal Reserve Bank puts the total student debt at $550 billion, according to the Economist.

* Sallie Mae, the college loan giant speculates there is $757 billion of outstanding student loans.

* Lending this year alone is projected to be in excess of $112 billion, which will send the total student loan debt owed by American students to over $1 trillion.

* Depending on the estimate, America's students now owe more in college loan debt than Americans owe in credit card debt, reports the USAToday.

* According to the Huffington Post, the average debt students owed in 2010 was $25,250, which represented a 5 percent increase from the previous year.

* Out of the nation's 50 states, New Hampshire had the highest average debt load at $31,048, while Utah had the lowest at $15,509.

* The Obama Administration has tried to deal with the student loan crisis by capping monthly student loan payments to 10 percent of discretionary income. The White House estimates this could assist 1.6 million students in lowering their payments.

[SoNotHer]

Wow just wow... thank you for posting this.

http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz56/atomiczombie/WestCoastPortBlockade_WallStreet.jpg

[VintageFemme]

HSCaU3CuTwU

[ruffryder]

Does anyone think we do not need all the law enforcement present at the OWS movements?

Do you think people can really assemble peacefully if there wasn't security there?

There is an issue arising about it starting to become costly and our tax dollars going to law enforcement. Just wondering thoughts on that.

[SoNotHer]

"The table is tilted. The game is rigged." You think? I miss him.

And yes, Ruff Ryder, we should be talking about the money involved in the policing of protests. And in fact at some point America should be discussing how much it wants to spend proactively in the form of decent and quality education and health for all or re-actively in the form of maintaining our status as the world's number one incarcerator.

HSCaU3CuTwU

[AtLast]

Does anyone think we do not need all the law enforcement present at the OWS movements?

Do you think people can really assemble peacefully if there wasn't security there?

There is an issue arising about it starting to become costly and our tax dollars going to law enforcement. Just wondering thoughts on that.


There is a lot being spent on over time and contracting with other forces in other jurisdictions, etc. Also, the sanitation workers are involved as well as fire and the required emergency medical teams for protests/using free speech designated areas.

I think there is overkill, yet, I think that there needs to be police presence just as there is for any permitted demonstration. I certainly don't want a lack of emergency services available in case of illness or injury and things like heart attacks or strokes, drug overdoses and sexual assault- all things that are factored into any public gathering. And actually, the OWS demonstrators are entitled to the same kinds of public services utilized for free speech activities, including police protection, if needed. Unfortunately, other than the terrible acts of stupidity by some police departments in handling the protests, there have been crimes committed such as rape, and a 20 year old woman died due to a drug overdose at one Occupy protest. Public health administration is also needed with large, longer term demonstrations in which things like TB and hepatitis are transmitted- or other communicable diseases. There have been reports of both in Atlanta, but, I need more info about this as this is one of those things that something like Faux News could trump up and report. Just a fact of public gatherings and communal living. Again, these are services that all of us should expect from our public agencies, including public health info on how to take care of yourself in these kinds of settings.

The other thing is that there have been some tense interactions between groups that really attend these rallies and simply want to disrupt things and loot or damage property- they are not part of the Occupy movement- an example are the various anarchist groups that show up- and have for years.

This is straining municipal budgets that are already running in the red. But, people have been hurt at these demonstrations and there needs to be ER services available. People can get hurt at any kind of gathering and I do want there to be trained people on site to handle what could happen to anyone.

On another note- I watched the Ed Show and the interview of Scott Olsen, the ex-Marine that was severely injured by a tear gas canister at the Oakland OWS. It is obvious that his head injuries are serious and he is still having problems with speech. My heart was in my throat as I watched. This just should not have happened. The tear gas spraying at UC Davis, either. The guy is also being called un-American by right-wing jackasses. He is exercising the very rights he fought in Iraq for- and he gets called this! There are many vets that come out of war that speak out against war and other inequities. That is part of our democracy- and one I hope continues- I'm having a hard time with so much of how our freedoms are in danger via the Congress right now and giving police or federal agencies the right to search, seize or arrest without probable cause at all!

I really am upset after seeing this young man and his struggles with recovery- really bothering me. This could be my kid or Grandchild, yours, any of our loved ones (or our members here that are going out to the demonstrations) participating in a legal activity afforded us under our Constitution.

[SoNotHer]

Does anyone figures on emergency services and response? How much typically is being spent?

This is one of my morning emails. Does anyone know about this either?

__________________________________________________ _____________________________________

Tim Geithner, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, has a long history of enabling Wall Street misconduct.

Yet President Obama is allowing Secretary Geithner and other top officials in the Obama administration to pressure state Attorneys General to agree to a horrible settlement deal with banks that would let them off the hook for massive amounts of mortgage and foreclosure fraud.2

In exchange for meager penalties, the banks get immunity from future prosecution, even for misconduct that has not been fully investigated and misconduct that might still be ongoing.3

Any settlement like this would amount to little more than another bank bailout4, and according to published reports we might only have a small amount of time to stop it.

Call President Obama and tell him not to sell us out to Wall Street. Click here for the number to call and a sample script.

Americans are paying a heavy price for Wall Street greed. Millions are out of work, millions face foreclosure, and millions more are feeling the pain in some other way. But not one of the Wall Street crooks who drove our economy off a cliff has gone to jail. And without aggressive investigation and prosecution of misconduct, none of them will.

President Obama's political advisors have said that he plans on running against Wall Street as part of his reelection campaign.

But if President Obama really wanted to hold the banks accountable, he'd ensure his administration does nothing less than support investigating, prosecuting and punishing unscrupulous banks to the full extent of the law.

Top officials in the Obama administration cannot act in their official capacity without the backing of President Obama, who is ultimately responsible for what they do. The buck stops with him.

President Obama must stop his administration from pushing this terrible deal.

Call President Obama and tell him not to sell us out to Wall Street. Click here for the number to call and a sample script.

Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

[atomiczombie]

Does anyone figures on emergency services and response? How much typically is being spent?

This is one of my morning emails. Does anyone know about this either?

__________________________________________________ _____________________________________

Tim Geithner, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, has a long history of enabling Wall Street misconduct.

Yet President Obama is allowing Secretary Geithner and other top officials in the Obama administration to pressure state Attorneys General to agree to a horrible settlement deal with banks that would let them off the hook for massive amounts of mortgage and foreclosure fraud.2

In exchange for meager penalties, the banks get immunity from future prosecution, even for misconduct that has not been fully investigated and misconduct that might still be ongoing.3

Any settlement like this would amount to little more than another bank bailout4, and according to published reports we might only have a small amount of time to stop it.

Call President Obama and tell him not to sell us out to Wall Street. Click here for the number to call and a sample script.

Americans are paying a heavy price for Wall Street greed. Millions are out of work, millions face foreclosure, and millions more are feeling the pain in some other way. But not one of the Wall Street crooks who drove our economy off a cliff has gone to jail. And without aggressive investigation and prosecution of misconduct, none of them will.

President Obama's political advisors have said that he plans on running against Wall Street as part of his reelection campaign.

But if President Obama really wanted to hold the banks accountable, he'd ensure his administration does nothing less than support investigating, prosecuting and punishing unscrupulous banks to the full extent of the law.

Top officials in the Obama administration cannot act in their official capacity without the backing of President Obama, who is ultimately responsible for what they do. The buck stops with him.

President Obama must stop his administration from pushing this terrible deal.

Call President Obama and tell him not to sell us out to Wall Street. Click here for the number to call and a sample script.

Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

I already knew this about Geithner. I was not pleased when Obama first named him treasury secretary at the beginning of his presidency. It's an example of his two-faced strategy. It is why I won't vote for him next fall.

On another note, right on Dennis:

oUpXDZFtEHw

[persiphone]

wow....1400 cops to take out Occupy L.A. i wonder what that cost


http://news.yahoo.com/occupy-la-campers-brace-imminent-eviction-070731947.html;_ylt=AvWd6jajF.a_xgpTNSm9RY_zWed_;_ ylu=X3oDMTRvZDRyNnNkBGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2 lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDTmV3cyBmb3IgeW91BHBrZwNkNWE3N2Ex NC03MmNlLTNlMTctODcyZS02MTJjZmZmZDAzYjgEcG9zAzYEc2 VjA25ld3NfZm9yX3lvdQR2ZXIDMmQ1NjBjMDAtMWI5MC0xMWUx LTg3M2YtNTZiZjgwYTY0ODEy;_ylg=X3oDMTJyZTE1cDM5BGlu dGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDMzQ2YTg3MDktY2ExYS 0zM2JhLWI2OWItOThlNmVkNGMxN2I5BHBzdGNhdAN1cwRwdANz dG9yeXBhZ2UEdGVzdAM-;_ylv=3

[persiphone]

"Occupy" protesters break into London office
Reuters – 1 hr 55 mins ago


LONDON (Reuters) - Demonstrators broke into an office building used by mining company Xstrata in central London on Wednesday and hung protest banners on the roof before police regained control of the building.

A group of about 60 from the "Occupy" movement entered the offices in Haymarket in protest at the pay of the company's chief executive, Occupy said in a statement.

Led by a samba band, they chanted and unfurled a banner which said: "All power to the 99 percent."

A spokeswoman for Xstrata said in a statement: "All executive pay is approved by the company's shareholders and is linked to company and individual performance."

Police removed the demonstrators and threw a cordon along the Haymarket, effectively sealing off the immediate area.

"At approximately 1550 hours (GMT) a containment was put in place outside Panton House, Haymarket, to prevent disorder by a group of protesters outside the building," police said in a statement.

"Some protesters have entered the building and officers are in the process of making arrests for aggravated trespass."

It was unclear how many people were arrested.

TV footage showed demonstrators walking up and down the staircase, watched by members of staff.

The raid took place on the same day as thousands of public sector workers marched through London as part of a national day of protest against government plans to change their pensions.

"In this time when the government enforces austerity on the 99 percent, these executives are profiting," Karen Lincoln of Occupy London said in a statement.

Occupy London grabbed the headlines last month when they pitched about 200 tents outside St Paul's Cathedral after they were thwarted in an attempt to stage a protest outside their initial target, the London Stock Exchange.

Their protest is part of a global movement for social and economic change. They say economic and political power lies in the hands of just 1 percent of the population.

(Reporting by Avril Ormsby and Clara Ferreira Marques)


i love that they were led by a samba band lol! awesome

[AtLast]

Does anyone figures on emergency services and response? How much typically is being spent?

This is one of my morning emails. Does anyone know about this either?

__________________________________________________ _____________________________________

Tim Geithner, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, has a long history of enabling Wall Street misconduct.

Yet President Obama is allowing Secretary Geithner and other top officials in the Obama administration to pressure state Attorneys General to agree to a horrible settlement deal with banks that would let them off the hook for massive amounts of mortgage and foreclosure fraud.2

In exchange for meager penalties, the banks get immunity from future prosecution, even for misconduct that has not been fully investigated and misconduct that might still be ongoing.3

Any settlement like this would amount to little more than another bank bailout4, and according to published reports we might only have a small amount of time to stop it.

Call President Obama and tell him not to sell us out to Wall Street. Click here for the number to call and a sample script.

Americans are paying a heavy price for Wall Street greed. Millions are out of work, millions face foreclosure, and millions more are feeling the pain in some other way. But not one of the Wall Street crooks who drove our economy off a cliff has gone to jail. And without aggressive investigation and prosecution of misconduct, none of them will.

President Obama's political advisors have said that he plans on running against Wall Street as part of his reelection campaign.

But if President Obama really wanted to hold the banks accountable, he'd ensure his administration does nothing less than support investigating, prosecuting and punishing unscrupulous banks to the full extent of the law.

Top officials in the Obama administration cannot act in their official capacity without the backing of President Obama, who is ultimately responsible for what they do. The buck stops with him.

President Obama must stop his administration from pushing this terrible deal.

Call President Obama and tell him not to sell us out to Wall Street. Click here for the number to call and a sample script.

Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

There have ben figures thrown around about Occupy Oakland- at nearly a half million dollars spent just at the start of the occupation and the "raids" to move protest tents, etc. - for one month. But, there was no break-down of what this represents in terms of line items and how the city earmarks for possible needs out of the ordinary. I have no idea of the accuracy of these figures and when a "range" is given, I question it. Most likely, a month-end accounting from a municipality would be the only way to have some accurate figures. I do believe that with a good 3 years of revenue decreases due to the recession cities are dealing with tight budgets and that having to contract out for services is taking its toll. Much less expensive to have the lost positions in a budget. And well, think of those that were laid off. There have been so many public employment job losses that many cities are running on empty. But they still have an obligation to provide safety and emergency services- no matter the nature of an event or activity.

I have been thinking about how a lot of city workers that have seen their co-workers be laid off or have more to do because cities are not hiring when someone retires could get upset at seeing added costs to the very budget their job depends on. The "will I be next?" phenomenon at work. Here in CA, cities have had several sources of both state and federal funding sources dry up simply due to deficits caused by drops in all kinds of tax revenues. The monies really are not there. Hell, my county just had to float a measure to keep a county emergency hospital open that serves the public and loads of people that are homeless and uninsured. And the fact is that we have a huge population that still exists that tries to stay under the radar due to immigration status that has no other place to go for medical emergencies or care- especially for their children- what can they do?

One of my fears is that there will be a big backlash by municipal employees that are laid-off in the future and will blame in part, extra spending on the Occupy movement- even if that line of thought is faulty when all is considered. The 98/99% is getting screwed on a multitude of levels.

[SoNotHer]

"The 98/99% is getting screwed on a multitude of levels" - you can say that again, and again, and again...

Yeah, Carlin had it right. The game is rigged, and until the gig is up, the majority of us are going to stay down.


There have ben figures thrown around about Occupy Oakland- at nearly a half million dollars spent just at the start of the occupation and the "raids" to move protest tents, etc. - for one month. But, there was no break-down of what this represents in terms of line items and how the city earmarks for possible needs out of the ordinary. I have no idea of the accuracy of these figures and when a "range" is given, I question it. Most likely, a month-end accounting from a municipality would be the only way to have some accurate figures. I do believe that with a good 3 years of revenue decreases due to the recession cities are dealing with tight budgets and that having to contract out for services is taking its toll. Much less expensive to have the lost positions in a budget. And well, think of those that were laid off. There have been so many public employment job losses that many cities are running on empty. But they still have an obligation to provide safety and emergency services- no matter the nature of an event or activity.

I have been thinking about how a lot of city workers that have seen their co-workers be laid off or have more to do because cities are not hiring when someone retires could get upset at seeing added costs to the very budget their job depends on. The "will I be next?" phenomenon at work. Here in CA, cities have had several sources of both state and federal funding sources dry up simply due to deficits caused by drops in all kinds of tax revenues. The monies really are not there. Hell, my county just had to float a measure to keep a county emergency hospital open that serves the public and loads of people that are homeless and uninsured. And the fact is that we have a huge population that still exists that tries to stay under the radar due to immigration status that has no other place to go for medical emergencies or care- especially for their children- what can they do?

One of my fears is that there will be a big backlash by municipal employees that are laid-off in the future and will blame in part, extra spending on the Occupy movement- even if that line of thought is faulty when all is considered. The 98/99% is getting screwed on a multitude of levels.

[AtLast]

"The 98/99% is getting screwed on a multitude of levels" - you can say that again, and again, and again...

Yeah, Carlin had it right. The game is rigged, and until the gig is up, the majority of us are going to stay down.

Yup- rigged "every which way, but loose!" And I think that the 1/2% has a very good handle on how to keep us spinning around and to even lash out against each other- "divide & conquer" is alive and well in the USA. Building coalitions based upon the genuine ability to compromise just seems like the only way I can see breaking down those levels (not compromising with the 1%- talking about what the 98/99% must compromise about in forming effective tactics to reach goals).

[persiphone]

hijack alert. so this is not related but i found this tidbit of information to be utterly fascinating and shityourpants scary so i thought i'd share it here because....well.....i find the timing of things to be very....enlightening. so here it is. check your phones! the link to the vid shows in detail how to see if your android/smartphone is carrying this app/rooting thingy/whatchamacallit

Carrier IQ Part #2 - YouTube


Your Smartphone Is Spying on You
By Adam Clark Estes | The Atlantic Wire – 5 hrs ago


An Android developer recently discovered a clandestine application called Carrier IQ built into most smartphones that doesn't just track your location; it secretly records your keystrokes, and there's nothing you can do about it. Is it time to put on a tinfoil hat? That depends on how you feel about privacy.

The reason for this invasive Android app seems reasonable enough at face value. Even though it's on most Android, BlackBerry and Nokia devices, most users would never know that Carrier IQ is running in the background, and that's sort of the point. Described on the company's website as software to gain "unprecedented insight into their customers' mobile experience," Carrier IQ is ostensibly supposed to help mobile carriers and device manufacturers gather data in order to improve their products.

Tons of applications do this, and you're probably used to those boxes that pops up on your screen and ask if you want to help the company by sending your data back to them. If you're concerned about your privacy, you just tap no and go about your merry computing way. As security-conscious Android developer Trevor Eckhart realized, however, Carrier IQ does not give you this option, and unless you were code-savvy and looking for it, you'd never know it was there. And based on how aggressive the company has been in trying to keep Eckhart quiet about his discovery, it seems like Carrier IQ doesn't want you to know it's there either.


Eckhart first raised a red flag about Carrier IQ about two weeks ago when he started investigating reports that a software update on the HTC EVO 3D included "user behavior logging" code. The code had worried some geek bloggers when it showed up a couple months ago, but HTC and Sprint insisted that it wasn't much different than normal error-logging software and certainly didn't gather granular data like "contents of messages, photos, videos, etc." Eckhart wrote an exhaustive blog post about his startling findings -- CarrierIQ collected lots data, including keystrokes, and there way for the user to opt out "without advanced knowledge" -- and CarrierIQ flipped out. The company sent Eckhart a cease-and-desist letter demanding that he keep his mouth shut and threatening legal action. But after the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) took a look at the case and determined that Eckhart was working within his First Amendment rights, it backed off but still denied that they recorded keystrokes.


This week, Eckhart fired back with a 17-minute long video showing in painstaking detail how much data CarrierIQ collects, effectively undercutting the company's denial. It was even logging contents of text messages! Wired posted the video on Tuesday night and cemented its status "as one of nine reasons to wear a tinfoil hat." The magazine explains how CarrierIQ even undercuts other companies' security measures:
The video shows the software logging Eckhart’s online search of “hello world.” That’s despite Eckhart using the HTTPS version of Google which is supposed to hide searches from those who would want to spy by intercepting the traffic between a user and Google. … It’s not even clear what privacy policy covers this. Is it Carrier IQ’s, your carrier’s or your phone manufacturer’s? And, perhaps, most important, is sending your communications to Carrier IQ a violation of the federal government’s ban on wiretapping?

Oh, we're definitely in tinfoil hat territory now. CarrierIQ and the carriers have yet to respond to the latest claims -- we're doing our best to chase them down -- but if past smartphone tracking scandals are any precedent, they could end up answering to Congress.


Like many things in life, there are a couple of different ways to think about smartphone tracking. One way approaches privacy from a forward-thinking, technology-trusting and, heck, even progressive perspective. GPS-equipped smartphones are incredibly powerful tools that enables mankind to do all kinds of amazing things, thanks to the perpetual stream of data from the Internet. However, that stream runs both ways, and sometimes, the folks that build and maintain the network sometimes need to monitor your data in order to improve the technology. Who wouldn't want better service?


This brings us to the second approach. Tracking is creepy. In an Orwellian kind of way, it makes people nervous -- especially Americans -- that the government or the corporations or the system is closing in on them and stealing their freedom. Of course, not everybody feels so strongly about privacy, but as long as you can opt out, it's fine. Last week, Sen. Charles Schumer spoke out about a program at some malls in Virginia and Southern California that were anonymously tracking shoppers' movements by tracking their cell phone signals, and the only way to opt was by not going to the mall. Schumer did not approve. "Personal cell phones are just that -- personal," the New York senator said in a statement. "If retailers want to tap into your phone to see what your shopping patterns are, they can ask you for your permission to do so."
The CarrierIQ software is not dissimilar to the shopper tracking program. In fact, it's arguably worse since it follows you everywhere. In the age of social media, everybody is becoming increasingly aware of and often angry about the amount of private data companies are scooping up with or without their consent. This week, the Federal Trade Commission and Facebook came to an agreement that the social network must make all of their new programs opt-in so as not to break the law by violating users' privacy. Even Mark Zuckerberg admitted in a sincere-sounding blog post that his company had "made a bunch of mistakes" on the privacy front in the past. He went on to detail how "offering people control over the information they share online" was a top priority. This is Mark "Privacy is Over" Zuckerberg we're talking about here. With Facebook reportedly building its own mobile phone platform, wouldn't it be super ironic if people started defecting from the Android army and switching to the Facebook phone in the name of privacy?

Your move, Google.

/hijack

[SoNotHer]

http://action.naacp.org/page/-/images/email/bg-header-email.jpg


The Koch brothers don't just want to take away your right to vote. They want to trick you into believing they are voting rights supporters.

The same oil billionaires who bankroll the Tea Party are now channeling their vast fortune to limit the right to vote in 38 states and counting. The NAACP has sounded the alarm against their attacks, launching Stand4Freedom.org to expose them and mobilizing a rally outside their New York headquarters on December 10th.

Now here's the amazing part: The Koch brothers have responded with a bizarre online advertising campaign. Now, when you search for the NAACP on Google, they've paid to have ads pop up directing people to a "Stand for Liberty" web page -- a page that's a blatant take-off of Stand4Freedom.org and actually brags about the Koch's so-called commitment to civil liberties.

Do they think we're stupid? That's not just inaccurate -- it's offensive.

The NAACP has always risen to protect our nation's most vulnerable populations when their rights have been threatened, and we will continue to do so with your help. We need you to take action today, to ensure that millions are not disenfranchised next year.

Sign the Stand For Freedom pledge to raise awareness for voting rights in your community:

http://action.naacp.org/sign-the-pledge

Regardless of what they want you to believe, the facts are clear. The Koch brothers have a long history of fighting civil rights. For years they have bankrolled extreme right-wing and anti-government think tanks and fought affirmative action and other civil rights initiatives. Recently the PAC that they founded led the political effort to re-segregate North Carolina schools, and now they have launched their biggest initiative yet: to roll back voting rights in advance of the 2012 election.

Photo ID as a prerequisite to voting, proof of citizenship before casting a ballot, radically restrictive rules on registering new voters, dramatic cuts to early voting and Sunday voting -- these are just a few of the tactics that the Koch Brothers are using to make it harder for you to vote.

If the Koch brothers have their way, millions of students, the elderly and working families of all colors will fall victim to arcane voter suppression laws that this country hasn't seen in one hundred years.

Throughout our history, Cynthia, the NAACP has taken on powerful enemies and won. With your help, we'll beat back these attacks on our most fundamental rights. Sign the Stand For Freedom pledge today:

http://action.naacp.org/sign-the-pledge

Join us in the fight, and together we can protect the right to vote for millions of Americans for years to come.

Stefanie

Stefanie Brown
National Field Director and Director of Youth and College Division
NAACP

[Toughy]

Now here's the amazing part: The Koch brothers have responded with a bizarre online advertising campaign. Now, when you search for the NAACP on Google, they've paid to have ads pop up directing people to a "Stand for Liberty" web page -- a page that's a blatant take-off of Stand4Freedom.org and actually brags about the Koch's so-called commitment to civil liberties.


Just for fun I did the google thing on this. I did not get any ads directing me to a Stand for Liberty web page. I got the NAACP page. The only 'Stand for Liberty' page I could find on google was a group in Texas and nothing on that website about voters....

......shrug....

[atomiczombie]

How Republicans are being taught to talk about Occupy Wall Street

By Chris Moody

ORLANDO, Fla. -- The Republican Governors Association met this week in Florida to give GOP state executives a chance to rejuvenate, strategize and team-build. But during a plenary session on Wednesday, one question kept coming up: How can Republicans do a better job of talking about Occupy Wall Street?

"I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death," said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist and one of the nation's foremost experts on crafting the perfect political message. "They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism."

Luntz offered tips on how Republicans could discuss the grievances of the Occupiers, and help the governors better handle all these new questions from constituents about "income inequality" and "paying your fair share."
Yahoo News sat in on the session, and counted 10 do's and don'ts from Luntz covering how Republicans should fight back by changing the way they discuss the movement.

1. Don't say 'capitalism.'

"I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market,' " Luntz said. "The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."

2. Don't say that the government 'taxes the rich.' Instead, tell them that the government 'takes from the rich.'

"If you talk about raising taxes on the rich," the public responds favorably, Luntz cautioned. But "if you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no. Taxing, the public will say yes."

3. Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the 'middle class.' Call them 'hardworking taxpayers.'

"They cannot win if the fight is on hardworking taxpayers. We can say we defend the 'middle class' and the public will say, I'm not sure about that. But defending 'hardworking taxpayers' and Republicans have the advantage."
4. Don't talk about 'jobs.' Talk about 'careers.'

"Everyone in this room talks about 'jobs,'" Luntz said. "Watch this."
He then asked everyone to raise their hand if they want a "job." Few hands went up. Then he asked who wants a "career." Almost every hand was raised.

"So why are we talking about jobs?"

5. Don't say 'government spending.' Call it 'waste.'

"It's not about 'government spending.' It's about 'waste.' That's what makes people angry."

6. Don't ever say you're willing to 'compromise.'

"If you talk about 'compromise,' they'll say you're selling out. Your side doesn't want you to 'compromise.' What you use in that to replace it with is 'cooperation.' It means the same thing. But cooperation means you stick to your principles but still get the job done. Compromise says that you're selling out those principles."

7. The three most important words you can say to an Occupier: 'I get it.'
"First off, here are three words for you all: 'I get it.' . . . 'I get that you're angry. I get that you've seen inequality. I get that you want to fix the system."

Then, he instructed, offer Republican solutions to the problem.

8. Out: 'Entrepreneur.' In: 'Job creator.'

Use the phrases "small business owners" and "job creators" instead of "entrepreneurs" and "innovators."

9. Don't ever ask anyone to 'sacrifice.'

"There isn't an American today in November of 2011 who doesn't think they've already sacrificed. If you tell them you want them to 'sacrifice,' they're going to be be pretty angry at you. You talk about how 'we're all in this together.' We either succeed together or we fail together."

10. Always blame Washington.

Tell them, "You shouldn't be occupying Wall Street, you should be occupying Washington. You should occupy the White House because it's the policies over the past few years that have created this problem."

BONUS:

Don't say 'bonus!'

Luntz advised that if they give their employees an income boost during the holiday season, they should never refer to it as a "bonus."
"If you give out a bonus at a time of financial hardship, you're going to make people angry. It's 'pay for performance.'"

LINK: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/republicans-being-taught-talk-occupy-wall-street-133707949.html

This is not surprising. Occupy is starting to effect the national conversation about politics. This is a great sign when the conservatives are feeling the heat! :)

[ruffryder]

(Newser) – When the protesters of Occupy LA vacated their encampment, they left behind 30 tons of debris. Sanitation workers have already removed 25 tons of garbage, clothes, and random belongings—all of which went to a landfill, the Los Angeles Times reports. Protesters, who lived in the tent city for two months, left behind not just trashed protest signs and food, but everything from mattresses to electric razors to bicycles to a treehouse—and, of course, dozens of tents.

According to the AP, the site doesn't smell so great, either—specifically, it reeks of "urine and unwashed bodies." The grass is ruined, trees are damaged, there's graffiti on the walls of City Hall and on statues, and there are rumors of a lice or flea infestation. The site is "so contaminated, it doesn't even make sense to sort [the left-behind belongings] out," says a sanitation superintendent. There were rows of portable toilets, but protesters still urinated in bottles that must now be disposed of. Says a city refuse collection supervisor, "I've never seen anything like this."

[SoNotHer]

I wrote about a student with health issues and no health insurance a couple weeks ago. Though the Now she's about to get evicted with two small kids in two. She's going to school to try to be a nurse. She's being evicted for $200 - $150 of that is the court filing fees for the eviction. I am scrambling to find her pro bono help and money or assistance somewhere.

And then I get a call today from an old friend who is no without a job or a permanent place to stay for her and her daughter. I invite her to live with me several hundred miles away, but because of a custody issue, she can't leave her area. And so in one I have poured over the internet looking for resources for two mothers with young children who, though several states away from each other, are in the position of now having to look for money and a place to live.

This is how we do it here, right?

[persiphone]

I wrote about a student with health issues and no health insurance a couple weeks ago. Though the Now she's about to get evicted with two small kids in two. She's going to school to try to be a nurse. She's being evicted for $200 - $150 of that is the court filing fees for the eviction. I am scrambling to find her pro bono help and money or assistance somewhere.

And then I get a call today from an old friend who is no without a job or a permanent place to stay for her and her daughter. I invite her to live with me several hundred miles away, but because of a custody issue, she can't leave her area. And so in one I have poured over the internet looking for resources for two mothers with young children who, though several states away from each other, are in the position of now having to look for money and a place to live.

This is how we do it here, right?



the unfortunate thing is that because unprecedented numbers need help right now, the lines these women will have to wait in will be pretty long. as far as the custody issue, she can make a plea of financial hardship to the judge (i believe without an attorney) to get permission to leave the state. (i think don't quote me...still worth looking up).

as far as the eviction goes....in my state there was a program called ARCHES that asissts with the expense of getting a new place to live and with temporary rent. when i found myself out of a place to live recently due to a disaster to my apt building, i applied. of course, i didn't qualify because i don't have any evictions in my history. go figure. however, there are social programs that help those that have.

usually, social services or human services will have compiled lists of all the resources and agencies that can be made available to your friends. that's the upside. the downside is that the processes will take time and in some cases weeks to get an answer of yes we will help or no we can't help. i know the red cross gave us some assistance but again we suffered a disaster so i dunno if they can or will help. prolly not. it's worth a phone call?

edited to add.....what pisses me off is if i had the money i'd just send it to you. it's so frustrating.

[AtLast]

I wrote about a student with health issues and no health insurance a couple weeks ago. Though the Now she's about to get evicted with two small kids in two. She's going to school to try to be a nurse. She's being evicted for $200 - $150 of that is the court filing fees for the eviction. I am scrambling to find her pro bono help and money or assistance somewhere.

And then I get a call today from an old friend who is no without a job or a permanent place to stay for her and her daughter. I invite her to live with me several hundred miles away, but because of a custody issue, she can't leave her area. And so in one I have poured over the internet looking for resources for two mothers with young children who, though several states away from each other, are in the position of now having to look for money and a place to live.

This is how we do it here, right?

"The face of hunger is changing"- as "they" say." In the past month, 2 more friends of mine have now been laid off. Another is just waiting for the notice to come shortly.

I watched a program last week on this "new face" of hunger- the increased numbers of middle-class people now applying for food stamps that have been laid off but are hanging on with minimum wage jobs. They have small children and until the last 4 years have been employed and attained some of their dreams. Now?

Sometimes I think that it is still going to have to get worse before the numbers of Occupy demonstrators to grow to the level that will scare those in Washington. Is that what it will take? Today, the democratic payroll deduction bill as well as the GOP's failed in Congress. Deadlocked ideological bullshit bickering as usual. It is going to be a very long campaign season with billions of dollars spent on it. Billions on freaking election campaigns!

We have got to get private $ out of politics. OCCUPY Campaign Funding!

[VintageFemme]

A great interview w/ Jackson Browne by Keith Olbermann about the Occupy Movement: http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/occupy-wall-street-jackson-browne-talks-about-the-movement

...and just one of the videos I found on youtube from his performance at Zuccotti Park when he did visit:

diryMiZwLj8

[SoNotHer]

Thank you both for your posts and concern. I couldn't find ARCHES in Indiana or a eviction mediation program, but I did find several possibilities in terms of pro bono services this morning for her. I found few other possible resources as well. An ex I reached out to today who suggested both the student and my friend try the 2-1-1 line that many states have set up to connect folks to services. Let's hope something works soon.

And yes, this is becoming all too common of a story. I have been teaching for well over 20 years, and I have never seen so many of my students to this point and with stakes for any missteps higher than ever.


the unfortunate thing is that because unprecedented numbers need help right now, the lines these women will have to wait in will be pretty long. as far as the custody issue, she can make a plea of financial hardship to the judge (i believe without an attorney) to get permission to leave the state. (i think don't quote me...still worth looking up).

as far as the eviction goes....in my state there was a program called ARCHES that asissts with the expense of getting a new place to live and with temporary rent. when i found myself out of a place to live recently due to a disaster to my apt building, i applied. of course, i didn't qualify because i don't have any evictions in my history. go figure. however, there are social programs that help those that have.

usually, social services or human services will have compiled lists of all the resources and agencies that can be made available to your friends. that's the upside. the downside is that the processes will take time and in some cases weeks to get an answer of yes we will help or no we can't help. i know the red cross gave us some assistance but again we suffered a disaster so i dunno if they can or will help. prolly not. it's worth a phone call?

edited to add.....what pisses me off is if i had the money i'd just send it to you. it's so frustrating.

[MsMerrick]

And taking a moment for a smile...
Here is Occupy the North Pole..in Ginger Bread : )
Occupy the North Pole (http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.2329388197610.2109934.1336876855&type=1&l=cc1388ff06)

[persiphone]

Thank you both for your posts and concern. I couldn't find ARCHES in Indiana or a eviction mediation program, but I did find several possibilities in terms of pro bono services this morning for her. I found few other possible resources as well. An ex I reached out to today who suggested both the student and my friend try the 2-1-1 line that many states have set up to connect folks to services. Let's hope something works soon.

And yes, this is becoming all too common of a story. I have been teaching for well over 20 years, and I have never seen so many of my students to this point and with stakes for any missteps higher than ever.



my professors were outstanding during my plight. and they still are. three of them came to my rescue in a few different ways. perhaps find out who her other professors are? my program is pretty small and everyone pretty much knows each other so it's prolly different. does the college have any type of resources for the students?

[SoNotHer]

I am smiling as I read this, Persiphone. I am glad to hear some profs stepped up for you.

Well I've tried a couple of my top people at school, and I've been told there is nothing. Nevertheless, I will keep asking and looking. I've also contacted my church which is looking for a family to adopt this holiday season. Keep your fingers crossed. :-)

my professors were outstanding during my plight. and they still are. three of them came to my rescue in a few different ways. perhaps find out who her other professors are? my program is pretty small and everyone pretty much knows each other so it's prolly different. does the college have any type of resources for the students?

[atomiczombie]

Top officials willfully concealed the true extent of the 2008-'09 bailouts from Congress and the public.

November 30, 2011

We now have concrete evidence that Wall Street and Washington are running a secret government far removed from the democratic process. Through a freedom of information request by Bloomberg News, the public now has access to over 29,000 pages of Fed documents and 21,000 additional Fed transactions that were deliberately hidden, and for good reason. (See here and here.)

These documents show how top government officials willfully concealed from Congress and the public the true extent of the 2008-'09 bailouts that enriched the few and enhanced the interests of giant Wall Streets firms. Here’s what we now know:

The secret Wall Street bailouts totaled $7.77 trillion, 10 times more than the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) passed by Congress in 2008.
Knowledge of the secret bailout funds was not shared with Congress even while it was drafting and debating legislation to break up the big banks.
The secret funding, provided at below-market rates, gave Wall Street banks an additional $13 billion in profits. (That’s enough money to hire more than 325,000 entry level teachers.)
The secret loans financed bank mergers so that the largest banks could grow even larger. The money also allowed banks to step up their lobbying efforts.
While Henry Paulson (Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury) was informing Congress and the public that only minor reforms were needed to protect Fannie and Freddie from collapse, he met secretly with leading Wall Street hedge fund managers -- among them his former colleagues at Goldman Sachs -- to alert them that he was about to nationalize the giant mortgage companies – a move that would eradicate nearly all the stock value of the companies. This information was enormously valuable because it allowed these hedge funds to short Fannie and Freddie and thereby make a fortune.
While Timothy Geithner was head of the NY Federal Reserve, he argued against legislative efforts by Senator Ted Kaufman, D-Delaware, to limit the size of banks because the issue was “too complex for Congress and that people who know the markets should handle these decisions,” Kaufman recalls. Meanwhile, Geithner was fully aware of the enormous secret loans while Senator Kaufman was kept in the dark. Barney Frank, who was authoring key bank reform legislation was also not informed of the secret loans. No one in Congress was told.
So what does this all mean?

1. The big banks and hedge funds were in much more trouble than we were led to believe.

As many of us suspected, all the big banks were on their knees begging for help – secretly – while telling their investors, the public and Congress that all was well. They had gambled and lost. Under the rules of ideal capitalism, they should have suffered some “creative destruction,” and seen their shareholder value eliminated through bankruptcy, and their managers replaced. The entire banking system should have been reorganized from top to bottom as well. Instead, these colossal failures were secretly rewarded.

2. Wall Street’s secret government made sure the largest banks would grow even larger, aided by the secret funding.

While Congress was debating legislation to break up the large banks and reinstitute Glass Steagall (to separate risky investment banking from insured commercial banking,) the secret government was using public funds to grow even larger through mergers and acquisitions. Because Congress and the public were unaware of the secret funding and ill-health of all the banks, the legislation was easily defeated. As the chart below makes painfully clear, too-big-to-fail banks grew even bigger.

3. The bigger Wall Street becomes, the more government it can buy.

This part isn’t secret. As the top six banks grew larger, they spent more funds lobbying to make sure that they wouldn’t suffer any unprofitable impacts from banking reform legislation. So after the biggest banks received hundreds of billions in secret loans, they upped their lobbying funds to maintain their size and power. Read ‘em and weep:


4. Wall Street’s secret government protects its own.

At first, it’s not easy to understand how Treasury Secretary Paulson, the former head of Goldman Sachs, could risk attending a secret meeting with giant hedge fund managers, many of whom used to work at Goldman Sachs. How could the nation’s highest ranking financial official dare to tip off these hedge fund elites about the imminent government takeover of Fannie and Freddie before Congress and the public were informed? Well, one answer is that Paulson felt obliged to warn his old comrades of the impeding nationalization. Maybe, he wanted to get them out of harm’s way just in case they were heavily involved in those markets. Or maybe he also wanted to give them a very valuable tip to profit by. But the deeper explanation, I believe, is that Wall Street’s key government officials – Paulson, Summers, Geithner, Orszag (the former Obama OMB chief who now makes millions working for CitiGroup), etc. truly believe the following:

Wall Street banks are the best in the world and are the cutting-edge of the American economy. They are our future.
Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers are enormously smarter and sharper than the rest of us. They deserve our admiration.
Helping Wall Street to grow and prosper is precisely the same thing as helping all Americans and the entire economy. They deserve our support.
Secret meetings to provide insider information are normal on Wall Street. There’s nothing wrong with warning your friends about upcoming policy decisions that might impact their profits.
There’s also absolutely nothing wrong with providing trillions of dollars of secret loans to the best and the brightest and not telling Congress about it.
It’s all a closed loop of self-justification and self-deception: Wall Street is brilliant. What Wall Street does is for the good of the country. Helping Wall Street profit is good for the country. Hiding the truth from democratically elected leaders is also for the good of the country because Wall Street is brilliant and knows better.

And all this is deeply believed by Wall Street and its secret government, even though Wall Street, and Wall Street alone, took down the economy and killed 8 million jobs in a matter of months. Simply brilliant!

5. Wall Street is a clear and present danger to democracy.

Usually, I am not an alarmist. In fact, I often argue against facile conspiracy theories. I want to believe that our democracy still has promise. But, the Wall Street-induced crash and the government’s response to it has me very worried. The Bloomberg News revelations suggest that Wall Street’s secret government has enormous disdain for what remains of our democracy. The financial elites obviously believe that Congress cannot be trusted to do the right thing even when it is bought and paid for by the very banks it supposedly regulates. As for the rest of us? We’re just a financially illiterate mass to be manipulated through the mass media. Our minds too can be bought and sold through careful marketing.

This financial arrogance and corruption is enormously corrosive to our democratic values. Already, many Americans, and for good reason, no longer trust their government. Already, many Americans, and for good reason, no longer vote. Already, many Americans, and for good reason, believe that democracy as we know it is a sham. Wall Street couldn’t have written a better script to maintain its domination.


6. Occupy Wall Street is fundamentally correct, but we need more.

The occupiers dramatically attacked Wall Street elites and captured the country’s imagination with their 1 percent, 99 percent framework. And the idea is sticking and spreading. But that’s only the start. To reclaim our country from Wall Street’s secret government we will need to develop an enormous movement among the 99 percent. Although we hope it just happens spontaneously through Twitter and Facebook, we all know it will require hardcore organizing involving millions of us.

At the moment, no one knows what form it will take. But we do know this: great concentrations of power and wealth do not give up their power and wealth without an enormous fight. Wall Street’s secret government is more than ready to protect itself, even if it means subverting democracy. Our occupiers have shown great courage in helping us reclaim our democratic rights. Let’s hope it spreads…and soon.

Les Leopold is the executive director of the Labor Institute and Public Health Institute in New York, and author of The Looting of America: How Wall Street's Game of Fantasy Finance Destroyed Our Jobs, Pensions, and Prosperity—and What We Can Do About It (Chelsea Green, 2009).

We aren't living in a democracy. Unbelievable.

[persiphone]

We aren't living in a democracy. Unbelievable.


mmhhmmm...i posted about that a few days ago:

http://www.butchfemmeplanet.com/forum/showpost.php?p=476480&postcount=1291

and notice how no one is being brought up on any charges. plus, that ridiculous move the banks just made moving all their toxic bundles from their investment arms to their retail arms so they could be FDIC insured....read backed by taxpayers. the ass fucking of the general public just keeps going on and on and on.

[atomiczombie]

8Yhm7gKdAm0

[SoNotHer]

I like this a lot, but I particularly like the final message that clean air and water are not commodities but basic human rights -

8Yhm7gKdAm0

[AtLast]

Friday's Maddow show had a great report on an "Occupation" of a young mother's eviction situation that led to her gaining more time to be able to deal with solutions-

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/


Also a great Great Depression Era segment with pic of 1930's "encampment" protests formed to help save people's homes- history does repeat itself- and going back and looking at the demonstrations of that era and noting the tactics used then and this action is amazing. Also police action comparisons.

Depression era photo-

http://www.laprogressive.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/great-depression-protest.gif

Another article that talks about the comparisons to the 1930's protests- and that perhaps we need to look at this more intently instead of most of the 1960's protests as those in the 30's are much more related to the how & why of the Occupy movement taking hold.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/07/us-wallstreet-protests-history-idUSTRE7964CY20111007

[SoNotHer]

I love this post, and I am so glad one more mother wasn't put out on the streets.

Thank you At Last for evoking the Depression. I get such a charge visiting CCC camps, seeing WPA murals and understanding why and how America got to a fundamental reality in the 30s and how that understanding made us who we are.


Friday's Maddow show had a great report on an "Occupation" of a young mother's eviction situation that led to her gaining more time to be able to deal with solutions-

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/


Also a great Great Depression Era segment with pic of 1930's "encampment" protests formed to help save people's homes- history does repeat itself- and going back and looking at the demonstrations of that era and noting the tactics used then and this action is amazing. Also police action comparisons.

Depression era photo-

http://www.laprogressive.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/great-depression-protest.gif

Another article that talks about the comparisons to the 1930's protests- and that perhaps we need to look at this more intently instead of most of the 1960's protests as those in the 30's are much more related to the how & why of the Occupy movement taking hold.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/07/us-wallstreet-protests-history-idUSTRE7964CY20111007

[AtLast]

I love this post, and I am so glad one more mother wasn't put out on the streets.

Thank you At Last for evoking the Depression. I get such a charge visiting CCC camps, seeing WPA murals and understanding why and how America got to a fundamental reality in the 30s and how that understanding made us who we are.

I agree- that era is such an important part of US history. Tough times, yet both government and citizen intervention that worked together- "or and of the people" kinds of solutions.

Hey, my Dad helped build the High Point Monument in New Jersey CCC as part of the CCCs. From that he became a fantastic mason and through the years built amazing stone and brick landscape structures.

[atomiczombie]

By Stephen D. Foster Jr.

This week, the United States Senate passed S. 1867 also known as the National Defense Authorization Act including sections 1031 and 1032 which authorize the military to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens without trial or charge. Despite national outcry over the bill which effectively suspends the Constitutional rights of those suspected of terrorist activities and would allow Americans to be incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, the Senate passed the bill by an overwhelming margin of 93-7. This means that Congress could easily override the President’s threatened veto.

But this act of Congress is even more dangerous than we first thought. Included in the bill is Amendment 1068 which was offered by Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. This part of the bill undermines President Obama’s executive order that bans torture and overrides the list of permissible interrogation techniques in the US Army Field Manual. In other words, the US military could arrest ordinary American citizens without reading them their Miranda Rights, put them in a cell at Gitmo without the benefit of an attorney, a trial, or charges of any kind, and then torture them during interrogation. A secret list of torture techniques would be created without public knowledge.

Who does this affect? Every single man, woman, and child on American soil would be directly affected by this bill. It would give this President and all future Presidents, the power to arrest American citizens with the military and torture them into confession even if they are innocent. Essentially, it turns the Presidency into a dictatorship authorized to use the military against the people.

The Occupy movement in particular could face this unconstitutional military action. Just imagine if Republicans captured the White House in 2012. Conservative media, corporations, and Republican politicians have referred to the Occupy protesters as terrorists or worse than terrorists. Just this accusation alone gives the President cause to unleash the military to round up and arrest the protesters en masse, suspend their constitutional rights, and torture them in a prison off American soil, all because they were exercising their right to protest. This is an extraordinarily dangerous and un-American bill that would destroy the Constitution and our system of government. The judicial system would be powerless to do anything about it too.

We the people must demand that our government discard this bill permanently. It goes against everything America values and stands for. We must write, email, call, and protest our senators and representatives and the White House and call for action. You can also visit this page and sign a petition. Unless Americans stand up and fight this, we may one day have to rely on other countries to free us from ourselves.

LINK: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/02/the-national-defense-authorization-act-is-even-scarier-than-we-thought/

Welcome to the Fascist States of America.

[Cin]

LINK: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/02/the-national-defense-authorization-act-is-even-scarier-than-we-thought/

Welcome to the Fascist States of America.

The senate, the house, all our elected officials, they do the will of the people right? So I guess this is what we all wanted or at least the majority of people are not upset by it. I mean if the majority of people objected to the crap that is going on there would be more noise, more people in the street. Not ten, not ten hundred, not ten thousand, there would be hundreds of thousands. There's not. So I can only assume the majority is happy. Well then goodonya. Next they will take our internet. There is so much crap they have already done and will keep doing and with the exception of, relatively speaking, a small group of people (compared to the entire population of the U.S.) most don't even recognize a problem. So really what can ya do? What can you expect? You can't spoon feed awareness. You can't make people see. You certainly can't make them give a shit. You can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink. You can however make him thirsty but sometimes he just ain't gonna drink no matter what. I talked to my sister the other day and with a few minor misgivings she is pretty satisfied with what is going on. Or should I say she feels like it's the best she's going to be able to get. Most seem to be okay with what's happening. I don't know maybe it's me?

I get that the mainstream news doesn't really make it easy to understand what is happening. They do the bidding of the rich who also control the government. But lots of people do get it. So it's possible to figure it out. There are people who have devoted their lives to helping people get it. So it's really a choice. And so far, I don't see change being the choice of the people.

[Corkey]

The only problem with history repeating itself, we still haven't learned, as a people, the lesson of compassion. Perhaps next time.

[persiphone]

LINK: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/02/the-national-defense-authorization-act-is-even-scarier-than-we-thought/

Welcome to the Fascist States of America.



i signed it. and i hate to say told you so. not "you" personally, but "you" as in the general public. gah i hate being right. i so so so wanted to hope that the threat of guantanomo would not be held over our heads. i feel very sad today.

[ruffryder]

Orlando has been ordered to remove personal belongings at their encampment as of midnight Monday or the police will remove it.

In other occupy news, Occupy Wal-Mart ?

[Diavolo]

8 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst President of our lifetime
(http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-orlando/8-reasons-why-ronald-reagan-was-a-horrible-president-1?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook)

Arguably eight reasons why this is all Reagan's fault.

[AtLast]

The only problem with history repeating itself, we still haven't learned, as a people, the lesson of compassion. Perhaps next time.

Very good point, my friend. We sure could use more compassion based historical repeats! And hopefully, do something about the things in our history that were so damn wrong.

[SoNotHer]

While I'm grateful something or someone has taken on the quixotic, fuzzy-wuzzy image of Reagan that has been produced for public consumption, the author fails to mention one very large reason Reagan was the worst president in recent history - he dismantled and eviscerated alternative energy research and prjoects. He had the solar panels Carter had had placed on the WH roof taken down, a symbolic gesture that American, even after an oil embargo and even after Carter's (who, remember, has an engineering background) direction and push toward energy independence, and even after abundant and mounting evidence that we were going to run out of petroleum and the GHGs were real and dangerous, Reagan made sure America kept the pump hooked up like an IV line and in fact ignored history and science and plunged head first into its fossil fuel addiction.

So many "Reagan reasons," but this one effects everything...

8 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst President of our lifetime
(http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-orlando/8-reasons-why-ronald-reagan-was-a-horrible-president-1?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook)

Arguably eight reasons why this is all Reagan's fault.

[AtLast]

While I'm grateful something or someone has taken on the quixotic, fuzzy-wuzzy image of Reagan that has been produced for public consumption, the author fails to mention one very large reason Reagan was the worst president in recent history - he dismantled and eviscerated alternative energy research and prjoects. He had the solar panels Carter had had placed on the WH roof taken down, a symbolic gesture that American, even after an oil embargo and even after Carter's (who, remember, has an engineering background) direction and push toward energy independence, and even after abundant and mounting evidence that we were going to run out of petroleum and the GHGs were real and dangerous, Reagan made sure America kept the pump hooked up like an IV line and in fact ignored history and science and plunged head first into its fossil fuel addiction.

So many "Reagan reasons," but this one effects everything...

I can add that he was also the worst Govenor that California has ever had- hummmm.... could also talk about Arnold. Reagan dismantled our mental health system in CA to the point of cruelty for the mentally ill.

There are some very good reasons that his son, Ron is a progresssive!

[*Anya*]

Occupy LA protester, with police looking @ sign woman is holding, in front of LAPD headquarters:

"Thanks for not 'Tazing, teargassing or using live bullets"

[atomiczombie]

(Newser) – When the protesters of Occupy LA vacated their encampment, they left behind 30 tons of debris. Sanitation workers have already removed 25 tons of garbage, clothes, and random belongings—all of which went to a landfill, the Los Angeles Times reports. Protesters, who lived in the tent city for two months, left behind not just trashed protest signs and food, but everything from mattresses to electric razors to bicycles to a treehouse—and, of course, dozens of tents.

According to the AP, the site doesn't smell so great, either—specifically, it reeks of "urine and unwashed bodies." The grass is ruined, trees are damaged, there's graffiti on the walls of City Hall and on statues, and there are rumors of a lice or flea infestation. The site is "so contaminated, it doesn't even make sense to sort [the left-behind belongings] out," says a sanitation superintendent. There were rows of portable toilets, but protesters still urinated in bottles that must now be disposed of. Says a city refuse collection supervisor, "I've never seen anything like this."

http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz56/atomiczombie/messprotestorsleft.jpg

[persiphone]

http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz56/atomiczombie/messprotestorsleft.jpg



hahahahahhahaaaa

[SoNotHer]

From - http://www.paramuspost.com/article.php/20111203183336535

OWS Hunger Strike For Open Spaces

By Press Release Saturday, December 03, 2011, 06:33 PM EST

New York City—On Saturday, December 3, in Liberty Plaza, we—THE OWS HUNGER STRIKERS—will begin a hunger strike. We are striking to demand outdoor space for a new occupation. We will hold our strike, for its duration, outside at Duarte Square on Sixth Avenue and Canal Street in Manhattan as part of a continued effort seeking sanctuary on Trinity Wall Street's unused and vacant lot of land. Should we be arrested, we will continue the strike in jail. We are calling on Occupiers across the nation to join us.

This is a call for escalation in response to the escalated levels of government-enacted violence and repression The Occupy Movement has endured over the last few weeks. In cities across the nation, Mayors chose to stifle freedom of speech and the right to assemble by evicting peaceful occupations using illegal and unconstitutional force. Here in NYC, in the middle of the night on November 14, billionaire Mayor Bloomberg used the NYPD to illicitly evict our community from Liberty Square.

We recognize the long history of hunger strikes as a radical action that has liberated countries, communities and individuals from repression,
slavery and injustice. From colonial India to modern Turkey; from the Northern Ireland H-Block cells to Palestinian prisons; from 1970s Cuba
to present-day California, hunger strikes have amplified the voices of the oppressed.

Occupy Wall Street is a people-powered direct action movement that began on September 17, 2011 in Liberty Square in Manhattan’s Financial District. OWS is part of a growing international movement fighting against neoliberal economic practices, the crimes of Wall Street, government controlled by monied interests, and the resulting income inequality, unemployment, environmental destruction, and oppression of people at the front lines of the economic crisis. For more visit www.occupywallst.org.

[atomiczombie]

By Tex Shelters

1. The Occupy Movement blames everything on Wall Street. This is false for many reasons. First, there are many culprits in the economic crisis and corporate takeover of government, including the government itself. We understand that. Wall Street is a symbol of the excess and corporate dominance in our daily lives, not the only cause. Wall Street is a good rallying point, but if journalists and talking heads would look beyond the surface, they would find more. How about looking at the signs online while in your warm offices and you will see signs at Occupy Rallies and elsewhere about many different issues.

2. “They have no agenda.” Josh Barro, a “research scholar” at the right-wing think tank the Manhattan Institute has derided Occupy Wall Street (obviously doing little “research”) for not having an agenda.

But as I wrote in a response to this nonsense in his National Review article,

“You talk to one representative and now you are an expert? Have you been to an encampment or event? There are several clear goals that the Occupy Groups have, and if you had bothered to do research and looked at the various declarations of these groups (online, so you don’t even have to visit a camp to learn) you would find goals such as:

Protect homes from unlawful foreclosures
Repeal Citizens United
Single payer health care
Forgive and reduce student debt obligations
Make college more affordable for families
End foreign wars and bring our troops home
Reinvest in education and infrastructure
End indefinite detentions
Repeal the patriot act
End corporate personhood
and so on.

Perhaps the reason you don’t know of these goals is that you are too lazy to look them up and main stream reporters such as yourself refuse to report on them.

If you want to refute what I say, why not have me debate you and your ignorance.”

Perhaps I am being unfair to him and should forgive his inability to understand a movement that doesn’t fit into his “liberal versus conservative paradigm”, a leaderless movement full of capable people, and a movement that has many goals and objectives but isn’t as narrowly focused as Republican Senators are on bringing down Obama and nothing else.

3. They are all unemployed hippies who are aimless but at the same time violent anarchists, and other demographic falsehoods. The population of the Occupy encampments changes from day-to-day and city to city. I have seen different surveys of the group, but the highest unemployment stat on the movement I have seen is 30%. We are employed, part-time workers, unemployed, retired, homeless, rental unit owners, entrepreneurs, students, vets, and so on.

The actual number of hippies in the movement is quite low, and what’s wrong with hippies anyway? Do hippies make right-wingers uncomfortable or jealous that these reporters and pundits chose a life defending the 1% while hippies are free of such nonsense and don’t have to lie and misrepresent facts for living? I know it’s hard for people in the media to understand that there is not one type of person involved with the Occupy movement, and it makes the movement hard to stereotype. But they keep trying.

4. The Occupy Movement is disorganized. This is false. With few resources and no corporate or political party backing, Occupiers have daily and weekly general assembly meetings. We have declarations, clean camps, feed people, make the media contacts available to us (somehow, the Today Show hasn’t called Occupy Tucson), and so forth. We have no central committee, and I know that is hard to understand for inflexible minds reporting news for the 1%.

Yes, we don’t fit the standard non-profit organization, or the Tea Party (paid for by Koch), but if you go to the camps and talk to the organizers, there is a lot of order for an underfunded, non-aligned, independent organization. People say we are disorganized because they don’t understand our organization and want to marginalize us.

5. Occupy Movements caused their own troubles and the violence. Little of the violence was instigated by the protesters, and at least in LA, much of the violence has occurred to Occupiers after they were in custody. To blame movement activists for being violent when they are attacked is like blaming a rape victim for injuring their assailant, something Republicans and many others have done. Don’t buy it when someone tells you that being hit by batons, or being pepper sprayed or being hit by rubber bullets is the fault of the occupiers. If the police would let us occupy or surrender in peace, there would be little to no violence.

6. We’re Anti-captilist. Not true. While some may hold this view, it is more accurate to say that we are all against the rigged system. We are against a system that gives more tax cuts and affords tax loopholes to billionaires and millionaires and increases fees on the lower classes. We are against a system that passes laws to deregulate industries and gives corporate welfare in free rent, under-market prices for mining rights, military projects we don’t need to help contractors profit off of our tax dollars while they target cuts to Social Security, Medicaid, education and other social programs that help the vast majority of the people. We are against the selling off of valuable assets that only benefit the 1% such as the Rosemont Copper mine in Arizona and we are against the selling of our education system for profit while damaging that system.

Many of us own businesses, promote local enterprises and are for responsible capitalism that doesn’t damage the environment.

Can we ever really ever truly understand a movement that is in progess? Only by being at an Occupy rally or meeting can you have the slightest understanding of the full implications and people in the movement. We must work for the benefit of the 99% forever, whatever the falsehoods told about the Occupy Movement.

Peace,

Tex Shelters

LINK: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/04/myths-misinformation-and-falsehoods-about-the-occupy-movement/

[greeneyedgrrl]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/02/occupy-wall-street-un-envoy_n_1125860.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

WASHINGTON -- The United Nations envoy for freedom of expression is drafting an official communication to the U.S. government demanding to know why federal officials are not protecting the rights of Occupy demonstrators whose protests are being disbanded -- sometimes violently -- by local authorities.

Frank La Rue, who serves as the U.N. "special rapporteur" for the protection of free expression, told HuffPost in an interview that the crackdowns against Occupy protesters appear to be violating their human and constitutional rights.

"I believe in city ordinances and I believe in maintaining urban order," he said Thursday. "But on the other hand I also believe that the state -- in this case the federal state -- has an obligation to protect and promote human rights."

"If I were going to pit a city ordinance against human rights, I would always take human rights," he continued.

La Rue, a longtime Guatemalan human rights activist who has held his U.N. post for three years, said it's clear to him that the protesters have a right to occupy public spaces "as long as that doesn't severely affect the rights of others."

In moments of crisis, governments often default to a forceful response instead of a dialogue, he said -- but that's a mistake.

"Citizens have the right to dissent with the authorities, and there's no need to use public force to silence that dissension," he said.

"One of the principles is proportionality," La Rue said. "The use of police force is legitimate to maintain public order -- but there has to be a danger of real harm, a clear and present danger. And second, there has to be a proportionality of the force employed to prevent a real danger."

And history suggests that harsh tactics against social movements don't work anyway, he said. In Occupy's case, he said, "disbanding them by force won't change that attitude of indignation."

Occupy encampments across the country have been forcibly removed by police in full riot gear, and some protesters have been badly injured as a result of aggressive police tactics.

New York police staged a night raid on the original Occupy Wall Street encampment in mid-November, evicting sleeping demonstrators and confiscating vast amounts of property.

The Oakland Police Department fired tear gas, smoke grenades and bean-bag rounds at demonstrators there in late October, seriously injuring one Iraq War veteran at the Occupy site.

Earlier this week, Philadelphia and Los Angeles police stormed the encampments in their cities in the middle of the night, evicting and arresting hundreds of protesters.

Protesters at University of California, Davis were pepper sprayed by a campus police officer in November while participating in a sit-in, and in September an officer in New York pepper sprayed protesters who were legally standing on the sidewalk.

"We're seeing widespread violations of fundamental First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights," said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, co-chair of a National Lawyers Guild committee, which has sent hundreds of volunteers to provide legal representation to Occupations across the nation.

"The demonstrations are treated as if they're presumptively criminal," she said. "Instead of looking at free speech activity as an honored and cherished right that should be supported and facilitated, the reaction of local authorities and police is very frequently to look at it as a crime scene."

What they should do, Verheyden-Hilliard said, is make it their mission to allow the activity to continue.

Using the same lens placed on the Occupy movement to look at, say, the protest in Egypt, Verheyden-Hilliard said, observers would have focused on such issues as "Did the people in Tahrir Square have a permit?"

La Rue said the protesters are raising and addressing a fundamental issue. "There is legitimate reason to be indignant and angry about a crisis that was originated by greed and the personal interests of certain sectors," he said. That's especially the case when the bankers "still earn very hefty salaries and common folks are losing their homes."

"In this case, the demonstrations are going to the center of the issue," he said. "These demonstrations are exactly challenging the basis of the debate."

Indeed, commentators such as Robert Scheer have argued that the Occupy movement's citizen action has a particular justification, based on the government's abject failure to hold banks accountable.

La Rue said he sees parallels between Occupy and the Arab Spring pro-democracy protests. In both cases, for instance, "you have high level of education for young people, but no opportunities."

La Rue said he is in the process of writing what he called "an official communication" to the U.S. government "to ask what exactly is the position of the federal government in regards to understanding the human rights and constitutional rights vis-a-vis the use of local police and local authorities to disband peaceful demonstrations."

Although the letter will not carry any legal authority, it reflects how the violent suppression of dissent threatens to damage the U.S.'s international reputation.

"I think it's a dangerous spot in the sense of a precedent," La Rue said, expressing concern that the United States risks losing its credibility as a model democracy, particularly if the excessive use of force against peaceful protests continues.

New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman welcomed the international scrutiny.

"We live in a much smaller, connected world than we ever did before, and just as Americans watch what goes on in Tahrir Square and in Syria, the whole world is watching us, too -- and that's a good thing," Lieberman said.

"We're kind of confident that we're living in the greatest democracy in the world, but when the international human rights world criticizes an American police officer for pepper spraying students who are sitting down, it rightly give us pause."
* * * * *

[SoNotHer]

What does it say when an UN envoy has to call attention to the treatment of protestors exercising a right we so proudly put on display for the world and so often use to distinguish ourselves from the rest of the world? Great post. Thank you, Greeneyedgrrl.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/02/occupy-wall-street-un-envoy_n_1125860.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

WASHINGTON -- The United Nations envoy for freedom of expression is drafting an official communication to the U.S. government demanding to know why federal officials are not protecting the rights of Occupy demonstrators whose protests are being disbanded -- sometimes violently -- by local authorities.

Frank La Rue, who serves as the U.N. "special rapporteur" for the protection of free expression, told HuffPost in an interview that the crackdowns against Occupy protesters appear to be violating their human and constitutional rights.

"I believe in city ordinances and I believe in maintaining urban order," he said Thursday. "But on the other hand I also believe that the state -- in this case the federal state -- has an obligation to protect and promote human rights."

"If I were going to pit a city ordinance against human rights, I would always take human rights," he continued.

La Rue, a longtime Guatemalan human rights activist who has held his U.N. post for three years, said it's clear to him that the protesters have a right to occupy public spaces "as long as that doesn't severely affect the rights of others."

In moments of crisis, governments often default to a forceful response instead of a dialogue, he said -- but that's a mistake.

"Citizens have the right to dissent with the authorities, and there's no need to use public force to silence that dissension," he said.

"One of the principles is proportionality," La Rue said. "The use of police force is legitimate to maintain public order -- but there has to be a danger of real harm, a clear and present danger. And second, there has to be a proportionality of the force employed to prevent a real danger."

And history suggests that harsh tactics against social movements don't work anyway, he said. In Occupy's case, he said, "disbanding them by force won't change that attitude of indignation."

Occupy encampments across the country have been forcibly removed by police in full riot gear, and some protesters have been badly injured as a result of aggressive police tactics.

New York police staged a night raid on the original Occupy Wall Street encampment in mid-November, evicting sleeping demonstrators and confiscating vast amounts of property.

The Oakland Police Department fired tear gas, smoke grenades and bean-bag rounds at demonstrators there in late October, seriously injuring one Iraq War veteran at the Occupy site.

Earlier this week, Philadelphia and Los Angeles police stormed the encampments in their cities in the middle of the night, evicting and arresting hundreds of protesters.

Protesters at University of California, Davis were pepper sprayed by a campus police officer in November while participating in a sit-in, and in September an officer in New York pepper sprayed protesters who were legally standing on the sidewalk.

"We're seeing widespread violations of fundamental First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights," said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, co-chair of a National Lawyers Guild committee, which has sent hundreds of volunteers to provide legal representation to Occupations across the nation.

"The demonstrations are treated as if they're presumptively criminal," she said. "Instead of looking at free speech activity as an honored and cherished right that should be supported and facilitated, the reaction of local authorities and police is very frequently to look at it as a crime scene."

What they should do, Verheyden-Hilliard said, is make it their mission to allow the activity to continue.

Using the same lens placed on the Occupy movement to look at, say, the protest in Egypt, Verheyden-Hilliard said, observers would have focused on such issues as "Did the people in Tahrir Square have a permit?"

La Rue said the protesters are raising and addressing a fundamental issue. "There is legitimate reason to be indignant and angry about a crisis that was originated by greed and the personal interests of certain sectors," he said. That's especially the case when the bankers "still earn very hefty salaries and common folks are losing their homes."

"In this case, the demonstrations are going to the center of the issue," he said. "These demonstrations are exactly challenging the basis of the debate."

Indeed, commentators such as Robert Scheer have argued that the Occupy movement's citizen action has a particular justification, based on the government's abject failure to hold banks accountable.

La Rue said he sees parallels between Occupy and the Arab Spring pro-democracy protests. In both cases, for instance, "you have high level of education for young people, but no opportunities."

La Rue said he is in the process of writing what he called "an official communication" to the U.S. government "to ask what exactly is the position of the federal government in regards to understanding the human rights and constitutional rights vis-a-vis the use of local police and local authorities to disband peaceful demonstrations."

Although the letter will not carry any legal authority, it reflects how the violent suppression of dissent threatens to damage the U.S.'s international reputation.

"I think it's a dangerous spot in the sense of a precedent," La Rue said, expressing concern that the United States risks losing its credibility as a model democracy, particularly if the excessive use of force against peaceful protests continues.

New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman welcomed the international scrutiny.

"We live in a much smaller, connected world than we ever did before, and just as Americans watch what goes on in Tahrir Square and in Syria, the whole world is watching us, too -- and that's a good thing," Lieberman said.

"We're kind of confident that we're living in the greatest democracy in the world, but when the international human rights world criticizes an American police officer for pepper spraying students who are sitting down, it rightly give us pause."
* * * * *

[persiphone]

well it's about time! gawd!

[Hollylane]

http://cdn.front.moveon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/boycott-MAIN.jpg

[greeneyedgrrl]

What does it say when an UN envoy has to call attention to the treatment of protestors exercising a right we so proudly put on display for the world and so often use to distinguish ourselves from the rest of the world? Great post. Thank you, Greeneyedgrrl.

you are welcome. i'm not confident that it will change anything. the u.s.has been onopposing sides of the u.n. before and has a reputation for creating and enforcing the rules while not following them. :|

[greeneyedgrrl]

What does it say when an UN envoy has to call attention to the treatment of protestors exercising a right we so proudly put on display for the world and so often use to distinguish ourselves from the rest of the world? Great post. Thank you, Greeneyedgrrl.

you are welcome. i'm not confident that it will change anything. the u.s.has been onopposing sides of the u.n. before and has a reputation for creating and enforcing the rules while not following them. :|

[SoNotHer]

Google: Quit the Chamber of Commerce

The petition is here -

http://civic.moveon.org/googlechamber1/?r_by=33547-9280932-mu8OW6x&rc=googlechamber1.confemail.g1

Right now we have a huge opportunity to deal a serious blow to one of Washington's most powerful lobbies, the deeply conservative U.S. Chamber of Commerce. At Google headquarters, employees are intensely debating whether Google should quit the Chamber in the next few weeks. Google quitting would be a huge blow to the Chamber's credibility. Sign the petition now from Google users to Google employees to ask them to stand up for us and our democracy by quitting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. A compiled petition with your individual comment will be presented to Google employees.

http://civic.moveon.org/googlechamber1/?r_by=33547-9280932-mu8OW6x&rc=googlechamber1.confemail.g1


__________________________________________________ ___________

And if you don't know what the Chamber of Commerce represents, does and affects, learn -

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/10/vp-biden-blasts-karl-rove-and-his-friends-for-shady-sources-of-fundraising-for-midterm-elections/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/08/908636/-Roves-American-Crossroads-and-the-US-Chamber-of-Commerce:-Kissing-Cousins

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/06/23/hbo-movie-slams-bush-rove-chamber

[Toughy]

Oakland Chamber of Commerce was a HUGE influence in kicking out Occupy Oakland from Oscar Grant Plaza.....they told lies about companies not coming to Oakland because of OO, convinced small business owners that were losing business before OO that it was because of OO and finally scaring people away from downtown cuz OO was dirty nasty and violent.

[Diavolo]

On the Huff Post today.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/police-militarization-use-of-force-swat-raids_b_1123848.html

[persiphone]

LINK: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/02/the-national-defense-authorization-act-is-even-scarier-than-we-thought/

Welcome to the Fascist States of America.



~bump~bump~bump~

[persiphone]

On the Huff Post today.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/police-militarization-use-of-force-swat-raids_b_1123848.html


skeery shit man

[SoNotHer]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/02/the-national-defense-authorization-act-is-even-scarier-than-we-thought/

This week, the United States Senate passed S. 1867 also known as the National Defense Authorization Act including sections 1031 and 1032 which authorize the military to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens without trial or charge. Despite national outcry over the bill which effectively suspends the Constitutional rights of those suspected of terrorist activities and would allow Americans to be incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, the Senate passed the bill by an overwhelming margin of 93-7. This means that Congress could easily override the President’s threatened veto.

But this act of Congress is even more dangerous than we first thought. Included in the bill is Amendment 1068 which was offered by Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. This part of the bill undermines President Obama’s executive order that bans torture and overrides the list of permissible interrogation techniques in the US Army Field Manual. In other words, the US military could arrest ordinary American citizens without reading them their Miranda Rights, put them in a cell at Gitmo without the benefit of an attorney, a trial, or charges of any kind, and then torture them during interrogation. A secret list of torture techniques would be created without public knowledge...

and

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/police-militarization-use-of-force-swat-raids_b_1123848.html

SWAT Raids, Stun Guns, And Pepper Spray: Why The Government Is Ramping Up The Use Of Force
Posted: 12/ 5/11 11:23 AM ET

In February of last year, video surfaced of a marijuana raid in Columbia, Mo. During the raid on Jonathan Whitworth and his family, police took down the door with a battering ram, then within seconds shot and killed one of Whitworth's dogs and wounded the other. They didn't find enough pot in the house to charge Whitworth with even a misdemeanor. (He was, however, charged with misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia when police found a pipe.) The disturbing video went viral in May 2010, triggering outrage around the world. On Fox News, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer and Bill O'Reilly cautioned not to judge the entire drug war by the video, which they characterized as an isolated incident.

In fact, very little about the raid that was isolated or unusual. For the most part, it was carried out the same way drug warrants are served some 150 times per day in the United States. The battering ram, the execution of Whitworth's dog, the fact that police weren't aware Whitworth's 7-year-old child was in the home before they riddled the place with bullets, the fact that they found only a small amount of pot, likely for personal use -- all are common in drug raids. The only thing unusual was that the raid was recorded by police, then released to the public after an open records request by the Columbia Daily Tribune. It was as if much of the country was seeing for the first time the violence with which the drug war is actually fought. And they didn't like what they saw...

[Toughy]

The 'war on drugs' is a farce and has done nothing to stop drug trafficking or drug use in the country.

Did you know pot is more dangerous than heroin or coke...according to the Schedule I classification. Coke and heroin has some medicinal use and marijuana has NO medical use....at least according to the federal government.

All drugs should be legal so we can get some control over the manufacture, distribution and sale. I would be happy to start with completely legalizing marijuana........

Occupy movement should add this to their list. More POC are in jail for pot than white folks and then there is the inconsistency between jail time for powdered coke vs crack. IF you are convicted of a felony you lose your voting rights. You can petition the courts to get your vote back but not many know that.

[ruffryder]

The 'war on drugs' is a farce and has done nothing to stop drug trafficking or drug use in the country.

Did you know pot is more dangerous than heroin or coke...according to the Schedule I classification. Coke and heroin has some medicinal use and marijuana has NO medical use....at least according to the federal government.

All drugs should be legal so we can get some control over the manufacture, distribution and sale. I would be happy to start with completely legalizing marijuana........

Occupy movement should add this to their list. More POC are in jail for pot than white folks and then there is the inconsistency between jail time for powdered coke vs crack. IF you are convicted of a felony you lose your voting rights. You can petition the courts to get your vote back but not many know that.

I'm sorry. How does this fit in or help the OWS movement.? Just trying to grasp this thought in relation to corporate greed and lowering taxes for the middle class. I think one thing at a time would benefit the movement more. Maybe they should all focus on one thing in common and attack the government and wall street with that..for instance affordable health care. Please explain..maybe it's a great idea. I'm missing it.

[Toughy]

It's relevant because of racism, which is one of the hallmarks of corporate greed (in the US). It alo speaks to the militarization of our police (as was pointed out in the article). How in the hell do you think the CIA funds itself?

[persiphone]

personally, i think we should move to suspend the presidential elections until democracy and the rights of the citizens here are restored. i'm tired of participating in a political process designed to imprison us.

[Cin]

It's relevant because of racism, which is one of the hallmarks of corporate greed (in the US). It alo speaks to the militarization of our police (as was pointed out in the article). How in the hell do you think the CIA funds itself?

This is so true. The U.S. puts so many of its citizens in jail compared to, well actually compared to anywhere. In January 2010 the rate of incarceration was 743 adults per 100,000. Guess how many were white compared to POC. Now that the prison systems are privatized it is such a money making operation that nothing is likely to be legalized. The more jailed the better. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Whenever they declare war on inanimate objects like drugs, terrorism and poverty they are really just finding new ways to continue unchallenged and overly funded with their war on the poor. It's just their fancy way of declaring class warfare.

[Cin]

personally, i think we should move to suspend the presidential elections until democracy and the rights of the citizens here are restored. i'm tired of participating in a political process designed to imprison us.

I agree but how could we do that? We can't even stop the senate from passing bills erasing our rights as citizens of the United States. And I don't even want to get started on the average citizen awareness of what is happening to our rights. Even when they are aware they are apathetic at best. Percentage wise people just aren't getting it.

[GeorgiaMa'am]

personally, i think we should move to suspend the presidential elections until democracy and the rights of the citizens here are restored. i'm tired of participating in a political process designed to imprison us.

I've pretty much decided the presidential elections don't mean squat. Congress runs the country now - a congress which is influenced by wealthy special interests. Maybe the governors run some stuff too.

I would spout off about the line-item veto and campaign reforms here, but my cynicism is starting to outweigh my optimism. I really don't know what can be done. :angry: (Is there an icon for hopelessness?)

[GeorgiaMa'am]

This is so true. The U.S. puts so many of its citizens in jail compared to, well actually compared to anywhere. In January 2010 the rate of incarceration was 743 adults per 100,000. Guess how many were white compared to POC. Now that the prison systems are privatized it is such a money making operation that nothing is likely to be legalized. The more jailed the better. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Whenever they declare war on inanimate objects like drugs, terrorism and poverty they are really just finding new ways to continue unchallenged and overly funded with their war on the poor. It's just their fancy way of declaring class warfare.

Exactly. And we have a governor in Georgia who thinks we should use prison labor to take over all the farm labor jobs that were left when the illegal immigrants were driven out. - The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[ruffryder]

Thanks for the clarification Toughy. I don't see how legalizing drugs aids the OWS movement still. I think it would bring more financial problems still to the middle class and those that can't afford the medication they need now and aid as you say the CIA, law enforcement, and the rich and corporations are the ones who deal it. hmmm.. As for racism. I'm not seeing that either. The people in this movement that are being discriminated against are the middle class and poor and they are the ones being made to pay more for services and product, it doesn't matter what race they are only that they are in a certain income bracket and being taken advantage of. I guess if you could explain further I may see it how legalizing drugs helps anyone that is protesting for equal financial and corporate rights. Thanks.

I would love to see people not vote in the next election, especially for President. How we get people to not vote is another question and not going to happen. I do think OWS will think of something to protest though when election time comes up and I can't wait to see that and what happens.

[persiphone]

This is so true. The U.S. puts so many of its citizens in jail compared to, well actually compared to anywhere. In January 2010 the rate of incarceration was 743 adults per 100,000. Guess how many were white compared to POC. Now that the prison systems are privatized it is such a money making operation that nothing is likely to be legalized. The more jailed the better. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Whenever they declare war on inanimate objects like drugs, terrorism and poverty they are really just finding new ways to continue unchallenged and overly funded with their war on the poor. It's just their fancy way of declaring class warfare.

well welcome to the world of for profit prisons. human bodies are needed to turn a profit.

[persiphone]

I agree but how could we do that? We can't even stop the senate from passing bills erasing our rights as citizens of the United States. And I don't even want to get started on the average citizen awareness of what is happening to our rights. Even when they are aware they are apathetic at best. Percentage wise people just aren't getting it.

well its not like politicians aren't aggressively trying to suppress voters. i say let's turn it around on them and show up at the polls and help them with that. :) let's make it impossible for anyone to vote.

[persiphone]

I've pretty much decided the presidential elections don't mean squat. Congress runs the country now - a congress which is influenced by wealthy special interests. Maybe the governors run some stuff too.

I would spout off about the line-item veto and campaign reforms here, but my cynicism is starting to outweigh my optimism. I really don't know what can be done. :angry: (Is there an icon for hopelessness?)

i think it's high time we put our foot down and just say NO to a defunct political process. if there are NO votes then there can be no decision on anything. then what can they do? make not voting illegal?

[persiphone]

Exactly. And we have a governor in Georgia who thinks we should use prison labor to take over all the farm labor jobs that were left when the illegal immigrants were driven out. - The more things change, the more they stay the same.



but this is so tyical of big business when they are the ones that pushed for the visas that specifically are designed to populate the ag culture.

edited to add.....*insert for profit prison here*

[Cin]

I don't see how legalizing drugs aids the OWS movement still. I think it would bring more financial problems still to the middle class and those that can't afford the medication they need now and aid as you say the CIA, law enforcement, and the rich and corporations are the ones who deal it. hmmm.. As for racism. I'm not seeing that either. The people in this movement that are being discriminated against are the middle class and poor and they are the ones being made to pay more for services and product, it doesn't matter what race they are only that they are in a certain income bracket and being taken advantage of. I guess if you could explain further I may see it how legalizing drugs helps anyone that is protesting for equal financial and corporate rights. Thanks.

I would love to see people not vote in the next election, especially for President. How we get people to not vote is another question and not going to happen. I do think OWS will think of something to protest though when election time comes up and I can't wait to see that and what happens.

I think it is not so much about what will aid the OWS Movement as it is about what will aid the poor and the middle class. The movement is a resource, a means to an end, not an end in itself. In that spirit, the spirit of what is best for the 99%, legalizing drugs would eliminate the excuse to continue with the kind of duplicity our government and its friends engage in, as well as the excuse to lock up unprecedented amounts of U.S. citizens. It would free up amazing amounts of money and it would put a cramp in the continued militarization of the police, at least until they found another excuse in the form of another inanimate object or ideology to declare war on. In this particular instance, the war on drugs, race is important because it is our sisters and brothers of color who pay the heaviest price. Actually, it is always our sisters and brothers of color who pay the heaviest price. So in my opinion you cannot over emphasize racism. I don't think you can over emphasize any ism. They are all connected. An intricately woven tapestry of control and subjugation. Our freedom is irrevocably bound up in each other and our recognition of this tapestry, our connectiveness, and how we must make use of the strength we have together. Alone we are powerless but together our power would be awe inspiring.

[persiphone]

I think it is not so much about what will aid the OWS Movement as it is about what will aid the poor and the middle class. The movement is a resource, a means to an end, not an end in itself. In that spirit, the spirit of what is best for the 99%, legalizing drugs would eliminate the excuse to continue with the kind of duplicity our government and its friends engage in, as well as the excuse to lock up unprecedented amounts of U.S. citizens. It would free up amazing amounts of money and it would put a cramp in the continued militarization of the police, at least until they found another excuse in the form of another inanimate object or ideology to declare war on. In this particular instance, the war on drugs, race is important because it is our sisters and brothers of color who pay the heaviest price. Actually, it is always our sisters and brothers of color who pay the heaviest price. So in my opinion you cannot over emphasize racism. I don't think you can over emphasize any ism. They are all connected. An intricately woven tapestry of control and subjugation. Our freedom is irrevocably bound up in each other and our recognition of this tapestry, our connectiveness, and how we must make use of the strength we have together. Alone we are powerless but together our power would be awe inspiring.

excellent post. ty :)

[Gráinne]

well its not like politicians aren't aggressively trying to suppress voters. i say let's turn it around on them and show up at the polls and help them with that. :) let's make it impossible for anyone to vote.

I'll take it that's tongue in cheek. My grandmothers marched for that right to vote and I'll be darned if anyone stops me.

[Cin]

well its not like politicians aren't aggressively trying to suppress voters. i say let's turn it around on them and show up at the polls and help them with that. :) let's make it impossible for anyone to vote.

LOL. It sounds good. There are some potential problems though.

I'm thinking then the five people who managed to get through and vote for Romney will elect the president.

Also if we have enough people aware and willing to act that we could stop the elections why not just use that power to put someone in office who would not be bought.

Oh wait, is that even possible? Are there people who are not for sale?

We are taught from our first breath that we are and should be for sale one way or another. Work is the ethic. Sell the hours of your life to the highest bidder. And in the case of the poor and the uneducated it is a pitiful bid indeed. It would be hard not to be for sale.

Laws need to be changed or made that will protect us and keep money out of government. But I guess stopping the election isn't a bad idea. Anything that isn't business as usual is worth a shot.

[persiphone]

I'll take it that's tongue in cheek. My grandmothers marched for that right to vote and I'll be darned if anyone stops me.

aahhh ya party pooper. you're right, of course. but dang it's just not working.

[persiphone]

LOL. It sounds good. There are some potential problems though.

I'm thinking then the five people who managed to get through and vote for Romney will elect the president.

Also if we have enough people aware and willing to act that we could stop the elections why not just use that power to put someone in office who would not be bought.

Oh wait, is that even possible? Are there people who are not for sale?

We are taught from our first breath that we are and should be for sale one way or another. Work is the ethic. Sell your the hours of your life to the highest bidder. And in the case of the poor and the uneducated it is a pitiful bid indeed. It would be hard not to be for sale.

Laws need to be changed or made that will protect us and keep money out of government. But I guess stopping the election isn't a bad idea. Anything that isn't business as usual is worth a shot.


right...but how to do that since our "votes" don't really count anyway? outside of completely derailing the whole thing.....:pirate-steer:

[Cin]

I'll take it that's tongue in cheek. My grandmothers marched for that right to vote and I'll be darned if anyone stops me.

Well as long as you are registered to vote on the side of those with the power to suppress voters' rights or live in an area that is not seen as a voting problem for those with the power to suppress voters' rights there will be no problem for you. Your vote and your right to do it will be protected.

[Cin]

right...but how to do that since our "votes" don't really count anyway? outside of completely derailing the whole thing.....:pirate-steer:

Well we can't. You need numbers to affect change. Until THEN, if there ever is a THEN and if it is not too late when THEN happens, we can keep on speaking out and up at every possible opportunity and feet to the street always helps. But I don't mind derailing the whole thing either.

[persiphone]

Well as long as you are registered to vote on the side of those with the power to suppress voters' rights or live in an area that is not seen as a voting problem for those with the power to suppress voters' rights there will be no problem for you. Your vote and your right to do it will be protected.


it's hard, though, to ask women...who haven't had the right to vote for a full century yet....to NOT vote. i mean, i would totally boycott the elections in a heartbeat. but i can understand why some women would not want to.

on a side note....it's interesting that the idea of women marching for the right vote comes up in a protest for american's rights. i find that ironic and fascinating.

[persiphone]

Well we can't. You need numbers to affect change. Until THEN, if there ever is a THEN and if it is not too late when THEN happens, we can keep on speaking out and up at every possible opportunity and feet to the street always helps. But I don't mind derailing the whole thing either.


i asked everyone i knew today if they knew what the national defense act was. not a single person could answer. *shudders* i'm moving to boycott the presidential elections.

[atomiczombie]

I gotta say that I disagree about boycotting elections. Yes, voting means a lot less when the only people who can get a serious chance to get their message out and on the ballot are the ones who take big money from the 1%ers. However, voting is still a way to make our voices heard.

I am against the idea that voting for the lesser of two evils is the best choice. As long as people always choose the lesser of two evils, the two evils are the only two choices there will be. But I plan to vote for the Green party candidate next year. Even if she doesn't get enough votes to get on the ballot in all 50 states, I will write in her name. At least that way I still have a voice and my feelings are known. If there weren't any power at the polls, then all the political ads wouldn't be on the air and in print.

As for legalizing drugs, I have a lot of mixed feelings about that. Yes the war on drugs is a huge failure. But I also think drug abuse has a devastating impact on the poor and marginalized people of the US. I think the CIA has had a hand in creating these drug problems, and the US government hasn't taken a serious step to address it. Instead, they just feed the prison system with drug abusers and dealers.

Not all drugs have the same effects. Marijuana can be used by many people socially. But cocaine, meth, heroin and PCP aren't drugs that can be used safely by anyone, imho. I think legalizing them isn't an answer. Investing in treatment programs and drug education is a better approach. Lets help people to stop using these destructive substances and provide support to help them improve their lives, and help their families and communities get educated about these substances and how to deal with people who are addicts in humane and productive ways, instead of just locking them up in jail and throwing away the key.

This is just my opinion and the context of it comes from my own life experience as the child of an alcoholic and a recovering drug addict myself.

[AtLast]

I understand some of what is being said about voting in the US and believe me I have felt like my own vote has not "counted" many times in terms of presidential elections. On the other hand, there was a very different story with the election of Barrack Obama and grass roots organizing as well as the role of young voters- there really was. Maybe if one is under 55 or so, they really don't get this. Those of us that were alive during the 50's & 60's, even not living in the deep South and not also being POC, know that his election was predicated on a vast movement of "just people" with votes that did "count." I never thought that an African American would actually become president in my lifetime. I'm not certain that a woman will be elected to the presidency during it, either. And yes, I hate the monetizing of our politics and know that the only way what goes on can be changed by getting private money out of elections. Actually, I see the Occupy movement as a means to reach this goal eventually.

I also have seen how on more local levels, my vote is much more part of change and sometimes, I honestly feel that our efforts ought to be local to build the real impetus for change on the national level.

Something else that really bothers me is just how few people vote that could and the excuses they use for not voting are just that- excuses. If you don’t participate in a democracy, of course your ideology won’t be represented. And the fact is, unless we educate and communicate our ideas with others, we will often not be on the winning side of elections. And this doesn’t get done by screaming talking point discussions that is so much a part of what the general population is exposed to by media that is bought and paid for- yes, even left-wing/progressive media.

What is going on with the suppression of voting rights is a very serious situation. It is very much a direct undermining of POC and all poor people as well as students and the elderly. It represents so much of what when on during the Jim Crowe era (which some historians see as never really ending).

Social movements do bring change. Not as fast as many would like because the US electorate is very diverse and today, finding any common ground among us in order to break ideological gridlock is next to impossible and this fact resides in both major political parties. This reflects our electorate very accurately and nothing will change if we the People don't compromise politically as well as continue to accept the Citizens United decision as impossible to overturn via Constitutional Amendment. Frankly, I wouldn't mind the entire OWS movement having this as a single goal. Achieving this would unlock the power to get any private money out of elections. Yes, this is something that will take years. That is how democracy works It isn't a one-click does it process.

I just have to add something- right on our voter registration cards is a space to voluntter to work in our election processes. Have anyone seen someone younger than 60 usually at your polling place? Stoping voter suppression tactics means being directly involved in your voting processes right in your district. Ever think about just who is behind things like voting machines being lost ot ballots that end up in a warehouse somewhere? Activism is more than protesting on the streets or even casting a vote. Take a personal day off and participate at your local polling place!

[Gráinne]

I hope you don't mind my questions again :). I'm honestly not trying to stir things up, or even necessarily oppose all of OWS, but I'm a great pain in the neck, you have to give me that!

1. Let's say that OWS "wins" their #1 priority, whatever that would be. There seems to be so many goals, but let's say something equivalent to the desegregation of the Montgomery buses, or desegregation of Central High School. Both of those changed a great deal of lives, no matter if the people were involved with the civil rights movement or not. What is your "win", and what would it look like to someone not in the movement or associated with banking or politics? How would I know the difference in my daily life?

2. I read a terrifying little book in high school called Animal Farm, which should be required reading. It is Orwell's satire of the Russian Revolution, and I know some would say we're already there in our own country. I know OWS is run apparently without leaders, all are equal, and majority votes and all that. How would the movement, if it grows, handle the human nature to divide up into classes, as the animals do? The novel starts with good intentions and a utopian idea but goes haywire. If you do elect leaders, are they not more powerful themselves by definition?

I can see we'll never agree, but I'm trying to see your side.

[persiphone]

I gotta say that I disagree about boycotting elections. Yes, voting means a lot less when the only people who can get a serious chance to get their message out and on the ballot are the ones who take big money from the 1%ers. However, voting is still a way to make our voices heard.

I am against the idea that voting for the lesser of two evils is the best choice. As long as people always choose the lesser of two evils, the two evils are the only two choices there will be. But I plan to vote for the Green party candidate next year. Even if she doesn't get enough votes to get on the ballot in all 50 states, I will write in her name. At least that way I still have a voice and my feelings are known. If there weren't any power at the polls, then all the political ads wouldn't be on the air and in print.

As for legalizing drugs, I have a lot of mixed feelings about that. Yes the war on drugs is a huge failure. But I also think drug abuse has a devastating impact on the poor and marginalized people of the US. I think the CIA has had a hand in creating these drug problems, and the US government hasn't taken a serious step to address it. Instead, they just feed the prison system with drug abusers and dealers.

Not all drugs have the same effects. Marijuana can be used by many people socially. But cocaine, meth, heroin and PCP aren't drugs that can be used safely by anyone, imho. I think legalizing them isn't an answer. Investing in treatment programs and drug education is a better approach. Lets help people to stop using these destructive substances and provide support to help them improve their lives, and help their families and communities get educated about these substances and how to deal with people who are addicts in humane and productive ways, instead of just locking them up in jail and throwing away the key.

This is just my opinion and the context of it comes from my own life experience as the child of an alcoholic and a recovering drug addict myself.


okay but writing her in puts your entire vote at risk of being tossed. doesn't it? (i honestly don't know) i think the power at the polls is just as delusionary as the idea that we live in the democracy that we think we have. we have just as little choice at the polls as we do anywhere else in this country.

and apparently.....there are states provisions that allow for temporary suspension of presidential elections in an emergency. there are also legal actions that can put the whole thing into question. so it's not really a radical or absurd idea, which until i looked into it...i thought it was kinda out there.

[atomiczombie]

okay but writing her in puts your entire vote at risk of being tossed. doesn't it? (i honestly don't know) i think the power at the polls is just as delusionary as the idea that we live in the democracy that we think we have. we have just as little choice at the polls as we do anywhere else in this country.

and apparently.....there are states provisions that allow for temporary suspension of presidential elections in an emergency. there are also legal actions that can put the whole thing into question. so it's not really a radical or absurd idea, which until i looked into it...i thought it was kinda out there.

Actually write-ins are counted. And, as AtLast said, there are all sorts of local elections and ballot initiatives that are important to vote on too. The Republicans are passing these voter-supression laws because they know that the fewer people who vote, the more their agenda wins. So not voting isn't going to change anything for the better imho.

[persiphone]

I understand some of what is being said about voting in the US and believe me I have felt like my own vote has not "counted" many times in terms of presidential elections. On the other hand, there was a very different story with the election of Barrack Obama and grass roots organizing as well as the role of young voters- there really was. Maybe if one is under 55 or so, they really don't get this. Those of us that were alive during the 50's & 60's, even not living in the deep South and not also being POC, know that his election was predicated on a vast movement of "just people" with votes that did "count." I never thought that an African American would actually become president in my lifetime. I'm not certain that a woman will be elected to the presidency during it, either. And yes, I hate the monetizing of our politics and know that the only way what goes on can be changed by getting private money out of elections. Actually, I see the Occupy movement as a means to reach this goal eventually.

I also have seen how on more local levels, my vote is much more part of change and sometimes, I honestly feel that our efforts ought to be local to build the real impetus for change on the national level.

Something else that really bothers me is just how few people vote that could and the excuses they use for not voting are just that- excuses. If you don’t participate in a democracy, of course your ideology won’t be represented. And the fact is, unless we educate and communicate our ideas with others, we will often not be on the winning side of elections. And this doesn’t get done by screaming talking point discussions that is so much a part of what the general population is exposed to by media that is bought and paid for- yes, even left-wing/progressive media.

What is going on with the suppression of voting rights is a very serious situation. It is very much a direct undermining of POC and all poor people as well as students and the elderly. It represents so much of what when on during the Jim Crowe era (which some historians see as never really ending).

Social movements do bring change. Not as fast as many would like because the US electorate is very diverse and today, finding any common ground among us in order to break ideological gridlock is next to impossible and this fact resides in both major political parties. This reflects our electorate very accurately and nothing will change if we the People don't compromise politically as well as continue to accept the Citizens United decision as impossible to overturn via Constitutional Amendment. Frankly, I wouldn't mind the entire OWS movement having this as a single goal. Achieving this would unlock the power to get any private money out of elections. Yes, this is something that will take years. That is how democracy works It isn't a one-click does it process.

I just have to add something- right on our voter registration cards is a space to voluntter to work in our election processes. Have anyone seen someone younger than 60 usually at your polling place? Stoping voter suppression tactics means being directly involved in your voting processes right in your district. Ever think about just who is behind things like voting machines being lost ot ballots that end up in a warehouse somewhere? Activism is more than protesting on the streets or even casting a vote. Take a personal day off and participate at your local polling place!



the actual ins and outs of voting laws in each state is near mind boggling. it's a huge source of discouragement for many.

[persiphone]

Actually write-ins are counted. And, as AtLast said, there are all sorts of local elections and ballot initiatives that are important to vote on too. The Republicans are passing these voter-supression laws because they know that the fewer people who vote, the more their agenda wins. So not voting isn't going to change anything for the better imho.


i was just saying....imagine if NO ONE voted. just try to picture it.

edited after looking into write-ins.....what if EVERYONE wrote in a person not on the ballot. better? :)

[atomiczombie]

i was just saying....imagine if NO ONE voted. just try to picture it.

edited after looking into write-ins.....what if EVERYONE wrote in a person not on the ballot. better? :)

YES!!!!! :D

[persiphone]

YES!!!!! :D



bows dramatically* ty ty...i'll be here all week.:|

[kannon]

I am against the idea that voting for the lesser of two evils is the best choice. As long as people always choose the lesser of two evils, the two evils are the only two choices there will be. But I plan to vote for the Green party candidate next year. Even if she doesn't get enough votes to get on the ballot in all 50 states, I will write in her name. At least that way I still have a voice and my feelings are known. If there weren't any power at the polls, then all the political ads wouldn't be on the air and in print.




Isn't this related to the act of NOT voting?

[kannon]

I think it is not so much about what will aid the OWS Movement as it is about what will aid the poor and the middle class. The movement is a resource, a means to an end, not an end in itself. In that spirit, the spirit of what is best for the 99%, legalizing drugs would eliminate the excuse to continue with the kind of duplicity our government and its friends engage in, as well as the excuse to lock up unprecedented amounts of U.S. citizens. It would free up amazing amounts of money and it would put a cramp in the continued militarization of the police, at least until they found another excuse in the form of another inanimate object or ideology to declare war on. In this particular instance, the war on drugs, race is important because it is our sisters and brothers of color who pay the heaviest price. Actually, it is always our sisters and brothers of color who pay the heaviest price. So in my opinion you cannot over emphasize racism. I don't think you can over emphasize any ism. They are all connected. An intricately woven tapestry of control and subjugation. Our freedom is irrevocably bound up in each other and our recognition of this tapestry, our connectiveness, and how we must make use of the strength we have together. Alone we are powerless but together our power would be awe inspiring.

If we can't legalize, at least decriminalize.

[AtLast]

the actual ins and outs of voting laws in each state is near mind boggling. it's a huge source of discouragement for many.

I understand this, but can't accept that it can not be changed- and I can see OWS as a vehicle to this change- not entirely, but a big part of what needs to happen. I honestly do feel this way. I know that the obsticles are many and so many of us are so damn frustrated too. I have been in this space many times before- but I also can look back at some very critical change factors following social movements that I have lived through. The ending of the Vietnam War is one example as well as the end to a military draft. Roe v. Wade is another. I was a kid for brown v. Board of Education and did not live in the South, but I remember changes even here in CA due to it. Also, civil rights legislation actually brought many people in states that are usually viewed as non-racist out of denial about the fact that racism is everywhere in the US. We may not have had signs posted about where and when POC could go- but it sure was implied behaviorally.

The only way a democracy can work is for people to participate even when we feel frustrated and angry. It has taken a hell of a lot of injustice, especially for younger people to say that is enough, but they are doing so and participating more and more. More and more older folks will join in too as they see that OWS isn't going away. POC unable to trust that this is their movement too will change that and participate in larger numbers. I have to have hope and the only way I can keep hope alive is to do whatever I can as an individual to participate and support this movement. No way am I going to sleep in a tent in winter- those days are gone for me and my older bones, but I will march, vote, reamin involved in local politics and sit with the old fart Republican poll workers during elections and watch every damn move they make!

[ruffryder]

.. and this is what you get for wearing a tent apparently. looks like sexual harrasment to me as they leave her nearly naked.


“This is not consensual,” the lady getting the tent ripped off said. “Don’t take my clothes off!”

The woman yelled as officers ripped and tore the tent dress until she was left in only her bra and panties. As she sat on the ground trying to cover herself, the police quickly turned and exited the park, neglecting to see if she was hurt.

“The Ethical Standards Department has subsequently received a physical assault complaint in relation to this incident and is investigating,” Victoria Police said in a statement.

“As this investigation is ongoing we will not be commenting further.”

Tal Slome, a spokeswoman for Occupy Melbourne, explained that the action was a “completely unnecessary form of brutality” because police knew she was only wearing underwear beneath the tent.

“Who decides what constitutes clothing in our society?” she asked.

http://www.rawstory.com


JAkUB7jRb2c



MtwuGAOR9a4

[ruffryder]

I ran across this video of the UC Davis Pepper Spraying. The maker of this video says,

"This video shows the events leading up to the use of pepper spray by UC Davis police officers. I made this from video I and a friend I was visiting shot. This video shows in chronological order events leading up to the use of pepper spray. I created the video from about an hour of footage, and much of what I cut was when people were standing around and chanting. There were cameras everywhere (on both sides of me and behind me), so I'm sure if you do a search you will be able to find video of the events from different angles. I encourage people to do their own research... the comments in the video are only opinions."



hhPdH3wE0_Y

[Toughy]

The vote and running for political office are the only ways citizens can effect a change in or keep our legislators on a city/county/state/federal level. Term limits are entirely up to citizens.

I have said over and over and over again that a Constitutional Convention should be forced by the individual state legislators. Yes, I know it opens a big ole can o worms around a woman's control of her own body, however it is necessary to change our political system.

1. Speech is not money at all ever. Corporations are not people...ever.
2. Public financing of all (I will settle for federal elections...the house, the senate and the president) elections. No private money can be used for political ads ever never again. No more lies in campaigns. The individual running for office is the only one allowed to put up a political ad. No more 'swift boat' crap.
3. Every citizen of this country (over age 18) has a right to vote,. You don't lose voting rights because of felonies, lack of documentation for an ID card or any other bullshit that might get thrown at you. In case you did not know....there is not a 'right to vote' clause in the Constitution. That is why poll taxes could exist until Congress overturned poll taxes.

Way back when I was a Republican (yes I was), I believed that real power is in local government and the federal government should be small....ya know....that state's right crap.... I am no longer a Republican, not because I no longer believe power is most effectively used at the city/county/state level, but because Republicans lost sight of individual rights and became enamored with corporate rights and money. They also lost sight of what a government is actually for....the people (ok my brain just went to the people united will never be divided) is what government is about.

I vehemently oppose ANY movement that suggests citizens abdicate our right to vote. I would suggest that part of the Constitutional Convention also contain an amendment granting the right to vote to every fucking citizen over the age of 18 (yes Perry it is 18) in this country. No losing your voting rights for felony convictions. No losing your voting rights because you cannot produce proof of citizenship (not the same as ID cards). Citizen gets to vote period.

This is what the Occupy movement is about. Fair play, economic and social justice for all....

[ruffryder]

December 6 - OWS calls for Occupy Homes. Occupy Homes, an offshoot of Occupy Wall Street, will protest in foreclosed and vacant properties in around 25 U.S. cities on Tuesday's "Day of Action," promoting what organizers call the "basic human right of housing."

This targets the banks and institutions offering incredible and outrageous loans to homebuyers and no help with foreclosure. It encourages Americans to transform their relationship with land and owning homes. People will be protesting foreclosures and auctions that will go on. In the coming months there are plans of more of this kind of protesting on foreclosures. Full story here > http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/261802/20111205/occupy-homes-protesters-target-foreclosures-dec-6.htm

[ruffryder]

3. Every citizen of this country (over age 18) has a right to vote,. You don't lose voting rights because of felonies, lack of documentation for an ID card or any other bullshit that might get thrown at you. In case you did not know....there is not a 'right to vote' clause in the Constitution. That is why poll taxes could exist until Congress overturned poll taxes.

........

I vehemently oppose ANY movement that suggests citizens abdicate our right to vote. I would suggest that part of the Constitutional Convention also contain an amendment granting the right to vote to every fucking citizen over the age of 18 (yes Perry it is 18) in this country. No losing your voting rights for felony convictions. No losing your voting rights because you cannot produce proof of citizenship (not the same as ID cards). Citizen gets to vote period.

This is what the Occupy movement is about. Fair play, economic and social justice for all....

Drugs, Voting, Citizenship may be a whole other thread in it's entirety. I'm still trying to grasp how this all comes together with the OWS movement and maybe that's why some people, including myself are confused with what people want to accomplish with Occupying. I do appreciate all the feedback here on my questions and trying to understand some of your points, so thank you all for the feedback and clarifying your thoughts.

I do not feel someone that is a criminal should have the same rights as a law abiding citizen. Voting should be a privilege to citizens who love their country and follow the basic rules. I am not okay with a sexual child predator voting on perhaps a bill about these types of criminals getting out of prison early for good behavior or being able to live in a neighborhood where there is a school. I also don't feel I would be comfortable with serial killers having a vote and say on anything. I am for the death penalty and feel if you want to save money on taxes on people in jail then use that for those that deserve it.

Why wouldn't a citizen be able to produce a document or ID that shows his/her citizenship status? Are you saying a foreigner should be able to vote in the U.S. elections and on U.S. and state bills just because they happen to be in the U.S. but have not received citizenship for whatever reason? What would be reasons for this and why is that okay?

Thank you.

[ruffryder]

December 5, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/

Pepper Spray, Tasers, and LRADs — What's Behind the Explosion of 'Less Lethal' Weapons for Crowd Control?

From the battlefield of Afghanistan to your local Occupation, the government has invested big bucks in weapons that don't cause permanent damage.


Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in the research and development of more "media-friendly" weapons for everyday policing and crowd control, and as uprisings around the world spread, the demand for nonlethal weapons is increasing.

According to an October report by the Homeland Security Research Corporation, the global market for "less lethal" weapons is predicted to triple by 2020, with more than half of the current market devoted to crowd dispersal weapons like those being used against protesters at Occupy Wall Street.

Americans have a rich history of taking to the streets to demand social justice. From the labor strikes of the progressive era to the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 60s and 70s, the reaction by the powers-that-be has been the same: send in the riot police. As the Occupy Wall Street movement advances this tradition, the powerful have again reacted with overwhelming force. But the riot police of yesterday were armed much differently than they are today.

Today’s arsenal includes a broad array of weapons that are meant, not to kill, but to force compliance by inflicting pain without leaving permanent injury. The Pentagon's approved term for these weapons is "non-lethal" or "less-lethal" and they are designed to disperse crowds, empty streets, and incapacitate defiant individuals.

As rapid advancements in media and telecommunications technologies allowed people to record and publicize images and video of undue force more than ever before, a 1997 joint report from the Pentagon and the Justice Department hinted at the purpose of nonlethal weapons:


A further consideration that affects how the military and law enforcement apply force is the greater presence of members of the media or other civilians who are observing, if not recording, the situation. Even the lawful application of force can be misrepresented to or misunderstood by the public. More than ever, the police and the military must be highly discreet when applying force.

As journalist Ando Arike wrote in a 2010 article in Harpers Magazine, "The result is what appears to be the first arms race in which the opponent is the general population.”

The Whole World Is Watching

The demand for non-lethal weapons is rooted in the rise of television, a medium that, in the ‘60s and ‘70s, let everyday Americans witness the violent tactics used to suppress the civil rights and anti-war movements of the era. This new dynamic popularized the slogan, “the whole world is watching”, chanted by antiwar protesters outside the Democratic National Convention in 1968 as TV cameras captured a police riot against peaceful demonstrators.

When Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) used nonviolent direct action to challenge segregation in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963, they captured unprecedented media attention as a thousand high school students took to the streets in defiance of a court injunction. On orders from Public Safety Commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor, officers attacked demonstrators with high-pressure fire hoses and police dogs. Scenes of the ensuing mayhem caused an international outcry, leading to federal intervention by the Kennedy administration.

Years later, King and the SCLC employed similar tactics in Selma, Alabama, where the police violently repressed civil rights activists. In what became known as “Bloody Sunday."

[Corkey]

Drugs, Voting, Citizenship may be a whole other thread in it's entirety. I'm still trying to grasp how this all comes together with the OWS movement and maybe that's why some people, including myself are confused with what people want to accomplish with Occupying. I do appreciate all the feedback here on my questions and trying to understand some of your points, so thank you all for the feedback and clarifying your thoughts.

I do not feel someone that is a criminal should have the same rights as a law abiding citizen. Voting should be a privilege to citizens who love their country and follow the basic rules. I am not okay with a sexual child predator voting on perhaps a bill about these types of criminals getting out of prison early for good behavior or being able to live in a neighborhood where there is a school. I also don't feel I would be comfortable with serial killers having a vote and say on anything. I am for the death penalty and feel if you want to save money on taxes on people in jail then use that for those that deserve it.

Why wouldn't a citizen be able to produce a document or ID that shows his/her citizenship status? Are you saying a foreigner should be able to vote in the U.S. elections and on U.S. and state bills just because they happen to be in the U.S. but have not received citizenship for whatever reason? What would be reasons for this and why is that okay?

Thank you.

Ruff, voting is a right of every citizen, I would go so far as to say a duty, it however is not a privilege, that's driving. If a convicted criminal has served their time, and are not under any further parole, then they have done their time and should be considered a full citizen. The Constitution made no proof of citizenship to vote, states have usurped the federal voting rights law, and are now enacting their own set of rules. Until someone steps up and challenges them they will get away with voter suppression.

[Toughy]

I'm gonna do this point by point because it is necessary and in this color.

Drugs, Voting, Citizenship may be a whole other thread in it's entirety. I'm still trying to grasp how this all comes together with the OWS movement and maybe that's why some people, including myself are confused with what people want to accomplish with Occupying. I do appreciate all the feedback here on my questions and trying to understand some of your points, so thank you all for the feedback and clarifying your thoughts.

The Occupy movement (across the world...not just the US) is about fair play and social economic justice. Corporations are NOT people. Government exists to protect the people....the people IS you, me and every other homo sapien on this planet

I do not feel someone that is a criminal should have the same rights as a law abiding citizen. Who decides who is a criminal? I smoke dope and have for years and yet according to CA law, it's legal as a medicine, however I go to jail (a felony depending on quantify and lose the vote) if you are talking about Federal Law. Am I a criminal who should not be able to vote?

Voting should be a privilege to citizens who love their country and follow the basic rules.

Voting IS NOT a privilege. It is a right in a democracy and many democracys around the world assert that as fact. In case you did not know......the US is not the only democracy in the world. I lived in a democracy that gave me far more rights and privileges than I receive today as a US citizen. I lived in New Zealand.

I am not okay with a sexual child predator voting on perhaps a bill about these types of criminals getting out of prison early for good behavior or being able to live in a neighborhood where there is a school. I also don't feel I would be comfortable with serial killers having a vote and say on anything. I am for the death penalty and feel if you want to save money on taxes on people in jail then use that for those that deserve it.

So the sexual predator who is 19 years old and committed the act of having consensual sex with a 17 year old, which is pedophilia in many states, should not get to vote? Where should this person live? I don't believe in the death penalty so should I not be allowed to vote? I would rather 100 guilty men go free than have the STATE execute an innocent man. The death penalty is racist in this country. You want to save taxes by killing innocent people? A brave new world eating soma comes to my mind.

Why wouldn't a citizen be able to produce a document or ID that shows his/her citizenship status?

My grandmother had no birth certificate. She was born in 1898 in what is now know as Texas. When she was 3 years old she and her family came to southeast NM by covered wagon. THere is NO record of her birth. You think she should not have been able to vote? She could not proof she was born in the US. She could not prove she was a citizen. FFS.........get out of your white privilege and open eyes.

Are you saying a foreigner should be able to vote in the U.S. elections and on U.S. and state bills just because they happen to be in the U.S. but have not received citizenship for whatever reason? What would be reasons for this and why is that okay?

Why put words in my mouth. I used the word citizen in ALL my comments.

I won't even go to what I really think about what citizenship means.......let's just use the current definition of born in this country or naturalized.

Personally I think an uneducated, unthinking person born in this country citizen is a far greater threat to our Constitution than someone busted for possession of a Schedule I drug or an undocumented family living here and paying taxes could ever be.

Thank you.

Pay attention

[ruffryder]

Thanks for the responses.

I said a "CHILD" sexual predator nothing about sexual consent. Whether a consent of sex or a rape being questioned is consented to is a matter of she said, he said. A child is totally different than what you are refering to and what I said.

As for a what constitutes a criminal, you tell me? You are the one that stated no voting rights should be lost to those that have felonies. Are you saying any one that has felonies, no matter what they are or how many they have should be ok to vote on any thing if they are serving a sentence even if it refers to justice and them being held accountable for their criminal acts?

I also did not say those that do not believe in the death penalty should not vote? I said I believe in the death penalty and I believe in it if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and if someone said, "oh yeah I killed those 100 people." I do not think the death penalty should be given to innocent people. Yes, there have been cases where it was administered and there were questions if it should have been and if it was justified. We may not be able to pick and choose but there is a case if we make amendments to include evidence and without a reasonable doubt that someone that is a criminal may be able to vote for to allow this if we look at the way you would like criminals to be able to vote. In regards to the OWS movement I stated I believe in the death penalty as a way to lower taxes and diminish the prison population.

As for not having a birth certificate or no record of it, I think the laws have changed for that over the years and people started receiving birth certificates at one point. I know refugees currently coming over from Africa and they had no clue when they were born and were given resident cards based on what they thought was correct. Oh I'm sure some may have been older or younger than what they thought. So, I'm sure nowadays there is no question to determine if someone is a citizen or not. People come from other countries all the time and gain citizenship status. For your definition of citizenship as born here or naturalized there should be no reason now why their wouldn't be a record of it.

[GeorgiaMa'am]

2. I read a terrifying little book in high school called Animal Farm, which should be required reading. It is Orwell's satire of the Russian Revolution, and I know some would say we're already there in our own country. I know OWS is run apparently without leaders, all are equal, and majority votes and all that. How would the movement, if it grows, handle the human nature to divide up into classes, as the animals do? The novel starts with good intentions and a utopian idea but goes haywire. If you do elect leaders, are they not more powerful themselves by definition?

I can see we'll never agree, but I'm trying to see your side.

An egalitarian utopia is an extreme ideal. A democratic free market is also an extreme ideal.

However, human beings don't thrive within extreme idealism. It's impossible to come up with a system of government that treats everyone fairly in all circumstances. So humans swing back and forth between ideals - conservatism and liberalism, communism and fascism, fanaticism and atheism, etc. - and I HOPE (and in my more Disney moments I think most people hope) that we continually work toward some kind of moderation and balance.
Unfortunately, sometimes the momentum of a swing in one direction is too much. Then we become entrenched in some extreme and it's harder to get back to the middle.

I'm sure you can think of lots of examples when a group went too far in one direction: Nazi Germany, Jonestown, the Salem Witch Trials. When a movement goes too far in one direction, it loses touch with its source of critical inquiry, and therefore loses its integrity and focus on its original goals. In other words, it becomes a mob.

And since I'm on my soapbox, I'll say I think the U.S. has gotten disturbingly far away from its original goals. What were those? Why, they were written down and called the Bill of Rights. They were limitations on the government to protect personal freedom.

Let's review:

1. Freedom of speech, the press and assembly. OWS, police raids - exactly what we've been discussing here. (I used to work in journalism - the oldest joke in the business was that freedom of the press only belongs to the publisher - in other words, whoever owns the press.)

2. The right to keep and bear arms. Threatened constantly by liberals and conservatives, each in their own way. Easily obtained weapons cause problems. But still - if only one side has all the weapons, the other doesn't stand a chance.

3. Protection from quartering of troops. Well, we do spend a lot of money, and give up a lot of personal freedom, to maintain police forces and the military. But they aren't living in my spare bedroom and eating at my kitchen table - yet.

4. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Did you read those articles just a few posts up explaining how the police don't bother with getting warrants any more? They just send in militarized SWAT units to overwhelm with force. (And anything they seize, as in, "We found half a 20-year-old joint in your scrapbook so we're going to take your house and everything you own and send you to jail and we don't care if it leaves your family homeless," goes to finance their own operations - see #3.)

This is too depressing. Somebody else pick up here, if you wish. I'm getting down off my soapbox - I'm dizzy. If you stuck with me this long, thanks - you went above and beyond the call.

[GeorgiaMa'am]

Ruffryder - Corkey - Toughy!

Before you continue, as you like, may I please just use this as an example:

This is how the power of good, thoughtful, concerned people - which you ALL seem to be - gets sucked out of doing anything good and making any progress.

I wish people wouldn't give their power away by wasting it on matters that can't be solved immediately and which deserve further discussion and deeper reflection to reach a resolution. I wish they would just go to the bar and start a fight over a pool game or something else inconsequential, if what they really want is a fight. Or that they wouldn't go for the easy kill just to get some satisfaction during a discussion about decidedly frustrating matters.

Why wouldn't people who are trying to express themselves give others the benefit of the doubt? Why wouldn't they acknowledge that, although people may sometimes mis-speak, that doesn't discredit the entirety of what they say? Why can't they acknowledge that although others haven't explored some issues, it doesn't make their other beliefs invalid?

These are the only other people in the Entire World who are willing and able to engage with you at This Moment about something that is obviously important to you. I encourage you to appreciate each other, not tear each other down. Save your energy for the real fight.

Now please return to your regularly scheduled lives, and tear me apart as you wish. Or, don't.

[Corkey]

Ruffryder - Corkey - Toughy!

Before you continue, as you like, may I please just use this as an example:

This is how the power of good, thoughtful, concerned people - which you ALL seem to be - gets sucked out of doing anything good and making any progress.

I wish people wouldn't give their power away by wasting it on matters that can't be solved immediately and which deserve further discussion and deeper reflection to reach a resolution. I wish they would just go to the bar and start a fight over a pool game or something else inconsequential, if what they really want is a fight. Or that they wouldn't go for the easy kill just to get some satisfaction during a discussion about decidedly frustrating matters.

Why wouldn't people who are trying to express themselves give others the benefit of the doubt? Why wouldn't they acknowledge that, although people may sometimes mis-speak, that doesn't discredit the entirety of what they say? Why can't they acknowledge that although others haven't explored some issues, it doesn't make their other beliefs invalid?

These are the only other people in the Entire World who are willing and able to engage with you at This Moment about something that is obviously important to you. I encourage you to appreciate each other, not tear each other down. Save your energy for the real fight.

Now please return to your regularly scheduled lives, and tear me apart as you wish. Or, don't.

Excuse me, I was answering Ruff, whom I know and not having a discussion with you. I encourage you to take this as good hearted as I answered Ruff. Sometimes it isn't in the delivery but in the readers mind.

[Toughy]

[Cagain me in this colorOLOR="DarkOliveGreen"][/COLOR]

Thanks for the responses.

I said a "CHILD" sexual predator nothing about sexual consent. Whether a consent of sex or a rape being questioned is consented to is a matter of she said, he said. A child is totally different than what you are refering to and what I said.

Who defines 'child'? I know more than one person in the state of New Mexico who is forever doomed to registering as a pedophile because they had consensual sex defined by the laws of NM as pedophilia. The 'pedophile' must register and are subject to all kinds of horrors because a priest abused them when they were a 'child' and that pedophile is simply acting out an innocent sexual activity with a peer? At what age can consent be given. If you are talking about clinical drug trials, a 12 yr old can give consent to participating in a clinical trial. What is consent? When can consent be given? Does age and type of consent for different activities make a difference?

Why is a 12 year old 'child' consenting to sex with a 19 year old different from a 12 year old consenting to take an experimental drug that could render them _________ different from sex consent. WHAT IS the aqe of consent? States differ unimaginably on this issue.

Truth is it does not matter. Why does being a less than member of society deny you the right to vote for representation?

As for a what constitutes a criminal, you tell me? You are the one that stated no voting rights should be lost to those that have felonies. Are you saying any one that has felonies, no matter what they are or how many they have should be ok to vote on any thing if they are serving a sentence even if it refers to justice and them being held accountable for their criminal acts?

EVERY CITIZEN (above age 18) HAS THE RIGHT TO VOTE. I cannot make it more clear

I also did not say those that do not believe in the death penalty should not vote? I said I believe in the death penalty and I believe in it if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and if someone said, "oh yeah I killed those 100 people." I do not think the death penalty should be given to innocent people. Yes, there have been cases where it was administered and there were questions if it should have been and if it was justified. We may not be able to pick and choose but there is a case if we make amendments to include evidence and without a reasonable doubt that someone that is a criminal may be able to vote for to allow this if we look at the way you would like criminals to be able to vote. In regards to the OWS movement I stated I believe in the death penalty as a way to lower taxes and diminish the prison population.




As for not having a birth certificate or no record of it, I think the laws have changed for that over the years and people started receiving birth certificates at one point. I know refugees currently coming over from Africa and they had no clue when they were born and were given resident cards based on what they thought was correct. Oh I'm sure some may have been older or younger than what they thought. So, I'm sure nowadays there is no question to determine if someone is a citizen or not. People come from other countries all the time and gain citizenship status. For your definition of citizenship as born here or naturalized there should be no reason now why their wouldn't be a record of it.

you are a fucking idiot who should be denied the right to be a citizen of this country (which as a matter of ethics I would never do). In 1972, I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of this country. You....are an abomination to what I swore to uphold. Jesse Ventura...a navy seal.....called on ALL veterans to remember the oath we took........that oath was to 'uphold the Constitution'...........

I ask every single veteran who did swear to uphold the Constitution to re-affirm that oath and Occupy the Constitution.............


I am so fuckin done with this stupid crap...............

[SoNotHer]

I think Toughy and RR are having a good if heated discussion, but I appreciate GeogiaMa'am's post and had to laugh a little. It would be ideal to have this discussion over a pool table and drinks. And yes, Corkey is answering question with a response that I agree with. If America is truly a democracy, then voting is a right. My most recent NAACP letter addresses this.

Of Animal Farm and its messages, it's probably good to keep a few things in context. The book offers a satirical look at early communism. Orwell himself was a critic of Stalin and Stalinist policies, had difficulty finding a publisher for the book because of this, and identified more as a socialist democrat. Through a glass darkly, the book explores the idea of common wealth and equality in a realistic and dystopic vision that ultimately leads to the realization that "some animals are more equal than others."

Of course Orwell gave us another vision in 1984 - that of three super powers, Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia, in a perpetual state of war with the all-knowing and seeing ministries of truth, peace, plenty and love guiding individual actions, and thoughts ultimately toward a collective resignation of any other love before the love of Big Brother and love itself as an act of dissent. Scary stuff, or at least it is to me, and it feels like we're getting a little too close to this vision in our own realities.

[Toughy]

let us not get into literary derails.......I am currently reading the unabridged version of Stranger in a Strange Land. I grok in the fullness of time......when I don't...

Idiocy around the Constitution makes me unreasonable. I doubt anyone who has never taken an 'oath to uphold the Constitution'.......understands what that mean.

All y'all.............would you willingly take an

'oath to uphold the Constutution against all enemies foriegn and domestic' seriously...........

think about it............that means I will work to overthrow a government that subverts the Constitution ..........and I will do it in spite of orders from my superiors.........mutiny if required to uphold that oath..................

[Corkey]

let us not get into literary derails.......I am currently reading the unabridged version of Stranger in a Strange Land. I grok in the fullness of time......when I don't...

Idiocy around the Constitution makes me unreasonable. I doubt anyone who has never taken an 'oath to uphold the Constitution'.......understands what that mean.

All y'all.............would you willingly take an

'oath to uphold the Constutution against all enemies foriegn and domestic' seriously...........

think about it............that means I will work to overthrow a government that subverts the Constitution ..........and I will do it in spite of orders from my superiors.........mutiny if required to uphold that oath..................

My allegiance is to the Constitution not any one party or government. I took that Oath as well, our elected leaders forget they took the same exact Oath and have forsworn to another (Norquist) They have perpetrated Treason.

[Dominique]

My allegiance is to the Constitution not any one party or government. I took that Oath as well, our elected leaders forget they took the same exact Oath and have forsworn to another (Norquist) They have perpetrated Treason.


Hmmm, Interesting. Do you mean our elected leaders have created war against (we) the people?

If so, nicely stated.

[Corkey]

Hmmm, Interesting. Do you mean our elected leaders have created war against (we) the people?

If so, nicely stated.

Any elected member of Congress or the Senate or the the Presidency that signs a pledge that usurps the Oath of office, yes they have perpetrated Treason. It is the duty of every armed service member to uphold their Oath of allegiance to the Constitution, not to individual entities. Remember they work for us. Treason is not war, it is an act against the Constitution.

[GeorgiaMa'am]

I doubt anyone who has never taken an 'oath to uphold the Constitution'.......understands what that mean.

All y'all.............would you willingly take an

'oath to uphold the Constutution against all enemies foriegn and domestic' seriously...........

think about it............that means I will work to overthrow a government that subverts the Constitution ..........and I will do it in spite of orders from my superiors.........mutiny if required to uphold that oath..................

Short answer: No, I wouldn't.

Longer answer: I understand the implications of oaths and why it's imperative that they be honored. I am really grateful that there are people, such as you, who take this particular oath and follow through with whatever is required. I am relieved that there are people like you who are on "my side". It is people like you who enable me to have the freedom to examine and critique and explore whatever I think will ultimately make the world a better place.

Believe me, I completely understand that if people like myself didn't have protectors, we'd be killed early in the fight and then the world would belong to the biggest military power, no matter what they believed in. They might even do a better job running the place. But it would be a world created by a smaller portion of all the people who could have lived and contributed and loved and worked and created, if the physically weak hadn't been protected.

Summary: I wouldn't take that oath because my loyalty is to Truth, Love, Beauty and the Universe. The power of Good. The Force. God/dess. Laugh if you will, call me naive, but somebody has to do it, or there will be no one around to point out the possibilities of what we could become. It's simply in my nature to be this way - it's how I think. So no, I'd never honestly be able to take that oath, because I would always reserve the right to question it, to make sure it continued to support Everything That's Important and didn't become misused and warped.

But thank you for taking it.

[Toughy]

economic and social justice............for all


check your local news about occupy no foreclosure,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Toughy]

Short answer: No, I wouldn't.

Longer answer: I understand the implications of oaths and why it's imperative that they be honored. I am really grateful that there are people, such as you, who take this particular oath and follow through with whatever is required. I am relieved that there are people like you who are on "my side". It is people like you who enable me to have the freedom to examine and critique and explore whatever I think will ultimately make the world a better place.

Believe me, I completely understand that if people like myself didn't have protectors, we'd be killed early in the fight and then the world would belong to the biggest military power, no matter what they believed in. They might even do a better job running the place. But it would be a world created by a smaller portion of all the people who could have lived and contributed and loved and worked and created, if the physically weak hadn't been protected.

Summary: I wouldn't take that oath because my loyalty is to Truth, Love, Beauty and the Universe. The power of Good. The Force. God/dess. Laugh if you will, call me naive, but somebody has to do it, or there will be no one around to point out the possibilities of what we could become. It's simply in my nature to be this way - it's how I think. So no, I'd never honestly be able to take that oath, because I would always reserve the right to question it, to make sure it continued to support Everything That's Important and didn't become misused and warped.

But thank you for taking it.

laughin.............

I will be back to talk about this...........but not now...........

just as a point......My oath was to all those ideals of truth, good , love and all that blah blah blah...read the document I swore fealty to........

I am secure in my belief and sworn oath to a voice of equality for all

[GeorgiaMa'am]

economic and social justice............for all


check your local news about occupy no foreclosure,,,,,,,,,,,,

Awesome! Words are great, but action is more satisfying. Let's all go lie down in front of a bulldozer and handcuff ourselves to each other!

[Medusa]

[Cagain me in this colorOLOR="DarkOliveGreen"][/COLOR]

you are a fucking idiot who should be denied the right to be a citizen of this country (which as a matter of ethics I would never do). In 1972, I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of this country. You....are an abomination to what I swore to uphold. Jesse Ventura...a navy seal.....called on ALL veterans to remember the oath we took........that oath was to 'uphold the Constitution'...........

I ask every single veteran who did swear to uphold the Constitution to re-affirm that oath and Occupy the Constitution.............


I am so fuckin done with this stupid crap...............


Toughy-


Your post was reported for ugly name-calling.

I get that you are pissed off but it is not ok to call people names anywhere on this forum. You are now on a two week time-out.

During that time-out you are not to access this site, our Facebook page, or make a second screen name in order to circumvent the system.

Thanks,
Medusa

[Corkey]

Awesome! Words are great, but action is more satisfying. Let's all go lie down in front of a bulldozer and handcuff ourselves to each other!


So what is your alternative? What would you do?

[GeorgiaMa'am]

read the document I swore fealty to........
(@Toughy - I will! I don't think I've ever read it before. I'm interested now.)

[GeorgiaMa'am]

So what is your alternative? What would you do?

I wasn't being sarcastic. I was serious. I think it's Brilliant. Even if I don't lie down in front of a bulldozer, I'll find a way to support it. I can at least find the Atlanta one and drop off some pizzas and water. (And I was also trying to make a handcuff joke, but no one bit. Never mind that part.)

[Corkey]

Yea lead balloon.

[persiphone]

I wasn't being sarcastic. I was serious. I think it's Brilliant. Even if I don't lie down in front of a bulldozer, I'll find a way to support it. I can at least find the Atlanta one and drop off some pizzas and water. (And I was also trying to make a handcuff joke, but no one bit. Never mind that part.)


i liked it.

as for me...i write "Occupy" on every piece of paper currency that passes through my hands in a black sharpie. it's created some interesting conversations at the grocery store, the credit union, the bookstore, the utility companies ( i like to walk my payments in), anyplace where i buy anything with cash.

[SoNotHer]

If literature "derails," then maybe we should find another track. Writers and artists have been giving us visions of the past, present and future for some time now. And if these visions represent derailments, may we need to be stopped and taken off course and be forced to look at the paths we're on. Stranger in a Strange Land may well be the right place to begin our new journey.

The funny thing about democracy is that it's like conversation. It relies on patience, respect and a fundamental belief in equality. You may not agree with what someone is saying, but you pay them the respect of listening because that's what's right and because you want them to hear what you're saying.

Creativity, individuality, the promise of the human mind - these are all things I value, defend, cultivate and work with every day as a teacher and against increasing odds. And I suspect others on this thread do exactly the same thing in their personal and professional lives.

let us not get into literary derails.......I am currently reading the unabridged version of Stranger in a Strange Land. I grok in the fullness of time......when I don't...

Idiocy around the Constitution makes me unreasonable. I doubt anyone who has never taken an 'oath to uphold the Constitution'.......understands what that mean.

All y'all.............would you willingly take an

'oath to uphold the Constutution against all enemies foriegn and domestic' seriously...........

think about it............that means I will work to overthrow a government that subverts the Constitution ..........and I will do it in spite of orders from my superiors.........mutiny if required to uphold that oath..................

[AtLast]

December 6 - OWS calls for Occupy Homes. Occupy Homes, an offshoot of Occupy Wall Street, will protest in foreclosed and vacant properties in around 25 U.S. cities on Tuesday's "Day of Action," promoting what organizers call the "basic human right of housing."

This targets the banks and institutions offering incredible and outrageous loans to homebuyers and no help with foreclosure. It encourages Americans to transform their relationship with land and owning homes. People will be protesting foreclosures and auctions that will go on. In the coming months there are plans of more of this kind of protesting on foreclosures. Full story here > http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/261802/20111205/occupy-homes-protesters-target-foreclosures-dec-6.htm

These Occupy efforts really are important. I am elated to see these actions begin and spread throughout Occupy demonstrations all over. Wouldn't it be something if somehow an independent "mortgage" company sprung from this? Something that could just pay-off the loans and re-sell the home to people at low interest rates and the principal amount of the market today. And no FICO scores required! So many of these people could pay a sane mortgage- some have become re-employed, but at lower take-home pay. Maybe even a "grace period" of a few months until payments began (with no accrued interest) if they are not yet back to work.

I had a fantasy today about winning the super-duper lottery and setting up a non-profit re-finance that is totally different than traditional profit motivated banks and mortgage companies that could intervene and partner with the Occupy movement to save these homes. LOL- I don't even buy lottery tickets- but it was the only thing I could think of to do something like this.

I know, I'm not a good candidate for running a business. Anyway- any focus on the housing situation and those losing their homes due to the Wall Street greed that brought our economy to where it did, excites me. There was predatory lending going on with junk securities bundled and sold at insane profits. Relaxing mortgage qualifying documentation and requirements made it very easy to rope all of these people in- and that was exactly what they wanted to do.

[GeorgiaMa'am]

I had a fantasy today about winning the super-duper lottery and setting up a non-profit re-finance that is totally different than traditional profit motivated banks and mortgage companies that could intervene and partner with the Occupy movement to save these homes. LOL- I don't even buy lottery tickets- but it was the only thing I could think of to do something like this.

I know, I'm not a good candidate for running a business.

You go, George Bailey! You go! (Just watched _It's A Wonderful Life_ this past weekend for the I-won't-say-how-many-Christmases-in-a-row. Down with Potterville! Honestly, if you need a temporary escape from the crisis, it's a good movie - unless you can't stand sugary-sweet escapism.)

[atomiczombie]

HrXyLrTRXso

[ruffryder]

GeorgiaMa'am with all due respect I appreciate the discussion and Corkey and Toughy and anyone else that responds to My questions.

Yes these are matters that deserve further discussion and not everyone has the same beliefs but nonetheless I respect everyones opinion and try to see their point. It doesn't mean I won't debate it or question it. I've been known to change My mind on some things. Just to be clear I am not here to fight. I am here to have an opinion also and feel free to understand others. I'm sorry if people get upset by that or see me as trying to cause problems cause that is not me. I respect everybody and their opinions.
I do give people the benefit of the doubt. I never said anyones points were not valid and I was just trying to understand some ones view. I was not tearing anyone down. I don't appreciate name calling and i do appreciate others here and the discussion. I have seen people torn down although and I don't understand where that comes from. A bad day? It's a shame some won't make discussion or voice their opinion because others are hateful towards them. I will voice my opinion and I have always been respectful doing so and appreciating others thoughts. So I do thank you for those that do appreciate that also.

[Sachita]

Build the New Economy - Generate Alternatives
Across the world millions of people are actively resisting the process of corporate globalization while simultaneously creating viable local alternatives in the here and now. This powerful emerging movement represents a radical departure from ‘business as usual’. In place of the imposition of a single, global world economy, the new paradigm seeks ‘a world that embraces many worlds’ – an adapting biocultural mosaic rather than a global monoculture. Proponents of this approach call for ‘small scale on a large scale’ rather than one-size-fits-all, ‘too big to fail’ blueprints. In turn, the kind of solutions that are being generated flow from diversity, are attentive to the ecological particularities of place, are more responsive to social needs, and are often far more equitable, participatory and democratic.



Help create the new economy from the ground up!




http://www.theeconomicsofhappiness.org/generate-alternatives-take-back-the-economy

[SoNotHer]

The video is worth watching, folks, especially if you are just coming into the dialogue here and haven't read about the act yet. The Senate just passed this bill last week. The bill allows for indefinite detention in secret prisons, secret interrogations and trial-free domestic terror proceedings and processes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/12/05/the-national-defense-authorization-act-is-the-greatest-threat-to-civil-liberties-americans-face/

http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/president-obama-veto-the-defense-authorization-act/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/06/1042827/-The-Constitution-and-The-National-Defense-Authorization-Act-of-2012


HrXyLrTRXso

[AtLast]

You go, George Bailey! You go! (Just watched _It's A Wonderful Life_ this past weekend for the I-won't-say-how-many-Christmases-in-a-row. Down with Potterville! Honestly, if you need a temporary escape from the crisis, it's a good movie - unless you can't stand sugary-sweet escapism.)

Well thank you! One of my favorite Christmas movies! I just can't help but think there is a way to tackle this problem via OWS. I really am happy to see the Occupy people in many places on the lawns of foreclosure situations. A couple of these actions have helped get some more time for some folks. We need to get these properties completely out of the hands of banks and re-structure loans based upon actual market values today. Just that would enable many to stay in their homes and pay it off. Some of the bogus loan products people were sold were just nuts! Some of these loans can't even be traced to wherever they ended up!

Oh, I can deal with sugary-sweet escapism!

[atomiczombie]

This past Sunday 60 minutes did a segment on all the fraud that went on at banks such as Countrywide and how no one in the SEC or FBI is willing to do a serious investigation or prosecute them. This link has a transcript and video of the show:

http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com//diane-sweet/60-minutes-asks-why-arent-we-prosecuti

Here's a snippet of the interview:

Steve Kroft: Do you believe that there are people at Countrywide who belong behind bars?

Eileen Foster: Yes.

Kroft: Do you want to give me their names?

Foster: No.

Kroft: Would you give their names to a grand jury if you were asked?

Foster: Yes.

But Eileen Foster has never been asked - and never spoken to the Justice Department - even though she was Countrywide's executive vice president in charge of fraud investigations. At the height of the housing bubble, Countrywide Financial was the largest mortgage lender in the country and the loans it made were among the worst, a third ending up in foreclosure or default, many because of mortgage fraud.

It was Foster's job to monitor and investigate allegations of fraud against Countrywide employees and make sure they were reported to the Board of Directors and the Treasury Department.

Kroft: How much fraud was there at Countrywide?

Foster: From what I saw, the types of things I saw, it was-- it appeared systemic. It, it wasn't just one individual or two or three individuals, it was branches of individuals, it was regions of individuals.

Kroft: What you seem to be saying was it was just a way of doing business?

Foster: Yes.

In 2007, Foster sent a team to the Boston area to search several branch offices of Countrywide's subprime division - the division that lent to borrowers with poor credit. The investigators rummaged through the office's recycling bins and found evidence that Countrywide loan officers were forging and manipulating borrowers' income and asset statements to help them get loans they weren't qualified for and couldn't afford.

Foster: All of the-- the recycle bins, whenever we looked through those they were full of, you know, signatures that had been cut off of one document and put onto another and then photocopied, you know, or faxed and then the-- you know, the creation thrown-- thrown in the recycle bin.

[atomiczombie]

The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to support a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment that would assert that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights, and that money is not the same as free speech.

The resolution was backed by Move to Amend, a national coalition working to abolish corporate personhood and overturn U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United ruling. The decision gave corporations and unions the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, so long as their actions are not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.

“Move to Amend’s proposed amendment would provide the basis for overturning the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,” stated Mary Beth Fielder, Co-Coordinator of LA Move to Amend. “The Supreme Court has no legitimate right to grant people’s rights to corporations. We must clearly establish that it is we, The People, who are meant to rule.”

City Council President Eric Garcetti sponsored the resolution, according to the Los Angeles Times. He said the largely-symbolic legislation was necessary because “big special interest money” was causing gridlock in Washington.

Move to Amend hopes that to get similar resolutions approved across the nation through city councils and direct vote by ballot initiative.

“Our plan is build a movement that will drive this issue into Congress from the grassroots,” stated Mary Beth Fielder, Co-Coordinator of LA Move to Amend. “The American people are behind us on this and these campaigns help our federal representatives see that we mean business. Our very democracy is at stake. Our goal is for 50 towns and cities to put Move to Amend’s resolution on the ballot for the Presidential election in November, 2012.”

Democratic Sens. Tom Udall of New Mexico and Michael Bennet of Colorado have introduced a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United by granting Congress and the states the authority to regulate the campaign finance system. The amendment would not dictate any specific policies or regulations, Udall said, so that it could garner some support from Republicans, who have blocked attempts to overturn the ruling in the past.

LINK: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/06/los-angeles-votes-to-end-to-corporate-personhood/

[Corkey]

From Dylan Rattan show Mass. Attorney General has joined several States Attorney Generals to investigate mortgage corporations. Doing Holters job for him.

[AtLast]

LINK: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/06/los-angeles-votes-to-end-to-corporate-personhood/

Yes! This is exactly what needs to be done! No easy task, but must happen. This would be such a great OWS focus nationwide. The Citizens United decision is so very much at the core of why there has been such wage disparity in the US for so long.

[SoNotHer]

"Los Angeles is the first major city in the United States to call for a constitutional amendment that clearly establishes that human being and only human beings are entitled to constitutional rights and that money is not the same as free speech, thus providing the basis to overturn Citizen's United decision."

0EowNLWa7eQ

[SoNotHer]

http://action.naacp.org/page/-/images/email/bg-header-email.jpg

Legislators around the nation have been working to strip or severely restrict the right of their fellow Americans to vote. They claim to be preventing voter fraud. They deny that their goal is to suppress the votes of people of color, students, the elderly, and the poor. The truth is their efforts amount to nothing more than a scheme to undo generations of work securing the voting rights for all Americans. The NAACP and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund have released an important new report on the relationship between the historic levels of participation in the 2008 election and the new voter suppression bills proposed and passed by legislatures around the country. The report removes any doubt about our opponents' intent, and we must not ignore this attack.

Take a moment to read the report and find out the truth. Then make sure your friends and family know about it too:

http://action.naacp.org/defending-democracy-report

The report, "Defending Democracy: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America," provides indisputable evidence of a coordinated attack intended to silence the communities who turned out in record-breaking numbers in 2008: young people and communities of color. The report exposes the reasons why new stringent voter ID requirements, bans on the formerly incarcerated -- people who have already paid their debt to society -- and suppressive rules on voter registration and early voting periods are being pursued.

In short, these laws threaten to undermine the record levels of political participation witnessed during the historic 2008 Presidential election by blocking access to millions of people, many of them our most vulnerable citizens. And it's no coincidence that this comprehensive assault was launched just in time to affect the 2012 election.

You can find full details of the voter suppression initiatives in the report. More importantly, the report provides a roadmap for our communities to begin to actively counter these block-the-vote efforts. "Defending Democracy" is eye opening, and serves as the backbone for our Stand For Freedom Rally at the United Nations in New York City on December 10th. Please take a moment to download the report and spread the word to friends and family:

http://action.naacp.org/defending-democracy-report

Today we face one of the biggest threats to civil rights in over a century. If these powerful forces capture our right to vote, the other rights we care so deeply about -- education, health care, equality for all -- could be at risk.

Thank you in advance for learning more about this crucial issue and taking action in your community.

Yours in justice,

Kim

Kim Michele Keenan, Esq.
General Counsel
NAACP

[MsMerrick]

Standing for Freedom
( copied from http://www.stand4freedom.org/ )

This year, two-thirds of state legislatures have introduced laws that undermine the right to vote. Early voting and Sunday voting are under attack, photo ID requirements will introduce the first financial and document barrier to voting since the poll tax, and racially-motivated bans on ex-felons will wipe tens of thousands off the rolls.

This effort is unprecedented, it is coordinated, and it is targeted. African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Native Americans, students, working women, seniors and immigrants of all colors will be disproportionately affected.

The right to vote is the heart of our democracy. Throughout our history Americans have been murdered for defending this basic human right. We will not let it be taken away from millions today.

Join us on Saturday, December 10th—The United Nations’ Human Rights Day—to proclaim to America and the world:

It’s time to Stand for Freedom. We must protect our right to vote.
Assembly and March Information

10:30 am to 11:30 am: assemble 61st St. and Madison Ave., the Koch brothers' NYC office.

11:30 am: March from 61st St. and Madison Ave. to Dag Hammarskjold Plaza at 47th St. and 2nd Ave.

12:30 pm: Rally at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza across from the United Nations.

End copy and paste

Join me anyone? Give a yell if you want to meet up...

[MsMerrick]

If there is a separate thread for discussion of teh Citizen's United Case, I'll post this there also.
But meanwhile, if you , like me, believe that Corporations are NOT people, granted the same rights of Free Speech, PLEASE, help correct the Citizen's United Decision with this Constitutional Amendment . This is the time, there is awareness growing all over, even in L.A. :)
Sign Senator Sanders Petition and share widely !!! (http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c)

[SoNotHer]

Signed. Thank you for posting this.

If there is a separate thread for discussion of teh Citizen's United Case, I'll post this there also.
But meanwhile, if you , like me, believe that Corporations are NOT people, granted the same rights of Free Speech, PLEASE, help correct the Citizen's United Decision with this Constitutional Amendment . This is the time, there is awareness growing all over, even in L.A. :)
Sign Senator Sanders Petition and share widely !!! (http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c)

[persiphone]

slightly off topic but i find it relevant....here's what the military thinks about it's members


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/air-force-dumped-ashes-of-more-troops-in-va-landfill-than-acknowledged/2011/12/07/gIQAT8ybdO_story.html?wprss=


horrifying really.

[AtLast]

If there is a separate thread for discussion of teh Citizen's United Case, I'll post this there also.
But meanwhile, if you , like me, believe that Corporations are NOT people, granted the same rights of Free Speech, PLEASE, help correct the Citizen's United Decision with this Constitutional Amendment . This is the time, there is awareness growing all over, even in L.A. :)
Sign Senator Sanders Petition and share widely !!! (http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c)

Please circulate on FB, Twitter.... and bump a lot!! Thanks MsMerrick!

[atomiczombie]

http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz56/atomiczombie/savingdemocracyamend.jpg

[atomiczombie]

slightly off topic but i find it relevant....here's what the military thinks about it's members


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/air-force-dumped-ashes-of-more-troops-in-va-landfill-than-acknowledged/2011/12/07/gIQAT8ybdO_story.html?wprss=


horrifying really.

That is FUBAR. Why isn't there more reports of this in the main stream press?

[atomiczombie]

VY1zRQzTlL8

[DapperButch]

Didn't notice this posted in the thread:


http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/bush_tax_cuts_2011/

[persiphone]

That is FUBAR. Why isn't there more reports of this in the main stream press?



gee i can't imagine. we are just expendable trash after all. who wouldn't want us to know that? the count was 2700 soldiers. i'm sure there's more. mebbe no one wants the comparison drawn of mass body graves of the past? cuz Bush started it and it was clearly never ended by the current administration? cuz it's beyond disgusting? i could go on and on.

[Corkey]

That is FUBAR. Why isn't there more reports of this in the main stream press?


Not just FUBAR but SNAFU.

[Ebon]

HrXyLrTRXso

Yeah we're fucked. Most people are still not awake either.

[Sachita]

As if we didnt know, here it is

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html


Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world


AS PROTESTS against financial power sweep the world this week, science may have confirmed the protesters' worst fears. An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy.

The study's assumptions have attracted some criticism, but complex systems analysts contacted by New Scientist say it is a unique effort to untangle control in the global economy. Pushing the analysis further, they say, could help to identify ways of making global capitalism more stable.

The idea that a few bankers control a large chunk of the global economy might not seem like news to New York's Occupy Wall Street movement and protesters elsewhere (see photo). But the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond ideology to empirically identify such a network of power. It combines the mathematics long used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world's transnational corporations (TNCs).

"Reality is so complex, we must move away from dogma, whether it's conspiracy theories or free-market," says James Glattfelder. "Our analysis is reality-based."

Previous studies have found that a few TNCs own large chunks of the world's economy, but they included only a limited number of companies and omitted indirect ownerships, so could not say how this affected the global economy - whether it made it more or less stable, for instance.

The Zurich team can. From Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, they pulled out all 43,060 TNCs and the share ownerships linking them. Then they constructed a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company's operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.

The work, to be published in PLoS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms - the "real" economy - representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a "super-entity" of 147 even more tightly knit companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network," says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.

John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability.

Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core's tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable. "If one [company] suffers distress," says Glattfelder, "this propagates."

"It's disconcerting to see how connected things really are," agrees George Sugihara of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, a complex systems expert who has advised Deutsche Bank.

Yaneer Bar-Yam, head of the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI), warns that the analysis assumes ownership equates to control, which is not always true. Most company shares are held by fund managers who may or may not control what the companies they part-own actually do. The impact of this on the system's behaviour, he says, requires more analysis.

Crucially, by identifying the architecture of global economic power, the analysis could help make it more stable. By finding the vulnerable aspects of the system, economists can suggest measures to prevent future collapses spreading through the entire economy. Glattfelder says we may need global anti-trust rules, which now exist only at national level, to limit over-connection among TNCs. Sugihara says the analysis suggests one possible solution: firms should be taxed for excess interconnectivity to discourage this risk.

One thing won't chime with some of the protesters' claims: the super-entity is unlikely to be the intentional result of a conspiracy to rule the world. "Such structures are common in nature," says Sugihara.

Newcomers to any network connect preferentially to highly connected members. TNCs buy shares in each other for business reasons, not for world domination. If connectedness clusters, so does wealth, says Dan Braha of NECSI: in similar models, money flows towards the most highly connected members. The Zurich study, says Sugihara, "is strong evidence that simple rules governing TNCs give rise spontaneously to highly connected groups". Or as Braha puts it: "The Occupy Wall Street claim that 1 per cent of people have most of the wealth reflects a logical phase of the self-organising economy."

So, the super-entity may not result from conspiracy. The real question, says the Zurich team, is whether it can exert concerted political power. Driffill feels 147 is too many to sustain collusion. Braha suspects they will compete in the market but act together on common interests. Resisting changes to the network structure may be one such common interest.

When this article was first posted, the comment in the final sentence of the paragraph beginning "Crucially, by identifying the architecture of global economic power…" was misattributed.

The top 50 of the 147 superconnected companies
1. Barclays plc
2. Capital Group Companies Inc
3. FMR Corporation
4. AXA
5. State Street Corporation
6. JP Morgan Chase & Co
7. Legal & General Group plc
8. Vanguard Group Inc
9. UBS AG
10. Merrill Lynch & Co Inc
11. Wellington Management Co LLP
12. Deutsche Bank AG
13. Franklin Resources Inc
14. Credit Suisse Group
15. Walton Enterprises LLC
16. Bank of New York Mellon Corp
17. Natixis
18. Goldman Sachs Group Inc
19. T Rowe Price Group Inc
20. Legg Mason Inc
21. Morgan Stanley
22. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc
23. Northern Trust Corporation
24. Société Générale
25. Bank of America Corporation
26. Lloyds TSB Group plc
27. Invesco plc
28. Allianz SE 29. TIAA
30. Old Mutual Public Limited Company
31. Aviva plc
32. Schroders plc
33. Dodge & Cox
34. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc*
35. Sun Life Financial Inc
36. Standard Life plc
37. CNCE
38. Nomura Holdings Inc
39. The Depository Trust Company
40. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
41. ING Groep NV
42. Brandes Investment Partners LP
43. Unicredito Italiano SPA
44. Deposit Insurance Corporation of Japan
45. Vereniging Aegon
46. BNP Paribas
47. Affiliated Managers Group Inc
48. Resona Holdings Inc
49. Capital Group International Inc
50. China Petrochemical Group Company

* Lehman still existed in the 2007 dataset used

[Diavolo]

gee i can't imagine. we are just expendable trash after all. who wouldn't want us to know that? the count was 2700 soldiers. i'm sure there's more. mebbe no one wants the comparison drawn of mass body graves of the past? cuz Bush started it and it was clearly never ended by the current administration? cuz it's beyond disgusting? i could go on and on.

The article on NPR said that it stopped in 2008. The WP article says between 2004-2008 as well. I don't know for sure, but it is my impression that it stopped in 2008. Probably when someone had to have someone from the Obama administration sign off which wasn't going to happen.

[persiphone]

The article on NPR said that it stopped in 2008. The WP article says between 2004-2008 as well. I don't know for sure, but it is my impression that it stopped in 2008. Probably when someone had to have someone from the Obama administration sign off which wasn't going to happen.


thanks for that correction. :) my sheer disgust overpowered me in my response.

[persiphone]

so this was the response i got from the Senator in my home state after signing the petition on the National Defense Authorization Act.....

December 9, 2011





Ms. ********
730 ******* RD
******, NV *****-0325


Dear Ms. ******:


Thank you for contacting me about detainee provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. I appreciate hearing from you.


On January 22, 2009, President Obama signed a series of executive orders regarding national security policy. As you know, these directives ordered the eventual closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which had become a potent recruiting symbol for anti-American militant extremists; established a process for determining which detainees can be brought to justice in other countries and which detainees can begin to be prosecuted for terrorist acts; and renewed America's commitment to prohibiting torture. These are tough and complex issues, but, like you, I believe very strongly that strengthening our fight against terrorists required these changes. Our military leaders, officials from our intelligence and diplomatic corps, and bipartisan members of Congress all believe that revising our detention and interrogation methods of suspected terrorists will lead more effectively to a strategic defeat of Al Qaeda and other global terrorist groups, and ultimately, a safer America.


In order to effectively combat terrorism within the complex legal and strategic landscape in which we operate, the Administration must also maintain maximum flexibility to apply each of the different tools in our counterterrorism toolbox for each different case in order to ensure intelligence is not lost, the public is not harmed, and terrorists are not set free. While this practical approach has been adopted by the current Administration, some in Congress continue to seek to tie the Administration's hands. As you noted, the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee, includes provisions that would, among other things, mandate the use of military custody for individuals suspected of terrorism-related offenses, even if arrested in the United States. In an important recent speech, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan expressed the Administration's concerns about these provisions and other proposals in Congress to limit the Administration's flexibility in its approach to counterterrorism. He stated that under the approach advocated by some in Congress:


"[W]e would never be able to turn the page on Guantanamo. Our counterterrorism professionals would be compelled to hold all captured terrorists in military custody, casting aside our most effective and time-tested tool for bringing suspected terrorists to justice - our federal courts. .In sum, this approach would impose unprecedented restrictions on the ability of experienced professionals to combat terrorism, injecting legal and operational uncertainty into what is already enormously complicated work."


I have been working diligently to improve the detainee-related provisions in the legislation. After the Armed Services Committee first completed their work on the bill, I wrote to the Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee to express my concerns with the provisions and urge further changes. The Committee ultimately reported out a new version of the bill with significant improvements to the detainee provisions. Nevertheless, some important concerns remained.


During consideration of the bill on the Senate floor, I worked with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and others to secure passage of an amendment preventing application of the detention provisions in the bill to United States citizens, lawful resident aliens, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States (S.AMDT.1456). This amendment maintains the constitutional protections of due process and fair judicial proceedings for individuals arrested within the United States, and is an important addition to the bill.


Nevertheless, I am not satisfied that all of the concerns with the detainee provisions have been adequately addressed. As the bill proceeds to a House-Senate conference committee, you can be sure that I will continue to seek additional improvements. It is critical that we maintain a detention policy that gives our counterterrorism professionals the flexibility, capability, and resources they need to effectively apply all of our national security tools toward bringing terrorists to justice.


Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.


My best wishes to you.


Sincerely,
A
HARRY REID
United States Senator
Nevada


this feels like smoke up my ass.

[atomiczombie]

so this was the response i got from the Senator in my home state after signing the petition on the National Defense Authorization Act.....

December 9, 2011





Ms. ********
730 ******* RD
******, NV *****-0325


Dear Ms. ******:


Thank you for contacting me about detainee provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. I appreciate hearing from you.


On January 22, 2009, President Obama signed a series of executive orders regarding national security policy. As you know, these directives ordered the eventual closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which had become a potent recruiting symbol for anti-American militant extremists; established a process for determining which detainees can be brought to justice in other countries and which detainees can begin to be prosecuted for terrorist acts; and renewed America's commitment to prohibiting torture. These are tough and complex issues, but, like you, I believe very strongly that strengthening our fight against terrorists required these changes. Our military leaders, officials from our intelligence and diplomatic corps, and bipartisan members of Congress all believe that revising our detention and interrogation methods of suspected terrorists will lead more effectively to a strategic defeat of Al Qaeda and other global terrorist groups, and ultimately, a safer America.


In order to effectively combat terrorism within the complex legal and strategic landscape in which we operate, the Administration must also maintain maximum flexibility to apply each of the different tools in our counterterrorism toolbox for each different case in order to ensure intelligence is not lost, the public is not harmed, and terrorists are not set free. While this practical approach has been adopted by the current Administration, some in Congress continue to seek to tie the Administration's hands. As you noted, the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee, includes provisions that would, among other things, mandate the use of military custody for individuals suspected of terrorism-related offenses, even if arrested in the United States. In an important recent speech, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan expressed the Administration's concerns about these provisions and other proposals in Congress to limit the Administration's flexibility in its approach to counterterrorism. He stated that under the approach advocated by some in Congress:


"[W]e would never be able to turn the page on Guantanamo. Our counterterrorism professionals would be compelled to hold all captured terrorists in military custody, casting aside our most effective and time-tested tool for bringing suspected terrorists to justice - our federal courts. .In sum, this approach would impose unprecedented restrictions on the ability of experienced professionals to combat terrorism, injecting legal and operational uncertainty into what is already enormously complicated work."


I have been working diligently to improve the detainee-related provisions in the legislation. After the Armed Services Committee first completed their work on the bill, I wrote to the Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee to express my concerns with the provisions and urge further changes. The Committee ultimately reported out a new version of the bill with significant improvements to the detainee provisions. Nevertheless, some important concerns remained.


During consideration of the bill on the Senate floor, I worked with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and others to secure passage of an amendment preventing application of the detention provisions in the bill to United States citizens, lawful resident aliens, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States (S.AMDT.1456). This amendment maintains the constitutional protections of due process and fair judicial proceedings for individuals arrested within the United States, and is an important addition to the bill.


Nevertheless, I am not satisfied that all of the concerns with the detainee provisions have been adequately addressed. As the bill proceeds to a House-Senate conference committee, you can be sure that I will continue to seek additional improvements. It is critical that we maintain a detention policy that gives our counterterrorism professionals the flexibility, capability, and resources they need to effectively apply all of our national security tools toward bringing terrorists to justice.


Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.


My best wishes to you.


Sincerely,
A
HARRY REID
United States Senator
Nevada


this feels like smoke up my ass.

What a dick wad. Oops, did I just say that out loud?

[SoNotHer]

P.S. "Regardless of all my, and another other reasonable person's efforts, you're screwed."


so this was the response i got from the Senator in my home state after signing the petition on the National Defense Authorization Act.....

December 9, 2011





Ms. ********
730 ******* RD
******, NV *****-0325


Dear Ms. ******:


Thank you for contacting me about detainee provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. I appreciate hearing from you.


On January 22, 2009, President Obama signed a series of executive orders regarding national security policy. As you know, these directives ordered the eventual closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which had become a potent recruiting symbol for anti-American militant extremists; established a process for determining which detainees can be brought to justice in other countries and which detainees can begin to be prosecuted for terrorist acts; and renewed America's commitment to prohibiting torture. These are tough and complex issues, but, like you, I believe very strongly that strengthening our fight against terrorists required these changes. Our military leaders, officials from our intelligence and diplomatic corps, and bipartisan members of Congress all believe that revising our detention and interrogation methods of suspected terrorists will lead more effectively to a strategic defeat of Al Qaeda and other global terrorist groups, and ultimately, a safer America.


In order to effectively combat terrorism within the complex legal and strategic landscape in which we operate, the Administration must also maintain maximum flexibility to apply each of the different tools in our counterterrorism toolbox for each different case in order to ensure intelligence is not lost, the public is not harmed, and terrorists are not set free. While this practical approach has been adopted by the current Administration, some in Congress continue to seek to tie the Administration's hands. As you noted, the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee, includes provisions that would, among other things, mandate the use of military custody for individuals suspected of terrorism-related offenses, even if arrested in the United States. In an important recent speech, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan expressed the Administration's concerns about these provisions and other proposals in Congress to limit the Administration's flexibility in its approach to counterterrorism. He stated that under the approach advocated by some in Congress:


"[W]e would never be able to turn the page on Guantanamo. Our counterterrorism professionals would be compelled to hold all captured terrorists in military custody, casting aside our most effective and time-tested tool for bringing suspected terrorists to justice - our federal courts. .In sum, this approach would impose unprecedented restrictions on the ability of experienced professionals to combat terrorism, injecting legal and operational uncertainty into what is already enormously complicated work."


I have been working diligently to improve the detainee-related provisions in the legislation. After the Armed Services Committee first completed their work on the bill, I wrote to the Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee to express my concerns with the provisions and urge further changes. The Committee ultimately reported out a new version of the bill with significant improvements to the detainee provisions. Nevertheless, some important concerns remained.


During consideration of the bill on the Senate floor, I worked with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and others to secure passage of an amendment preventing application of the detention provisions in the bill to United States citizens, lawful resident aliens, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States (S.AMDT.1456). This amendment maintains the constitutional protections of due process and fair judicial proceedings for individuals arrested within the United States, and is an important addition to the bill.


Nevertheless, I am not satisfied that all of the concerns with the detainee provisions have been adequately addressed. As the bill proceeds to a House-Senate conference committee, you can be sure that I will continue to seek additional improvements. It is critical that we maintain a detention policy that gives our counterterrorism professionals the flexibility, capability, and resources they need to effectively apply all of our national security tools toward bringing terrorists to justice.


Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.


My best wishes to you.


Sincerely,
A
HARRY REID
United States Senator
Nevada


this feels like smoke up my ass.

[AtLast]

If there is a separate thread for discussion of teh Citizen's United Case, I'll post this there also.
But meanwhile, if you , like me, believe that Corporations are NOT people, granted the same rights of Free Speech, PLEASE, help correct the Citizen's United Decision with this Constitutional Amendment . This is the time, there is awareness growing all over, even in L.A. :)
Sign Senator Sanders Petition and share widely !!! (http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c)

Bumped- sign and circulate. A constitutional amendment is the only way to change Citizens United decision- this is a process that can take years (even without the present polarized Congress we now have) and we need to get going!

Two ways to amend the Constitution

The founders offered two mechanisms for changing the Constitution. The first is for the proposed bill to pass both halves of the U.S. Congress (House and Senate) by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it then goes to the states. While the Constitution does not impose a time limit on states for which to consider the amendment, Congress frequently includes one (typically seven years). In order to become an amendment, the bill must receive the approval of three-fourths of the states (38 states). This approval can be generated through either a state convention or a vote of the state legislature. In either case, a majority vote is necessary for passage. Often, the proposed amendment specifies the route which is necessary.

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the state legislatures (34 states), and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. As of July 2006, this method has never been used.

[Cin]

Very interesting article. It touches on something I worry about especially with the increase of a privatized military presence - how the military is becoming the enforcement arm of the 1%.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175477/tomgram%3A_william_astore%2C_the_remoteness_of_1%2 5_wars/#more

Fighting 1% Wars
Why Our Wars of Choice May Prove Fatal
By William J. Astore

America’s wars are remote. They’re remote from us geographically, remote from us emotionally (unless you’re serving in the military or have a close relative or friend who serves), and remote from our major media outlets, which have given us no compelling narrative about them, except that they’re being fought by “America’s heroes” against foreign terrorists and evil-doers. They’re even being fought, in significant part, by remote control -- by robotic drones “piloted” by ground-based operators from a secret network of bases located hundreds, if not thousands, of miles from the danger of the battlefield.

Their remoteness, which breeds detachment if not complacency at home, is no accident. Indeed, it’s a product of the fact that Afghanistan and Iraq were wars of choice, not wars of necessity. It’s a product of the fact that we’ve chosen to create a “warrior” or “war fighter” caste in this country, which we send with few concerns and fewer qualms to prosecute Washington’s foreign wars of choice.

The results have been predictable, as in predictably bad. The troops suffer. Iraqi and Afghan innocents suffer even more. And yet we don’t suffer, at least not in ways that are easily noticeable, because of that very remoteness. We’ve chosen -- or let others do the choosing -- to remove ourselves from all the pain and horror of the wars being waged in our name. And that’s a choice we’ve made at our peril, since a state of permanent remote war has weakened our military, drained our treasury, and eroded our rights and freedoms.

Wars of Necessity vs. Wars of Choice

World War II was a war of necessity. In such a war, all Americans had a stake. Adolf Hitler and Nazism had to be defeated; so too did Japanese militarism. Indeed, war goals were that clear, that simple, to state. For that war, we relied uncontroversially on an equitable draft of citizen-soldiers to share the burdens of defense.

Contrast this with our current 1% wars. In them, 99% of Americans have no stake. The 1% who do are largely ID-card-carrying members of what President Dwight D. Eisenhower so memorably called the “military-industrial complex” in 1961. In the half-century since, that web of crony corporations, lobbyists, politicians, and retired military types who have passed through Washington’s revolving door has grown ever more gargantuan and tangled, engorged by untold trillions devoted to a national security and intelligence complex that seemingly dominates Washington. They are the ones who, in turn, have dispatched another 1% -- the lone percent of Americans in our All-Volunteer Military -- to repetitive tours of duty fighting endless wars abroad.

Unlike previous wars of necessity, the mission behind our wars of choice is nebulous, confusing, and seems in constant flux. Is it a fight against terror (which, as so many have pointed out, is in any case a method, not an enemy)? A fight for oil and other strategic resources? A fight to spread freedom and democracy? A fight to build nations? A fight to show American resolve or make the world safe from al-Qaeda? Who really knows anymore, now that Washington seldom bothers to bring up the “why” question at all, preferring simply to fight on without surcease?

In wars of choice, of course, the mission is whatever our leaders choose it to be, which gives the citizenry (assuming we’re watching closely, which we’re not) no criteria with which to measure success, let alone determine an endpoint.

How do we know these are wars of choice? It’s simple: because we could elect to leave whenever we wanted or whenever the heat got too high, as is currently the case in Iraq (even if we are leaving behind a fortress embassy the size of the Vatican with a private army of 5,000 rent-a-guns to defend it), and as we are likely to do in Afghanistan sometime in the years after the 2012 presidential election. The choice is ours. The people without a choice are of course the Iraqis and Afghans whom we’ll leave to pick up the pieces.

Even our vaunted Global War on Terror is a war of choice. Think about it: Who has control over our own terror: us or our enemies? We can only be terrorized in the first place if we choose to give in to fear.

Think here of the “shoe bomber” in 2001 and the “underwear bomber” in 2009. Why did the criminally inept actions of these two losers garner so much attention (and fear-mongering) in the American media? As the self-confessed greatest and most powerful nation on Earth, shouldn’t we have shared a collective belly laugh at the absurdity and incompetence of those “attacks” and gone about our business?

Instead of laughing, of course, we allowed yet more American treasure to be poured into technology and screening systems that may never even have caught a terrorist. We consented to be surveilled ever more and consulted ever less. We chose to reaffirm our terrors every time we doffed our shoes or submitted supinely to being scoped or groped at our nation’s airports.

Our distant permanent wars, our 1% wars of choice, will remain remote from our emotions and our thinking, requiring few sacrifices except from our troops, who grow ever more remote from our polity. This is especially true of America’s young adults, between 18 and 29 years of age, who are the least likely to have family members in the military, according to a recent Pew Research Center study.

The result? An already emergent warrior-caste might grow ever more estranged from the 99%, creating tensions and encouraging grievances that quite possibly could be manipulated by that other 1%: the powerbrokers, money-makers, and string-pullers, already so eager to call out the police to bully and arrest occupy movements in numerous cities across this once-great land.

Our Military or Their Military?

As we fight wars of choice in distant lands for ever-shifting goals, what if “our troops” simply continue to grow ever more remote from us? What if they become “their” troops? Is this not the true terror we should be mobilizing as a nation to prevent? The terror of separating our military almost totally from our nation -- and ourselves.

As Admiral Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put it recently to Time: “Long term, if the military drifts away from its people in this country, that is a catastrophic outcome we as a country can't tolerate.”

Behold a horrifying fate: a people that allows its wars of choice to compromise the very core of its self-image as a freedom-loving society, while letting itself be estranged from the young men and women who served in the frontlines of these wars.

Here’s an American fact: the 99% are far too remote from our wars of choice and those who fight them. To reclaim the latter, we must end the former. And that’s a war of necessity that has to be fought -- and won.

[Cin]

NPR Tries to Track Down Those Millionaire Job Creators
Friday 9 December 2011
by: Peter Hart, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting | Report

Dean Baker (12/9/11) flagged this NPR Morning Edition report today (12/9/11), and it's well worth a positivity.

In the debate over the payroll tax cut, Democrats want to pay for extending the tax break with a surtax on the wealthy. Republicans claim--usually without being challenged by reporters--that a surtax on millionaires would be an attack on job-creating small-business owners.

So NPR decided to go to GOP officials and ask to speak with these small-business-owning, millionaire job-creators. Turned out there was trouble finding any:

We wanted to talk to business owners who would be affected. So NPR requested help from numerous Republican congressional offices, including House and Senate leadership. They were unable to produce a single millionaire job creator for us to interview.

So we went to the business groups that have been lobbying against the surtax. Again, three days after putting in a request, none of them was able to find someone for us to talk to.

They did find a few wealthy business owners willing to talk--and they said their personal tax rate wasn't a factor in their hiring decisions.

[GeorgiaMa'am]

As if we didnt know, here it is

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html


Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world


AS PROTESTS against financial power sweep the world this week, science may have confirmed the protesters' worst fears. An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy.

The study's assumptions have attracted some criticism, but complex systems analysts contacted by New Scientist say it is a unique effort to untangle control in the global economy. Pushing the analysis further, they say, could help to identify ways of making global capitalism more stable.

The idea that a few bankers control a large chunk of the global economy might not seem like news to New York's Occupy Wall Street movement and protesters elsewhere (see photo). But the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond ideology to empirically identify such a network of power. It combines the mathematics long used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world's transnational corporations (TNCs).

"Reality is so complex, we must move away from dogma, whether it's conspiracy theories or free-market," says James Glattfelder. "Our analysis is reality-based."

Previous studies have found that a few TNCs own large chunks of the world's economy, but they included only a limited number of companies and omitted indirect ownerships, so could not say how this affected the global economy - whether it made it more or less stable, for instance.

The Zurich team can. From Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, they pulled out all 43,060 TNCs and the share ownerships linking them. Then they constructed a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company's operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.

The work, to be published in PLoS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms - the "real" economy - representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a "super-entity" of 147 even more tightly knit companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network," says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.

John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability.

Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core's tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable. "If one [company] suffers distress," says Glattfelder, "this propagates."

"It's disconcerting to see how connected things really are," agrees George Sugihara of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, a complex systems expert who has advised Deutsche Bank.

Yaneer Bar-Yam, head of the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI), warns that the analysis assumes ownership equates to control, which is not always true. Most company shares are held by fund managers who may or may not control what the companies they part-own actually do. The impact of this on the system's behaviour, he says, requires more analysis.

Crucially, by identifying the architecture of global economic power, the analysis could help make it more stable. By finding the vulnerable aspects of the system, economists can suggest measures to prevent future collapses spreading through the entire economy. Glattfelder says we may need global anti-trust rules, which now exist only at national level, to limit over-connection among TNCs. Sugihara says the analysis suggests one possible solution: firms should be taxed for excess interconnectivity to discourage this risk.

One thing won't chime with some of the protesters' claims: the super-entity is unlikely to be the intentional result of a conspiracy to rule the world. "Such structures are common in nature," says Sugihara.

Newcomers to any network connect preferentially to highly connected members. TNCs buy shares in each other for business reasons, not for world domination. If connectedness clusters, so does wealth, says Dan Braha of NECSI: in similar models, money flows towards the most highly connected members. The Zurich study, says Sugihara, "is strong evidence that simple rules governing TNCs give rise spontaneously to highly connected groups". Or as Braha puts it: "The Occupy Wall Street claim that 1 per cent of people have most of the wealth reflects a logical phase of the self-organising economy."

So, the super-entity may not result from conspiracy. The real question, says the Zurich team, is whether it can exert concerted political power. Driffill feels 147 is too many to sustain collusion. Braha suspects they will compete in the market but act together on common interests. Resisting changes to the network structure may be one such common interest.

When this article was first posted, the comment in the final sentence of the paragraph beginning "Crucially, by identifying the architecture of global economic power…" was misattributed.

The top 50 of the 147 superconnected companies
1. Barclays plc
2. Capital Group Companies Inc
3. FMR Corporation
4. AXA
5. State Street Corporation
6. JP Morgan Chase & Co
7. Legal & General Group plc
8. Vanguard Group Inc
9. UBS AG
10. Merrill Lynch & Co Inc
11. Wellington Management Co LLP
12. Deutsche Bank AG
13. Franklin Resources Inc
14. Credit Suisse Group
15. Walton Enterprises LLC
16. Bank of New York Mellon Corp
17. Natixis
18. Goldman Sachs Group Inc
19. T Rowe Price Group Inc
20. Legg Mason Inc
21. Morgan Stanley
22. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc
23. Northern Trust Corporation
24. Société Générale
25. Bank of America Corporation
26. Lloyds TSB Group plc
27. Invesco plc
28. Allianz SE 29. TIAA
30. Old Mutual Public Limited Company
31. Aviva plc
32. Schroders plc
33. Dodge & Cox
34. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc*
35. Sun Life Financial Inc
36. Standard Life plc
37. CNCE
38. Nomura Holdings Inc
39. The Depository Trust Company
40. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
41. ING Groep NV
42. Brandes Investment Partners LP
43. Unicredito Italiano SPA
44. Deposit Insurance Corporation of Japan
45. Vereniging Aegon
46. BNP Paribas
47. Affiliated Managers Group Inc
48. Resona Holdings Inc
49. Capital Group International Inc
50. China Petrochemical Group Company

* Lehman still existed in the 2007 dataset used

It's interesting to me that I do business directly with 2 of the companies in the top 10. I can't imagine that it would make an iota worth of difference to them if I pull my business away from them - they are controlling millions (billions) of other people's money, and they would probably still have indirect influence over my money anyway.

[Cin]

NPR Tries to Track Down Those Millionaire Job Creators
Friday 9 December 2011
by: Peter Hart, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting | Report

Dean Baker (12/9/11) flagged this NPR Morning Edition report today (12/9/11), and it's well worth a positivity.

In the debate over the payroll tax cut, Democrats want to pay for extending the tax break with a surtax on the wealthy. Republicans claim--usually without being challenged by reporters--that a surtax on millionaires would be an attack on job-creating small-business owners.

So NPR decided to go to GOP officials and ask to speak with these small-business-owning, millionaire job-creators. Turned out there was trouble finding any:

We wanted to talk to business owners who would be affected. So NPR requested help from numerous Republican congressional offices, including House and Senate leadership. They were unable to produce a single millionaire job creator for us to interview.

So we went to the business groups that have been lobbying against the surtax. Again, three days after putting in a request, none of them was able to find someone for us to talk to.

They did find a few wealthy business owners willing to talk--and they said their personal tax rate wasn't a factor in their hiring decisions.
Here is the link per request:
http://www.truth-out.org/npr-tries-track-down-those-millionaire-job-creators/1323463415
There ya go.

I didn't post it originally because the story was really just that short.

[SoNotHer]

The Atlantic
Saturday, December 10, 2011


Mr. Washington Goes to Anonymous
By Alexis Madrigal

Dec 9 2011, 5:37 PM ET 20

Welcome to one of the inner rings of The Establishment. We're near Dupont Circle, a short distance to the various centers of power in Washington, DC. The Capitol Building is not so far. The White House, too. The myriad National Associations dot the streets, and the K Street lobbyists and big law firms are a few blocks away. Here we find The Brookings Institution, one of DC's oldest think tanks. When you think of people in suits coming up with policies that become laws, this is one of the places you're thinking about.

Today's order of business was a panel about Anonymous, about hacktivism, about... the lulz. "Radical online activism is a new public-policy challenge, with groups such as Anonymous being described as everything from terrorist organizations to freedom fighters," the Institution billed it.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/brookings_615.jpg

The speaker charged with explaining Anonymous' idiosyncrasies was Biella Coleman, an anthropologist who has been studying the group and its affiliates for months and months. An hour before she went on stage, she asked her Twitter followers, "The question for today: do I dare say 'Ultra-Coordinated Motherfuckeray' to the D.C. establishment in one hour?" (She didn't, sadly.)

This is the challenge Anonymous poses to the establishment. For those who think it is risky to wear a skinny tie, the group's argot and traditions are so alien that it's difficult to parse what the the group is. I have long imagined some DC lawyers gathered around 4chan.org with looks of horror and disgust on their faces. Even Coleman, who has spent massive amounts of time embedded among Anonymous and 4chan users, noted that the latter site was "teeming with pornography" and that many of its members communicate "in a language that seems to reduce English to a string of epithets." Which would, of course, be the point. Outsiders aren't supposed to understand.

So, when Coleman came to the microphone before the Brookings-blue logos of the stage, I was curious to see how her presentation of the social dynamics of Anonymous might be perceived. She described the group's birth on 4chan and the turn that some groups within the larger mass took to engage in activist politics in 2008, changes that came in the process of griefing the Church of Scientology in Project Chanology. Through that experience, various Anons developed the digital and physical moves that they'd later use on other organizations. She covered several other notable Anonymous and AnonOps (separate group) exploits. What was fascinating about her talk was the way that it gave the impression that -- much as people would like to -- it is very difficult to separate out the different kinds of activities that define Anonymous' do-ocracy. Anonymous, a bit like Occupy Wall Street, is as much a platform for action as anything else, and individual efforts are largely separate from any other effort. This massive decentralization of power makes it difficult for Anonymous to stand for any one thing or even to ask that question of itself as an institution. It wouldn't make sense to say, "What are Anonymous' politics?" even if it seems clear that, in inchoate, intuitive form, there are some.

Coleman also highlighted the way Anons follow a strictly enforced "no fame" policy in which those members who seek celebrity are shunned. But inside the group, individuality is encouraged. The whole enterprise is "evasive, shifty, and nomadic," but not necessarily in a bad way. That style is also a strategy. As Richard Forno, the graduate program director of University of Maryland, Baltimore County's cybersecurity program, explained, for those trying to defend their organizations an Anonymous attack, the very fact that no one controls the operation makes it difficult to strike back. Beyond any technical resilience the hackers build into an operation, the anonymity and decentralization create a social resilience. There's no one person to apprehend, no organization to strike, nothing to hit.

The last speaker was Paul Rosenzweig. Rosenzweig has a classic Washington resume: University of Chicago JD, lecturer at George Washington Law School, visiting fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, various posts at the Department of Homeland Security, and a bow tie. I have to admit that he did not strike me as likely to understand or feel much sympathy for Anonymous. But Rosenszweig did a fantastic job of framing the group's activities for the policy crowd. "I offer the comments with a great degree of uncertainty and trepidation," he began, and then used the nominal title of the panel, "Hacktivism, Vigilantism and Collective Action in a Digital Age," as a way of illuminating different aspects of Anonymous and how policymakers might respond to it. Far from the befuddled establishment lawyer that I expected, Rosenszweig's sensitivity to the multivalence of Anonymous impressed me. We can only hope that other people whispering into lawmakers' ears are as intellectually curious as he is.

"In some instances, [Anonymous' action] is hacktivism of a vicious sort or vigilantism of an even more vicious sort," Rosenszweig said. "And in some instances, it embodies collective action that has been a tradition and core part of what we in America think of as free speech and political activity."

These distinctions matter. If policymakers think of Anonymous as hacktivism, they may see it as a kind of insurgency that they would battle not solely with policing but also with a battle to win hearts-and-minds and rob the group of its moral standing. If they see the group as vigilantes, they might take a more crime-fighting approach. And if they see the group as embodying collective action, "that's a whole different kettle of fish." "If it's a First Amendment sort of activity, the only thing that's legitimate is to police the margins and enforce the traditional First Amendment rules like preventing a heckler's veto, so one part of speech doesn't drown out another part," he said. Rosenzweig tipped his hand a little as to how he sees the group, but with the utmost (and seemingly honest) humility.

"I tend to see predominant within Anonymous, the more adverse parts and more the criminality and the theft of private information," he concluded. "But I'm certainly willing to acknowledge that I might be wrong. And that kind of indeterminacy of the threat, if it is a threat at all, makes it very difficult, possibly impossible [to create] a coherent policy or a coherent legal approach." All this to say that, given the yawning gulf between Anonymous and the DC establishment, I was shocked to discover that there are some among the elites that can be eminently reasonable about the kind of things that Anonymous does. Perhaps given the byzantine and bizarre ways that power flows in Washington, DC, it's easier to understand a strange group that has its own language and plays by its own rules.

From -
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/12/mr-washington-goes-to-anonymous/249791/

[ruffryder]

Jay-Z on paying more taxes and the Occupy movement

http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2011/12/08/n_jay-z_taxes_occupy.cnnmoney/

Do you think a lot of people feel the same way Jay-Z does? Wouldn't it be nice to know what the tax money goes towards?
As Obama asks those that make more money to pay more taxes, congress debates and fights this thought. Their debate is that those that make more money will have the jobs and they deserve a break.
What do you think?

[ruffryder]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/390955_307407332615307_113544412001601_998514_4063 99314_n.jpg

[atomiczombie]

By STEPHEN GANDEL Thursday, Dec. 08, 2011

In a society in which we're used to taking direction from Presidents and CEOs, captains and quarterbacks, Occupy Wall Street's leaderless structure seems like a formula for chaos. And yet nearly a month after protesters were evicted from the movement's birthplace in Zuccotti Park in downtown Manhattan the exercise in organized anarchy is still going strong. On Tuesday, Occupy Wall Streeters in 20 cities across the country marched in neighborhoods that have been hardest hit by foreclosures. In East New York, Brooklyn, about 400 protesters broke into a foreclosed vacant property and moved in a family that was homeless after losing their house to a bank.
Since the Nov. 15 eviction, much of New York Occupy Wall Street group's day-to-day activities have moved inside. Occupy Wall Streeters have moved in to a donated small office space in downtown Manhattan, with desks for about 50 workers. Crowds have dwindled, particularly at Zuccotti Park, where protesters are allowed to gather, but no longer sleep. Organizers say a smaller but more dedicated group is now doing much of the work of planning marches and deciding Occupy Wall Street's next moves.

(See pictures of the Occupy Wall Street movement.)

Nonetheless, as it has been since the beginning of the movement, the leaderless structure appears to be working. Crowds come together on cue. Messages go out to the media. Lawsuits are filed. Funds are raised (more than $500,000 by the end of November). And the silliest ideas, like building an igloo city in Central Park, get voted down. "There have been challenges, but generally the group has been effective," says Marina Sitrin, a sociologist who has written a book on leaderless movements and is an active member of Occupy Wall Street. "The lack of leadership has been able to get more people engaged in the process, which I think shows how effective it has been."
So how does Occupy Wall Street make all this happen with no titles and no corner offices? By organizing as a network of dozens of working groups, Occupy Wall Street keeps its participants focused on particular tasks they can perform with autonomy and attention to detail. A look at the division of labor:

Idea Generation

The only power at first was the power of suggestion. Kalle Lasn, editor of the Canadian anticonsumerist magazine Adbusters, coined the name Occupy Wall Street and called for protesters to fill the streets of lower Manhattan. Catchy idea, but how to organize this? In August 2011, about 100people showed up in lower Manhattan to talk about it, on the same day that Washington faced a government shutdown deadline because of gridlock over the federal budget deficit. Activists gave windy speeches calling for a list of demands, like a massive jobs program. According to Bloomberg Businessweek, David Graeber, an anarchist and influential activist, didn't like what he heard. He and a few others broke off from the group, formed a circle and started organizing the Sept. 17 march on Wall Street. Graeber proposed the slogan "We Are the 99%."

(See a video from Occupy Wall Street's "Day of Action.")

By the end of the afternoon, nearly everyone had abandoned the original rally for Graeber's less formal discussion group, which became the model for Occupy's governing system. Meanwhile, untitled leader Lasn maintained the flow of ideas from up north. In early November, Lasn told a Canadian radio program that it would be a good idea for the Occupiers to leave the park before frustration and violence erupted. "Now that winter is approaching, I can see this first wild, messy, crazy Occupation phase kind of slowly winding down." He was right about the Occupation phase ending, but not slowly.

The People's Congress

Occupy Wall Street makes its decisions by consensus at what started as a nightly meeting called the general assembly. The group now holds general assembly meetings every other day, which are sometimes in Zuccotti Park or in an indoor public space on Wall Street. Attendance, though, has significantly shrunk to around 100 people a night, from as many as 1,500 before the police cleared the park. Facilitators run the meetings, but anyone is allowed to sign up to make proposals. Crowd members show approval by holding their hands up and wiggling their fingers. Downward wiggling fingers means you don't approve. Anyone can raise a finger to make a point. Rolling fingers means it's time to wrap it up. Since no bullhorns are allowed, the crowd repeats everything every speaker says, a technique dubbed the "people's mic," which has become a signature of the movement.

(See "On Scene: The Night the Police Cleared Occupy Wall Street.")
While the general assembly gets decisions made, a by-product is recruitment. At a time when many people believe government isn't working, the general assembly gives a sense of true democracy. A bit too much, in fact, as the group grew larger, the meetings began to drag on and become more about fund distribution than what the movement was about. "General assemblies need to go back to what they first were, which was a movement-building body," says Chris Longenecker, an original member. "They get people excited." In October 2011, when the general assemblies were pared back to every other night, a smaller spokescouncil was created to make some of the group's decisions.

Getting the Word Out

The revolution has not only been televised; it has also been tweeted, Tumblred and streamed. The Occupiers, mostly in their 20s, have been heavy users of social media to get their message to friends and the rest of the world. By November the group's Twitter account had more than 125,000 followers. Occupy Wall Street has two main websites: one that makes official statements, and another devoted to the group's meetings and day-to-day activities. The latter features a calendar of events and a list of Occupy's dozens of working groups, along with chat boards. According to that website in November, the media working group had 310 members and the Internet group 365.

In a send-up of old media, Priscilla Grim, a former corporate social-media director, launched the Occupy Wall Street Journal, published as a newspaper by a volunteer staff of about 25, many of them working under assumed names to protect their day jobs. On the Tumblr microblogging service, the We Are the 99% site has thousands of pictures of people holding cards explaining whey they're part of that cohort.

Keeping It Legal (Mostly)

Even a group inspired by anarchists needs lawyers — a lot of them. By November, more than 1,200 protesters had been arrested in New York City alone. Early on, the National Lawyers Guild, a liberal advocacy organization, started a working group of lawyers to deal specifically with Occupy Wall Street. The guild has sent lawyers, identified by the special green hats they wear, to marches and rallies to witness arrests and take down names of those who go to jail. The guild runs a hot line that family members can call to get information. Guild lawyers have also represented many of the protesters in court, the vast majority of whom have decided to take their cases to trial rather than plea.

(See TIME's dispatch from Occupy Wall Street's "Day of Action.")

Some of Occupy's most basic needs have produced legal battles, notably the necessity for portable toilets at Zuccotti Park. When police refused to allow them, lawyer Christopher Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union advised the group that it had to apply for a permit from the city agency that regulates street fairs. After much legal wrangling, the city finally agreed to a plan. Dunn acknowledges that representing a leaderless group has been a challenge. "It's not like you know for sure what they are going to do," said Dunn. "It makes it hard to negotiate with the other side."

Mobilizing the Marches

Occupy Wall Streeters may have no leaders, but from the beginning, the direct-action committee has had more sway over the group than others. In the argot of Occupy Wall Street, a march or protest is called a direct action. Unlike most other decisions that go to the general assembly, the direct-action committee has the power to pick and plan its event. Among the preparations the committee makes for marches is holding training sessions to teach members how to avoid violent confrontations with police and citizens.

(See "Taking It to the Streets.")

Longenecker, who has been on the direct-action committee since the protest began, admits that Occupy has made mistakes. In the first Brooklyn Bridge march, Longenecker says, he and others who planned the march wanted to give some of the protesters the ability to block the roadway and ultimately get arrested, if that was what they chose. A group of many hundreds went onto the roadway, many of them perhaps unsuspecting of their likely fate. At least 700, possibly more, were arrested that day, many more than planned. "We learned from it," says Longenecker. "But that march, our mistake, also put us on the map."

Creating a Culture

When planning a protest to denounce the growing economic divide between the richest Americans and the rest of us, you might not expect an arts and culture committee to be high on your list of priorities. But it was for Occupy Wall Street, which has roots in art. A group of artists called 16Beaver, named for the address of a downtown studio where they regularly meet, had long discussed occupying a public space as a form of performance art and were some of the first people to sign on to the movement. Since then, cultural creativity has seemed to spring naturally from Occupy Wall Street: regular poetry readings in Zuccotti Park, giant Halloween puppets of the Statue of liberty and Wall Street's Charging Bull.

(See Occupy Wall Street's unofficial demands.)

Most famous of all were the protest signs. In October, on the night before the mayor first threatened to remove protesters from the park, Jez Bold, Occupy Wall Street's unofficial curator, was busy packing up the signs to protect them. "Some of these are truly beautiful," said Bold. The People's Library, too, was an inspired creation. Situated in a corner of Zuccotti Park, it contained more than 5,000 donated volumes, including books from such leftist authors as Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein, all organized according to ISBN. Said Zachary Loeb, one of a dozen librarians who volunteered to care for the books: "Information matters. We are feeding people's minds." The books were confiscated when police cleared the park in November, and many were lost, but like so much of what happened in the early days, the People's Library is now a permanent part of Occupy's colorful history.

The question is whether Occupy Wall Street, which is likely to become more specifically goal-oriented now that it can no longer count its success in numbers of days in Zuccotti Park and similar spaces around the country, will start developing the kind of organization that it has so emphatically rejected so far. Dedicated office space alone is a sign that the group is becoming more like other traditional activist groups. Already, the emergence of a high-level committee has caused grumbling in the ranks.

Can the movement stay true to its grass roots and still change the country's direction? Sounds like a good topic for a general assembly.


LINK:http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2101802,00.html

[SoNotHer]

From the latest Boldprogressives.org email -

We recently told you about Rep. Tammy Baldwin's (D-Wisconsin) bill opposing the proposed deal that would give Wall Street banks immunity for crimes that haven't been investigated yet. 1,000 phone calls and 55,000 signatures from people like you helped catapult Baldwin's co-sponsors from 27 to 48 members of Congress! This is huge momentum, and we're not done yet.

Our Capitol Hill outreach program, P Street (the progressive alternative to K Street), will continue updating members of Congress about grassroots support while asking them to sign on as co-sponsors. Add your voice today.
Thanks for being a bold progressive.

P.S. More good news: The Massachusetts Attorney General recently announced a lawsuit against 5 big Wall Street banks for illegally foreclosing on homeowners. Progressive activism against Wall Street immunity, coupled with the Occupy Wall Street momentum, has undoubtedly empowered investigations like these. And it's been announced that more are coming in California and Nevada. But a deal with Wall Street banks would make these lawsuits go away, so please add your name as a citizen signer of Baldwin's resolution today

http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/Baldwin_signon/?source=bp

[atomiczombie]

http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz56/atomiczombie/0Zctr.jpg

[atomiczombie]

fvx68oXeS1U

[ruffryder]

12/12 West Coast port shutdown.. from CA to WA.

Protesting “Wall Street on the Waterfront.”

Organizers say the shutdown will focus public attention on how the 1% use the ports, international trade, and even the spirit of Christmas to profit off the 99%.

“One way that the 1% amasses wealth is through the ports.
“Shut Down Wall Street on the Waterfront is a coordinated effort from the occupy movement to target the corporations that contribute to the vast inequality of wealth and power in our economic system.”

“The rank and file of the labor movement not only supports the occupy movement, but are a part of the occupy movement. Organized and unorganized working people are struggling to keep their homes and their jobs, while the 1% reaps record profits,” says Kathryn Cates, one of the organizers, “Because the holiday season has been exploited by the 1% to make money off working people, December is a peak business time for the ports and the wealthiest corporations. On December 12 we will show that the holidays are about family & community not profits and exploitation.”

The longshoreman’s union, representing many port workers, has historically not crossed picket lines, community or otherwise.

As of December 5th, nine West Coast occupations have responded to the call to shut down Wall Street on the Waterfront, including Occupy LA/Long Beach, Occupy San Diego, Occupy Tacoma, Occupy Seattle, Occupy Anchorage and Occupy Oakland.

West Coast Shutdown info can be found at shutdowntheport.com.

This action was approved by the Occupy Portland General Assembly on November 26, 2011

[ruffryder]

looks like progress in FL..

ORLANDO -- Hundreds of people, from 16 different cities, were in Orlando this weekend for the first state-wide Occupy Wall Street event.

For months they've occupied city parks across the state.

However, protesters with the Occupy movement have grown tired of just sitting around.

"It resolves nothing to just protest,” says protester, Valerie Cepero. “If you don't have a goal, then how do you know you've made any progress?"

This weekend, protesters worked to develop a list of objectives they hope can pass as legislation. They divided up into small groups and made a list of issues that are important to them.

"We demand our state legislator to pass a non-binding resolution to support the overturning of Citizens United VIPC,” said the moderator of one of the groups.

The issues ranged from insurance, to foreclosures, to elections. One proposal asks that elections be held during the weekend.

"I don't think there's any good reason why an election needs to be on a week day when the people that are most affected by this legislation are not going to be able to take off of work," Cepero said.

Once the groups finished listing their proposals, they presented them to the general assembly. By a show of hands, the group voted for or against each item.

"About five or six items will go on our final list of objectives," Cepero said.

That final list will be delivered to state legislators in Tallahassee January 10.

Members of Occupy Orlando said the gathering would also help to pull the attention away from recent incidents involving law enforcement at Beth Johnson Park near lake Ivanhoe.

Earlier this week, five protesters were arrested charged for trespassing and resisting arrest after code enforcement officers handed out warnings asking demonstrators to take their belongings out of the park and sidewalk. In total at least 45 demonstrators have been arrested since the Occupy Orlando movement began.

Sunday afternoon, protesters told News 13 they would be evicted from the park at midnight. Orlando Police denied the allegations.

http://www.cfnews13.com/

[Corkey]

Well I hate to tell them but employers are required to give employees time off to vote if their work day is between pole hours. Otherwise it can be done before or after work. Weekend elections are a really bad idea if one wants people to actually get to the poles.

[MsMerrick]

Well I hate to tell them but employers are required to give employees time off to vote if their work day is between pole hours. Otherwise it can be done before or after work. Weekend elections are a really bad idea if one wants people to actually get to the poles.

Sure and how many people risk their boss's ire, to ask for that time off? In these times when you can easily lose your job ? How easy is it to vote before or after work when you work a long day and live someplace where the lines are long to vote? Election Day use to be a day off or a half day off, now it isn't. I think the point is to encourage people to vote not to make it harder... Personally I wouldn't mind if we had Australia's system, where you are required to vote, or you get fined.... And there already are places you can vote early.. which Florida did away with, so you cna vote the weekend before, why isn't that a great idea? Cuts down on lines the actual day and..whats wrong with it ? Whats the down side of more people voting? Well except for the Republicans, who win less elections, when more people vote...

[AtLast]

From the latest Boldprogressives.org email -

We recently told you about Rep. Tammy Baldwin's (D-Wisconsin) bill opposing the proposed deal that would give Wall Street banks immunity for crimes that haven't been investigated yet. 1,000 phone calls and 55,000 signatures from people like you helped catapult Baldwin's co-sponsors from 27 to 48 members of Congress! This is huge momentum, and we're not done yet.

Our Capitol Hill outreach program, P Street (the progressive alternative to K Street), will continue updating members of Congress about grassroots support while asking them to sign on as co-sponsors. Add your voice today.
Thanks for being a bold progressive.

P.S. More good news: The Massachusetts Attorney General recently announced a lawsuit against 5 big Wall Street banks for illegally foreclosing on homeowners. Progressive activism against Wall Street immunity, coupled with the Occupy Wall Street momentum, has undoubtedly empowered investigations like these. And it's been announced that more are coming in California and Nevada. But a deal with Wall Street banks would make these lawsuits go away, so please add your name as a citizen signer of Baldwin's resolution today

http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/Baldwin_signon/?source=bp

Yes, investigations need to proceed! But, under the actual laws/regulations governing Wall Street and the banks during the mega-rip off most of what was done was not illegal. That is why it is so important to get the agencies created and the new regulations they are to enforce going. And the GOP in Congress has done everything including blocking confirmation of directors of consummer agencies that will make those kinds of actions illegal and subject to prosecution in order to protect Wall Street and banking further.

Not one damn thing is going to get done that helps the 98% without changing the composition of both the Senate & House and elect Democrats and Independents that are left of center. This general election is so critical and we need to focus on all of the GOP backed voter suppression activity going on.

[atomiczombie]

Portland Port is CLOSED
Oakland Port is CLOSED
Long Beach partly CLOSED
Longview Port is CLOSED

[turasultana]

CNN reports some disruption to ports, but not closings:


(CNN) -- Protesters chanting, "Whose port? Our port!" protested at West Coast ports on Monday, temporarily shutting down some of the facilities in a protest against what they called corporate greed.

The protesters, affiliated with the nationwide "Occupy" movement, set out in the pre-dawn hours in Oakland, California; Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon, to shut down ports in an effort to "disrupt the economic machine that benefits the wealthiest individuals and corporations," according to organizers.

Long Beach police arrested two people during the demonstration there, police Chief Jim McDonnell said. Port operations were not significantly impacted beyond some traffic delays, he said.

A spokesman for the port in Portland, Oregon, said the protests had partially shut down the port there. In Oakland, the port said in a statement that operations were continuing "with sporadic disruptions for truckers trying to enter and exit marine terminal gates."

About 80 protesters demonstrated outside the gate of San Diego's port, but caused no disruption because, port spokesman Ron Powell said.

"They were there at a time when we really didn't have a lot of truck traffic coming in and out," he said.

Four people who sat down in the road were arrested he said. San Diego police did not immediately return a telephone call seeking information on the arrests.

Protesters were planning a second occupation of the Oakland port Monday afternoon. Protesters in Seattle also were preparing to protest at the port there, according to organizing websites and posts on Twitter.

In addition to the West Coast port blockades, protesters also were planning to demonstrate at the port in Houston, while demonstrators in Salt Lake City and Denver were planning to disrupt operations of Walmart distribution facilities. About 40 to 50 people protested at the Denver facility, CNN affiliate KCNC reported.

The demonstrations were part of a nationwide day of protest called in the aftermath of efforts by cities across the country, including New York, Boston and Oakland, to clear demonstrators from encampments they had set up in public parks and other locations.

"We are occupying the ports as part of a day of action, boycott and march for full legalization and good jobs for all to draw attention to and protest the criminal system of concentrated wealth that depends on local and global exploitation of working people, and the denial of workers' rights to organize for decent pay, working conditions and benefits, in disregard for the environment and the health and safety of surrounding communities," organizers said on their website.

The port protesters are focusing on terminals owned by SSA Marine, saying it is owed by the Goldman Sachs investment firm, which they argue exemplifies corporate greed and is anti-union.

SSA Senior Vice President Bob Watters disputed the protesters' claims, saying Goldman Sachs owns less than 3% of an investment fund that has a minority stake in the company. He also said the company is the largest employer of International Longshore and Warehouse Union members on the West Coast.

That union, which represents 15,000 dock workers, has distanced itself from the effort.

In a letter to members sent last month, union president Robert McEllrath said the organization shares Occupy protesters concerns about what they consider corporate abuses, but he said the union was not sanctioning any shutdown.

Protest organizers said on their website that they were acting independent of organized labor only because the unions are "constrained under reactionary, anti-union federal legislation."

Some port workers are also against the planned blockade.

"I'm just barely getting on my feet again after two years, and now I gotta go a day without pay while somebody else has something to say that I'm not really sure is relevant to the cause," trucker Chuck Baca told CNN affiliate KGO.

Port officials say shutting down their facilities will only cost workers and their communities wages and tax revenue.

"Protesters wanted to send a message to the 1% but they are impacting the 99%," said Portland port spokesman Josh Thomas. The stoppage is resulting in "lost shifts, lost wages and delays," he said.

Port of San Diego board chairman Scott Peters issued an open letter to the community on Sunday asking that protesters not disrupt work.

"The Port of San Diego is made up of working people with families who serve the public each day by helping to bring in goods that are important to the people of the San Diego region," Peters wrote.

"They are the 99 percent, the gardeners, the maintenance workers, the dock workers, the Harbor Police officers, the office workers, the environmental workers -- all working to improve the quality of life in San Diego Bay and on its surrounding lands," he said. "It is these people who would be hurt by a blockade of our Port."

[Corkey]

Sure and how many people risk their boss's ire, to ask for that time off? In these times when you can easily lose your job ? How easy is it to vote before or after work when you work a long day and live someplace where the lines are long to vote? Election Day use to be a day off or a half day off, now it isn't. I think the point is to encourage people to vote not to make it harder... Personally I wouldn't mind if we had Australia's system, where you are required to vote, or you get fined.... And there already are places you can vote early.. which Florida did away with, so you cna vote the weekend before, why isn't that a great idea? Cuts down on lines the actual day and..whats wrong with it ? Whats the down side of more people voting? Well except for the Republicans, who win less elections, when more people vote...

It's the law, they have to let one vote if they are working during voting hours. Granted not that many work 12 hour shifts except nurses, EMT's, police and Fire, military, but it is the law and one can not be fired.

[atomiczombie]

Portland Port is CLOSED
Oakland Port is CLOSED
Long Beach partly CLOSED
Longview Port is CLOSED

This is from an FB post from Occupy St. Louis. Meant to cite it, sorry.

[atomiczombie]

Watch the port shut down live on UStream today:

http://occupywallst.org/article/watch-live-west-coast-port-shutown/

[atomiczombie]

PLiKvSz_wX8

This is seriously shocking. Call, email the white house now!!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/write-or-call#write

[Corkey]

Sent an email to the white house requesting a reply.

[Cin]

Robert Fisk: Bankers are the dictators of the West

Writing from the very region that produces more clichés per square foot than any other "story" – the Middle East – I should perhaps pause before I say I have never read so much garbage, so much utter drivel, as I have about the world financial crisis.

But I will not hold my fire. It seems to me that the reporting of the collapse of capitalism has reached a new low which even the Middle East cannot surpass for sheer unadulterated obedience to the very institutions and Harvard "experts" who have helped to bring about the whole criminal disaster.

Let's kick off with the "Arab Spring" – in itself a grotesque verbal distortion of the great Arab/Muslim awakening which is shaking the Middle East – and the trashy parallels with the social protests in Western capitals. We've been deluged with reports of how the poor or the disadvantaged in the West have "taken a leaf" out of the "Arab spring" book, how demonstrators in America, Canada, Britain, Spain and Greece have been "inspired" by the huge demonstrations that brought down the regimes in Egypt, Tunisia and – up to a point – Libya. But this is nonsense.

The real comparison, needless to say, has been dodged by Western reporters, so keen to extol the anti-dictator rebellions of the Arabs, so anxious to ignore protests against "democratic" Western governments, so desperate to disparage these demonstrations, to suggest that they are merely picking up on the latest fad in the Arab world. The truth is somewhat different. What drove the Arabs in their tens of thousands and then their millions on to the streets of Middle East capitals was a demand for dignity and a refusal to accept that the local family-ruled dictators actually owned their countries. The Mubaraks and the Ben Alis and the Gaddafis and the kings and emirs of the Gulf (and Jordan) and the Assads all believed that they had property rights to their entire nations. Egypt belonged to Mubarak Inc, Tunisia to Ben Ali Inc (and the Traboulsi family), Libya to Gaddafi Inc. And so on. The Arab martyrs against dictatorship died to prove that their countries belonged to their own people.

And that is the true parallel in the West. The protest movements are indeed against Big Business – a perfectly justified cause – and against "governments". What they have really divined, however, albeit a bit late in the day, is that they have for decades bought into a fraudulent democracy: they dutifully vote for political parties – which then hand their democratic mandate and people's power to the banks and the derivative traders and the rating agencies, all three backed up by the slovenly and dishonest coterie of "experts" from America's top universities and "think tanks", who maintain the fiction that this is a crisis of globalisation rather than a massive financial con trick foisted on the voters.

The banks and the rating agencies have become the dictators of the West. Like the Mubaraks and Ben Alis, the banks believed – and still believe – they are owners of their countries. The elections which give them power have – through the gutlessness and collusion of governments – become as false as the polls to which the Arabs were forced to troop decade after decade to anoint their own national property owners. Goldman Sachs and the Royal Bank of Scotland became the Mubaraks and Ben Alis of the US and the UK, each gobbling up the people's wealth in bogus rewards and bonuses for their vicious bosses on a scale infinitely more rapacious than their greedy Arab dictator-brothers could imagine.

I didn't need Charles Ferguson's Inside Job on BBC2 this week – though it helped – to teach me that the ratings agencies and the US banks are interchangeable, that their personnel move seamlessly between agency, bank and US government. The ratings lads (almost always lads, of course) who AAA-rated sub-prime loans and derivatives in America are now – via their poisonous influence on the markets – clawing down the people of Europe by threatening to lower or withdraw the very same ratings from European nations which they lavished upon criminals before the financial crash in the US. I believe that understatement tends to win arguments. But, forgive me, who are these creatures whose ratings agencies now put more fear into the French than Rommel did in 1940?

Why don't my journalist mates in Wall Street tell me? How come the BBC and CNN and – oh, dear, even al-Jazeera – treat these criminal communities as unquestionable institutions of power? Why no investigations

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-bankers-are-the-dictators-of-the-west-6275084.html

[Cin]

In case you think laws like NDAA 1031 Citizen Imprisonment Law can't or won't be used against you by the government because, well, because you actually aren't a terrorist, think again. These are laws that give the government unprecedented, in the U.S. anyway, control over it's citizens. And removes a great deal of your rights and possible recourse should you be picked up and dragged off to a detention center for a round of torture and questioning.

10 Ridiculous Things That Make You a Terror Suspect

"I'm not anti-America, America is anti-me"

You thought you weren't doing anything wrong, so why should you care about who they call a terrorist? Well, you may not believe it, but you're likely a terror suspect in America's new paradigm of the Land of the Fear.

The government is casting a wide net over its citizens in its search for potential threats. Now, you don't need to actually commit a crime to be hauled away to a detention center and held without charges while you are tortured; you just need to appear suspicious by sympathizing with anti-government views to be labeled a domestic terrorist.

First, it's important to understand the official definition of domestic terrorism in the United States. The ACLU reports that a person is a domestic terrorist if they engage in any "act dangerous to human life" that "appears to be intended to (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping."

Although recent White House action plans claim to be targeting "violent extremism in all its forms," the government itself is clearly guilty of countless "acts dangerous to human life intended to coerce the civilian population, to influence the policy, and to affect the conduct of a government." But that's for another article.

What's more disturbing, is the government's expansion of guilty parties to "terrorist sympathizers." This is where the net gets really large. What exactly constitutes sympathizing with a terrorist? Is questioning the imperial foreign policy and the destruction of civil liberties, sympathizing with the enemy? In the U.S., it seems that if you don't agree with the violence and coercion America commits, then you're an anti-American terrorist sympathizer, as evidenced by peace organizations being added to terror watch lists.

So, what makes you a terror suspect in America? Here are 10 ridiculous things that make you a terrorist according to "officials" running the U.S. government:

1. Tea Party Activists: The political Left demonized peaceful Tea Party activists as right-wing extremists, leading to the second most powerful official in the U.S. government, VP Joe Biden, to liken them to terrorists. Do you sympathize with those who are angry about bank bailouts on the backs of taxpayers? Well, you're likely a terrorist in the eyes of the State.

2. Occupy Activists: Now, the "Occupy" movement, said to be made up of left-wing extremists, is enjoying the same treatment as the Tea Party's right-wing extremists. The United Kingdom has officially labeled "Occupy" demonstrators as domestic terrorists. The U.S. hasn't gone quite that far, but the violent Police State did spy them in search of "domestic terrorists." Watch out, you may be a terror suspect if you sympathize with the 99%.

3. 7 Days of Food: The Department of Justice and FBI considers you a terrorist threat if you have more than 7 days of food stored, as explained by Rand Paul on the Senate floor:

Paul was referring to an official FBI/DOJ flyer given out to business owners to help them identify potential threats. And recently, Federal agents went to food storage facilities demanding customers lists, while citizens were harassed by the government with door-to-door "assessments" of their preparedness.

4. Missing Fingers: The document referred to by Rand Paul above, also claims that if someone is missing a finger or has burn marks, they're more likely to be a terror suspect.

5. Buying Flashlights: Also from the same official source, if you're buying night-vision devices including flashlights, you should be considered a terror suspect.

6. Paying Cash at Hotels: Watch out if you want to pay with cash for hotel rooms. This DHS commercial indicates that you're a terror suspect if you do:

The DHS has also launched their citizen spy program for hotels and has sent them hotel protection guidelines which lists suspicious activities like persons carrying observation equipment or standing around in the same area.

7. Texting Privately in a Public Place: According to this DHS commercial for their citizen spy program, if you're texting while sitting in a public park, but trying to keep it concealed from people who pass by, you should be reported for suspicious terrorist activity:

8. Ron Paul Stickers: A 2009 law enforcement report from the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) labeled Ron Paul supporters, Libertarians, and people sharing movies about the Federal Reserve as "domestic terrorists." When supporters of a political candidate who stands for peace and freedom become terror suspects, America is in big trouble.

9. Belief in Conspiracies -- Obama's Information Czar, Cass Sunstein, has identified those who hold conspiracy theories as targets for online "cognitive infiltration." Do you question the motives for war? Question the motives of the private Federal Reserve bank? Question any government policies? Chances are you already have been marked as a suspect.

10. Own Precious Metals -- Despite the fact that the Federal Reserve paper note (a.k.a. the dollar) is only sustained by faith, you could now be a suspected terrorist if you would like to preserve your wealth with something that holds real value like precious metals. And forget about establishing an alternative currency made from silver or gold like Bernard von NotHaus as you may be lumped into a "unique form of terrorism."

And now the bonus round for being registered as a potential terrorist -- #11-- Owning guns and ammo. Let's face it: you disagree with the American government colluding with international banks to rob you blind AND you've armed yourself? This also why returning veterans have also been labeled potential terrorists -- they have guns, know how to use them, and may be angry about the lies that sent them to war.

As the Fast and Furious scandal has now revealed, it was done with a premeditated strategy to vilify the Second Amendment to the nation's Constitution. Wait -- actively planning to undermine the founding document of the country and plot criminal activity against citizens to spread fear and increase political power? Should that be considered under the definition of terrorism. . . .?

[Cin]

Yes, investigations need to proceed! But, under the actual laws/regulations governing Wall Street and the banks during the mega-rip off most of what was done was not illegal. That is why it is so important to get the agencies created and the new regulations they are to enforce going. And the GOP in Congress has done everything including blocking confirmation of directors of consummer agencies that will make those kinds of actions illegal and subject to prosecution in order to protect Wall Street and banking further.

Yes, many of the unethical and damaging acts of Wall Street were not illegal thanks to the orgy of de-regulation we have seen over the years. But much of what was done by Wall Street was outright fraud. Misrepresenting debt instruments to the public as sound and top-grade while scorning them privately as toxic junk is still very much illegal, criminal acts under existing statutes.

[Cin]

Published on Tuesday, December 13, 2011 by CommonDreams.org
President Obama, Veto the National Defense Authorization Act
by Center for Constitutional Rights

CCR urges President Obama to veto the NDAA. If he doesn’t, he will bear the blame for making indefinite military detention without trial a permanent feature of the U.S. legal system. He will be responsible for signing into law one of the greatest expansions of executive power in our nation’s history, allowing the government to lock up citizens and non-citizens without the right to fair trial. Indefinite detention is contrary to the most fundamental principles of the rule of law.

The NDAA would essentially prevent President Obama from bringing men from Guantánamo to the U.S. for trial and severely curtail his ability to resettle them in third countries. More than half of the men currently detained at Guantánamo – 89 of the 171 – have been unanimously cleared by the CIA, FBI, NSC and Defense Department for transfer or release. Yet no one has been transferred since last January, when Congress created restrictions similar to those in the NDAA. This marks the longest period without a transfer in the prison camp’s entire 10-year history and only underscores the president’s broken promise and failure to close Guantanamo.

As Obama himself, along with President Bush and NDAA co-sponsor Senator John McCain, acknowledged during the presidential campaign, Guantánamo’s very existence makes us less safe. Indeed, Guantánamo, Obama’s forever prison, has become a global symbol of human rights violations by a country that claims to be the world leader of freedom.

Are these the legacies Obama, the one-time professor of constitutional law, wants for his presidency?

[Sachita]

This really burns my ass:

http://www.truth-out.org/under-industry-pressure-usda-works-speed-approval-monsantos-genetically-engineered-crops/1323453319

EXCLUSIVE: Under Industry Pressure, USDA Works to Speed Approval of Monsanto's Genetically Engineered Crops

It seems like control is just accelerated but I sit back and wonder who is really pulling all the strings. I see protest, I even see positive change, however there are agencies fighting and even lying to get shit approved/passed. I do understand the weight of our financial scenario and it is beyond our control.

But I can't help but fantasize about 1000's of protesters heading out to farms, empty lots, anywhere there is soil and start protesting with shovels and seeds. What better way to slam so much of this then to take back our local food systems? The magnitude of corps effected by this would be huge and so many banks would come tumbling down. Are we going to continue to allow the UDSA and FDA control what goes into our bodies?

So there are a few occupy farm groups but they are setting up camps to protest. I hope by spring everyone is out digging, growing and preserving. Penetrating local markets and teaching people to become independent and sustainable.

[AtLast]

Yes, many of the unethical and damaging acts of Wall Street were not illegal thanks to the orgy of de-regulation we have seen over the years. But much of what was done by Wall Street was outright fraud. Misrepresenting debt instruments to the public as sound and top-grade while scorning them privately as toxic junk is still very much illegal, criminal acts under existing statutes.

I agree but worry that time is running out to do anything about the acts of fraud leading to what happened. There was such a confusing wall built (of these securities) to protect Wall Street and the banks and housing financial services industries- they wanted this to be a nightmare to even figure out who the hell really owns properties! All of the lobbying paid off for nearly 30 years to get to this place. Those that profited simply put the cash offshore.

I don't think there will ever be trials against those at the core of all of this. I think that each and every mortgage held in this manner should be declared null and void with re-negotiation at todays market values and that any negative financial "marks" on mortgagees since the collapse of the housing market not be allowed to count in the new mortgage.

That is the other side of this- so many people that had good credit now do not due to job loss and the whole damn mess.

[Sachita]

That is the other side of this- so many people that had good credit now do not due to job loss and the whole damn mess.

But on the bright side, if there ever could be one, private companies are writing low interest loans for people with bad credit, even foreclosures. I've been catching wind of a few people who said "what the hell", applied and found all kinds of options. I was lucky because the crooks that hold my mortgage seriously screwed up and recorded all conversations. they defaulted me on the governments home loan modification and almost forced me into foreclosure because of it. I ready to sue the crap out of them and would have won... maybe 10 years later. Anyhow they came in, took 20K off my principal and dropped my rate to 5%. It happened just in time because there is no way over the past year that would have been possible. But now people are fed up, builders and modular home companies are taking risk. I admit that I would rather see the already existing surplus of homes being lived in but it may take some time for this.

The other positive thing I'm seeing in the home market is people downsizing and moving to smaller homes. I would have loved to have seen this movement happen 20 years ago. That and the government putting a cap on auto makers to not make cars that used more then 25 MPG, forcing them to change unless businesses wanted to apply for a special permit. It would force more local change which is something we do desperately need,.

[Cin]

In case you think laws like NDAA 1031 Citizen Imprisonment Law can't or won't be used against you by the government because, well, because you actually aren't a terrorist, think again. These are laws that give the government unprecedented, in the U.S. anyway, control over it's citizens. And removes a great deal of your rights and possible recourse should you be picked up and dragged off to a detention center for a round of torture and questioning.

10 Ridiculous Things That Make You a Terror Suspect

"I'm not anti-America, America is anti-me"

You thought you weren't doing anything wrong, so why should you care about who they call a terrorist? Well, you may not believe it, but you're likely a terror suspect in America's new paradigm of the Land of the Fear.

The government is casting a wide net over its citizens in its search for potential threats. Now, you don't need to actually commit a crime to be hauled away to a detention center and held without charges while you are tortured; you just need to appear suspicious by sympathizing with anti-government views to be labeled a domestic terrorist.

First, it's important to understand the official definition of domestic terrorism in the United States. The ACLU reports that a person is a domestic terrorist if they engage in any "act dangerous to human life" that "appears to be intended to (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping."

Although recent White House action plans claim to be targeting "violent extremism in all its forms," the government itself is clearly guilty of countless "acts dangerous to human life intended to coerce the civilian population, to influence the policy, and to affect the conduct of a government." But that's for another article.

What's more disturbing, is the government's expansion of guilty parties to "terrorist sympathizers." This is where the net gets really large. What exactly constitutes sympathizing with a terrorist? Is questioning the imperial foreign policy and the destruction of civil liberties, sympathizing with the enemy? In the U.S., it seems that if you don't agree with the violence and coercion America commits, then you're an anti-American terrorist sympathizer, as evidenced by peace organizations being added to terror watch lists.

So, what makes you a terror suspect in America? Here are 10 ridiculous things that make you a terrorist according to "officials" running the U.S. government:

1. Tea Party Activists: The political Left demonized peaceful Tea Party activists as right-wing extremists, leading to the second most powerful official in the U.S. government, VP Joe Biden, to liken them to terrorists. Do you sympathize with those who are angry about bank bailouts on the backs of taxpayers? Well, you're likely a terrorist in the eyes of the State.

2. Occupy Activists: Now, the "Occupy" movement, said to be made up of left-wing extremists, is enjoying the same treatment as the Tea Party's right-wing extremists. The United Kingdom has officially labeled "Occupy" demonstrators as domestic terrorists. The U.S. hasn't gone quite that far, but the violent Police State did spy them in search of "domestic terrorists." Watch out, you may be a terror suspect if you sympathize with the 99%.

3. 7 Days of Food: The Department of Justice and FBI considers you a terrorist threat if you have more than 7 days of food stored, as explained by Rand Paul on the Senate floor:

Paul was referring to an official FBI/DOJ flyer given out to business owners to help them identify potential threats. And recently, Federal agents went to food storage facilities demanding customers lists, while citizens were harassed by the government with door-to-door "assessments" of their preparedness.

4. Missing Fingers: The document referred to by Rand Paul above, also claims that if someone is missing a finger or has burn marks, they're more likely to be a terror suspect.

5. Buying Flashlights: Also from the same official source, if you're buying night-vision devices including flashlights, you should be considered a terror suspect.

6. Paying Cash at Hotels: Watch out if you want to pay with cash for hotel rooms. This DHS commercial indicates that you're a terror suspect if you do:

The DHS has also launched their citizen spy program for hotels and has sent them hotel protection guidelines which lists suspicious activities like persons carrying observation equipment or standing around in the same area.

7. Texting Privately in a Public Place: According to this DHS commercial for their citizen spy program, if you're texting while sitting in a public park, but trying to keep it concealed from people who pass by, you should be reported for suspicious terrorist activity:

8. Ron Paul Stickers: A 2009 law enforcement report from the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) labeled Ron Paul supporters, Libertarians, and people sharing movies about the Federal Reserve as "domestic terrorists." When supporters of a political candidate who stands for peace and freedom become terror suspects, America is in big trouble.

9. Belief in Conspiracies -- Obama's Information Czar, Cass Sunstein, has identified those who hold conspiracy theories as targets for online "cognitive infiltration." Do you question the motives for war? Question the motives of the private Federal Reserve bank? Question any government policies? Chances are you already have been marked as a suspect.

10. Own Precious Metals -- Despite the fact that the Federal Reserve paper note (a.k.a. the dollar) is only sustained by faith, you could now be a suspected terrorist if you would like to preserve your wealth with something that holds real value like precious metals. And forget about establishing an alternative currency made from silver or gold like Bernard von NotHaus as you may be lumped into a "unique form of terrorism."

And now the bonus round for being registered as a potential terrorist -- #11-- Owning guns and ammo. Let's face it: you disagree with the American government colluding with international banks to rob you blind AND you've armed yourself? This also why returning veterans have also been labeled potential terrorists -- they have guns, know how to use them, and may be angry about the lies that sent them to war.

As the Fast and Furious scandal has now revealed, it was done with a premeditated strategy to vilify the Second Amendment to the nation's Constitution. Wait -- actively planning to undermine the founding document of the country and plot criminal activity against citizens to spread fear and increase political power? Should that be considered under the definition of terrorism. . . .?
Once again I forgot to put a link to an article. Sorry. My brain is all christmasy and can't be counted on for much outside of dancing sugar plum fairies.
http://irritatethestate.net/2011/12/13/10-ridiculous-things-that-make-you-a-terror-suspect/

[SoNotHer]

I'm shocked, saddened and ultimately informed by your articles and posts, folks. Thank you for them. I am deep in the final weeks and the semester and frankly unmoved by even coffee lately. The exhaustion is in my bones this week. I'm overdue a marathon sleep and will be posting anything with gravitas after that....

Thank you again. I am reading your posts and appreciate them.

[ruffryder]

It's the law, they have to let one vote if they are working during voting hours. Granted not that many work 12 hour shifts except nurses, EMT's, police and Fire, military, but it is the law and one can not be fired.

There's a lot of laws regarding employer/employee but a lot of people still do not want to speak up about their rights and what is the law at work for fear of being reprimanded and/or fired. People get fired for shit all the time that employers shouldn't fire people for and they say it's something else for the reason. This is what some Occupy protestors are trying to change with this law on voting, so it's not directed around or by work and they have the freedom to vote when they want to at their leisure and at peace.

[Corkey]

There's a lot of laws regarding employer/employee but a lot of people still do not want to speak up about their rights and what is the law at work for fear of being reprimanded and/or fired. People get fired for shit all the time that employers shouldn't fire people for and they say it's something else for the reason. This is what some Occupy protestors are trying to change with this law on voting, so it's not directed around or by work and they have the freedom to vote when they want to at their leisure and at peace.

Until people stop living in fear and allowing others to dictate their rights we will have problems. I for one am not opposed to stepping right up into any of my bosses faces and telling them they are breaking the law, and I will have their butts in a sling if they tried to stop me or fire me. Sometimes we have to be our own mouth piece.

Oh the weekend thing on voting, which of you has tried to get a bus on a weekend? And who isn't working weekends these days? Not every one has a 9-5 with weekends off. I never did.

[AtLast]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/12/occupy-oakland-ports_n_1144476.html

[Corkey]

http://news.yahoo.com/house-passes-662-billion-defense-bill-235908339.html

Goodbye habius corpus, goodbye my vote for Obama.

[SoNotHer]

Damn....

"Unnerving many conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, the legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. House Republican leaders had to tamp down a small revolt among some rank-and-file who sought to delay a vote on the bill."


http://news.yahoo.com/house-passes-662-billion-defense-bill-235908339.html

Goodbye habius corpus, goodbye my vote for Obama.

[atomiczombie]

Damn....

"Unnerving many conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, the legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. House Republican leaders had to tamp down a small revolt among some rank-and-file who sought to delay a vote on the bill."

Yup, and Obama is going to sign that piece of shit. :annoyed:

[SoNotHer]

I love this woman's spirit and what she is doing to fight the new round of voter suppression laws.

Worth the watch -

nHhpTyDYXfM#t=5s

[atomiczombie]

Ya know, this bill that will suspend habeas corpus and repeal the federal rules of criminal procedure, I am just dumbfounded that Obama is going to sign it. It is against everything he ran for in 2008. That he takes all this corporate money for his campaign speaks to how much he has been bought and paid for by the 1%.

As I have said before, the longer we choose the lesser of two evils for president, the longer 2 evils will be our only choices. We need stand up and reject the two party system. The 99 Declaration committee is actively working to get delegates from every congressional district to come together in Philadelphia on July 4th 2012 and vote on a list of demands to put to the president and congress. Let's throw our support behind them. They are the best hope for our voices to be heard.

https://www.facebook.com/www.the99declaration.org

Right now their site, www.the99declaration.org, is having technical issues but they will get it resolved soon. They will be voting on delegates in 96 days.


THE PLAN

1. Elect one man and one woman from each of the 435 congressional districts in March 2012 plus six delegates from Washington,D.C., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Territories. Voting will be online, possibly telephone and at local polling places.

2. Between March 2012 and July 2012, these delegates will draft a list of grievances. Candidates running in the primaries and general election will be called upon to state their positions on the issues being debated by the 876 delegates.

3. During the week of July 4, 2012, the 876 delegates will meet in Philadelphia at a National General Assembly to ratify and sign a final petition for a redress of grievances and solutions and plan a potential new independent party to run in the 2014 mid-term election.

4. The ratified petition for a redress of grievances shall be served upon all three branches of government and all candidates running for federal political office in 2012.

5. The National General Assembly will then wait a reasonable period of time for the 113th Congress, President and Supreme Court to act upon and redress the grievances listed in the petition. Political candidates in the 2012 election will be asked whether they support the petition.

6. If the grievances are not redressed and solutions implemented within a reasonable time, the National General Assembly will reconvene electronically or in person and organize a new independent political party to run for all of the 435 House seats and 33 Senate seats in 2014.


More on the Indefinite Detention Inserted Into Defense Authorization Act: http://occupywallst.org/forum/obama-has-thrown-down-the-gauntlet-occupy-must-sta/

[Greyson]

This piece is from an Urban Planner Blog I read. Below I have posted the link to the full piece and snipped a paragraph in hopes of getting your attention, interest.
__________________________________________________ _______________


Since too much inequality can foment revolt and instability, the CIA regularly updates statistics on income distribution for countries around the world, including the U.S. Between 1997 and 2007, inequality in the U.S. grew by almost 10 percent, making it more unequal than Russia, infamous for its powerful oligarchs. The U.S. is not faring well historically, either. Even the Roman Empire, a society built on conquest and slave labor, had a more equitable income distribution.



http://http://persquaremile.com/2011/12/16/income-inequality-in-the-roman-empire/ (http://persquaremile.com/2011/12/16/income-inequality-in-the-roman-empire/)

[Ebon]

Ya know, this bill that will suspend habeas corpus and repeal the federal rules of criminal procedure, I am just dumbfounded that Obama is going to sign it. It is against everything he ran for in 2008. That he takes all this corporate money for his campaign speaks to how much he has been bought and paid for by the 1%.

As I have said before, the longer we choose the lesser of two evils for president, the longer 2 evils will be our only choices. We need stand up and reject the two party system. The 99 Declaration committee is actively working to get delegates from every congressional district to come together in Philadelphia on July 4th 2012 and vote on a list of demands to put to the president and congress. Let's throw our support behind them. They are the best hope for our voices to be heard.

https://www.facebook.com/www.the99declaration.org

Right now their site, www.the99declaration.org, is having technical issues but they will get it resolved soon. They will be voting on delegates in 96 days.




More on the Indefinite Detention Inserted Into Defense Authorization Act: http://occupywallst.org/forum/obama-has-thrown-down-the-gauntlet-occupy-must-sta/

I always knew Mr. Smiles wasn't "special and magic" like everyone thought he was, even I fell for it for a minute. Then I started researching and finding out how tight he was with wall street. Usually people like him are the most vicious. He likes corporate money just like the rest of them.

I like this plan and I will support it. But careful we might end up in one of these holding places for life. I hate to say it and I don't like the guy but all the shit that Alex Jones talked about when he spoke of this stuff is coming to fruition. Starting with the law that Obama is about to sign. I wonder how much he's getting paid for it.

Alex also said that juice boxes makes people gay so it's kind of hard to take him serious.

[SoNotHer]

I just thought I'd take a minute in this thread to note the passing of Christopher Hitchens. Dogged, controversial, brilliant and incendiary, he was a tenacious fighter for so many things, not the least of which was freedom of thought and the right and value of individual expression.


16 December 2011
Christopher Hitchens dies at 62 after suffering cancer

British-born author, literary critic and journalist Christopher Hitchens has died at the age of 62.

He died from pneumonia, a complication of the oesophageal cancer he had, at a Texas hospital. Vanity Fair magazine, which announced his death, said there would "never be another like Christopher". He is survived by his wife, Carol Blue, and their daughter, Antonia, and his children from a previous marriage, Alexander and Sophia.

Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter described the writer as someone "of ferocious intellect, who was as vibrant on the page as he was at the bar". "Those who read him felt they knew him, and those who knew him were profoundly fortunate souls."

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/57364000/jpg/_57364356_011716730-1.jpg

Hitchens was born in Portsmouth in 1949 and graduated from Oxford in 1970. He began his career as a journalist in Britain in the 1970s and later moved to New York, becoming contributing editor to Vanity Fair in November 1992.

"Prospect of death makes me sober, objective"

He was diagnosed with cancer in June 2010, and documented his declining health in his Vanity Fair column. In an August 2010 essay for the magazine he wrote: "I love the imagery of struggle. "I sometimes wish I were suffering in a good cause, or risking my life for the good of others, instead of just being a gravely endangered patient."

Speaking on the BBC's Newsnight programme, in November that year, he reflected on a life that he knew would be cut short: "It does concentrate the mind, of course, to realise that your life is more rationed than you thought it was." Radicalised by the 1960s, Hitchens was often arrested at political rallies and was kicked out of the Labour Party over his opposition to the Vietnam War. He became a correspondent for the Socialist Workers Party's International Socialism magazine.

In later life he moved away from the left. Following the September 11 attacks he argued with Noam Chomsky and others who suggested that US foreign policy had helped cause the tragedy. He supported the Iraq War and backed George W Bush for re-election in 2004.

It led to him being accused of betrayal: one former friend called him "a lying, opportunistic, cynical contrarian", another critic said he was "a drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay". But he could dish out scathing critiques himself. He called Bill Clinton "a cynical, self-seeking ambitious thug", Henry Kissinger a war criminal and Mother Teresa a fraudulent fanatic.

'A great voice'

He also famously fell out with his brother, the Mail on Sunday journalist Peter Hitchens, though the pair were later reconciled. Hitchens could be a loyal friend. He stood by the author Salman Rushdie during the furor that followed the publication of his novel The Satanic Verses. Writing on Twitter after the announcement of Hitchens' death, Mr Rushdie said: "Goodbye, my beloved friend. A great voice falls silent. A great heart stops."

Former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair publicly debated religion with Hitchens at the Munk Debate in Toronto in November 2010. "Christopher Hitchens was a complete one-off, an amazing mixture of writer, journalist, polemicist, and unique character," said Mr Blair.

"He was fearless in the pursuit of truth and any cause in which he believed. And there was no belief he held that he did not advocate with passion, commitment and brilliance.

"He was an extraordinary, compelling and colourful human being whom it was a privilege to know." The MP Denis McShane was a student at Oxford with Hitchens. He said: "Christopher just swam against every tide. He was a supporter of the Polish and Czech resistance of the 1970s, he supported Mrs Thatcher because he thought getting rid of the Argentinian fascist junta was a good idea. "He was a cross between Voltaire and Orwell. He loved words."

"He could throw words up into the sky, they fell down in a marvellous pattern.
Christopher Hitchens was everything a great essayist should be: infuriating, brilliant, highly provocative and yet intensely serious”

The publication of his 2007 book God Is Not Great made him a major celebrity in his adopted homeland of the United States, and he happily took on the role of the country's best-known atheist.

He maintained his devout atheism after being diagnosed with cancer, telling one interviewer: "No evidence or argument has yet been presented which would change my mind. But I like surprises." The author and prominent atheist Richard Dawkins described him as the "finest orator of our time" and a "valiant fighter against all tyrants including God". He said Hitchens had been a "wonderful mentor in a way".

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who once worked as an intern for Hitchens, said: "Christopher Hitchens was everything a great essayist should be: infuriating, brilliant, highly provocative and yet intensely serious.

"He will be massively missed by everyone who values strong opinions and great writing." Hitchens wrote for numerous publications including The Times Literary Supplement, the Daily Express, the London Evening Standard, Newsday and The Atlantic. He was the author of 17 books, including The Trial of Henry Kissinger, How Religion Poisons Everything, and a memoir, Hitch-22.

A collection of his essays, Arguably, was released this year.

The story continues at -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16212418

[SoNotHer]

This was exquisite reading, Greyson. Thank you for posting it.

This piece is from an Urban Planner Blog I read. Below I have posted the link to the full piece and snipped a paragraph in hopes of getting your attention, interest.
__________________________________________________ _______________


Since too much inequality can foment revolt and instability, the CIA regularly updates statistics on income distribution for countries around the world, including the U.S. Between 1997 and 2007, inequality in the U.S. grew by almost 10 percent, making it more unequal than Russia, infamous for its powerful oligarchs. The U.S. is not faring well historically, either. Even the Roman Empire, a society built on conquest and slave labor, had a more equitable income distribution.



http://http://persquaremile.com/2011/12/16/income-inequality-in-the-roman-empire/ (http://persquaremile.com/2011/12/16/income-inequality-in-the-roman-empire/)

[Kätzchen]

CNN reports some disruption to ports, but not closings:


(CNN) -- Protesters chanting, "Whose port? Our port!" protested at West Coast ports on Monday, temporarily shutting down some of the facilities in a protest against what they called corporate greed.

The protesters, affiliated with the nationwide "Occupy" movement, set out in the pre-dawn hours in Oakland, California; Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon, to shut down ports in an effort to "disrupt the economic machine that benefits the wealthiest individuals and corporations," according to organizers.

Long Beach police arrested two people during the demonstration there, police Chief Jim McDonnell said. Port operations were not significantly impacted beyond some traffic delays, he said.

A spokesman for the port in Portland, Oregon, said the protests had partially shut down the port there. In Oakland, the port said in a statement that operations were continuing "with sporadic disruptions for truckers trying to enter and exit marine terminal gates."

About 80 protesters demonstrated outside the gate of San Diego's port, but caused no disruption because, port spokesman Ron Powell said.

"They were there at a time when we really didn't have a lot of truck traffic coming in and out," he said.

Four people who sat down in the road were arrested he said. San Diego police did not immediately return a telephone call seeking information on the arrests.

Protesters were planning a second occupation of the Oakland port Monday afternoon. Protesters in Seattle also were preparing to protest at the port there, according to organizing websites and posts on Twitter.

In addition to the West Coast port blockades, protesters also were planning to demonstrate at the port in Houston, while demonstrators in Salt Lake City and Denver were planning to disrupt operations of Walmart distribution facilities. About 40 to 50 people protested at the Denver facility, CNN affiliate KCNC reported.

The demonstrations were part of a nationwide day of protest called in the aftermath of efforts by cities across the country, including New York, Boston and Oakland, to clear demonstrators from encampments they had set up in public parks and other locations.

"We are occupying the ports as part of a day of action, boycott and march for full legalization and good jobs for all to draw attention to and protest the criminal system of concentrated wealth that depends on local and global exploitation of working people, and the denial of workers' rights to organize for decent pay, working conditions and benefits, in disregard for the environment and the health and safety of surrounding communities," organizers said on their website.

The port protesters are focusing on terminals owned by SSA Marine, saying it is owed by the Goldman Sachs investment firm, which they argue exemplifies corporate greed and is anti-union.

SSA Senior Vice President Bob Watters disputed the protesters' claims, saying Goldman Sachs owns less than 3% of an investment fund that has a minority stake in the company. He also said the company is the largest employer of International Longshore and Warehouse Union members on the West Coast.

That union, which represents 15,000 dock workers, has distanced itself from the effort.

In a letter to members sent last month, union president Robert McEllrath said the organization shares Occupy protesters concerns about what they consider corporate abuses, but he said the union was not sanctioning any shutdown.

Protest organizers said on their website that they were acting independent of organized labor only because the unions are "constrained under reactionary, anti-union federal legislation."

Some port workers are also against the planned blockade.

"I'm just barely getting on my feet again after two years, and now I gotta go a day without pay while somebody else has something to say that I'm not really sure is relevant to the cause," trucker Chuck Baca told CNN affiliate KGO.

Port officials say shutting down their facilities will only cost workers and their communities wages and tax revenue.

"Protesters wanted to send a message to the 1% but they are impacting the 99%," said Portland port spokesman Josh Thomas. The stoppage is resulting in "lost shifts, lost wages and delays," he said.

Port of San Diego board chairman Scott Peters issued an open letter to the community on Sunday asking that protesters not disrupt work.

"The Port of San Diego is made up of working people with families who serve the public each day by helping to bring in goods that are important to the people of the San Diego region," Peters wrote.

"They are the 99 percent, the gardeners, the maintenance workers, the dock workers, the Harbor Police officers, the office workers, the environmental workers -- all working to improve the quality of life in San Diego Bay and on its surrounding lands," he said. "It is these people who would be hurt by a blockade of our Port."

Thanks for this article, turasultana.

I do not support strategies such as protests designed to bring closure to sea ports.

[SoNotHer]

Free-Falling in Milwaukee: A Close-Up on One City's Middle-Class Decline
By David Rohde

In the last 30 years, Milwaukee's middle class families went from a plurality to its smallest minority. Its poorest parts have a higher infant mortality rate than the Gaza Strip.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/800px-Former_brewery_Pabst_Brewing_Company_in_Milwaukee_ Wisconsin.jpg

MILWAUKEE -- As Washington and Madison fiddle, this city's middle class is slowly deteriorating.

First, the numbers. From 1970 to 2007, the percentage of families in the Milwaukee metropolitan area that were middle class declined from 37 to 24 percent, according to a new analysis by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. During the same period, the proportion of affluent families grew from 22 to 27 percent-while the percentage of poor households swelled from 23 to 31 percent. In short, Milwaukee's middle class families went from a plurality to its smallest minority.

The biggest culprit is the disappearance of well-paying manufacturing jobs. Despite a promising recent uptick in high-end manufacturing, Milwaukee has suffered a 40 percent decline in manufacturing jobs since 1970, when Schlitz, Pabst and American Motors reigned. Instead of shrinking, the city's urban poverty is creeping outward toward suburbs. Smoke floats over Villard Avenue, a once active area dominated by factories that now have mostly closed, in the 1st district where unemployment numbers are high in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Late Wednesday afternoon, that was evident in the Jefferson Elementary school of West Allis, a once solidly middle class suburb bordering Milwaukee. In a crowded school gymnasium, principal Shelly Strasser said that fifty percent of students now qualify for free or reduced price school lunch programs. In other local schools, the number is ninety percent.

"It breaks your heart," said Strasser, a West Allis native who said she now has homeless students. "That's something we've never seen as a district."
The change also emerges in Cudahy, a once middle class suburb just south of the city. As a child, Debby Pizur watched traffic jams form on local streets during factory shifts changes. Today, many of those factories are shuttered, Pizur works three jobs at the age of 59, and runs a non-profit that provides food, clothing and household items to the community's poor.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/easel/images/galleries/090025_s10.reutersmedia.net.jpeg

The number of families served by her center, "Project Concern," has doubled since she took over five years ago. Increasingly, families are "doubling and tripling up," she said, with parents, siblings and children moving in with one another.

In Milwaukee's poorest corners, the infant mortality rate is higher than that of the Gaza Strip, Colombia and Bulgaria.

"I have no job," said Brenda, a woman who declined to give her last name and blushed as she picked up free food and clothing. "I haven't had a job for three years."

'YOU CAN'T MOVE OUT. YOU'RE STUCK.'

Milwaukee's poor, meanwhile, are poorer. A drive through the north side district of Alderman Ashanti Hamilton showed it. In the 1970s, the area was home to one of the most prosperous black communities in the nation. Two massive factories employed 15,000 workers."In those days, you could lose a job in the morning," recalled Joe Bova, a 69-year-old retired crime victim advocate. "And have another job after lunch."

Today, both plants have closed, run-down shops line derelict streets and Ashanti puts the unemployment rate for young black males at 50 percent. In Milwaukee's poorest corners, the infant mortality rate is higher than that of the Gaza Strip, Colombia and Bulgaria. All the while, Milwaukee's wealthier suburbs thrive. Ozaukee County, just north of the city, is the 25th wealthiest in the United States in terms of per capita income.

"It's basically two cities," said Howard Snyder, executive director of the Northwest Side Community Development Corporation, a local non-profit. "Now, everybody is locked in. You can't move in. You can't move out. You're stuck. There was a moment for bold action but it has passed."

Unfortunately, Milwaukee's dwindling middle class is part of a national trend. A November study by researchers at Stanford University found that the share of American families living in middle class neighborhoods in the United States dropped from 65 percent in 1970 to 44 percent in 2009. Milwaukee experienced the second greatest decrease in the country, according to the study; only Philadelphia's was worse. "Income inequality grew," said Sean Reardon, the author of the study. "The growth in the tails in Milwaukee and the shrinking middle class is what I'd expect to see."

How to slow that trend vexes Milwaukee officials. In the wake of big-government, anti-poverty initiatives in the 1960s and 1970s, Milwaukee adopted market-oriented downtown development projects in the 1990s and 2000s. Today, the city's center and lakefront boast high-end residential condominiums, a sparkling convention center and stunning Santiago Calatrava-designed art museum. New service jobs dominate the economy, but vary vastly in pay. As in other American cities, bankers, lawyers and professionals earn handsomely. Cashiers, janitors and restaurant workers struggle to make ends meet.

HELD BACK BY POLARIZATION

In recent years, the city turned several abandoned factories into new industrial parks. Tenants range from a local frozen pizza producer to a Spanish-owned firm that manufactures wind-turbine generators. Several thousand new jobs have been created, but the tens of thousands of well-paid, manufacturing jobs that built Milwaukee have not been replaced.

"You had the war on poverty and then you had the trickle down theory," said Sherrie Tussler, executive director of the Hunger Task Force, a local non-profit that feeds a growing number of formerly middle-class families. "And neither one worked."

Finding a third way in Wisconsin, an epicenter of American political polarization, will not be easy. Hamilton, the alderman, insists the answers to America's woes will emerging at the local, not state or federal level. "It's happening," he said. "And it's been demonstrated that things can work when things are not so politicized." The 38-year-old Milwaukee native insists he and other Democrats work closely with local business leaders to try to revive the city. Government alone is not the answer, he said. Nor is the free market alone. Wisconsin, Hamilton insists, is an example for a divided country.

"It's an example of what not to do," he said, "and what can be done." I pray he's right.

This post also appears at Reuters.com, an *Atlantic* partner site.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/free-falling-in-milwaukee-a-close-up-on-one-citys-middle-class-decline/250100/#slide3

[AtLast]

Thanks for this article, turasultana.

I do not support strategies such as protests designed to bring closure to sea ports.

I didn't and don't support the port closure strategies either. So many of the 99% are negatively affected by this type of strategy- and it leads to those that lost pay to turn aware fro the occupy movement. Right before the holidays. Far too many of the 99% will begin to view this movement as a bunch of white, spoiled middle-class college students that have no idea what it is to try and earn a living. I remember these sentiments back in my 60's days of dissent. An important lesson to learn for activists. One has to build awareness of the populations they beleive they are protesting for and with in a realistic way. Walk a mile in my shoes... comes to mind.


It appears that the Occupy Oakland folks realized this and have taken up donation drives to give to those that lost pay- a very good idea. We all learn from our mistakes- part of just being human.

[SoNotHer]

Countrywide Will Settle a Bias Suit
By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Wednesday announced the largest residential fair-lending settlement in history, saying that Bank of America had agreed to pay $335 million to settle allegations that its Countrywide Financial unit discriminated against black and Hispanic borrowers during the housing boom.

A department investigation concluded that Countrywide loan officers and brokers charged higher fees and rates to more than 200,000 minority borrowers across the country than to white borrowers who posed the same credit risk. Countrywide also steered more than 10,000 minority borrowers into costly subprime mortgages when white borrowers with similar credit profiles received regular loans, it found.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the settlement showed that the Justice Department would “vigorously pursue those who would take advantage of certain Americans because of their race, national origin, gender or disability,” adding: “Such conduct undercuts the notion of a level playing field for all consumers. It betrays the promise of equal opportunity that is enshrined in our Constitution and our legal framework.” The settlement is subject to approval by a federal judge in California; according to the proposed consent order filed Wednesday, Countrywide denied all of the department’s allegations.

Dan Frahm, a Bank of America spokesman, stressed that the allegations were focused on Countrywide’s conduct from the years 2004 to 2008, before Bank of America purchased it. “We are committed to fair and equal treatment of all our customers, and will continue to focus on doing what’s right for our customers, clients and communities,” he said. “We discontinued Countrywide products and practices that were not in keeping with our commitment and will continue to resolve and put behind us the remaining Countrywide issues.”

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/12/22/business/Mortgage/Mortgage-articleLarge.jpg

The problems stemmed from a Countrywide policy that gave loan officers and brokers the discretion to alter the terms for which a particular applicant qualified without setting up any system to comply with fair-lending rules, the department said. Lending data showed that Countrywide ended up charging Hispanics and African-Americans more, on average, than white applicants with similar credit histories. In 2007, for example, Countrywide employees charged Hispanic applicants in Los Angeles an average of $545 more in fees for a $200,000 loan than they charged non-Hispanic white applicants with similar credit histories. Independent brokers processing applications for a Countrywide loan charged Hispanics $1,195 more, the department said.

Lisa Madigan, the attorney general of Illinois, which in 2010 had sued Bank of America over Countrywide’s lending practices, also settled that case on Wednesday as part of the deal. “Chances are, the victims had no idea they were being victimized,” said Thomas E. Perez, the Justice Department’s assistant attorney general for civil rights. “It was discrimination with a smile.”

In addition, from 2004 to 2007 — the peak of Wall Street firms’ demand for subprime loans that they purchased, bundled and resold as securities, a major cause of the ensuing financial crisis — Countrywide allowed its brokers and employees to steer applicants who qualified for regular mortgages into a riskier and more expensive subprime loan. The odds of a minority applicant being steered into such a loan were more than twice as high as those for a non-Hispanic white borrower with a similar credit rating, the department said. About two-thirds of the victims were Hispanic and one-third were black, the department said. If a judge approves the settlement, victims will receive between several hundred and several thousand dollars, with larger amounts going to those who were steered into subprime mortgages despite qualifying for regular loans.

The settlement dwarfed previous fair-lending cases. The largest on record until Wednesday, Mr. Perez said, was a $6.1 million settlement in March 2010 related to two subsidiaries of A.I.G. Under federal civil rights laws — including the Fair Housing and Equal Credit Opportunity acts — a lending practice is illegal if it has a disparate impact on minority borrowers. Against the backdrop of the foreclosure crisis, the Obama administration has made a major effort to step up the laws’ enforcement. In early 2010, the division created a unit to focus exclusively on banks and mortgage brokers suspected of discriminating against minority mortgage applicants, a type of litigation that requires extensive and complex analysis of data.

Working with bank regulatory agencies and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the unit has reached settlements or filed complaints in 10 cases accusing a lender of engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination. The Federal Reserve first detected statistical discrepancies in the loans Countrywide was making and referred the matter to the Justice Department in early 2007, according to a court filing disclosed in 2010 as part of a civil fraud case brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission against Angelo R. Mozilo, the former chief executive of Countrywide.

With its aggressive pursuit of growth in the home lending market, Countrywide became a symbol of the excesses and collapse of the housing boom. After accumulating $200 billion in assets, it nearly fell into bankruptcy. As the financial crisis began to mount, it was taken over by Bank of America for $2.8 billion. The acquisition, regarded as one of the worst deals ever, has already cost the bank tens of billions of dollars in losses. Investor uncertainty about future losses is a prime reason that its stock has lost roughly two-thirds of its value over the last two years.

While Wednesday’s settlement put one legal headache behind the bank, the second-largest in the United States by assets, it still faces legal challenges on a host of other fronts. Besides an effort by investors to force it to buy back billions of dollars in defaulted mortgages, Bank of America and other large servicers are negotiating with state attorneys general to settle an investigation into improper foreclosure practices. That settlement could cost the largest servicers more than $20 billion.

The remnants of Countrywide and its mortgage servicing unit agreed in June 2010 to pay $108 million to settle federal charges that the company charged highly inflated sums to customers struggling to hang on to their homes. The settlement resolved the biggest mortgage-servicing case ever brought by the Federal Trade Commission with one of its largest overall judgments. The money was to be used to reimburse homeowners who were charged excessive fees. In August 2010, the company agreed to pay $600 million to settle shareholder lawsuits over its mortgage losses.

Nelson D. Schwartz contributed reporting from New York.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/business/us-settlement-reported-on-countrywide-lending.html

[Cin]

Published on Saturday, December 24, 2011 by Rolling Stone

A Christmas Message From America's Rich
by Matt Taibbi

It seems America’s bankers are tired of all the abuse. They’ve decided to speak out.

True, they’re doing it from behind the ropeline, in front of friendly crowds at industry conferences and country clubs, meaning they don’t have to look the rest of America in the eye when they call us all imbeciles and complain that they shouldn’t have to apologize for being so successful.

But while they haven’t yet deigned to talk to protesting America face to face, they are willing to scribble out some complaints on notes and send them downstairs on silver trays. Courtesy of a remarkable story by Max Abelson at Bloomberg, we now get to hear some of those choice comments.

Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus, for instance, is not worried about OWS:

“Who gives a crap about some imbecile?” Marcus said. “Are you kidding me?”

Former New York gurbernatorial candidate Tom Golisano, the billionaire owner of the billing firm Paychex, offered his wisdom while his half-his-age tennis champion girlfriend hung on his arm:

“If I hear a politician use the term ‘paying your fair share’ one more time, I’m going to vomit,” said Golisano, who turned 70 last month, celebrating the birthday with girlfriend Monica Seles, the former tennis star who won nine Grand Slam singles titles.

Then there’s Leon Cooperman, the former chief of Goldman Sachs’s money-management unit, who said he was urged to speak out by his fellow golfers. His message was a version of Wall Street’s increasingly popular If-you-people-want-a-job, then-you’ll-shut-the-fuck-up rhetorical line:

Cooperman, 68, said in an interview that he can’t walk through the dining room of St. Andrews Country Club in Boca Raton, Florida, without being thanked for speaking up. At least four people expressed their gratitude on Dec. 5 while he was eating an egg-white omelet, he said.

“You’ll get more out of me,” the billionaire said, “if you treat me with respect.”

Finally, there is this from Blackstone CEO Steven Schwartzman:

Asked if he were willing to pay more taxes in a Nov. 30 interview with Bloomberg Television, Blackstone Group LP CEO Stephen Schwarzman spoke about lower-income U.S. families who pay no income tax.

“You have to have skin in the game,” said Schwarzman, 64. “I’m not saying how much people should do. But we should all be part of the system.”

There are obviously a great many things that one could say about this remarkable collection of quotes. One could even, if one wanted, simply savor them alone, without commentary, like lumps of fresh caviar, or raw oysters.

But out of Abelson’s collection of doleful woe-is-us complaints from the offended rich, the one that deserves the most attention is Schwarzman’s line about lower-income folks lacking “skin in the game.” This incredible statement gets right to the heart of why these people suck.

Why? It's not because Schwarzman is factually wrong about lower-income people having no “skin in the game,” ignoring the fact that everyone pays sales taxes, and most everyone pays payroll taxes, and of course there are property taxes for even the lowliest subprime mortgage holders, and so on.

It’s not even because Schwarzman probably himself pays close to zero in income tax – as a private equity chief, he doesn’t pay income tax but tax on carried interest, which carries a maximum 15% tax rate, half the rate of a New York City firefighter.

The real issue has to do with the context of Schwarzman’s quote. The Blackstone billionaire, remember, is one of the more uniquely abhorrent, self-congratulating jerks in the entire world – a man who famously symbolized the excesses of the crisis era when, just as the rest of America was heading into a recession, he threw himself a $5 million birthday party, featuring private performances by Rod Stewart and Patti Labelle, to celebrate an IPO that made him $677 million in a matter of days (within a year, incidentally, the investors who bought that stock would lose three-fourths of their investments).

So that IPO birthday boy is now standing up and insisting, with a straight face, that America’s problem is that compared to taxpaying billionaires like himself, poor people are not invested enough in our society’s future. Apparently, we’d all be in much better shape if the poor were as motivated as Steven Schwarzman is to make America a better place.

But it seems to me that if you’re broke enough that you’re not paying any income tax, you’ve got nothing but skin in the game. You've got it all riding on how well America works.

You can’t afford private security: you need to depend on the police. You can’t afford private health care: Medicare is all you have. You get arrested, you’re not hiring Davis, Polk to get you out of jail: you rely on a public defender to negotiate a court system you'd better pray deals with everyone from the same deck. And you can’t hire landscapers to manicure your lawn and trim your trees: you need the garbage man to come on time and you need the city to patch the potholes in your street.

And in the bigger picture, of course, you need the state and the private sector both to be functioning well enough to provide you with regular work, and a safe place to raise your children, and clean water and clean air.

The entire ethos of modern Wall Street, on the other hand, is complete indifference to all of these matters. The very rich on today’s Wall Street are now so rich that they buy their own social infrastructure. They hire private security, they live on gated mansions on islands and other tax havens, and most notably, they buy their own justice and their own government.

An ordinary person who has a problem that needs fixing puts a letter in the mail to his congressman and sends it to stand in a line in some DC mailroom with thousands of others, waiting for a response.

But citizens of the stateless archipelago where people like Schwarzman live spend millions a year lobbying and donating to political campaigns so that they can jump the line. They don’t need to make sure the government is fulfilling its customer-service obligations, because they buy special access to the government, and get the special service and the metaphorical comped bottle of VIP-room Cristal afforded to select customers.

Want to lower the capital reserve requirements for investment banks? Then-Goldman CEO Hank Paulson takes a meeting with SEC chief Bill Donaldson, and gets it done. Want to kill an attempt to erase the carried interest tax break? Guys like Schwarzman, and Apollo’s Leon Black, and Carlyle’s David Rubenstein, they just show up in Washington at Max Baucus’s doorstep, and they get it killed.

Some of these people take that VIP-room idea a step further. J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon – the man the New York Times once called “Obama’s favorite banker” – had an excellent method of guaranteeing that the Federal Reserve system’s doors would always be open to him. What he did was, he served as the Chairman of the Board of the New York Fed.

And in 2008, in that moonlighting capacity, he orchestrated a deal in which the Fed provided $29 billion in assistance to help his own bank, Chase, buy up the teetering investment firm Bear Stearns. You read that right: Jamie Dimon helped give himself a bailout. Who needs to worry about good government, when you are the government?

Dimon, incidentally, is another one of those bankers who’s complaining now about the unfair criticism. “Acting like everyone who’s been successful is bad and because you’re rich you’re bad, I don’t understand it,” he recently said, at an investor’s conference.

Hmm. Is Dimon right? Do people hate him just because he’s rich and successful? That really would be unfair. Maybe we should ask the people of Jefferson County, Alabama, what they think.

That particular locality is now in bankruptcy proceedings primarily because Dimon’s bank, Chase, used middlemen to bribe local officials – literally bribe, with cash and watches and new suits – to sign on to a series of onerous interest-rate swap deals that vastly expanded the county’s debt burden.

Essentially, Jamie Dimon handed Birmingham, Alabama a Chase credit card and then bribed its local officials to run up a gigantic balance, leaving future residents and those residents’ children with the bill. As a result, the citizens of Jefferson County will now be making payments to Chase until the end of time.

Do you think Jamie Dimon would have done that deal if he lived in Jefferson County? Put it this way: if he was trying to support two kids on $30,000 a year, and lived in a Birmingham neighborhood full of people in the same boat, would he sign off on a deal that jacked up everyone’s sewer bills 400% for the next thirty years?

Doubtful. But then again, people like Jamie Dimon aren’t really citizens of any country. They live in their own gated archipelago, and the rest of the world is a dumping ground.

Just look at how Chase behaved in Greece, for example.

Having seen how well interest-rate swaps worked for Jefferson County, Alabama, Chase “helped” Greece mask its debt problem for years by selling a similar series of swaps to the Greek government. The bank then turned around and worked with banks like Goldman, Sachs to create a thing called the iTraxx SovX Western Europe index, which allowed investors to bet against Greek debt.

In other words, Chase knowingly larded up the nation of Greece with a crippling future debt burden, then turned around and helped the world bet against Greek debt.

Does a citizen of Greece do that deal? Forget that: does a human being do that deal?

Operations like the Greek swap/short index maneuver were easy money for banks like Goldman and Chase – hell, it’s a no-lose play, like cutting a car’s brake lines and then betting on the driver to crash – but they helped create the monstrous European debt problem that this very minute is threatening to send the entire world economy into collapse, which would result in who knows what horrors. At minimum, millions might lose their jobs and benefits and homes. Millions more will be ruined financially.

But why should Chase and Goldman care what happens to those people? Do they have any skin in that game?

Of course not. We’re talking about banks that not only didn’t warn the citizens of Greece about their future debt disaster, they actively traded on that information, to make money for themselves.

People like Dimon, and Schwarzman, and John Paulson, and all of the rest of them who think the “imbeciles” on the streets are simply full of reasonless class anger, they don’t get it. Nobody hates them for being successful. And not that this needs repeating, but nobody even minds that they are rich.

What makes people furious is that they have stopped being citizens.

Most of us 99-percenters couldn’t even let our dogs leave a dump on the sidewalk without feeling ashamed before our neighbors. It's called having a conscience: even though there are plenty of things most of us could get away with doing, we just don’t do them, because, well, we live here. Most of us wouldn’t take a million dollars to swindle the local school system, or put our next door neighbors out on the street with a robosigned foreclosure, or steal the life’s savings of some old pensioner down the block by selling him a bunch of worthless securities.

But our Too-Big-To-Fail banks unhesitatingly take billions in bailout money and then turn right around and finance the export of jobs to new locations in China and India. They defraud the pension funds of state workers into buying billions of their crap mortgage assets. They take zero-interest loans from the state and then lend that same money back to us at interest. Or, like Chase, they bribe the politicians serving countries and states and cities and even school boards to take on crippling debt deals.

Nobody with real skin in the game, who had any kind of stake in our collective future, would do any of those things. Or, if a person did do those things, you’d at least expect him to have enough shame not to whine to a Bloomberg reporter when the rest of us complained about it.

But these people don’t have shame. What they have, in the place where most of us have shame, are extra sets of balls. Just listen to Cooperman, the former Goldman exec from that country club in Boca. According to Cooperman, the rich do contribute to society:

Capitalists “are not the scourge that they are too often made out to be” and the wealthy aren’t “a monolithic, selfish and unfeeling lot,” Cooperman wrote. They make products that “fill store shelves at Christmas…”

Unbelievable. Merry Christmas, bankers. And good luck getting that message out.

[Cin]

Published on Friday, December 23, 2011 by On the Commons

Occupy Giving: Why Do the 1% Give Less Than the Rest of Us?
by David Morris

This is the giving season and we Americans are prodigious givers. Nearly two thirds of us donate to charities each year. This year we will send more than $225 billion to charities. More than a quarter of this giving will occur in December.

Those are the bare facts. But this year, when the stark divide between the 1% and the 99% has begun to inform our thinking and our approach, it might be instructive to examine the world of giving through that lens.

How The 1% Differs

Unsurprisingly, the 99% are much more generous than the 1%. Households earning less than $25,000 give away twice as much as richer households as a fraction of their income. The disparity is even greater given that many if not most of the 99% do not itemize their tax returns and therefore do not take a tax deduction for charitable contributions.

To discover what motivates giving Paul K, Piff, a PhD candidate in social psychology at University of California carried out a series of experiments. He discovered that people earning $15,000 or less are more generous, charitable, trusting and helpful to others than those earning more than $150,000.

The 99% tend to give primarily to their church. Giving by the 1%, on the other hand, according to Judith Warner writing in the New York Times “was mostly directed to other causes—cultural institutions, for example, or their alma maters—which often came with the not-inconsequential payoff of enhancing the donor’s status among his or her peers.”

Indeed, empathy and compassion seem in short supply among the 1%. Piff comments, “wealth seems to buffer people from attending to the needs of others”. Which, as Warner notes, affirms economist Frank Levy’s observation in his 1999 book about the new inequality—The New Dollars and Dreams: American Incomes and Economic Change. “The welfare state rests on enlightened self-interest in which people can look at beneficiaries and reasonable say, ‘There for the grace of God…’ As income differences widen, this statement rings less true.”

We should bear in mind that what is reported as charitable giving by the 1% significantly overstates the actual private sacrifice, as economist Uwe E. Reinhardt points out. If the wealthy donate $10,000 to charity and are in the combined 50% federal, state and local tax bracket then their effective sacrifice is $5,000 and society as a whole, without its advice and consent, subsidizes the rest.

Foundations and the Public Good

Much of the giving by the very wealthy is done through foundations. Foundations account for about 13% of all charitable giving, about $40 billion a year. Foundations may help the needy but they rarely advocate for them. “At a time when America is having a debate about the social contract, philanthropy is silent,” opined Emmett D. Carson, president of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation recently told the New York Times. “We are silent about the depths of the problems of homelessness, joblessness, foreclosure, hunger, and people are starting to believe that philanthropy is irrelevant to the core needs of their communities.”

While most Foundations do not engage in campaigns to expand policies that extend a helping hand to our neighbors, a growing number are engaging in campaigns whose result may be the opposite. This movement may have begun in the early 1980s when William Simon, former Secretary of the Treasury under Presidents Nixon and Ford and principal in leveraged buyout and private equity firms and the President of the Olin Foundation joined with others to start the Philanthropy Roundtable.

In his 1978 book, A Time for Truth, Simon declared, “Most private funds … flow ceaselessly to the very institutions which are philosophically committed to the destruction of capitalism. … [T]he great corporations of America sustain the major universities, with no regard for the content of their teachings [and sustain] the major foundations, which nurture the most destructive egalitarian trends.”

The Philanthropy Roundtable was established to channel the contributions of the 1% in more self-serving directions.

In 2011 the Roundtable awarded the William E. Simon Prize for Philanthropic Leadership to Charles G. Koch. In 2008 Koch, or rather the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation entered into an agreement with Florida State University to provide millions for the school’s economics department. The catch, according to the St. Petersburg Times was that Koch would have the authority to approve who ultimately filled the positions. Moreover, the professors it approves must be hired with tenure and FSU must continue to support them for at least four years past the period in which Koch had promised funding

Just to be clear here. The public is subsidizing possibly to the tune of 50 percent charitable contributions to a public university that give control to a private person to hire professors who will teach what may be a required course that will educate the students about the evils of government.

In the last few years a growing number of billionaires have established their own private foundations. They receive an immediate tax deduction for the full value of their contribution even though the foundation is only required to give away 5% of that endowment each year. Which means that for every $1 million contributed, which can mean a $500,000 loss to the public sector, the foundation must give away only $50,000.

Moreover, the billionaire has the right to decide where that money is spent.

The Gates Foundation and Public Education

The most dramatic example to date may be the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill Gates endowed the Foundation, avoiding billions of dollars in taxes and now heads the Foundation and decides how it spends its money.

The Gates Foundation originally gave its money to school districts to encourage smaller schools that have a better track record at improving student performance. But, says Allan C. Golston, President of the Foundation’s U.S. program, “We’ve learned that school-level investments aren’t enough to drive systemic changes. The importance of advocacy has gotten clearer and clearer”. In 2009 the Foundation gave almost $80 million for advocacy to influence the $600 billion various levels of government spend annually on education. In partnership with the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation and the Walmart Family Foundation, the Gates Foundation has become the dominant player in writing the rules for the future of public education.

The New York Times has reported on how astonishingly comprehensive and influential these Foundations’ campaigns have been.

The 2009 stimulus package included $6 billion to help the public education system. The Gates Foundation and its partners swung into action to make sure it was spent “correctly”. They were helped by the fact that Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s Chief of Staff and Assistant Deputy Secretary came from the Gates Foundation and were granted waivers by the Administration from its revolving door policy limiting involvement with former employers.

Gates financed the New Teacher Project to issue and influential report detailing the flaws in existing evaluation systems. The National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers developed the standards and Achieve, Inc. a non-profit organization coordinated the writing of tests aligned with the standards, each with millions of dollars from the Gates Foundation. The Alliance for Excellent Education received half a million “to grow support for the common core standards initiative”. The Fordham Institute received a million to “review common core materials and develop supportive materials”.

And when the rules were issued and the competition began, the Gates Foundation offered $250,000 to help each state apply so long as the state agreed with the Foundations’ market oriented approach.

And to educate the general public, the Foundation spent $2 million on a campaign focused on the film Waiting for Superman that demonized teachers’ unions.

Most charter schools, the preferred solution for Gates, Broad and the Walmart family, are non-profits. But they see no reason why they need to remain non-profits. A 2009 guide book by the Philanthropy Roundtable noted, “many education reformers believe that EMOs (profit oriented management companies) hold real potential for revolutionizing public education. If investors in EMOs are able to deliver consistent student achievement and create a profitable investment vehicle, they will have discovered a highly attractive and sustainable model for charter schools specifically and public education generally.”

Today more than 700 public k-12 schools around the country are managed by for profit companies. In May, Ohio adopted legislation allowing for-profit-businesses to open their own taxpayer-financed charter schools, which led Bill Sims, head of the Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools to express his concern that this could “take the public out of public charter schools.”

In 2011 the Gates Foundation seems to have deepened its anti-government efforts, giving almost $400,000 to the conservatives’ legislative privatization network ALEC.

Warren Buffett is a major investor in the Gates Foundation. In 2011 he gave another $1.5 billion to the Foundation bringing the total to almost $10 billion so far.

Buffett is well known for writing and speaking about the unfairness of the tax system. He has signed on to an effort to force the 1% to pay a higher, not a lower tax rate than the 99%.

To date Buffett hasn’t been willing to give millions to underwrite a comprehensive campaign to convince legislators and the country to raise taxes on the rich. And the Gates Foundation hasn’t to my knowledge entertained the idea that it might spend $80 million on a campaign to increase the resources devoted to public education.

Eliminate the Charitable Giving Tax Deduction

In June 2010 Gates and Buffett launched The Giving Pledge, asking their wealthy compatriots to give away half or more of their wealth. Several dozen billionaires reportedly have signed on. Many will set up their own foundations and reap substantial tax benefits while retaining the right to decide where the money is invested. CPA Robert A. Green has estimated that this could result in $250 billion or more being diverted from the treasuries of state and federal governments.

We should eliminate the tax deduction for charities. The impact on giving will be modest while the savings to the public sector will be substantial.

A 2006 survey by the Bank of America found that over half of high-net-worth donors said their giving would stay the same, or even increase, if the tax deduction for charitable gifts fell to zero. The American Enterprise Institute notes “research shows that virtually no one is motivated meaningfully to give only because of our tax system.” Jack Shakely who ran the California Community Foundation for 25 years recently penned an Op Ed in the Los Angeles Times in which he noted that while the top tax bracket for individuals has plummeted from 70% in 1980 to 35% in 2003 (and according to the IRS the very rich are today taxed at an effective rate of 17 percent) charitable donations have remained almost constant, hovering between 1.7% and 1.95% of personal income per year.

This year governments may lose $50 billion or more because of tax deductions taken overwhelmingly by the rich for charitable givings intended primarily to enhance their status with their brethren or to attack the public sector. We can’t stop the rich from using their money for their own purposes (although we should certainly enact laws to stop them from unduly influencing legislation and elections). But we should not add insult to injury by giving them huge amounts of public sums to attack the public sector.

[Cin]

Published on Saturday, December 24, 2011 by The Irish Times
In the Year of the Protester, Bradley Manning is the Great Dissenter
by Davin O'Dwyer

PRESENT TENSE : IT HAS BEEN an extraordinary year, full of tragedy and tumult: there’s every chance that 2011 will rank with 1968 and 1945 as an era-defining 12 months.

Time magazine has nominated the “protester” as its person of the year, a decision that has generated plenty of ink, but, among the tsunamis and financial crises, it’s true that the act of protest has marked the year out as particularly noteworthy.

From Tahrir Square to Puerta del Sol to Zuccotti Park, people have gathered out of a desire for fairness and democracy, giving shape to world events in a way that few could have predicted on Christmas Eve 2010.

But there is one protester who has been somewhat omitted from the narrative of 2011’s protests, a protester who has been behind bars since May 2010, and whose act of dissent stands equal to all those who sprung the Arab Spring: Bradley Manning, the alleged leaker of US military and diplomatic secrets to WikiLeaks.

Manning’s military hearing began eight days ago at Fort Meade, in Maryland, and the sense of inevitability around the charges of aiding the enemy and violating the Espionage Act makes this trial more about the rights and wrongs of whistleblowing than about determining whether he actually leaked that huge trove of classified information.
Full Article here:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/12/24-6

More on Manning
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/11/29/European_Leaders_Worry_Bradley_Manning_Is_Being_To rtured/

[Cin]

Thud of the Jackboot
by ALEXANDER COCKBURN

Too bad Kim Jong-il kicked the bucket last weekend. If the divine hand that laid low the North Korean leader had held off for a week or so, Kim would have been sustained by the news that President Obama is signing into law a bill that puts the United States not immeasurably far from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in contempt of constitutional protections for its citizens, or constitutional restraints upon criminal behavior sanctioned by the state.

At least the DPRK doesn’t trumpet its status as the last best sanctuary of liberty. American politicians, starting with the president, do little else.

A couple of months ago came a mile marker in America’s steady slide downhill towards the status of a Banana Republic, with Obama’s assertion that he has the right as president to order secretly the assassination, without trial, of a US citizen he deems to be working with terrorists. This followed his betrayal in 2009 of his pledge to end the indefinite imprisonment without charges or trial of prisoners in Guantanamo.

Now, after months of declaring that he would veto such legislation, Obama has now crumbled and will soon sign a monstrosity called the Levin/McCain detention bill, named for its two senatorial sponsors, Carl Levin and John McCain. It’s snugged into the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

The detention bill mandates – don’t glide too easily past that word - that all accused terrorists be indefinitely imprisoned by the military rather than in the civilian court system; this includes US citizens within the borders of the United States. Obama supporters have made strenuous efforts to suggest that US citizens are excluded from the bill’s provisions. Not so. “It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next,” says Senator Lindsay Graham, a big backer of the bill. “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’” The bill’s co-sponsor, Democratic senator, cosponsor of the bill, Carl Levin says it was the White House itself that demanded that the infamous Section 1031 apply to American citizens.

Anyone familiar with this sort of “emergency” legislation knows that those drafting the statutes like to cast as wide a net as possible. In this instance the detention bill authorizes use of military force against anyone who “substantially supports” al-Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces”. Of course “associated forces” can mean anything. The bill’s language mentions “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or who has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”
 
This is exactly the sort of language that can be bent at will by any prosecutor. Protest too vigorously the assassination of US citizen Anwar al Awlaki by American forces in Yemen in October and one day it’s not fanciful to expect the thud of the military jackboot on your front step, or on that of any anti-war organizer, or any journalist whom some zealous military intelligence officer deems to be giving objective support to the forces of Evil and Darkness.

Since 1878 here in the US, the Posse Comitatus Act has limited the powers of local governments and law enforcement agencies from using federal military personnel to enforce the laws of the land. The detention bill renders the Posse Comitatus Act a dead letter.

Governments, particularly those engaged in a Great War on Terror, like to make long lists of troublesome people to be sent to internment camps or dungeons in case of national emergency. Back in Reagan’s time, in the 1980s, Lt Col Oliver North, working out of the White House, was caught preparing just such a list. Reagan speedily distanced himself from North. Obama, the former lecturer on the US constitution, is brazenly signing this authorization for military internment camps.

There’s been quite a commotion over the detention bill. Civil liberties groups such as the ACLU have raised a stink. The New York Times has denounced it editorially as “a complete political cave-in”. Mindful that the votes of liberals can be useful, even vital in presidential elections, pro-Obama supporters of the bill claim that it doesn’t codify “indefinite detention.” But indeed it does. The bill explicitly authorizes “detention under the law of war until the end of hostilities.”

Will the bill hurt Obama? Probably not too much, if at all. Liberals are never very energetic in protecting constitutional rights. That’s more the province of libertarians and other wackos like Ron Paul actually prepared to draw lines in the sand in matters of principle.

Simultaneous to the looming shadow of indefinite internment by the military for naysayers, we have what appears to be immunity from prosecution for private military contractors retained by the US government, another extremely sinister development. Last Wednesday we ran here an important article on the matter from Laura Raymond of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

The US military has been outsourcing war at a staggering rate. Even as the US military quits Iraq, thousands of private military contractors remain. Suppose they are accused of torture and other abuses including murder?

The Centre for Constitutional Rights is currently representing Iraqi civilians tortured in Abu Ghraib and other detention centers in Iraq, seeking to hold accountable two private contractors for their violations of international, federal and state law. In Raymond’s words, “By the military’s own internal investigations, private military contractors from the US-based corporations L-3 Services and CACI International were involved in the war crimes and acts of torture that took place, which included rape, being forced to watch family members and others be raped, severe beatings, being hung in stress positions, being pulled across the floor by genitals, mock executions, and other incidents, many of which were documented by photographs. The cases – Al Shimari v. CACI and Al-Quraishi v. Nakhla and L-3 – aim to secure a day in court for the plaintiffs, none of whom were ever charged with any crimes.”

But the corporations involved are now arguing in court that they should be exempt from any investigation into the allegations against them because, among other reasons, the US government’s interests in executing wars would be at stake if corporate contractors can be sued. And Raymond reports that “they are also invoking a new, sweeping defense. The new rule is termed ‘battlefield preemption’ and aims to eliminate any civil lawsuits against contractors that take place on any ‘battlefield’.”

You’ve guessed it. As with “associated forces”, an elastic concept discussed above, in the Great War on Terror the entire world is a “battlefield”. So unless the CCR’s suit prevails, a ruling of a Fourth Circuit federal court panel will stand and private military contractors could be immune from any type of civil liability, even for war crimes, as long as it takes place on a “battlefield”.

Suppose now we take the new powers of the military in domestic law enforcement, as defined in the detention act, and anticipate the inevitable, that the military delegates these powers to private military contractors. CACI International or a company owned by, say Goldman Sachs, could enjoy delegated powers to arrest any US citizen here within the borders of the USA, “who has committed a belligerent act or who has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces,” torture them to death and then claim “battlefield preemption”.

Don’t laugh.

On this issue of the “privatization” T.P.Wilkinson has a brilliant essay in our latest newsletter on “corporate nihilism and the roots of war”. Wilkinson starts with a critique of the familiar argument that a return to the draft would bring America’s wars home to the citizenry and the prospect of their children being sent off to possible mutilation by IEDs or death would spark resistance. Wilkinson suggests that this underestimates the saturation of our society by militarism. He goes on:

“But does the new warfare even need the large battalions of expendable troops? Just as financial “engineering” has replaced industrial production as a means of wealth extraction, remote-control weapons deployment and mercenary subcontracting have largely replaced the mass armies that characterized U.S. and U.K. warfare in Korea and Vietnam. In this sense, warfare has become even more “corporate.” The fiction that wars of invasion and conquest are the result of state action is obsolete. The entire “national security” process has been fully depoliticized; in other words, the state is more clearly than ever a mere conduit for policies and practices whose origin and essential characteristics are those of boardroom strategic planning and marketing. The difference between global business and global warfare has, in fact, dissolved.

“This presents a serious cognitive problem for anyone trying to find the root of this poisonous plant in order to tear it from the ground that nurtures it. The military sustained by the draft was mimetic of the steel mill in Gary, Indiana, or the cotton plantation in the south? Today’s military operates like the headquarters of Microsoft or USX – the actual physical violence has been outsourced.”
Article: http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/23/thud-of-the-jackboot/

[persiphone]

Published on Friday, December 23, 2011 by On the Commons

Occupy Giving: Why Do the 1% Give Less Than the Rest of Us?
by David Morris

This is the giving season and we Americans are prodigious givers. Nearly two thirds of us donate to charities each year. This year we will send more than $225 billion to charities. More than a quarter of this giving will occur in December.

Those are the bare facts. But this year, when the stark divide between the 1% and the 99% has begun to inform our thinking and our approach, it might be instructive to examine the world of giving through that lens.

How The 1% Differs

Unsurprisingly, the 99% are much more generous than the 1%. Households earning less than $25,000 give away twice as much as richer households as a fraction of their income. The disparity is even greater given that many if not most of the 99% do not itemize their tax returns and therefore do not take a tax deduction for charitable contributions.

To discover what motivates giving Paul K, Piff, a PhD candidate in social psychology at University of California carried out a series of experiments. He discovered that people earning $15,000 or less are more generous, charitable, trusting and helpful to others than those earning more than $150,000.

The 99% tend to give primarily to their church. Giving by the 1%, on the other hand, according to Judith Warner writing in the New York Times “was mostly directed to other causes—cultural institutions, for example, or their alma maters—which often came with the not-inconsequential payoff of enhancing the donor’s status among his or her peers.”

Indeed, empathy and compassion seem in short supply among the 1%. Piff comments, “wealth seems to buffer people from attending to the needs of others”. Which, as Warner notes, affirms economist Frank Levy’s observation in his 1999 book about the new inequality—The New Dollars and Dreams: American Incomes and Economic Change. “The welfare state rests on enlightened self-interest in which people can look at beneficiaries and reasonable say, ‘There for the grace of God…’ As income differences widen, this statement rings less true.”

We should bear in mind that what is reported as charitable giving by the 1% significantly overstates the actual private sacrifice, as economist Uwe E. Reinhardt points out. If the wealthy donate $10,000 to charity and are in the combined 50% federal, state and local tax bracket then their effective sacrifice is $5,000 and society as a whole, without its advice and consent, subsidizes the rest.

Foundations and the Public Good

Much of the giving by the very wealthy is done through foundations. Foundations account for about 13% of all charitable giving, about $40 billion a year. Foundations may help the needy but they rarely advocate for them. “At a time when America is having a debate about the social contract, philanthropy is silent,” opined Emmett D. Carson, president of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation recently told the New York Times. “We are silent about the depths of the problems of homelessness, joblessness, foreclosure, hunger, and people are starting to believe that philanthropy is irrelevant to the core needs of their communities.”

While most Foundations do not engage in campaigns to expand policies that extend a helping hand to our neighbors, a growing number are engaging in campaigns whose result may be the opposite. This movement may have begun in the early 1980s when William Simon, former Secretary of the Treasury under Presidents Nixon and Ford and principal in leveraged buyout and private equity firms and the President of the Olin Foundation joined with others to start the Philanthropy Roundtable.

In his 1978 book, A Time for Truth, Simon declared, “Most private funds … flow ceaselessly to the very institutions which are philosophically committed to the destruction of capitalism. … [T]he great corporations of America sustain the major universities, with no regard for the content of their teachings [and sustain] the major foundations, which nurture the most destructive egalitarian trends.”

The Philanthropy Roundtable was established to channel the contributions of the 1% in more self-serving directions.

In 2011 the Roundtable awarded the William E. Simon Prize for Philanthropic Leadership to Charles G. Koch. In 2008 Koch, or rather the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation entered into an agreement with Florida State University to provide millions for the school’s economics department. The catch, according to the St. Petersburg Times was that Koch would have the authority to approve who ultimately filled the positions. Moreover, the professors it approves must be hired with tenure and FSU must continue to support them for at least four years past the period in which Koch had promised funding

Just to be clear here. The public is subsidizing possibly to the tune of 50 percent charitable contributions to a public university that give control to a private person to hire professors who will teach what may be a required course that will educate the students about the evils of government.

In the last few years a growing number of billionaires have established their own private foundations. They receive an immediate tax deduction for the full value of their contribution even though the foundation is only required to give away 5% of that endowment each year. Which means that for every $1 million contributed, which can mean a $500,000 loss to the public sector, the foundation must give away only $50,000.

Moreover, the billionaire has the right to decide where that money is spent.

The Gates Foundation and Public Education

The most dramatic example to date may be the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill Gates endowed the Foundation, avoiding billions of dollars in taxes and now heads the Foundation and decides how it spends its money.

The Gates Foundation originally gave its money to school districts to encourage smaller schools that have a better track record at improving student performance. But, says Allan C. Golston, President of the Foundation’s U.S. program, “We’ve learned that school-level investments aren’t enough to drive systemic changes. The importance of advocacy has gotten clearer and clearer”. In 2009 the Foundation gave almost $80 million for advocacy to influence the $600 billion various levels of government spend annually on education. In partnership with the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation and the Walmart Family Foundation, the Gates Foundation has become the dominant player in writing the rules for the future of public education.

The New York Times has reported on how astonishingly comprehensive and influential these Foundations’ campaigns have been.

The 2009 stimulus package included $6 billion to help the public education system. The Gates Foundation and its partners swung into action to make sure it was spent “correctly”. They were helped by the fact that Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s Chief of Staff and Assistant Deputy Secretary came from the Gates Foundation and were granted waivers by the Administration from its revolving door policy limiting involvement with former employers.

Gates financed the New Teacher Project to issue and influential report detailing the flaws in existing evaluation systems. The National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers developed the standards and Achieve, Inc. a non-profit organization coordinated the writing of tests aligned with the standards, each with millions of dollars from the Gates Foundation. The Alliance for Excellent Education received half a million “to grow support for the common core standards initiative”. The Fordham Institute received a million to “review common core materials and develop supportive materials”.

And when the rules were issued and the competition began, the Gates Foundation offered $250,000 to help each state apply so long as the state agreed with the Foundations’ market oriented approach.

And to educate the general public, the Foundation spent $2 million on a campaign focused on the film Waiting for Superman that demonized teachers’ unions.

Most charter schools, the preferred solution for Gates, Broad and the Walmart family, are non-profits. But they see no reason why they need to remain non-profits. A 2009 guide book by the Philanthropy Roundtable noted, “many education reformers believe that EMOs (profit oriented management companies) hold real potential for revolutionizing public education. If investors in EMOs are able to deliver consistent student achievement and create a profitable investment vehicle, they will have discovered a highly attractive and sustainable model for charter schools specifically and public education generally.”

Today more than 700 public k-12 schools around the country are managed by for profit companies. In May, Ohio adopted legislation allowing for-profit-businesses to open their own taxpayer-financed charter schools, which led Bill Sims, head of the Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools to express his concern that this could “take the public out of public charter schools.”

In 2011 the Gates Foundation seems to have deepened its anti-government efforts, giving almost $400,000 to the conservatives’ legislative privatization network ALEC.

Warren Buffett is a major investor in the Gates Foundation. In 2011 he gave another $1.5 billion to the Foundation bringing the total to almost $10 billion so far.

Buffett is well known for writing and speaking about the unfairness of the tax system. He has signed on to an effort to force the 1% to pay a higher, not a lower tax rate than the 99%.

To date Buffett hasn’t been willing to give millions to underwrite a comprehensive campaign to convince legislators and the country to raise taxes on the rich. And the Gates Foundation hasn’t to my knowledge entertained the idea that it might spend $80 million on a campaign to increase the resources devoted to public education.

Eliminate the Charitable Giving Tax Deduction

In June 2010 Gates and Buffett launched The Giving Pledge, asking their wealthy compatriots to give away half or more of their wealth. Several dozen billionaires reportedly have signed on. Many will set up their own foundations and reap substantial tax benefits while retaining the right to decide where the money is invested. CPA Robert A. Green has estimated that this could result in $250 billion or more being diverted from the treasuries of state and federal governments.

We should eliminate the tax deduction for charities. The impact on giving will be modest while the savings to the public sector will be substantial.

A 2006 survey by the Bank of America found that over half of high-net-worth donors said their giving would stay the same, or even increase, if the tax deduction for charitable gifts fell to zero. The American Enterprise Institute notes “research shows that virtually no one is motivated meaningfully to give only because of our tax system.” Jack Shakely who ran the California Community Foundation for 25 years recently penned an Op Ed in the Los Angeles Times in which he noted that while the top tax bracket for individuals has plummeted from 70% in 1980 to 35% in 2003 (and according to the IRS the very rich are today taxed at an effective rate of 17 percent) charitable donations have remained almost constant, hovering between 1.7% and 1.95% of personal income per year.

This year governments may lose $50 billion or more because of tax deductions taken overwhelmingly by the rich for charitable givings intended primarily to enhance their status with their brethren or to attack the public sector. We can’t stop the rich from using their money for their own purposes (although we should certainly enact laws to stop them from unduly influencing legislation and elections). But we should not add insult to injury by giving them huge amounts of public sums to attack the public sector.

quoting because.....HOLY SHIT.

[persiphone]

Ya know, this bill that will suspend habeas corpus and repeal the federal rules of criminal procedure, I am just dumbfounded that Obama is going to sign it. It is against everything he ran for in 2008. That he takes all this corporate money for his campaign speaks to how much he has been bought and paid for by the 1%.

As I have said before, the longer we choose the lesser of two evils for president, the longer 2 evils will be our only choices. We need stand up and reject the two party system. The 99 Declaration committee is actively working to get delegates from every congressional district to come together in Philadelphia on July 4th 2012 and vote on a list of demands to put to the president and congress. Let's throw our support behind them. They are the best hope for our voices to be heard.

https://www.facebook.com/www.the99declaration.org

Right now their site, www.the99declaration.org, is having technical issues but they will get it resolved soon. They will be voting on delegates in 96 days.




More on the Indefinite Detention Inserted Into Defense Authorization Act: http://occupywallst.org/forum/obama-has-thrown-down-the-gauntlet-occupy-must-sta/


good. i've been waiting for this and this is where my efforts will go