enlarge

You guys have given over $20,000 to feed the nation's Occupiers some pies. And we're still going. More Occupations are sprouting up and we are there to give them a cheesy-doughy high five.

We've added San Diego, Buffalo and Des Moines - which brings a total of 25 cities!

If you're occupying - send us an email and let up know! If you can't occupy but want to give an OccuPie - well here's the PayPal for that:

Any amount is welcome. Most of the money we've raised are in small donations. All is appreciated. The Occupiers are especially grateful.

Continue reading »

I’m told the best thing about having a hearing aid is being able to turn it off; selectively, of course, around boring or annoying people. When someone wants to ask you for money. When you’d just like some quiet. There’s a switch. You have the power to tune voices out.

Which is what the media have been doing to the Occupy Wall Street protesters.

The demonstrators have said they want “economic justice.”

And inevitably a talking head will wonder: “What do they want?”

The demonstrators will say they want economic justice.

Then an anchor will say, “There’s not really a cohesive theme with these protesters.”

The demonstrators will march with signs that plainly read they want economic justice.

Then a reporter will offer: “There’s not really a central message permeating in the crowd.”

Yes, the media have gone “Grampa with a telemarketer” on Occupy Wall Street.

That hasn’t hindered the Occupiers from resonating with Americans. The protests have been growing. The movement has been growing. Occupy LA is down the street from my home. Their numbers have nearly quadrupled from the first week. They now count 253 tents at City Hall and have the blessings of the City Council to stay as long as they need. It’s hard to confirm reports of all the other Occupations, it’s rumored to be in the hundreds. I can verify 24 demonstrations across the U.S. where they are “occupying.” There could be dozens more by the time you read this. People from all walks of life are taking to the streets to cry out for “economic justice.”

Now the local news will report: “The demonstrators don’t have any specific unifying points so far.”

Former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill coined the phrase, "All politics is local."

Also, all politics is personal. The housing crisis took peoples’ homes. Families have been uprooted and kicked around by giant soulless corporations. There’s nothing more personal than putting a family’s furniture on the lawn. There’s nothing more personal than seeing “bank foreclosure” signs all in a row in your neighborhood. There’s nothing more personal than witnessing your community, already struggling in the last decade, thrown further by indecipherable market-speak terms like “derivatives” and “securitized mortgage bundles.”

And then there are the students: the victims of direct-to-consumer student loans. And, yes, it’s personal. Education prices have gone up but the federal loan programs’ maximum amount have not. So kids with no means to pay for college other than borrowing, are being forced into paying credit card-like interest on their education with loans that are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, with no statutes of limitations, and can’t be refinanced. These students carry signs reading, “Debt is slavery.” It’s more like sharecropping, which is slavery while being told you’re free.

And there’s the unemployed. They’re the nation’s statistics now donning Guy Fawkes masks. They are the “lagging indicators” who are tired of being called lazy. They want to work and can’t. Those who can’t find work don’t care about the circular firing squad in Washington of everyone blaming everything on whatever side they oppose. For the unemployed, it’s also personal.

Politicians won’t take personal responsibility for the crisis – and so Occupy Wall Street has no choice but to be nonpartisan. Or just bipartisan in their frustration.

It’s the least partisan political movement I’ve witnessed. The phrase Glass–Steagall gets thrown around at Occupy Wall Street like the Volstead Act did at speakeasies. Glass–Steagall, was signed by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 and made much of what the banks did to tank the economy then (and now) illegal. The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act also called Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 basically repealed Glass-Steagall. It was passed by a bi-partisan vote in the Republican-controlled Congress and was signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton.

Continue reading »

Wednesday night, broadcasting from Liberty Square in lower Manhattan, MSNBC's Ed Schultz rhetorically asked his guests if the Democrats were the biggest winners of the Occupy Wall Street movement. The crowd laughed a little at the myopic spin.

Thursday, Rush Limbaugh – citing an unnamed, likely imaginary “friend” – said that Obama's actually behind Occupy Wall Street, and, laughably, that the President's been planning “riots” for months. Riots. Planning. For months.

Although I can easily imagine both of these guys ending up in the same ICU for similar gasket-blowing ailments, I'm not playing the false equivalence card. These individual acts of stupidity are not equal, but they are both incredibly wrong.

El Rushbo's lying. No one told him this. And if they did, that person (Herman Cain?) was lying. He's a leaky bucket of bile; these are known knowns.

Schultz isn't lying. But he is off by a mile. This movement is rooted deeper than America's shallow, money-infested political dichotomy, but, indeed, it's been fertilized by this Democratic Administration's bullshit.

Rush is right: a good number of these kids turned out for Obama. Some of the protesters I talked to last weekend will hold their noses and vote Obama in 2012. Some will not. And all of them are painfully aware that despite Limbaugh's – and other insane right-wing – charges of “socialism,” Obama is Jeb Bush with a better jump shot. They know Dodd-Frank is a watered down bowl of nothing. They know that both parties are bought and sold by the same moneyed interests. They know recessions are worsened by so-called “austerity” measures. They know this pay-to-play political paradigm must crumble, for democracy to function properly.

If the Democrats gain from this movement it will be by embracing the populist sentiment of the now nationwide occupation, and making good on it if elected. No doubt Dems will co-opt the message. But will they deliver? Will we see this real populist movement translated into policy, as we saw the fringe tea party set affect the national dialogue?

Continue reading »

The All Spin Zone

The Downing Street Memo might be receiving some serious backup shortly.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock was the U.K. Ambassador to the United Nations at the time the war in Iraq was launched in 2003. After the fall of Baghdad, he was Tony Blair's envoy in Iraq during the days of Proconsul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority. And he has written what is apparently a scathing book on the subject.

In a story published in the Sunday Observer, Greenstock is quoted as saying:

• The American decision to go to war was “politically illegitimate”

• UN negotiations “never rose over the level of awkward diversion for the US administration”

• The opportunities of the post-conflict period were “dissipated in poor policy analysis and narrow-minded execution”

...
The problem is, we may never read the book - at least in a unredacted version. The UK Foreign Office and Downing Street have apparently put a hold on publication.

...The decision to block the book until Greenstock removes substantial passages will be interpreted as an attempt by ministers to avoid further embarrassing disclosures over the conduct of the war and its aftermath from a highly credible source.

Officials who have seen the book are understood to have been 'deeply shocked' over the way in which Greenstock has quoted widely from 'privileged' private conversations with Tony Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and from the private deliberations of the UN Security Council...

It's also a safe bet that the manuscript has made its way around Washington, and that some degree of pressure has been brought on the U.K. government by the U.S. State Department.

Apparently, Sir Jeremy became very disillusioned with the whole process that led up to the war, and then the immediate aftermath when it became clear that post-invasion planning was an afterthought. But if so, that begs the question - where was Sir Jeremy during the U.N. debate, and why didn't he express his reservations during deliberations prior to the war? What good does a mea culpa do two years after the fact, at a time when both the U.S. and U.K. are hopelessly stuck in a quagmire with no end in sight?

Most certainly, this won't be the last such “tell all” book or article from a high ranking memeber of the Bush / Blair inner circle. I suspect we'll see many in the future. But for the moment, allow me to pose a serious question to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who apparently now seeks absolution for his sins of commision and/or omission:

Where were you when it mattered?

...The decision to block the book until Greenstock removes substantial passages will be interpreted as an attempt by ministers to avoid further embarrassing disclosures over the conduct of the war and its aftermath from a highly credible source.

Officials who have seen the book are understood to have been 'deeply shocked' over the way in which Greenstock has quoted widely from 'privileged' private conversations with Tony Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and from the private deliberations of the UN Security Council...

It's also a safe bet that the manuscript has made its way around Washington, and that some degree of pressure has been brought on the U.K. government by the U.S. State Department.

Apparently, Sir Jeremy became very disillusioned with the whole process that led up to the war, and then the immediate aftermath when it became clear that post-invasion planning was an afterthought. But if so, that begs the question - where was Sir Jeremy during the U.N. debate, and why didn't he express his reservations during deliberations prior to the war? What good does a mea culpa do two years after the fact, at a time when both the U.S. and U.K. are hopelessly stuck in a quagmire with no end in sight?

Most certainly, this won't be the last such “tell all” book or article from a high ranking memeber of the Bush / Blair inner circle. I suspect we'll see many in the future. But for the moment, allow me to pose a serious question to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who apparently now seeks absolution for his sins of commision and/or omission:

Where were you when it mattered?

NY Times Covers OSHA Impersonation Story        Confined Space

The story of immigration officers impersonating OSHA officials, has now gone national with a front page article in the NY Times by Steven Greenhouse, who first read the story in Confined Space earlier this week.

The 48 immigrants thought they were attending mandatory safety training by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. But it was not until they showed up to the meeting in Goldsboro, N.C., last week that they discovered they had been summoned for an altogether different reason.

Federal immigration officials had posted

incredible even for the repugs The End Of The World

You know, they actually debated the Afghanistan war yesterday. You would think that throwing money down another hole would be something people would debate frequently, but apparently we don't do that sort of thing much these days. From David Swanson at AfterDowningStreet:

Sixty-five congress members, including 60 Democrats and 5 Republicans, voted to end the occupation of Afghanistan on Wednesday. But 356 congress members, including 189 Democrats and 167 Republicans voted to keep the war going. The vote followed three hours of debate created by Congressman Dennis Kucinich's introduction of a privileged resolution.

The debate featured three leaders from three groups of congress members: the war opponents (almost all Democrats), the pro-war Democrats, and the pro-war Republicans. Given this alignment, which has existed for nearly a decade now, is there any reason for supporters of peace and justice to take heart? I think so. Here's why: If the 60 Democrats acted in good faith and would have voted the same way even if the bill had a chance of passing, or even if that could be said of only 38 of them, then we may very well see funding of the wars dry up. If the leadership includes unrelated measures in the next war funding bill ($33 billion coming in April or May), measures that lead all the Republicans to vote No (as happened last July), then only 38 Democrats have to vote No to block the bill.

Now, there are two weak points in this plan. One is that the war funding could be brought up on its own without anything displeasing to the Republicans attached to it. But that would be the smart thing to do, so don't count on it. The moving of Guantanamo to Illinois has already been proposed for inclusion in the bill. The other weak point is that, of course, very few of the Democrats who voted Yes on Wednesday did so in good faith. Look back to July when 51 Democrats voted no on the funding when it was guaranteed to pass, and only 32 were willing to vote No when they had a chance of actually blocking the bill. Look at Congressman David Obey who voted to end the war on Wednesday and will write and shepherd the bill to fund it next month.

Yet we are in a greatly strengthened position from which to pressure 65 congress members to vote No on the next funding. They just went on record officially acting to end the war. And many of them went on video on the floor of the House speaking passionately in favor of ending the war. Constituents can now play back the videos, praise the anti-war commitments, and demand that none of these officials put our money where their mouth isn't. This whipping operation is being tracked at http://defundwar.org

These are the Republicans who voted to end the war in Afghanistan: Campbell, Duncan, Johnson (IL), Jones, Paul. These are the Democrats: Baldwin, Capuano, Chu, Clarke, Clay, Cleaver, Crowley, Davis (IL), DeFazio, Doyle, Edwards (MD), Ellison, Farr, Filner, Frank (MA), Grayson, Grijalva, Gutierrez, Hastings (FL), Jackson (IL), Jackson Lee (TX), Johnson E. B., Kagen, Kucinich, Larson (CT), Lee (CA), Lewis (GA), Maffei, Maloney, Markey (MA), McDermott, McGovern, Michaud, Miller George, Nadler (NY), Napolitano, Neal (MA), Obey, Olver, Payne, Pingree (ME), Polis (CO), Quigley, Rangel, Richardson, Sánchez Linda T., Sanchez Loretta, Schakowsky, Serrano, Speier, Stark, Stupak, Tierney, Towns, Tsongas, Velázquez, Waters, Watson, Welch, Woolsey.

A special focus on Obey would be appropriate. If he claims he wants to continue the Iraq War, he can fund that one separately. He cannot, however, claim that his vote on Wednesday was sincere while he continues to fund the war in Afghanistan. An additional special focus on Grijalva and Woolsey makes sense as well. If they want to end the war and understand it as a matter of life and death on a large scale, they must use the progressive caucus they chair to whip their colleagues to stand with them against the funding.

Continue reading »

Sigh.

Can we call a moratorium on going Godwin already? My in-laws lived through the actual Nazi invasion and occupation of Denmark. It's not a term to flippantly toss about, and certainly not in this case. Supporting Martha Coakley for Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat is akin to the party responsible for killing millions of Jews, gays, Gypsies, among others and advocating eugenics? Really?

It cheapens the word and it minimizes the horrors that were experienced by so many people and it needs to stop.

UPDATE: Sen. Kerry has called out the Brown campaign for their threatening tactics:

At a press conference today, U.S. Sen. John Kerry called on Scott Brown to tell his out of state supporters to put an end to the bullying and intimidation tactics of the past few days.

Recent media reports have described a range of these outrageous tactics, ranging from the theft and burning of lawn signs to threatening comments posted on the Facebook pages of Coakley supporters to death threats posted on Coakley’s own Facebook page.

Meanwhile, at a West Springfield event on Saturday, when a Brown supporter yelled “Shove a curling iron up her butt!” in reference to Coakley, Brown himself smiled in acknowledgment of the threat.

“I'm no stranger to hard fought campaigns, but what we’ve seen in the past few days is way over the line and reminiscent of the dangerous atmosphere of Sarah Palin's 2008 campaign rallies. This is not how democracy works in Massachusetts. Scott Brown needs to speak up and get his out of state tea party supporters under control. In Massachusetts, we fight hard and win elections on the issues and on our differences, not with bullying and threats,” said Senator John Kerry.

“He stoked the fires himself - smirking at threats against the Attorney General, busing scores of paid ‘supporters’ into his events, and standing by while his supporters call his opponents ‘Nazis.’ But what we’ve seen over the past two weeks is these out of state supporters coming in and engaging in tactics we’ve never seen here before. Now, as Election Day approaches, it’s become increasingly clear that Scott Brown has lost control of his campaign, and we are calling on him to tell his out of state supporters to stand down,” said Coakley spokesman Corey Welford.

I'd like to see Candidate Scott Brown denounce these kind of tactics, but sadly, we know he won't.

Work has been a little heavier than usual, perhaps as government agencies try to complete their projects before the Christmas holiday incapacitates Washington DC. So I'm glad that Spencer Ackerman is on the job, watching the congressional hearings on Afghanistan.

But both McChrystal and Eikenberry replied that the administration was ultimately providing a long-term commitment to Afghanistan, even if the U.S.-led combat phase would diminish over time. McChrystal said setting the date for beginning a “conditions-based” transition would help navigate Afghans’ complex feelings about the presence of foreign troops on their soil. “The guarantee that we, the coalition, will support them but not stay too long is actually a positive,” McChrystal testified. Eikenberry emphasized that the Obama administration envisioned a “long-term relationship with Afghanistan, a diplomatic relationship, a long-term economic assistance relationship” after the ultimate departure of U.S. troops.

The general said he expressed such confidence in his strategy because the Taliban was “not credible as a political entity,” earning acquiescence from Afghans only through the lack of a credible alternative from the Afghan government and its NATO allies. As the U.S. flows forces into southern and eastern Afghanistan to establish “contiguous security” for the population, “the next 18 months will likely be decisive,” McChrystal said. “Rolling back the Taliban is a prerequisite to the ultimate defeat of al-Qaeda.”
-----------
In an attempt to quash media speculation about a chilly relationship between Eikenberry and McChrystal, the two men made a show of their professional partnership. Eikenberry saw his internal doubts about a U.S. troop increase leak to the media last month. But ambassador said that he firmly supported the administration’s strategy and was “exactly aligned with Gen. McChrystal.” The general returned the compliment by gesturing to Eikenberry and saying, “The person I listen to most is about three feet on my right.”

Ahhhhhh... harmony. Isn't it swell? Now if only the Republican politicians at the hearing would act as responsibly as those two, we might just get somewhere. But lost in this discussion, in the hearings and, who knows, perhaps even in the White House, is the damning fact that no number of additional troops in Afghanistan will fix the non-military factors that remain outstanding. Oh, yeah, and this guy is still running around free and easy after eight-plus years...

T. Boone Pickens is a billionaire oil man and a career corporate raider who loves George Bush so much he donated $250,000 to his 2004 inaugural ball. He was, and still is, fully behind the invasion and occupation of Iraq and makes no bones about it. So why is he now pushing for the use of alternative energy sources like wind and solar in his Pickens Plan?

It might be because he sees the soaring price of gas and how it is crushing the average American and decided to invest billions of dollars of his own money on a bet that it will pay off. His holdings in natural gas would make his a very healthy profit, should we convert to using it more. Don't get me wrong, I support anyone who wants to lower our dependence on oil and clean up our environment, but if you watch the above video and go to the PP website you'll see that the environment doesn't get much play. In fact, considering his push for OCS drilling, I'd say the environment isn't the overriding issue, just ridding us of our dependence on foreign oil.

Carl Pope, Executive Director of The Sierra Club has praised his plan, going so far as to say Pickens is "out to save America" -- and I have no problem with that -- but do financial motivations vs. environmental motivations matter? Should we just be thankful that someone has stepped up to the plate, even if it means that the ultra-wealthy will once again control our energy resources, or do we strive for more ownership in the future of our own energy policy and demand more emphasis and accountability on our environment? In the end, will Pickens' plan even work?