1/21/12

United States Congress: A Graveyard for Democracy and Justice

The editor of The Hill, a newspaper exclusively covering Congress, said that Congress was not going to do very much in 2012, except for "the big bill" which is extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment compensation, which expire in late February. That two month extension will likely reignite the fight between Democrats and Republicans that flared last month.

In 2012, Congress, the editor implied, would be busy electioneering. That is, the Senators and Representatives will be busy raising money from commercial interests so they can keep their jobs. There won't be much time to change anything about misallocated public budgets, unfair tax rules, undeclared costly wars, and job-depleting trade policies that, if fixed, would increase employment and public investment.

So this year, Congress will spend well over $3 billion on its own expenses to do nothing of significance other than shift more debt to individual taxpayers by depleting the social security payroll tax by over $100 billion so both parties can say they enacted a tax cut! That is what the Democrats in Congress and the President call a significant accomplishment.

Will someone call a psychiatrist? This is a Congress that is beyond dysfunctional. It is an obstacle to progress in America, a graveyard for both democracy and justice. No wonder a new Washington Post-ABC news poll found an all time high of 84 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing.

Both Republicans and Democrats say they want to reduce the deficit. But they are avoiding, in varying degrees, doing this in any way that would discomfort the rich and powerful. One would think that, especially in an election year, the following legislative agenda would be very popular with the voters.

First, restore the taxes on the rich that George W. Bush cut ten years ago which expanded the deficit. So clueless are the Democrats that they have not learned to use the word "restore" instead of the Republican word "increase" when talking about taxes that were previously cut for the millionaires and billionaires.

Second, collect unpaid taxes. The IRS estimates that $385 billion of tax revenues are not collected yearly. If the IRS budget increased and more people were hired, every dollar it spent would return $200 from tax evaders, including corporations and the wealthy. When taxes are not collected, the large majority of honest taxpayers are left with the unfair consequences. Imagine that money being applied to jobs that repair our crumbling public works.

Third, end the outrageous corporate loopholes that allow profitable large corporations to pay just half of the statutory tax rate of thirty-five percent. More than a few pay less than five percent and many pay zero on major profits. During a recent three year period, according to the Citizens for Tax Justice, a dozen major corporations such as Verizon and Honeywell paid no taxes on many billions of profits, and the legendary tax escapee, General Electric, managed to pay zero and even receive billions in benefits from the U.S. Treasury.

Fourth, do what most U.S. soldiers in the field have believed should have been done years ago--get out of Afghanistan and Iraq and nearby countries like Kuwait where thousands of U.S. soldiers based in Iraq have moved.

Fifth, to increase consumer demand, which creates jobs, raise the federal minimum wage from the present level of $7.25--which is $2.75 less than it was way back in 1968, adjusted for inflation--to $10 per hour. Businesses who keep raising prices and executive salaries (eg. Walmart and McDonalds) since 1968 should be reminded of their windfall in that period.

In addition, President Obama can urge mutual and pension funds and individual shareholders to demand higher dividends from companies like EMC, Google, Apple, Cisco, Oracle and others firms hoarding two trillion dollars in cash as if this money was the corporate bosses', not the owner-shareholders. More dividends, more consumer demand, more jobs.

Want to know why Congress doesn't make such popular and prudent decisions for the American people? Because the people are not objecting to all the power that their Congressional representatives and their corporate allies have sucked away from them. Because the people are not putting teeth and time into the "sovereignty of the people" expressed in the preamble to our Constitution which begins with "We the people," not "We the corporation."

So citizens, it's your choice. If you don't demand a say day after day, you'll continue to pay day after day.

By the way, the Congressional switchboard number is 202-224-3121.
Ralph Nader
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book - and first novel - is, Only The Super-Rich Can Save Us. His most recent work of non-fiction is The Seventeen Traditions.

Moyers & Company Show 102: On Crony Capitalism from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.

1/20/12





Anonymous Shuts Down Corporate and Government Websites Worldwide … The Timing Couldn’t Be Worse

Anonymous Shuts Down MPAA, RIAA, FBI, DOJ and Copyright Office

Anonymous launched one of the largest hacking attacks in history today.
Gizmodo reports that – in response to the Feds’ shutting down of the extremely popular file-sharing site MegaUpload – Anonymous has shut down the sites of the main corporate copyright enforcers, including:
  • Motion Picture Association of America
  • Recording Industry Association of America
  • Universal Music
  • EMI
Anonymous has also shut down the main U.S. governmental copyright enforcers, including:
  • U.S. Copyright Office
  • Department of Justice
  • FBI
Plus foreign agencies, including:
  • French copyright authority HADOPI

1/19/12


Some of the early supporters of two controversial online piracy bills are having second thoughts -- and other undecided lawmakers are pledging opposition -- in the wake of Internet protests by websites like Wikipedia, reddit, Mozilla and thousands more.
Jennifer Martinez, David Saleh Rauf and Tony Romm, Politico
Numerous websites, including heavyweights like Google, Wikipedia and Craigslist, were blacked out Wednesday to take part in the protest against SOPA and PIPA. The blackout protest was not just an impressive show of force; it also seemed to succeed in making millions of people who don't usually follow every single piece of tech news aware of the bills.
Janko Roettgers, GigaOM
When Google speaks, the world listens. And, when Google asked its users to sign a petition protesting two anti-piracy bills circulating in Congress, millions responded. A spokeswoman for Google confirmed that 4.5 million people added their names to the company's anti-SOPA petition. Not too shabby.
Deborah Netburn, Los Angeles Times
The Web buzzed with protests large and small as the tech industry rallied against congressional legislation to curb Internet piracy. Some sites blacked out while others, including Google and Craigslist, draped their pages with information about the bills, or restricted access. Many startups quickly cobbled together tech solutions to support their cause. The effort was an unusual orchestration that began gathering steam online and escalated, eventually whipping the Web into a frenzy.
Jenna Wortham, New York Times
Thank you for standing up for what's important, for continuing to speak out and for demonstrating that we should always stand up for what we think is right regardless of the odds. This is an opportunity to reshape the way Washington operates, not just responding to narrow interests but hearing the voices of millions of Americans whose rights and livilihoods are affected by our actions.
Sen. Ron Wyden, Huffington Post
Rep. Darrell Issa officially introduced H.R. 3782, the OPEN Act, which is being shopped by critics of the Stop Online Piracy Act as a more Internet-friendly way to combat online piracy.
John Eggerton, Multichannel News
Proposals under consideration in Washington, D.C. this year could help communities reclaim local airwaves, but they could just as easily play into the hands of the content mills. The proposals, and the processes for adopting them, are complicated and hard to navigate. So we decided to break down exactly what's at stake, and why it's essential for all of us to speak up for media that serves our communities, not corporations.
Libby Reinish, SavetheNews.org
As television networks have covered Internet companies' positions against antipiracy legislation before Congress this week, they have had to consider whether to disclose the positions of their parent companies -- virtually all of which have campaigned in favor of it.
Brian Stelter, New York Times
The British newspaper arm of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. looks set to settle at great expense a string of legal claims after admitting wide-scale phone hacking that was both known about and concealed by senior management.
Georgina Prodhan and Kate Holton, Reuters
Actor Jude Law is among 36 victims of phone hacking who settled with Rupert Murdoch's British newspaper company. Law, whose phone was repeatedly hacked by now-shuttered tabloid News of the World, received $200,000 in damages, one month before the first civil phone-hacking trial kicks off in London. Murdoch's News International could face a settlement bill running into the tens of millions as further hacking victims bring claims.
Sonia van Gilder Cooke, Time
Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
Home | About Us | Donate | Subscribe | Archives
News & Views | 01.19.12
Featured...
Surveillance City: New Body Scanners Head to NYC
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/19
Headlines...
Big Money Bundlers As Prominent as Ever in Obama White House
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/19-o
Romney Looses his Cool with Occupier
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/19-5
Japan Still Pushing Nuclear Power
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/19-1
US Thirst for Fossil Fuels is Decimating Nature's Wildlife: Report
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/19-2
Popular File-Sharing Site, MegaUpload.com, Shuttered by FBI
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/19-4
and more...
****************************************************
Video...
Protest Against New Internet Laws Shows Quick Results
http://www.commondreams.org/video/2012/01/19
Obama Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline Under GOP Deadline, But Opponents Prepare for Long-Term Fight
http://www.commondreams.org/video/2012/01/19-0
****************************************************
Views...
Ralph Nader: United States Congress: A Graveyard for Democracy and Justice
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/19
Arundhati Roy: Capitalism’s Real Gravediggers
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/19-9
Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis: 2012's Civil Liberties Apocalypse Has Already Happened
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/19-10
Bill Quigley: Working and Poor in the USA
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/19-4
Robert C. Koehler: The Dignity of Corpses
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/19-1
Will Potter: The FBI and Federal Prosecutors Say My Journalism Is “Extremist”
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/19-11
****************************************************
Newswire...
Center for Biological Diversity: Dunes Sagebrush Lizard Named One of 10 U.S. Species Most Threatened by Fossil Fuel Development
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2012/01/19-5
America's Voice: ICYMI: Influential Spanish Language Media Paying Attention to Romney’s Two-Faced Campaign
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2012/01/19-4
Amnesty International Calls for Immediate Release of Ethiopian Prisoners of Conscience
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2012/01/19-2
and more...

1/18/12

Welcome to the civil-liberties-free zone

Rahm Emanuel's clampdown on civil liberties goes beyond his goal of silencing opposition to next May's gathering of the global 1 percent, says Shaun Harkin.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (Kevin Gebhardt)Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (Kevin Gebhardt)
CHICAGO MAYOR Rahm Emanuel wants to set up his own personal police state to accommodate the warmongers and budget-slashers who will attend a conference of the global 1 percent in Chicago in May.
Emanuel is giddy about the "opportunity" to host simultaneous gatherings of the U.S.-dominated NATO military alliance and the Group of Eight (G8) club of powerful industrial nations also dominated by the U.S., set for May 19-21. The last time both entities met together was in 1977 in London.
"From a city perspective, this will be an opportunity to showcase what is great about the greatest city in the greatest country," said Emanuel. "It's an opportunity for the city of Chicago economically, but also a message internationally about why Chicago is a city that's on the move, and if you're thinking of investing, Chicago is a place to invest."
Meanwhile, civil liberties will become a scarce commodity.
In December, Emanuel introduced a package of proposed ordinances, to be voted on by the Chicago City Council, that demand dramatically higher fines for anyone arrested during the summits, more surveillance cameras and the daily closure of city parks and playgrounds until 6 a.m.
The ordinances would also increase minimum fines from $25 to $250 for anyone found "resisting arrest"--and the law is careful to specify that "passively" resisting, such as going limp in classic civil-disobedience style, is also included. Maximum fines would increase from $500 to $1,000, and in some cases to $2,000.
The spineless Chicago City Council--which recently rubberstamped Emanuel's job-busting and social-services-slashing budget with a 50-0 vote--is set to vote on the ordinances on January 18.
The new ordinances would also empower Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy to "deputize law enforcement personnel"; make cooperative agreements with a host of state, federal and local law enforcement agencies; and forge agreements with "public or private entities concerning placement, installation, maintenance or use of video, audio telecommunications, or other similar equipment."
This last measure would buttress the city's existing "Big Brother" surveillance network, augmenting more than 10,000 public and private surveillance cameras--the most extensive and integrated system in the nation, according to experts.
Emanuel's proposals are also clearly intended to "neutralize" any number of other potential headaches. For one, Emanuel wants to set up new hurdles for Occupy Chicago, which has plans for a spring mobilization in early April. In the fall, Emanuel ordered mass arrests that successfully thwarted Occupy Chicago's repeated efforts to establish an encampment in a public space.
But Emanuel is also faced with growing protests among teachers, nurses and community activists faced with school closures, and cuts to city mental health services and other programs.
According to the Chicago Reporter, "Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said the department is treating the Occupy Chicago protests as a bit of a dry run, and they've considered the way they've dealt with protesters so far to be a success."
From the first announcement that the joint summits would be held in Chicago, there has also been a systematic media campaign to smear social justice protesters as hell-bent on "violence" and "destruction." In particular, the Chicago Sun-Times ran sensational front-page articles featuring burning buildings and confrontational scenes.
Emanuel wants to use a media-generated hysteria to justify the massive security operation and discourage wider participation in the protests.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SPENDING TENS of millions of dollars on security and feasts for powerful politicians and officials who oversaw the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, or who imposed austerity across the world will be hard for many people to stomach.
This is especially true in a city where the mayor has forced through layoffs of librarians, the closure of desperately needed mental-health clinics and schools, and other cuts to the city's already battered social safety net. And Emanuel is planning for more, with massive concessions demanded from Chicago teachers and transit workers.
But despite the intimidation and demonization, networks of Chicago-based and national activists have been organizing since August to challenge the twin entities of the G8 and NATO, as well as the assault on civil liberties.
Mass protests, a People's Summit and many other events and actions are being planned by students, trade unionists, antiwar organizers, faith-based activists, Occupiers, anti-eviction activists and many others. These groups have joined forces to say no to the NATO/G8 agenda, and to put forward an alternative based on equality, democracy and solidarity.
But as far as Emanuel is concerned, this runs contrary to his own plans to host an event that caters to the interests of the city's corporate elite--and those of his former boss, President Barack Obama, who Emanuel served as White House chief of staff until he left in October 2010 to run for mayor.
By mid-May, the 2012 presidential election will be in full swing, and Democrats are hoping that Obama's prospects for reelection will be enhanced by playing a central role in the summits. According to an anonymous administration official, the NATO/G8 meetings offer Obama "with the opportunity to continue his leadership of our most important security alliance, to fulfill commitments made by allied leaders in Lisbon in November 2010, and to sustain our joint work to revitalize NATO to prepare it to effectively meet challenges of the 21st century."
The White House thus hopes to use the Chicago summit to reassert the global role of the U.S. in both economic and military terms.
Officials will tout what they consider the Obama administration's foreign policy achievements, including support for regime change in Libya and ending the war in Iraq. Economically, the summit presents the U.S. with a bully pulpit to lecture Europe on how to avoid an imposion of the eurozone economy that would drag down the world economy.
Pivotal, too, for the U.S. is the exclusion of China--the clear rival to the U.S. in coming decades, economically and politically--from both bodies.
Though there are fears that its economic growth will slow in the next couple of years, China now has more billionaires than any other country except the U.S., along with $2 trillion in foreign assets--while the U.S. has $2.5 trillion in net debts. China is the world's leading manufacturer and looks set to become the world's primary importer by 2014--a massive turnaround from 2000 when U.S. imports were six times China's, according to the Economist.
China's growth, the economic crisis and the quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan have combined to exacerbate the sense of anxiety among U.S. policymakers and the broader public about "American decline." A Pew Global Attitudes Survey captures this statistically: when asked which country is the world's leading economic power, 43 percent of Americans answered China, while only 38 percent believe the U.S. is still number one.
So what could be better for the U.S. and President Obama than a global platform staged in Chicago to present their message about what needs to be done.
But here's what they don't say: The global 1 percent have become even richer in recent years, and they want to stop anything that might disrupt the growth of their staggering vast wealth. So elite will gather to justify austerity for the purpose of stabilizing world capitalism, defend the concentration of wealth and power among the tiny few--and pay lip service to reducing hunger, climate change and inequality.
Writing from Kabul in Afghanistan, veteran peace campaigner Kathy Kelly captured the disconnect between those who embrace the G8 and NATO and those who feel the brunt of its dictates:
Hillary Clinton, President Obama, former war-hawk representative Emanuel and other undisputed militarists in government seem to see Chicago as a city obsessed with power, a city determined above all to be tough and strong. Carl Sandburg famously depicted Chicago as the city of big shoulders, and it often seems too easy for political leaders and generals to confuse the strength involved in shouldering shared burdens with the very different kind of "toughness" that drives a fist or a nightstick.
NATO/G8 summits have been met with protests wherever they have been held. In 2001, at the height of the global justice movement, hundreds of thousands demonstrated in Genoa, Italy, to show their opposition to G8 policies. With this in mind, Chicago's mayor is ready to go to any length to protect the architects of war and global inequality.
But his efforts aren't going unnoticed. John Kass, a conservative Chicago Tribune columnist, criticized Emanuel's "ruthless amassing of new powers" by comparing him to a Roman dictator:
[T]here seems to be a new, imperial Rahm on the horizon: Emperor Rahmulus. Rahmulus wants more power over police, so that his police chief may immediately deputize members of other law enforcement agencies should Rahmulus decree. This means he might be able to deputize the Melrose Park cops--perhaps even the Melrose Park Fire Department--if he feels the need.
And he wants more control over contracts, transforming the already-neutered Chicago City Council from eunuchs to ghosts. "I'm doing what is appropriate for a unique event with a unique attention to the city," Emanuel told reporters last week. "We'll do it to make sure we have an orderly process. This is not a big deal. This is a one-time event...This is temporary, and this is just for this conference."
Oh, sure. It's just temporary. The last guy who said new powers were only temporary was Emperor Palpatine from the Star Wars saga...
In fact, Emanuel's dispatch of the City Council is only a means to an end, says Kass:
The mayor will have sweeping contract powers to take care of this one and that one because he feels like it, with little if any legislative oversight. And that befits a political system where "democracy" is largely symbolic, as it was in Albania for most of the last century.
So we'll have heads of state gathering in Chicago to nibble hors d'oeuvres with Rahm's business friends, and they'll make contacts and deals and more business. Taxpayers will pick up much of the cost. The suits will praise President Barack Obama's Chicago. And if history is our guide, then young protesters will be dragged away, their heads bouncing along the curbs.
Kass' assessment is on the money. In fact, Emanuel has acknowledged that he has no intention of making "temporary" any of the measures designed to clamp down on civil liberties.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TO FUND the massive security operation, Emanuel was handed a $54.6 million grant by his friends in the federal government. The mayor's office won't say how much it wants to raise in addition to this federal funding, or how it will spend any contributions, but it has tapped seasoned corporate networkers, including former Sara Lee Corp. CEO John Bryan, to lead the effort.
Within corporate and political circles, Emanuel's fundraising skills are seen as legendary. According to reporter Shia Kapos:
Before he headed out of town for the holidays, Mayor Rahm Emanuel tied up a loose end of business. He secured a $2 million sponsorship donation for the upcoming NATO and G8 summits, which will land in Chicago in mid-May. Add that to the $50 million or so already in the bank.
Yep, the latest infusion should put to rest any question of whether businesses want their names attached to an event that draws protests. Christie Hefner, the former Playboy Enterprises Inc. CEO who now serves as executive chairman of Tucson, Ariz.-based Canyon Ranch Enterprises Inc., said as much at a recent Executives' Club of Chicago meeting.
The media's collaboration in the whole spectacle of trumpeting the summit while demonizing protesters shouldn't come as a surprise--especially at the Sun-Times, whose board has a longstanding relationship with the city's new boss. According to Crain's Chicago Business reporter Greg Hinz:
At least eight of the 12 board members of the new company [that owns the Sun-Times], Wrapports LLC, have donated to Mr. Emanuel's campaign fund in the past year, collectively plunking down $241,000 that I found in a quick survey of Board of Elections disclosures. Included: $25,000 from the Sun-Times' new chairman, Michael Ferro Jr., and $105,000 from Mr. Emanuel's frequent visitor at City Hall, Grosvenor Capital Management L.P. chief Michael Sacks.
City officials have made organizing extremely difficult by stalling on repeated attempts to discuss march and rally permits. However, NATO/G8 activists have joined with Occupy Chicago to "Occupy City Hall" and other actions to demand the right to protest and other basic civil liberties.
Persistence is paying off. The Coalition Against NATO/G8 War and Poverty Agenda celebrated a victory when City Hall was forced to backtrack on denying permits for Daley Plaza in downtown Chicago. MB Real Estate, the company managing Daley Plaza for the city, had earlier announced it would not be issuing any permits during May 15-22, but more recently, the city's Public Building Commission wrote to the American Civil Liberties Union to say that "Daley Plaza will be open to public assembly and public activity" during the summits.
In the coming weeks and months, the struggle to defend the right to assemble and protest will be crucial. In the next week, for example, Chicago unions, religious groups, Occupy activists and students will be spearheading a campaign to get Chicago aldermen to vote against Emanuel's proposed ordinances when they come to a vote in the City Council on January 18.
We should do everything we can to mobilize those from near and far who want to show the representatives of the global 1 percent that they and their policies are not welcome in Chicago--or anywhere.

The right to protest in peril

The only defense against an assault on our rights lies in mobilization and organization.
New York police arrest a Wall Street occupier (Sam Lewis)New York police arrest a Wall Street occupier (Sam Lewis)
THE U.S. Constitution forbids laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
But that's not stopping Rahm Emanuel.
If Chicago's mayor has his way at a January 18 City Council meeting, local ordinances will be twisted into tools of repression, ready to be used against any organization or group of individuals that wants to express dissent.
It won't take much for a protester to be labeled a criminal in Emanuel's Chicago--using a sound system or carrying a banner that wasn't registered in advance, not providing an official marshal for every 100 people attending a rally, letting a demonstration last more than two hours.
Emanuel's proposals are supposedly in preparation for demonstrations expected at a joint summit of the Group of Eight industrialized nations and the NATO military alliance that will take place in May. But the shredding of civil liberties isn't temporary, as Emanuel once claimed. It will be permanent if the City Council goes along--and the impact will be felt by unions, community groups, antiwar activists, social justice advocates and more.
Outrage at his sneak attack on the Constitution forced Emanuel to back down on a few things--the minimum fine for violations of parade permits, for example, would only increase by four times, instead of 20 times. But even if this is viewed as a "concession," what was left untouched is still an incredible criminalization of the right to protest.
In a society that truly represented the will of the people, such proposals would be laughed off as a relic of the past, when countries were ruled by emperors or dictators. But no one's laughing in Chicago.
In Chicago, the assault on the Constitution is being led by one of the most powerful Democrats in the country, and every one of the City Council members who will vote on Emanuel's proposals is a Democrat, too. Some have told activists that they have misgivings about Emanuel's power grab. Good--they ought to. And now they have a chance to put their money where their mouths are, and vote against an attempt to criminalize protest.
But Rahm Emanuel is likely to get his way, thanks to fellow members of the "party of the people." Because we live in a country where political and business leaders love to preach about freedom and liberty publicly, but behind closed doors will do just about anything to undermine them--especially when their power and privilege is being questioned.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE ASSAULT on civil liberties underway in Chicago isn't the exception. There are plenty more examples, and they run straight to the top of political system in the "world's greatest democracy."
On the last day of 2011, Barack Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)--one provision of which grants the military, at the discretion of the president, the power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens.
After three years in office, Obama can be judged an unmitigated disaster for civil liberties. In addition to signing the NDAA, Obama has ordered the extrajudicial assassination of at least one U.S. citizen, escalated the use of unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan and elsewhere, and waged war on whistleblowers like Bradley Manning, who uncovered abuses and illegal actions by the U.S. military.
The one-time constitutional law professor has not only refused to roll back the worst abuses of the Bush administration, as he once promised, but he has actually escalated those attacks. As legal scholar Jonathan Turley wrote, "In time, the election of Barack Obama may stand as one of the single most devastating events in our history for civil liberties."
Of course, the administration insists that Obama's policies are intended to be used against the "bad guys"--extremists and terrorists. We'll hear some variation of that same excuse coming from Rahm Emanuel and his backers on the City Council--that the criminalization of protest in Chicago is part of an effort to contain "outside agitators" who are "bent on violence."
But it's amazing how easily peaceful protesters can be painted as dangerous extremists.
Consider the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), a law quietly passed in 2006 at the behest of the agriculture and biotech industries. AETA labels as "terrorist" anything done "for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise," as well as "economic damage" to such an enterprise. Activists say the law is so broad that they could be targeted just for secretly videotaping abuses against animals at factory farms, since this could affect companies' bottom lines.
That's how peaceful protest gets conflated with terrorism.
We witnessed a similar dynamic throughout the fall, as the Occupy Wall Street protest movement spread around the country. When it became clear that Occupy couldn't be dismissed, local officials, aided by the media, stirred up a slander campaign, accusing activists of everything from tolerating violence to causing a public health hazard. The slanders were prelude to a crackdown--in city after city, Democratic mayors ordered police to raid the Occupy encampments and arrest anyone who got in the way.
Our kind of democracy--the bottom-up kind, based on the idea that people have a right to stand up for jobs and better schools, for health care and Social Security, for programs to aid the most vulnerable in society--isn't the kind that politicians respect. To them, "democracy" is limited to pulling a lever in a voting booth every few years or making a financial contribution to their reelection fund.
It's exactly when dissent becomes tangible and concrete--as it has with the upsurge of the Occupy movement in the U.S., not to mention the example of millions of people in Egypt, Tunisia, Nigeria and elsewhere taking to the streets to demand justice--that our free speech rights get put on the chopping block.
The Occupy movement was the most invigorating example of grassroots democracy in years, if not decades. But when it became a threat because it was growing and challenging the status quo, political leaders were ready to shut it down--and almost all of those leaders were Democrats, the mainstream party supposedly committed to guarding civil liberties.
As Occupy Chicago activist Evelyn Dehais stated at a press conference that challenged Rahm Emanuel's power grab:
Whether these measures are temporary or permanent is beside the point. The fundamental freedoms upon which this country was founded cannot be dismissed or negotiated at any time, for any reason, and certainly not in the name of convenience.
This is an effort by the mayor's office to manage dissent in a city where the mayor has given his constituents ample cause to dissent. He has stripped the people and the communities which he was elected to represent in the name of austerity, while championing the 1 percent and a $65 million dollar price tag for the NATO-G8 summit. And now, with a duplicitous excuse of "public safety," he seeks to strip Chicagoans of their voice as well.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MANY PEOPLE will think these latest assaults on civil liberties are an aberration from the real traditions of democracy in the U.S.
That's not true. The U.S. state has always been willing to use violence and repression.
Just how violent and repressive becomes obvious in times of war, when violations of the Bill of Rights go nearly unquestioned. During the First World War, the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 made it a crime to interfere with the war effort or with military recruitment, and forbid the use of "disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language" about the U.S. government, the flag or the military.
But similar attacks on our rights are familiar in peacetime, too. The Palmer Raids, in which thousands of leftists and radicals rounded up and deported in 1919 and 1920, came after the end of the First World War. During the 1950s and '60s, the federal government carried out a witch-hunt against socialists, communists and civil rights activists. The FBI's COINTELPRO was aimed at a domestic enemy, even as the war against "communism" was being fought overseas.
Those in charge of the government and institutions of power in a capitalist society prefer to rule by consent. But they are all too willing to turn to repression and coercion if they feel the need.
The only defense against these attacks on our rights is in our numbers and our mobilization.
It's important to remember all the lies and dirty tricks and arrests and state violence couldn't stop the upsurge of the civil rights movement or the anti-Vietnam war movement. Despite all the brutality and repression the state could muster, these movements succeeded--in destroying the system of apartheid in the U.S. South and ending an imperialist war halfway around the world.
In his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," Martin King responded to critics who questioned whether he was wrong to defy the law:
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
On January 18, Rahm Emanuel wants the Chicago City Council to go along with his sit-down-and-shut-up plan for anyone who disagrees with him.
It's more important than ever that we say "No!"--to Emanuel and all the other political leaders who want to criminalize the right to protest.

1/14/12



News of the movement for January 12, 2012

It's ironic that the Web speaks the loudest when it shuts up. But as the Cheezburger network joins Reddit, domain registrar Tucows and other sites like Wikipedia that are considering a blackout on Jan. 18 in protest of Congress' attempts to pass legislation to stop piracy, it's becoming clear that site owners believe an end to their chatter might matter. However, as we draw nearer to the Jan. 24 date when SOPA emerges from the House, it's unclear how much room there is for compromise on each side of the debate.
Stacey Higginbotham, GigaOM
SOPA is good for one group, and one group only: members of Congress raising cash from the entertainment and now, by necessity, tech industries. Members of the unions still supporting SOPA should make it an internal issue, immediately, to persuade their leadership to take their names off this bill.
Matt Stempeck, MediaShift
Exactly 14,683 “lolz” after launching in 2007, I Can Has Cheezburger is celebrating its fifth anniversary this week, just before all Cheezburger sites will go black Jan. 18 to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act.
Brian Anthony Hernandez, Mashable
Sen. Patrick Leahy said he is preparing a manager's amendment to the Protect IP Act that will take concerns about the bill's possible effect on Internet service providers under consideration. Critics of the bill say that PIPA, as the bill is known, forces ISPs to censor the Web when the government seizes a domain name that it has identified as a site primarily dedicated to online piracy.
Hayley Tsukayama, Washington Post
The lawmaker behind a bill to combat online piracy vowed to press ahead in the face of fierce criticism from Internet giants such as Google and Facebook.
Jim Forsyth, Reuters
It turns out Rep. Lamar Smith, the author of the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act, has been caught red-handed infringing copyright with an image used on his personal website.
Nadine Deninno, International Business Times

The Sunlight Foundation submitted comments encouraging the FCC to quickly create a centralized, publicly accessible database of information about political ads buys. The current system, in which valuable information about political ads is located in the file cabinets of broadcasters across the country, prevents the information from being shared, analyzed or understood. To truly make the most use of the data, information from broadcasters' political files should be available to the public on a centralized, searchable, sortable database on the FCC's website.
Sunlight Foundation
In less than a year, AT&T went from swallowing up T-Mobile USA for $39 billion to owing T-Mobile's German parent company $3 billion in cash and another billion in spectrum because that deal slammed into the regulatory roadblock at the FCC and the Justice Department. Speaking for the third year in a row at the Consumer Electronics Show, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski defended his agency's actions against the deal.
Chris Morran, Consumer Reports
The FCC said it will review whether to get rid of decades-old TV rules stopping cable and satellite companies from airing NFL games and other sporting events that are blacked out on local broadcast TV.
USA Today
The FCC has opened the docket on cable companies' sale of wireless spectrum to Verizon. That comes in the wake of the filing of applications by cable joint venture SpectrumCo and Cox to sell spectrum they bought at the FCC's advanced wireless services auction to Verizon.
John Eggerton, Multichannel News
The FCC's Media Bureau has given media companies more time to file amendments to current waiver requests, renewal applications or new requests for permanent waivers of its newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules.
John Eggerton, Multichannel News
KRIS Communications has filed a complaint with the FCC. In order to protect local viewers from continued disruption, KRIS has asked the FCC to find that Time Warner has negotiated in bad faith with KRIS Communications in its attempts to reach a new agreement to carry its four stations. The filing urges the FCC to order Time Warner to return to the negotiating table and negotiate in good faith to bring these stations back to the viewers of Corpus Christi, Texas.
KRIS-TV

 
Posted: 07 Jan 2012 09:20 PM PST
By Thomas Ferguson, Professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. He is the author of many books and articles, including Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems. Cross posted from Alternet
The father of the Investment Theory of Politics reveals what pundits miss in the GOP’s failure to lead its own electorate and its evangelical problem.
Election night in Iowa was a heavenly moment for Rick Santorum. As he marveled over the late breaking tidal wave of support that in just weeks had swept him from nowhere into a virtual tie with Mitt Romney for first place in the state’s Republican caucuses, the former Pennsylvania Senator gushed to supporters about the secret of his campaign’s success: “I’ve survived the challenges so far by the daily grace that comes from God. . . . I offer a public thanks to God.’’
But it was not God who saved Rick Santorum. He survived Iowa rather like a blind mole rat might someday outlive a nuclear exchange – by simply burrowing underground while Romney’s Super Pac incinerated Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, and while Perry tried to demolish Ron Paul, whom he considered a more dangerous rival. In a state where 60% of those attending the 2008 GOP caucuses described themselves as “born again” or evangelicals, Santorum was the only ultra-conservative left for resigned evangelical leaders to swing behind.
Now, as the wall of Super Money comes down on him like a ton of gold bricks, Santorum is likely fated, like Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Perry himself, to flame out after a brief moment of glory and go back to working with the energy and health care enterprises that helped make him a millionaire after leaving the Senate.
But this leaves a larger question: Why does this curious “shooting star” pattern of flare ups and flame outs distinguish the quest of hopefuls for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination? The answer lies in the party’s tricky long-term strategy to steer ordinary voters into focusing on wedge issues rather than the economic policies. The party establishment wants Romney, but its voters have been so thoroughly trained to focus on gays and abortion that they cannot sit still behind a candidate who concentrates on business and economic growth.
A Party Built for the 1 Percent
Beginning in the Nixon era, and then with ever greater determination and force after Reagan, GOP leaders have carefully built out a very special party structure. But at what should by all rights be a moment of easy triumph, thanks to the combination of the Great Recession and the Obama administration’s repeated economic policy blunders, the GOP is on the verge of chaos. The carefully elaborated structure of primaries, group appeals, and elaborately layered leadership structures is coming apart. Republican leaders now find themselves superlatively prepared to fight exactly the wrong war.
Their dilemma is easy to understand, if one tears oneself away from media talking heads and the endless election chatter that now fills the US press. As perhaps most painstakingly documented by Larry Bartels, in his ‘Unequal Democracy,’ Republican policies are stunningly orientated toward making the richest Americans richer and they have consistently done exactly that, by comparison with Democratic regimes.
This is not to say the Democrats do not also cater to segments of the rich – Bartels, like nearly everyone else writing about American politics, jumped too quickly to the conclusion that the partisan differences he detected followed immediately from the direct influence of mass constituencies rather than the choices different blocs of investors made as they appealed to different segments of the electorate while competing to control the parties. But as far as it goes, his point is true and important.
To summarize and retranslate into the language of my investment theory of political parties: Republicans historically secure the incomes of upper income Americans, whatever else they do. By contrast, Democrats typically compete by offering something – and these days, not much at all – to more of the 99%, even as they go whole hog for financial deregulation amid a raft of money from Vampire Squids, telecom monopolists, and other dark forces.
Republican leaders from Nixon, through Reagan, Gingrich, and the Bushes all understood their situation. They knew that to win consistently, they needed to do two things. First, they had to discourage as many poorer Americans from voting as possible. A succession of Republican administrations, sometimes abetted by conservative Democrats, have worked overtime at this. Once centered on punitive registration requirements, such efforts nowadays focus more on state measures to curtail early voting and, especially, add demands for photo ids.
No less important were the implications for GOP campaigns and political rhetoric. Once GOP leaders got past bromides about encouraging economic growth, to have any chance of appealing to the normal Americans their policies were first to squeeze, and over a generation, to impoverish, the party needed to change the subject from economics when campaigning. Fast.
Wedge Issues: the Weapon That Backfired
Thus it was that Republican leaders tried out one wedge issue after another, looking for anything that would stick. Nixon, Helms, and nearly the whole party played the race card for a long time; some still do. In the eighties, conservative Republicans built alliances with evangelicals and attacked gays. Many also attacked immigrants, while, of course, virtually everyone talked up defense, national security, and guns 24/7. After 9/11, with much help from Fox News and the other networks, they kept Americans on high alert for low reasons, to the point that Republicans in Oklahoma and other states sometimes run against the threat of Islamic law with a straight face. The party also looked with benign neglect at the rise of a libertarian right, though Ron Paul’s current challenge is a bit more than the party establishment, which lives and dies by the Federal Reserve and the Department of Defense, bargained for.
This brings us to the conflicts that are now chewing up the GOP. Most Americans, if they think about electorates at all, probably think of the American voting universe as a natural fact, akin to the tides or the moon. But as Walter Dean Burnham and I have never stopped emphasizing, that is not true. Electorates are like Japanese gardens. They have to be cultivated over long periods if they are to flourish. A host of rules, institutional practices, and careful appeals mobilize some blocs and demobilize others, including decisions about where to spend money to encourage turnout or make sure enough voting machines are available.
In 2012, history has dealt the GOP a hand it hadn’t counted on. The Democrats should be hopelessly vulnerable on the economy just now. The Obama administration’s failure to stimulate the economy sufficiently and address the mortgage problem, along with its single-minded focus on rescuing the financial sector, has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many Americans on both the left and the right. The opportunity for the Republicans is so huge that that the GOP establishment can almost taste it. As Haley Barbour, a former chair of the Republican National Committee who is also one of the most closely connected of all Republican leaders to big business observed recently, “If the 2012 election is about President Obama’s policies and the negative results of those policies, he won’t be reelected; so if I were campaigning, I’d talk about how his policies have made economic growth and job creation harder.”
So the party establishment rallied quickly behind Mitt Romney, though he is the first choice of comparatively few and mistrusted still by many.
The establishment’s problem, however, is that the electorate it so laboriously built over the last generation still has all those wedge issues on their minds. This doesn’t mean they don’t think also about economic issues – the Iowa polls, for example, show plainly that they do. But many GOP voters are in the party now because of the earlier recruiting efforts and habits that reflected their other deep interests. They aren’t going away. Nor are they going to stop caring about those issues, whether the GOP establishment likes it or not.
So the Republican leaders have a problem. A huge percentage – in Iowa it was three quarters – of the electorate that it presides over doesn’t want to follow its lead. In 1953, after riots broke out in the self-styled worker’s paradise of East Germany, Bertolt Brecht famously suggested that the government should dissolve the people and go find another one. That prospect is not open to the GOP establishment. It will need them in the general election, especially if the economy were to improve. So all it can do right now is to unroll its mighty bankroll and bulldoze through its opponents, hoping that none of those being squashed defects to some third party.
But it might just take divine intervention to make this strategy work.

1/13/12

And THIS, Dear Citizen Journalists, is why we get it all on video.



2 Oakland police officers disciplined for Occupy actions

By Maria L. La Ganga / Los Angeles Times
Thursday, January 12, 2012 -

 
SAN FRANCISCO — Two officers involved in Occupy protests have been punished by the Oakland Police Department for violating official policy, after an onlooker’s video showed one of them with dark tape obscuring his nameplate, according to court documents. read more
BAD COP.  NO NO NO NO DONUTS.  EVER. Oakland cops are chicken poop. LAPD wouldn't do this. What... and sacrifice a donut? -ydlv



via Boing Boing

Social graph analysis reveals criminal conspiracy of slumlords


OrgNet, a data-mining consultancy, describes how it mined the social graph of the interlocking, every changing owners of several slum-buildings to show that they were all in a criminal conspiracy to avoid having to do the legally required maintenance necessary to keeping their buildings habitable and safe.
Figure 6 shows the complete conspiracy. It was now obvious that properties exchanged hands not as independent and valid real estate investments but as a conspiracy to avoid fixing the building violations. The green links represent borrowed money flowing into the buildings through new mortgages. As time went on, and the buildings appreciated in value during a real estate boom -- loans from the mortgage company allowed the owners to "strip mine" the equity from the buildings. This is a common slumlord modus operandi -- they suck money out of a building rather than put money back in for maintenance.
...The city attorney combined the network analysis, along with the city's own extensive investigation and was able to get a conviction of key family members. Later, all of one building's tenants filed a civil suit using much of the same evidence and won a sufficient award to allow all of them to move out into decent housing. Several tenants used a part of their award to start businesses.
Uncloaking a Slumlord Conspiracy with Social Network Analysis (via Kottke)
INDIA'S "PUBLIC SECTOR INDIGENOUS GM COTTON" A SCIENTIFIC FRAUD
Coalition for a GM-Free India, December 30 2011 

Coalition for a GM-Free India demands immediate stopping of all public sector transgenic research and an independent enquiry and action against fraudulent scientists.

New Delhi: 2011 ends with a big blot to the Indian scientific community, as was the case in 2010 too. The much-hyped public sector Bt cotton lines (Bikaneri Narma Bt variety and NHH-44 Bt hybrid) touted as the "first indigenous public sector-bred GM crop in India" developed by Central Institute for Cotton Research, Nagpur (CICR) and University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad (UAS) along with Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) is actually found to have a Bt gene originally patented by Monsanto. The ICAR had to withdraw the production of these 'indigenous' GM cotton seeds, based on this development. In effect the Indian biotechnologists, supported with enormous amounts of taxpayers' money doing research on developing indigenous "biotechnology products" have misled the nation by passing off the Monsanto technology as their own, the Coalition for a GM-Free India stated. The Coalition demanded that the Government stop all transgenic research in the public sector immediately,
setup a high-level independent inquiry into the current case as well as all other research projects. It also demanded that this issue be seen as an act of corruption and fraud and severe deterrent action be taken against all the institutions and scientists involved.

In India, the majority of transgenic products in the R&D pipeline are from public sector institutions. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research's "network project on transgenics" had a budgetary provision of Rs 100 crores in the XI Plan.

The Bt cotton in question is the Bikaneri Narma (BN) Bt (variety) and the NHH-44 Bt (hybrid) expressing Bt Cry 1Ac protein. The developers CICR & UAS claimed that BN Bt carries the cry1Ac (Truncated and codon-modified) gene which 'is very similar to the Cry 1Ac toxin expressed by MON 531 event developed by M/s Monsanto as well as event 1 of IIT, Kharagpur', both of which are already under commercial cultivation. A CICR newsletter (Vol.24, No.2, Apr-June 2008) soon after the GEAC approval for transgenic BN Bt claimed that the development of this Bt cotton was initiated under the World-Bank-funded NATP from 2000 onwards. The Bt cry1AC gene in this instance was supposed to have been developed by the NRCPB of the IARI along with CICR and the transfer into popular cultivars is supposed to be taken up by UAS-Dharwad.

During deliberations in the GEAC about this, the members first gave approval for large-scale field trials (LSTs) during the GEAC meeting on April 2, 2008 and then in the next meeting on 2nd May 2008 reviewed the decision and gave approval for commercialization of BN Bt without conducting LSTs. The rationale was that since the seeds of BN Bt could be saved by farmers, a large scale field trial is tantamount to commercial release! However one year after its much publicized release BN Bt was withdrawn from the market without any explanation and no reports were made available about its performance till then. The same Bt construct was used to develop hybrid Bt cotton, namely NHH 44. YUVA and Hamara Beej Abhiyan, two constituents of the Coalition for a GM-Free India, brought out a report in 2010, on "£Performance of CICR's Bt Cotton in 2009 – a survey report" (available at http://indiagminfo.org/?page_id=238) which showed that BN Bt had failed to perform in farmers' fields and the claims were belied. The worse thing was that there was no accountability fixed on anyone for this failure. In this report released in October 2010 itself, the Coalition demanded that 'CICR come out in the open to state exactly what the problem is which made BN Bt seed supply vanish from the market exactly one season after its entry' (pp.11).

Now it has come to light through an RTI that there is nothing indigenous about this Bt construct used by CICR & UAS and it has Monsanto's cry1Ac gene. As per news media stories, the NARS appears to be defending this episode by explaining it away as "contamination".  It is interesting to note that scientists who have rubbished "contamination" concerns expressed by civil society groups and others both for their environmental and IPR implications, are resorting to this phenomenon as their explanation now!

This raises a few pertinent questions:
·    How is it that the regulators who "rigorously" evaluated the product could not correctly identify the gene construct used? It puts to question the capabilities of the regulators. 
·      
·    Here it must also be highlighted that the then Director of CICR, Dr.Khadi was also a member of GEAC, a clear case of conflict of interest.
·      
·    If it is indeed a case of contamination and the seed production had to be stopped given that Monsanto has proprietary rights over the genes and technology, what lies in store for all the other GM crops in the pipeline since contamination is inevitable?
·      
·    Is it contamination or is it a scientific fraud related to incapability with regard to indigenous technology?
·      
·    Who owns BN Bt cotton and NHH 44 Bt cotton now?  Have the Indian biotechnologists gratuitously gifted these to Monsanto through this action?
·      
·    Is this all the country gets after big ticket investments on GM technology ignoring viable and safer mechanisms to deal with pests, diseases and climate threat?

This episode also highlights that the IPR issues related to transgenic technologies and the assumption by the Indian scientific community that they can use technologies patented by Monsanto and its ilk needs a serious re-think.

The Indian regulators, public sector scientists and NARS institutions are intent on promoting GM technologies to the exclusion of any other options despite serious evidence on the biosafety hazards connected with transgenics. In the light of this fiasco, claims about enormous indigenous capabilities (in this field) sound hollow. Such scientific frauds raise the question about how far the biotechnology scientists and regulators will go to force GM technologies into our agriculture and what motivates them. Why should the public be trusting these scientists who do not hesitate to resort to fraudulent practices?

Unfortunately this is not the first case of scientific fraud that the nation is witnessing. Last year witnessed the six premier Science Academies using plagiarized material to recommend and promote the release of Bt brinjal. Despite the report being dismissed by the then Minister for Environment & Forests as lacking scientific rigour, the Academies merely revised the section on Bt brinjal a little and put it back in the public domain claiming that they stand by their conclusions. There was no enquiry into the incident, no explanation about how it happened and no action taken against any entity. A clear demonstration of the contempt in which the scientific community holds the nation and the public, says the Coalition for a GM-Free India. It is interesting to note that Dr P Ananda Kumar of NRCPB is one of the lead ‘protagonists’ in these two scientific scandals. Further, Dr K C Bansal who coordinated the ICAR network project on transgenics till recently is now heading the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (custodian of plant genetic resources of the country!). 

"The current UAS-D/CICR/IARI (NRCPB) fiasco proves once again that the Indian scientific community is not averse to scientific frauds and misleading the nation and the people. We do not need this technology force-fed to our farmers and consumers, we have sufficient workable and viable solutions for the agrarian crisis and demand that the government and public sector institutions work on these solutions rather than fraudulently promote GM technology", said the Coalition. 


It should also be remembered by certain political parties advocating public sector GM seeds that an inherently unsafe product does not become safer just because it comes from the public sector. In fact, accountability issues are murkier here, as has been seen in the case of the failure of CICR’s Bt cotton in the field, where large scale field trials have been waived off in favour of public sector GM research! 


“All of this is ultimately experimentation happening at the expense of hapless Indian farmers and this is unconscionable. Severe deterrent action at the highest level is called for, in this case. We demand that a white paper be published on the investments made on this front so far by the government. Further, until all questions are answered including the actual technologies being used in the public sector transgenic R&D, IPR issues, future contamination possibilities etc., all funding to public sector transgenic projects should be immediately stopped. These scarce and valuable resources should be utilised for taking proven, safe, farmer-controlled technologies to the farmers”, demanded the Coalition.

For more information, contact:
Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu: 09000699702;  ramoo.csa@gmail.com 
Kavitha Kuruganti: 09393001550;  kavitha.kuruganti@gmail.com