Author Naomi Wolf was arrested alongside Occupy Wall Street protesters after she disputed police claims that they had to clear sidewalk.
Wolf was led away in handcuffs after addressing protesters outside an awards ceremony held to honour New York's governor, at which she was a guest.
The author had disputed claims by police that a permit granted to the event – organised by the Huffington Post website on Tuesday night – allowed them to clear the sidewalk outside the venue in the Soho district of Manhattan.
There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.
1. An award to Cuomo? For what? For "his opposition to extending New York State's "millionaire's tax", and his support of the contentious process of extracting natural gas from shale, known as fracking"?
2. No one (except Wolf) at this event stood up for the protesters? Where was Huffington in all of this or these other "Game Changers"?
3. JP Morgan Chase was a sponsor of the event. Is this another reason why Huffington and her fellow "Game Changers" weren't willing to protect the protesters?
There are many other things that were wrong with the whole "Game Changers" event but the biggest one is that most of the people celebrated are not game changers, they're game players. Add this to the fact that HuffPost has terrible labor practices, is a trashy tabloid along the lines of a Murdoch rag (with a liberal slant) and there is no reason why any self-respecting person who pretends to care about society would continue supporting Huffington Post in any way.
In honor of the #Occupy movement, I propose: #VacateHuffPost
If your life was on the line who would you trust to decide if you are a traitor to our nation? Barack Obama? Rick Perry? What about Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders?
Obama has decided that he is judge, jury and executioner of any American citizen he decides is a threat to the United States and that he doesn't need to justify that decision with a trial or even hard evidence. You may agree that Anwar Al Awlaki was a threat and there are valid reasons to believe that but there is no hard evidence as you can see quite clearly in this exchange:
So, what we have is a man who was a propagandist for a terrorist organization, though not an actual member:
Ironically enough, despite all his efforts in support of al-Qaida, al-Awlaki had never become a formal member of the terrorist organization or its branch in Yemen. Indeed, it's unclear whether he ever swore the "bai'a," the oath of allegiance necessary to become a member. The first time he showed up in an official AQAP video was in May 2010 -- and that was only as a kind of interview guest.
And this was enough to warrant his assassination. The precedent is set. If the President of the United States decides you, an American citizen, are a threat to our nation or it's allies you can be exterminated without hard evidence or a trial. It is difficult to defend Al Awlaki and I see no reason to. What there is ample reason to defend is the rule of law and our rights to a trial as citizens. What if you are a Secessionist in Texas who believes Obama is destroying America and we need a revolution to set things right? Are you a traitor? What if you are a Socialist who believes Obama and Bush sold America to to corporations and are waving signs in the Occupy Wall Street protests demanding a dismantling of Capitalism? Are you a traitor? What if our next president is Rick Perry who loves executions and has already called Ben Bernanke a traitor and made a veiled threat? By Obama's precedent Perry would have the right to execute Bernanke based on his opinion that he is a traitor.
Obviously some of this is hyperbole but it is meant to illustrate a point. Our 5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
We're in a time of war you say? True, but it is a potentially never ending war - a war on terror - otherwise known as a war on people who hate us. We are at war in numerous countries (both officially and covertly) and hundreds of thousands of people have died in these wars, many of them innocent civilians. People are going to continue hating us for a very long time. So, that means the justification of "in time of War or public danger" can be used perpetually. Does that mean our 5th Amendment is invalidated due to our war on terror?
Maybe. But we should really think about the ramifications of that and debate it in public before we decide to waive an essential civil liberty for a free and just nation. Sadly, we didn't get to have that debate, Obama decided already and that Amendment is void. Maybe you like Obama and trust his judgement, but will you feel the same about the next president, or the one after that?
WHEN DICK CHENEY SAID, "Deficits don't matter," [...] it turns out there is a case to be made that Cheney was onto something.
On the deepest level, the vice president was echoing, in slightly exaggerated form, an idea put forward a few years ago by Irving Kristol, the Godfather of the neoconservatives who have had such a wide-ranging effect on Bush administration policy. Kristol wrote then, and still believes, that "We should figure out what we want before we calculate what we can afford, not the reverse."
On the political level, treating deficits as a non-issue also proved a successful strategy. After all, despite the torrent of red ink that splashed across the national budgets during his first term, George W. Bush was reelected by a substantial margin.
Which brings us to the economic level. The deficits that Bush ran up in the years in which the country was teetering on the verge of a serious recession had the beneficial effect of righting the economy. In that sense, deficits not only didn't matter, but were a force for economic good.
The country is reduced to rattling its begging bowl in China and elsewhere to pay for programs that become ever more costly as the president expands the reach of government.
And our current Republican Whip:
Rep. Eric Cantor (R), 2010:
"Government doesn't create jobs and build wealth; entrepreneurs, risk takers and private businesses do."
Rep. Eric Cantor (R), August, 2011:
"The most important thing we can do for somebody who's unemployed is to see if we can get them a job. I mean, that's what needs to be the focus."
This makes you wonder if they actually have any idea what they're talking about - are they just making this up as they go along? Or are they really the con-artists they accuse the poor and working class (i.e. welfare queens) of being? One thing is certainly clear, we do know who their policies are working for.
I could waste time listing off every scientific study which shows the harmful effects on carbon emissions to our environment and how man-made pollutions is changing our earth's environment for the worse (something Romney used to agree with before today) but since many more reputable voices have already trumpeted this for years with little to no effect on much of our deluded Americans, I won't waste your time.
I do have one idea that may finally solve this problem though:
Find the nearest tailpipe and use it like a breathing tube for a few minutes. If after about five minutes you still think carbon emissions aren't harmful I'll let it rest and "agree to disagree".
I'm sure you're familiar with the food crisis going on in many parts of the world, the current rising oil prices here in the US, and the rise in gold prices. Hopefully you're aware that all these are primarily a result of commodities trading.
Whether this is good or bad is a topic for another discussion. The topic here is the growing trend of privatizing our world's water supply and the future of our most precious and essential natural resource becoming a commodity which is traded on Wall Street.
Yes, I made Goldman Sachs bold because I think it's important to highlight the fact an investment bank of is tracking these issues.
Now, the solution... if you want to call it that:
Proponents of privatization say markets are the best way to solve that problem: only the invisible hand can bring supply and demand into harmony, and only market pricing will drive water use down enough to make a dent in water scarcity. But the benefits of the market come at a price. By definition, a commodity is sold to the highest bidder, not the customer with the most compelling moral claim.
Who is buying up our water supply? You'll recognize these names I'm sure:
"Back in September 2010, J.P. Morgan purchased SouthWest Water, a large national water company. The Carlyle Group announced it plans to purchase the Park Water Company, which owns water systems in California and Missoula, Montana."
Yup, the most powerful companies on the planet are buying up our water supply and as the crisis worsens, these will be the companies deciding on prices and availability. Some things are worth more than money. To a moral human being this means it should not be a for-profit commodity. To a corporation, this means it's worth more than all the money in the world.
The reasons why our local governments are selling their water utilities are varied but much of it is due to immediate financial troubles being "fixed" by selling off these public utilities - just as we've seen with prisons, schools and about everything else. Why fix our budgets when we can just pawn off our resources? That works, right? Everyone knows people who pawn off their possessions are making sound financial decisions.
One thing to note is that this privatization does not result in better access or prices, it is often worse and much more expensive. Here's a few links to browse:
Engagement in Libya is not about humanitarian concerns. If it was, why would we have been selling them and other abusive regimes weapons with the intent of securing these regimes?
While much has been made of the uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa, and the brutal force used against these protesters and rebels, there has been only the passing reference to our role in propping up these regimes which we now find ourselves in the sticky situation of having to condemn. The "Made in U.S.A." label on tear gas canisters used against Egyptian protesters made headlines but little else in this regard has.
(click on image to enlarge)
Libya:
The Bush administration approved the sale of $3 million of materials to Libya in 2006 and $5.3 million in 2007. In 2008, Libya was allowed to import $46 million in armaments from the U.S. The approved goods included nearly 400 shipments of explosive and incendiary materials, 25,000 aircraft parts, 56,000 military electronics components and nearly 1,000 items of optical targeting and other guidance equipment.
In the months before Libyans revolted the U.S. government was moving to do business with his regime on an increasing scale by quietly approving a $77 million dollar deal to deliver at least 50 refurbished armored troop carriers to the dictator's military. Congress balked, concerned the deal would improve Libyan army mobility and questioning the Obama administration's support for the agreement, which would have benefited British defense company BAE.
State department official Andrew Shapiro said "It will send a strong message to countries in the region that we are committed to support the security of our key partners and allies in the Arabian Gulf and broader Middle East."
The Bush administration [made] an arms-sale package to Saudi Arabia and five other Persian Gulf countries [United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman] that may total more than $20 billion. Included in the package are advanced satellite-guided bombs, fighter-aircraft upgrades and new naval vessels.
As for why we have gone into Libya while ignoring numerous other atrocities around the globe:
ExxonMobil signed a heads of agreement to execute an Exploration and Production Sharing Agreement (EPSA) with Libya's National Oil Corporation to initiate exploration activity offshore Libya in the Sirte Basin.
BP in February suspended its preparations for onshore drilling after violence broke out across the North African country. Since then, troops loyal to Col. Moammar Ghadhafi's regime have steadily rolled back the rebel advance and re-taken control of most of the country.
Why France and the UK led the way into Libya:
Libya possesses 1,800 kilometers of Mediterranean coastline. The country produces 2 percent of the world's oil, with 85 percent of exports going to Europe. Libyan nationals have been prominent jihadists in Iraq. Since the beginning of the Great Recession and the slump in global demand in 2008, Libya has allocated $200 billion toward new infrastructure spending.
None of this is about the protection of human life no matter how warm and fuzzy it may feel to think it is. One final note: Who is it we claim to be protecting anyway?
Saudi Arabia and Libya, both considered US allies in the fight against terrorism, were the source of about 60% of the foreign fighters who came to Iraq in the past year to become suicide bombers or take part in other attacks, senior American military officials say.
Oh great. This won't come back to bite us in the ass.
Yet, back in 2001 things were different. Those of us who were against this war were told we hate America. We were only 6% of Americans who thought this war was not worth it. This is one among many important issues that we on the so-called liberal fringe have been vindicated on - even if this vindication comes in the form of great tragedy while we endure continued derision and/or invisibility in the media, political discourse and nation at large.
Protests have been spreading around the country as citizens fight back against union busting efforts, privatization of essential industries and the erasure of democracy by their elected leadership. More Americans are realizing that millions of jobs have been lost to developing and third world countries and economic disparity is at the highest it's been in nearly a century and only getting worse with the top 10% of Americans owning 70% of the wealth, 6 banks controlling 64% of our GDP (up from 17% in 15 years), and corporate profits setting new records while actual joblessness remains around 20%. Yet, a small percentage of us who protest WTO gatherings, NAFTA, deregulation of essential industries and financial markets have been called "commies" and other derogatory names. Even the guy who wrote the book "The Supply Side Revolution" and Reagan cabinet member Paul Craig Roberts admits what a failure these "trickle-down" policies have been.
With more than 60% of bankruptcies due to medical bills in the US, essential industries becoming more and more privatized and profit driven (life and liberty should not be commodities), more subsidizing of the rich while taking from the poor and countless other issues us "radical liberals" yammer on about endlessly starting to affect larger percentages of Americans I wonder when and if we will ever be welcomed back into the public dialogue. Earlier generations of liberals struggled and fought to bring our fellow countrymen the civil rights movement, labor movement, child labor laws, clean air and water, Social Security and Medicaid, labor unions, desegregation, public education and a few other things that helped make our country strong, fair and looked up to. If we start wearing teabags on our head and carrying automatic weapons to protests can we be invited back to the discussion table?
Why do so many Americans have a distain for truth? There are so many items I could mention here but the one I'll focus on here is the truth about race in our nation.
From the Texas School Board changing the name of slavery to "Atlantic Triangular Trade" in their school books, to Glenn Beck hosting a rally on the same date and place as MLK's famous speech to South Carolina celebrating their secession, (while claiming secession had nothing to do with slavery), it's really alarming how much a large portion of our nation is trying to erase the success of human rights and civil rights in this country.
From the smearing of Shirley Sherrod as a racist all the while ignoring her inspiring story which emerged from an era when institutionalized racism against black farmers was all too real, to the vilification of ACORN with a slanderous and fictional video, to hyped claims about a rising New Black Panthers movement there is an obvious attempt at elevating the idea of reverse racism as a national issue.
One word sums up all the attempts at revising our nation's history and understanding of racial issues is this:
Overcompensationn. An attempt to make up for a character trait by overexaggerating its opposite.
The conservatives out there who are claiming reverse racism while revising the history of institutionalized and real racism are suffering from the most common traits of denial and lying: The guilty person may speak more than natural, adding unnecessary details to convince you. The guilty person gets defensive. The guilty person will deflect the issue and tell stories that are deliberately aimed at not answering the question you asked. And, the guilty person will reverse the accusation.
A perfect example was this "discussion" with Tea Party promoter Sal Russo on "Hardball" trying to change the subject when discussing Michele Bachmann's ridiculous claims on the Founding Fathers' supposed efforts at eradicating slavery.
Bachmann claims:
"The very founders that wrote those documents [The Constitution] worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States."
As anyone with at least a few years of education will recall the Civil War was almost 100 years after "those documents" were written. And, as anyone with a bit more book learning will tell you, those founders owned slaves too. (Though, Bachmann also claims our nation was founded as a Christian nation so this isn't the only issue she gets totally wrong in early American history).
I can understand why people would want to make themselves think their distain for truth and other human beings is justified and that past atrocities committed in our name never happened but I find it really hard to believe that their efforts seem to actually work. How their listeners can go along with such obvious lies and live in such ignorance of our history is as fascinating as it is frightening. History has a way of repeating itself if it is not remembered and learned from. Just as Holocaust deniers are shunned from a civil conversation, deniers of slavery and institutionalized racism should be shunned as well.
All the political discussions of our economic policies, foreign affairs and social services have valid and important arguments from both conservative and liberal circles but the opinions of people so deluded about the world they live in cannot be taken as anything more than what they are: The opinions of an ignorant person. We wouldn't take medical advice from an anti-vaccine crusader or a pharmaceutical marketing team, infrastructure advice from an anarchist or nutritional advice from an anorexic so why do voters, TV news watchers and a large percentage of Americans listen to these people?
Just like so many issues in this nation, race and our handling of its effects on society need to be discussed by sincere people if we are to continue along our proud journey of elevating the human condition so lets stop supporting the voices of people who prefer a time when women, minorities and the poor were oppressed. And if anyone feels threatened by the reverse racism of hostile words or affirmative action I'd recommend picking up a book or traveling to one of many oppressive places on the planet to learn what real oppression is.
