We're Not too Enthusiastic about Some Acts

Since when have the Dismalcrats acted like they stand for something principled? OK, we're aware of FDR's New Deal, and Jimmy Carter's stance on human rights, tho he's the one for whom the Carter Doctrine on the Middle East is named:

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. - State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980

George Bush can claim that he was simply maintaining consistency with a long-held US doctrine voiced by President Carter.

I highlight the word "acted" in my opening sentence, initially thinking of the synonym "to behave", as in "actions are louder than words." But, there's another use of the word as in, "Ronald Reagan was an actor" .... he acted... as in "make-believe" both in the movies and the White House.

That's what we're seeing with Democrats, and Republicans and the establishment in general, be they conservative or liberal. It's becoming part of the fabric of American culture, instilled by our TV culture. They say lots of nice sounding phrases like "Healthy Forest legislation", and "we're getting tough on Wall Street," and they even act the part.

Another example that comes to mind was an early sign of how Obama would act if he became President... there's that pesky word again. You might recalled the incident during the last presidential campaign when Obama advisor Austin Gouldsby was caught telling corporations not to worry about Obama's statements regarding renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); Gouldsby assured the business establishment that Obama was just rattling the saber on NAFTA to gain popular support.

So, we've had half-measures from the Obama administration at best and sell-outs to the powers on Wall Street and the healthcare industry as well. Is it any wonder why there is an "enthusiasm gap" in the upcoming elections?

ACTION Alert: Withdraw Bernanke Nomination

Ask President Obama to withdraw his nomination of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

Former NY Attorney General Elliot Spitzer has said, Bernanke is "complicit" in the in the events leading up to the financial collapse. Obama's response to this "collapse" has resulted in a further consolidation of financial power and a historic transfer of wealth from the many to the powerful few.

Tell Obaman that we can't keep papering over the deeper issues; Re-appointing Ben Bernanke is an example of papering over the financial corruption issue. Bernanke's nomination should be withdrawn.

Remember, the US Senate has to approve the President's nomination, so pressure on the Senate is also necessary.

For Your Convenience:

• Contact the White House
  
• Contact the US Senate
  

Sources:

Thanks to the Godless Liberal Homo blog for raising this issue.

Remembering AIG

Bill Moyers asked in 2009, "Are we chumps?" Former chief IMF economist Simon Johnson responded saying that depends on how we react, in other words, it depends on whether or not we let the investment bankers get away with it.

The following observations on AIG is a reminder not to let them get away with it.

1. AIG's insurance of exotic Wall Street derivatives helped give the false sense of security that allowed the financial industry house of cards to grow so astoundingly large, ... where were the regulators?
2. The argument that bonus contracts are sacrosanct is bogus on two levels: First, the sanctity of contracts is applied hypocritically to the white collar financial industry, but not blue collar auto industry... an industry that actually produces something tangible. More important, AIG is effectively bankrupt and survives only because tax-payers are propping it up. AIG should be treated like a bankrupt corporation and the contracts should be voided.
3. Most of the money going to AIG is actually going to.... the huge financial institutions, Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs. Thus, A) the dollar figures of tax-payer bailout funds you hear begin quoted for these monopolistic banks should also count the pass-thru money going to them via AIG. And B) Why are our tax dollars going to pay the insurance on bad gambles? ... insurance payments on gambles that, under further investigation, might actually be founded on fraudulent financial actions?
4. If you're not angry enough already, DemocracyNow reports: "As AIG faces the loss of its bonuses, it’s quietly filed a lawsuit to recoup more than $300 million in what it says are overpaid taxes. The company says it overpaid the government in charges for using offshore tax havens. The suit effectively means AIG is using US taxpayer money to sue its majority owner, the US taxpayer. The government owns an 80 percent stake in AIG following its $170 billion bailout."
5. I heard a disturbing idea from Brian of WakeUp AM blog.... he posits that all of these bonuses, not just to AIG, smell like hush money.... "You get your million-plus and promise not to talk about what you know."
6. Finally, a disturbing AIG factoid: Again from Democracy Now: "A top Obama administration official is coming under scrutiny for his ties to AIG. Richard Holbrooke, Obama's special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, served on AIG’s board from 2001 until early last year. Holbrooke is believed to have collected up to $800,000 during his AIG stint."

That last point is prime material for the Challenge the Establishment blog, which often probes the ills of Republicrats.

For Your Convenience:

• Contact the Broadcast Media
  
• Contact the Newspapers
  
• Contact the US Senate
  
• Contact the House of Representatives

Sources:

GDAE Podcast Episode 9, March 2009

One Voice for Real Healthcare

Since writing on "How Healthcare Legislation Will Pass" I heard a disturbing interview with the founder of Firedog Lake Blog, Jane Hamsher, on DemocracyNow! She is sounding a bit pessimistic, suggesting 1) final bill out of conference will have a triggered public option, which will never be triggered, and 2) will include Stupack anti-choice amendment.... unless we raise our voices.

Hamsher is trying hard to create counter pressure via a phone banking operation that targets Democratic House members who voted for the Stupack amendment via One Voice for Choice.

Jane Hamsher has been following the healthcare legislation very closely:

JANE HAMSHER on Public Option: .... it looks like it’s going to get worse this week [12/3/09]. Privately, people in the Senate are confirming that Harry Reid is going to try and cut a deal for triggers, which is something that the White House has been pushing for, Rahm Emanuel, since January of this year. They’ve wanted it all along. They’ve said they wanted the public option, but what they’ve worked for is triggers. And we always knew that this was, you know, probably going to be the lay of the land.

... the fact is that the White House [Rahm Emanuel] cut these deals over the summer with ... the insurance companies, the drug companies, and they have intended to follow through on them in order to keep the donations and the lobbying money out of the pockets of the Republicans in 2010. So they are going to try and jam triggers through, and I believe that, at the end of the day, we’ll be in a situation where we will be asking those members of the House that we got to commit to vote against any bill that doesn’t have a public option in it to vote against this bill.

JANE HAMSHER on Anti-Choice Language: Stupak [the anti-choice amendment], I believe, will make it into a conference report. As you know, after the Senate and House pass a bill, they go into conference and have to merge the two bills. And because Nancy Pelosi is saying she can’t pass a bill without Stupak, I believe that whether Ben Nelson is successful in getting it into the Senate bill or not, I believe that it will be in the final bill that comes out of conference. [Unless We Apply Major Pressure... See Phone Banking link above].

Hamsher says a lot of people don't realize that federal funds are already prohibited for abortions by the Hyde amendment passed years ago. Stupak's amendment goes further:

JANE HAMSHER on Anti-Choice Language: ... no insurance company offering insurance on the exchange, whether it’s funded with government money or not, can offer elective abortion coverage. And that threatens to take away abortion coverage from just about any insurance policy, because even the private insurance plans for reinsurance of big companies that have their employees insured can be affected by it...

For Your Convenience:

Contact the US Senate

Contact the House of Representatives

Contact the White House

One Voice for Choice Phone Banking

Sources:

DemocracyNow! “One Voice for Choice"–FireDogLake Founder Launches Campaign to Target Dems Supporting Stupak Amendment, December 3, 2009

Strategic Framework for Challenging Establishment Power

It's difficult to ponder changing the status quo... the powerful establishment seeks, in general, to maintain the staus quo. Where does one start? Having a strategy helps. Here's a strategy shared with me by a college friend who has committed his life to promoting deep social change.

A Three-Element Strategy for Personal Activism:

It's certain that many of us share the sense that we need to move "beyond" the status quo, but we don't know how to do that. This sentiment is, in part, a reflection of the fact that our social construct is strongly defined by corporate power. An example of this might be that a corporation commits clear abuse, yet it is practically impossible to challenge that abuse because the channels to do so are filled with barriers that have been accumulated over decades of insider corporate tinkering with our judicial and legal systems. Add to that a pervasive control of mass media, and hence public awareness, that effectively isolates progressive activists from the rest of society.

So, how do we go forward? Here are three broad strategic elements by which to invest your activist energies:

Element 1: Invest part of your time in the multi-generational struggle to retract corporate constitutional rights that have been accumulated over decades. This sounds abstract, but think of it as being similar to ending slavery, which was once a legal business practice until the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the constitution were adopted. (Ironically, corporations have abused these amendments by getting the US Supreme Court to recognize them as "persons" within this Constitutional context.)

Element 2: Invest part of your time on time-sensitive issues, like saving that 700-year-old tree in your neighborhood that "needs to be chopped down" to widen a road. It's easy to become solely devoted to urgent issues of the day, so making linkages between this element and the other two is a helpful way to integrate your activism into this holistic strategy.

Element 3: Invest part of your time in identifying and promoting alternatives to status quo systems. It's easy to expose the flaws in the current "system," but difficult to develope and implement workable alternatives. Concrete steps in this regard include educating yourself and others about alternatives models of social interaction, supporting fledgling experiments into alternative models, like worker-owned businesses and so on.

By working within this construct on our own, we will be working together in a distributed way. It is a low-cost way to be organized, in the broad sense of the word.

Sources:

Dave Henson, one of the founders of the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy (POCLAD).

Step It Up 2007: Ice Melting

.
The following is my contribution to Step it Up National Day of Climate Action on April 14th, 2007.












~