The Little Engine That Could

Posted: November 1, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: #Occupy and We are the 99 percent!, Banksters, commercial banking, Corporate Crime, Global Financial Crisis, income inequality, U.S. Economy | 10 Comments

There’s a fascinating story that’s been brewing right under the radar that is beginning to sprout legs.  And I hope continues and receives a larger audience.  It’s the battle between Goldman Sachs [and by association the other TBTF’s] and the Lower East Side People’s Credit Union in NYC.  Why?  Because it’s the perfect metaphor for what’s been going on in the US since deregulation turned our financial system into an iron-fisted bully.

Occupy Wall St. [OWS] as everyone recalls was ignored at first, ridiculed and dismissed, and now has become a fixture and swirl point of political discussion.  Conversations are changing.  People are beginning to pay attention in both positive and negative ways.  OWS started to receive donations from across the country because many Americans are simply fed up with what they see as the gross corruption of money and power on our political system.

And so the Movement that was doomed at the start, who railed against the Big Banks suddenly found itself [by some accounts] with over $300,000.  What to do?  They needed a bank.  And where did they go?  To the Lower East Side People’s Credit Union, servicing the City’s low income citizens, primarily Latinos.  The People’s Credit Union decided to hold an honorary benefit for their generous depositor, the Occupy group.

And then . . . Boom!

Goldman Sachs had a near hissy fit.  Why?  Because Goldman had given People’s Credit $5000. This was not a gift, not a donation of goodwill but a drop of cash they are required under the TARP agreement to give through the Community Reinvestment Act [CRA].  They are legally required to give this money out to the community under the original deal.  But Goldman in their infinite wisdom and with hackles up over any mention of OWS has decided to use this required reinvestment as a hammer to exert their will. Goldman Sachs has demanded their $5000 back.  And also, I would suggest, they wish to set an example: You play it our way or you don’t play at all.  It’s been reported the heat has been turned up with a nasty message to People’s:

“You will never get a dime from another bank again.”

Democracy Now has been following this story. A reporter by the name of Greg Palast has done the investigative work from the start and has tried to get Goldman Sachs to give their side of the story.  Quelle surprise!  No response.  I encourage you to watch the clip from Democracy Now.  If it doesn’t get your blood boiling then I want to know what mega-tranquilizers you’re on.

This is what Occupy is all about.  This is what must change.

The Marvel Of Coincidence

Posted: October 31, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: #Occupy and We are the 99 percent!, Banksters, House of Representatives, legislation, net-neutrality, the blogosphere, the internet | 5 Comments

Days after the shocking crackdown of Occupy Oakland members, a police action that resulted in serious head trauma to Marine Vet Scott Olsen, Google revealed US law enforcement requests, January through June 2011, to ban videos showing police brutality and/or allegedly defaming law enforcement officials.  These requests were subsequently rejected by Google.  From the Google’s released Transparency Report:

Observations on Content Removal Requests

  • We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove YouTube videos of police brutality, which we did not remove. Separately, we received requests from a different local law enforcement agency for removal of videos allegedly defaming law enforcement officials. We did not comply with those requests, which we have categorized in this Report as defamation requests.

Had we not had access to the recent You Tube videos from Oakland, we would have been left in a ‘he said/she said’ predicament with no way of knowing how extreme the Oakland police were on the night of October 25 [unless, of course, you were an eye witness] or left to the mercy of the sadly slanted reports in the mainstream media. Traditional press outlets first ignored, and then quickly wrote off the OWS protests as lame complaints, coming from of a bunch of spoiled brats.  There is little acknowledgement of the Movement’s growing support or the very real anger and disgust of the American public. The discontent is not difficult to categorize–corruption, malfeasance, and collusion of Government and Wall St. at the expense of ordinary people.

Add another ‘strange’ coincidence, this one noted at Cannonfire, header reading: “Ain’t That A Coinky-Dink.”

Joe Cannon tapped a brief blog piece indicating the weird, spectacular confluence of events: that ABC and CBS, both stations providing live feed to the October 25th night’s proceedings, just happened to require helicopter refueling at the precise moment the police prepared their attack on the protesters. And so, the major stations had no film footage of the actual melee.

Astounding, yes?  Btw, this story was picked up and circulated around the Web, but I fail to recall the astonishing coincidence being reported by the MSM. I mean we get stories about the face of Jesus revealed on tacos, pistachios and ancient shrouds.  But this?  Nada.  Inquiring minds might ask—Why?

Fortunately, we did have those videos taken by on-the-ground witnesses.  We even have first hand accounts, the vast majority of which are like this one. Unflattering, to say the least.

But the magic of coincidence seems to come in bundles and bunches. In this case it’s the magic number 3 [although there certainly may be more lurking out there].

On Wednesday, October 26th the Protect IP [intellectual property] Bill S. 968 was released from the House without any appreciable changes that had been noted in the initial Senate version—vague language, broad application, all in the name of protecting copyright infringement.  In addition, a companion piece of legislation Stop On-Line Privacy Act [SOPA] also coming out of the House would require internet providers to ‘disappear’ certain websites, effectively blacklisting domains, all under the aegis of IP protection.  Even better, service providers would be required to ‘monitor’ and police their users’ activity.

From Open Congress the following Summary appears:

Open Congress Summary

“This bill would establish a system for taking down websites that the Justice Department determines to be “dedicated to infringing activities.” The DOJ or the copyright owner would be able to commence a legal action against any site they deem to have “only limited purpose or use other than infringement,” and the DOJ would be allowed to demand that search engines, social networking sites and domain name services block access to the targeted site. It would also make unauthorized web streaming of copyrighted content a felony with a possible penalty up to five years in prison. This bill combines two separate Senate bills – S. 958 and S.978, the Commercial Felony Streaming Act — into one big House bill.”

What could go wrong?

And what an amazing coincidence that Congress, a body that has been paralyzed, unable to pass any legislation for the benefit of the American public, has suddenly, so expeditiously gotten its act together to push through Blacklisting legislation that curtails and restricts Internet use.  Not only that, but this legislation coincides with the precise moment that Americans around the country have gathered in our streets, courtyards, and before a variety of City Halls to give voice to public grievances, and ‘coincidentally’ effects the source from which we [the general public] primarily learn about these protests and view subsequent video.

Coincidence upon tumbling coincidence.  I am gobsmacked, I tell you. Color me worried. And just a tad suspicious, too.  What about you?

The Clash of the Titans: Ideology vs. History

Posted: October 29, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: #Occupy and We are the 99 percent!, academia, Banksters, Corporate Crime, Economy, financial institutions, Global Financial Crisis | 19 Comments

Thursday night I caught an amazing piece of political dialogue on the Anderson Cooper show between Peter Schiff and Cornell West. What an odd pairing!

Peter Schiff, as many will recall, ran an unsuccessful Connecticut senatorial primary bid in 2010.  He’s described as an adherent of the Austrian School of Economics, from the same branch Ron Paul falls: libertarian, believer in free market fundamentalism–unchain capitalism and all things will fall from Heaven.  Schiff is currently the CEO of Euro-Pacific Capital, Inc. and Euro-Pacific Precious Metals.   

In contrast, Cornell West is an academic, sometimes referred to as a ‘public intellectual,’ a professor at Princeton where he teaches from the Center for African American Studies and the Department of Religion.  He has been a consistent voice for the underclass, the working poor and speaks to the effects of race, gender and class in American society.

Though both men have engaged the Occupy Wall St. [OWS] movement, their approaches could not be more different.  Peter Schiff went to Zuccotti Park with a sign–I am the 1%–presumably to start a conversation with the protesters.  Hummmm.  Mr. Schiff’s definition of ‘conversing’ must be different than mine.  From the clip below?  I’d use the word confrontation.

Cornell West on the other hand has been arrested twice during the Occupy encampment—once in DC before the Supreme Court protesting the Citizens United decision, where corporate political funding was equated with free speech, using the precedent that corporations = personhood.  A decision, I might add that I and many others view as horrifically destructive, only adding to the problem of money swamping our electoral process.  Dr. West was arrested for the terrifying crime of holding a sign [a no-no on the steps of Supreme Court] which read: Poverty is the Greatest Violence of All.  On a second occasion, Dr. West was arrested in Harlem for marching with other Occupy members in front of the 28th Precinct, protesting the NYPD’s practice of ‘stop and frisk,’ which allows police to search citizens at will, a procedure that involves primarily people of color.  Reportedly 600,000 stops were made in 2010, with 7% of those stops resulting in arrests.

So, we have two men, both educated, articulate and successful, both engaging OWS from 180 degree positions. Peter Schiff takes the view that unfettered capitalism will save the world as opposed to West’s humanistic viewpoint that unregulated capitalism has brought the world to its knees and threatens to scrap the very safety nets and programs that allow people to better themselves [education, for instance] and escape the violent confines that poverty and hopelessness exact.  

We can argue these principles till the cows come home but a debater makes a serious mistake when they rewrite history to support their ideology, willfully fabricating, tweaking the facts to make their points more relevant and sound.

Peter Schiff, to his shame, pulled out all the old tricks like a fumbling magician who has no talent for sleight of hand. He like so many others who deify free market fundamentalism come off sounding remarkably reasonable, even simpatico with many of the concerns of average Americans.  But they always slip up, only to expose the trickster; those disappearing cards are simply stuck up their sleeves.

In  Zuccotti Park, Schiff claims he pays ‘almost 50% of his income in taxes’ under the current tax system.  50%.  No one in the top 1% pays anything close to 50% in personal income tax and if they did then their accountant deserves to be marched to the wall and executed, toute suite. The rich have all sorts of tax breaks, exemptions, loopholes and shelters that average working people can only dream of.  The claim is sheer nonsense by those who, in their heart of hearts, don’t wish to pay any tax at all.  The same is true of claiming they want to return to the ‘golden’ 1950s when things were on an upswing and America was the most productive nation in the world [as Schiff remarks, as if it were a 1000 years ago].  And the top marginal tax rate was?   91%.

Yes, records were actually kept in the 1950s and we can look up false statements!  Maybe Schiff really meant the roaring mid-20s to 1931 were the rate was 25%, and then BOOM!  Depression time.

I must say I enjoyed the explanation of Wall St. greed as a by-product of Government manipulation.  This is a turn on that old Flip Wilson skit line, But . . . But . . .The Devil Made Me Do it.

In addition, there is the sweet comment—“The regulation we want is the market.  Markets regulate themselves.”  This makes a great sound byte but is nothing more than the same garbage philosophy that brought us to this moment of economic woe, something that even Alan Greenspan, former Fed chairman finally admitted in hound-dog fashion: Did. Not. Work.

But Schiff’s greatest leap into fantasy is saved for the CNN segment I initially mentioned, where he claims that capitalism, free-market capitalism alone led to changes in the workplace: Child Labor Laws, Worker’s Safety laws, the 40-hour work week [see at the 8 minute mark].

I give Cornell West props for not coming through the screen with that claim. I guess Schiff never heard of the Radium Girls, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, the Battle of Blair Mountain or the entire Labor Movement for that matter. The unregulated capitalists of that long ago era were not willing to give an inch, let alone provide workers with anything amounting to change.  Justice was wrenched out through struggle, protest, suffering and deprivation. Justice was long in coming but come it did.

West’s suggestion that he and Schiff need to sit down over coffee and cognac is way too easy and polite.  West would be advised to bring a straight jacket in Peter Schiff’s size for safety purposes. Or march him to church to beg forgiveness for fibbing [also known as spreading disinformation] to the public.

There’s a quote attributed to the late Daniel Moynihan:

“You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.”

In the Clash of the Titans, history always wins.

Elizabeth Warren: The Woman Who Would Throw Stones, Radicalize Your Firstborn And Make the Streets Run Marxist Red

Posted: October 26, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: #Occupy and We are the 99 percent!, Republican politics | Tags: , | 14 Comments

It’s becoming clear that Elizabeth Warren is viewed as a major threat by the Republican political machine.  She’s never been a Wall St. favorite and was neatly disposed by a President too weak, too fearful of or beholden to the financial districts’ money to fight the good fight.  Obama would not and did not appoint Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency she developed and nurtured into being.  And so, rather than going quietly into that good night, Warren surprised many by tossing her hat into the political arena in Massachusetts, running for Ted Kennedy’s old seat and pitting herself against a Wall St. darling, the handsome pinup, Senator Scott Brown.

Personally, I don’t have anything against Brown.  He seems a decent sort from my long-distance view in Red State territory.  But Warren is my kind of candidate, even though she’s not as liberal as I am nor as liberal as many disenchanted, politically homeless Democrats.  Where she’s won hearts is through her consistent support for the middle-class, America’s working men and women. The working class is the spine of this country.  We lose them, we lose everything.

But now, Elizabeth Warren has really done it, committed another unpardonable sin.  She’s publicly stated that she supports Occupy Wall St.  She’s openly said that her work in the past set the groundwork, laid down the fundamentals that the Movement took to heart and rallied around.

Some people, perhaps a number of Democrats, would take issue with that.  A former Republican, Warren made a rather clumsy statement about OWS early on about people needing to follow the law.  Critics took that to mean she supported the police in all matters, public grievances be damned.

But this is minor in comparison to the reaction Warren’s most recent statement inspired:

“I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do,” she says. “I support what they do.”

OMG.  How could she?

For some progressives this statement has the whiff of conceit.  Far too Gore-like, they wail—Al Gore of the ‘I created the Internet’ fame.  An idiotic wail IMHO, but a complaint nonetheless.

But for the GOP?  We’re in major meltdown territory.  If Warren supports OWS, then the unreasonable can conclude she supports general mayhem, political overthrow, blood running thick and red through the streets.  Because creating hysteria and destructive class warfare is what OWS is all about.

Hello?

This ongoing spew of misinformation is laughable.  But also dangerous.  Trying to paint Elizabeth Warren as some fuming Marxist and the Occupy Movement as a bunch of mindless revolutionaries [or spoiled brats with romantic revolutionary notions], sets the stage for a political division we have not seen since those grand Red Scare days.  I wasn’t a conscious human being [beyond sucking my toes] during that infamous period, the glorious McCarthy years–our political witch burning era–but I’ve read enough to know we don’t want to go there.  Too many ruined lives, too much shameless posturing and a myriad of unAmerican activities transformed into a hideous art form by righteous accusers who saw Commies and Traitors and a sprawling Red Menace everywhere they looked. And pointed.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee [NRSC] hoping to reelect Scott Brown in 2012 jumped all over Warren’s OWS support statement:

“Warren’s decision to not only embrace, but take credit for this movement is notable considering the Boston Police Department was recently forced to arrest at least 141 of her Occupy acolytes in Boston the other day after they threatened to tie up traffic downtown and refused to abide by their protest permit limits,” wrote NRSC spokesman, Brian Walsh.

You can see where this twisted language logic takes you—Warren supports OWS.  Therefore, Warren is responsible for the police ‘forced’ to arrest 141 of her ‘Occupy acolytes.’

Can we take a break here?

The police acted independently of Elizabeth Warren.  They arrested citizens exercising their Constitutional right to free assembly to voice grievances against a Government and financial system that has betrayed them, betrayed us all.  They were arrested because they threatened to tie up traffic? Did they or didn’t they?  And as we all know refusing to abide by protest permit limits is a major offense.  Off with their heads!  Oh, and let’s not overlook that sweet phrase: ‘her Occupy acolytes.’

Holy Smokes!  Elizabeth Warren is not only an OWS supporter, she’s the Pope of Mayhem.

“Politics is a blood Sport.”

That quote is credited to a 20th century Welsh politician, Aneurin Bevan.  I recall Bill Clinton saying the same thing a number of years ago.  It’s probably true.  He or she who withstands the battle of a thousand tiny cuts, wins.  But let’s not confuse honest criticism with smarmy, unsubstantiated attacks and accusations.

Elizabeth Warren is not Marxist, anymore than the Occupy Wall St. movement is dedicated to the violent overthrow of the United States. Are there some radical elements swirling around the edges of Occupy?  Probably.  Like moths, the fringe is drawn to the swirling lights.  But one would need to question who is on the side of violence with what happened in Oakland over the last several nights.

What Warren and OWS protesters have in common is a cry for economic justice, a return to the Rule of Law in a country where our Government and financial institutions have been overtaken by Big Money and corporate influence.  Warren and OWS’s support for middle-class equity and fairness is as American as Old Glory.

But here’s another reason I like Elizabeth Warren:

Because she really drives the GOP wild and highlights the shallow, ridiculous nature of their arguments and propaganda.

You go, Sister!

The Business Model: An Idea Ready to Eat The World

Posted: October 15, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: just because | Tags: , , | 12 Comments

We’ve all heard it, ad infinitum.  Governments should run like a business.  Healthcare is looking for a new business model.  Prisons are emerging profit centers.

And so, reading of Governor Rick Scott’s solutions for trimming Florida’s public college and university costs, I was not surprised to scan the words ‘business model.’  Scott is tapping into Rick Perry’s strategy, The Seven Breakthrough Solutions for cutting college costs in Texas. The ‘solutions’ seem almost reasonable, until you peel up the corners.

Now let’s get real.  College tuitions have skyrocketed across the country.  Anyone who has been to college recently or sent a child [or children] through a University system can attest to the financial burden the 4-5 year pricetag can exact.  Few students or parents would reject reasonable methods to trim expenses, make universities run more efficiently and ultimately make higher education more affordable.

But are we willing to trim cost and quality in tandem?  Will we accept the quick fix and sacrifice departments and/or fields of study because [on first glance] they will not produce degrees or students useful to Rick Scott’s or Rick Perry’s vision of America?  That would be a world where everything is one big business deal, oozing with profit for owners and shareholders and populated with workers with the ‘right’ degrees. Those degrees would translate into immediate jobs for the same business types who created the system to begin with, a self-perpetuating loop.

What could go wrong?

Plenty.

Let me say I have nothing against degrees in science, technology, engineering and math [STEM].  We need more degrees in these fields; emerging economies [China, India] are killing us in the sheer number of technical/science students they’re preparing for the future. But not everyone is suited for these majors.  And surprise!  There is still a place in the world for the humanities, a background from which the likes of JFK [history/international affairs], Ronald Reagan [sociology] and Steve Wynn, business guy [English] graduated and did pretty well for themselves.

My problem is pushing specific degrees at the exclusion of all others. For instance, slashing funds for grants and scholarships in Liberal Art programs—Scott has a particular dislike of anthropology–mocking the value of academic research [yes, there are flaky university studies out there but the vast majority of academic research has broad, important, if not immediate applications]. Or in terms of evaluating faculty?  The approach would measure faculty members as profit or loss centers [this gauged on the faculty member’s time spent in the classroom, against the outside funding said faculty member manages to encourage and net].  A likeability quotient is added to the frothy mix and student evaluations are weighted in determining tenure. These applied standards are in lieu of placing primary value on a faculty member’s expertise in his or her field.  College/university accreditation?  It complicates the reform measures.  So poof!  Get rid of it.

Perhaps more importantly, this approach dismisses the true purpose and nature of higher education: to teach everything there is to teach; to produce graduates who have critical thinking skills, an understanding of the world around them and the people who inhabit that world now and those of the past; and finally, inspiring creativity, which in turn inspires innovation.

If you want drones then set up a factory, an assembly line.  If you want enlightened adults, provide the freedom to choose, develop, think, consider, re-consider.  Support risk-taking in whatever field of study a student chooses or has a passion and talent for.  Encourage students to try their hand, hearts and minds at everything.  Inspire students to go their own way and take those creative leaps that lead to startling advancements.  Respect the learning process, the exquisite power and beauty of discovery and the uniqueness of the individual.

Earth to the Rickety Twins:  One size does not fit all.  Easy solutions to complex problems are doomed to failure. Just ask Herman Cain about his 999 economic plan, which is crumbling under scrutiny.

Dare I say that not all things fall within the purview of a business model, a structure that seeks profit before all else. Yet, this is the main ‘fix’ being hawked like a bad toupee across the country.  Run ‘it’ [fill in subject of choice] like a business and all things will flourish.

Well, here’s a thought: The Seven Breakthrough Solutions that Rick Scott wishes to co-opt for the State of Florida is more like the Seven Percent Solution of Sherlock Holmes, a wicked addiction. Like any drug habit, the fix is a sweet, temporary illusion but the damage it creates can be permanent.  Even fatal.

And btw, just to voice a pet peeve of mine: people are not human resources. Let’s return to that accurate, quite serviceable term: human beings.

We’ll all be better off for it.

For a very direct and rather withering response to the ‘Breakthrough Theory ‘ in Texas, a business style, market-driven proposal for higher education, see comments by Dean Randy L. Diehl, College of Liberal Arts, University of Texas at Austin, here.

And from the St. Augustine Record a report on Rick Scott’s dandy proposals of Breakthrough Education Policy [more a Texas carbon copy] here.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →