We Americans love to declare war on whatever social problem we feel is of vital importance - and sometimes we assume that our political nemesis has declared the war on us. At any given time, depending on who you ask, any number of wars may be raging. From the religious right's point of view, one of those is the War on Christianity. From the progressive left's point of view, a big one is the War on Women's Health.
Over the last couple of weeks we've watched as these two wars met head on following the Obama administration's refusal to grant religious employers an exemption to new rules requiring that health insurance plans include coverage for birth control and other reproductive health services. When we talk about religious employers here, we're mostly referring to nonprofit social service organizations, universities, and hospitals: organizations that serve the general public (not just co-religionists), and who employ people of all faiths and beliefs.
To the right, this is a violation of these groups' (primarily Catholic) fundamental right to religious freedom, by forcing them to pay for a product (contraception at a minimum, abortion at the extreme) that goes against their beliefs.
To the left, the denial of this coverage violates the employee's (mostly women) access to a full range of health care options, and forces them to abide by their employer's religious restrictions - whether or not they are of the same religion.
Whose rights are more important? The employee's rights to make their own private health care decisions with their doctor's advice, or the employer's rights to not have to support practices they don't believe in?
I believe that the employee's rights have to win out. Not only for the access to care, but also for the right to privacy. Under HIPPA, we all have the right to privacy regarding our medical records, including not having to share our health care decisions with our employer.
But the employer is paying for it, right? Well, let's take a look at that a little closer. Those against the administration's decision are saying that religious organizations will "be forced to pay for contraception and abortions." But that's simply not true. Employers pay for health insurance only. What the employee does with that health insurance is their own business.
Saying that the employer has the right to dictate health care choices made by an employee is the same as saying the employer has the right to dictate what the employee may or may not purchase with their paycheck.
Do you need to ask your boss permission before making any purchases for your home? It's the employer's money after all, isn't it? Of course not! Once they pay you, it's your money, and your decision how it's spent.
Same with health insurance. Once the employer purchases it - as part of your compensation package for your labor - what you do with it is between you and your doctor only. At least, it should be that way.
Unfortunately, this being an election year, too much will be made of this perfectly reasonable decision by the administration, and they may be forced into a compromise position. While the compromise may temporarily appease those on the religious right, it will certainly be a set-back for women's access to health, and blow to privacy for us all.
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Freedom of the Press? We're #47!
Media watchdog organization, Reporters Without Borders, has just released their World Press Freedom Index - a tracking of several indicators of press freedom - and the United Sates has fallen 27 points since their last survey; from #20 to #47. That puts us behind Slovakia, El Salvador, and Ghana, but still (slightly) ahead of Latvia and Haiti.
Much of the reason for the sharp drop this year is attributed to local over-reaction to the Occupy movement, with mayors and police chiefs nationwide having journalists carried away along with demonstrators. The great irony in all this is that American journalists now have greater freedom in covering protests overseas than they do at home.
But beyond last fall's local yahoos trying to make their city streets safe for holiday shoppers, the crackdown on a free press in America continued yesterday in Washington, DC, at a hearing of the House Science Committee, where Oscar-nominated documentary director, Josh Fox, was arrested for trying to film part of the hearing:
As Fox says in this interview, "The First Amendment to the Constitution states explicitly 'Congress shall make no law... that infringes on the Freedom of the Press.'" Is Congress exempt from the Constitution now, or have we just decided that we no longer need a free press?
Much of the reason for the sharp drop this year is attributed to local over-reaction to the Occupy movement, with mayors and police chiefs nationwide having journalists carried away along with demonstrators. The great irony in all this is that American journalists now have greater freedom in covering protests overseas than they do at home.
But beyond last fall's local yahoos trying to make their city streets safe for holiday shoppers, the crackdown on a free press in America continued yesterday in Washington, DC, at a hearing of the House Science Committee, where Oscar-nominated documentary director, Josh Fox, was arrested for trying to film part of the hearing:
As Fox says in this interview, "The First Amendment to the Constitution states explicitly 'Congress shall make no law... that infringes on the Freedom of the Press.'" Is Congress exempt from the Constitution now, or have we just decided that we no longer need a free press?
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Returning Democracy to the (Natural) People
Today marks the second anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which unleashed unlimited spending by corporate "persons" to influence our elections. We saw some of the effect of this in the 2010 mid-term elections, and we're seeing it already this year in the wildly expensive and nasty fight for the Republican nomination. But, while Citizens United expanded the concepts of corporations as legal persons and money as speech, it didn't start there.
It actually started about 125 years ago with the case of Southern Pacific Railroad v. Santa Clara County. In that decision, the court held that the railroad corporation was entitled to rights under the 14th Amendment. Many cases between Southern Pacific and Citizens United have further expanded the concept of corporate rights and personhood, often at the expense of human citizens.
But the humans have not given up hope, and have begun to fight back. Move to Amend is an organization trying to pass an Amendment to the Constitution that would clearly state that corporations are not people, and money is not speech. Yesterday, they held rallies across the country themed as "Occupy the Courts" aimed at overturning Citizens United and educating people on the need for a Constitutional amendment.
I attended in San Jose, where our rally took place in Saint James Park, across the street from the very courthouse where the Southern Pacific case began 125 years ago. There were a few speakers, including a city councilman and a woman who was fired from Walmart for being a whistle-blower, followed by a skit of "campaign speeches" from a robot representing different corporations. We then marched through town, past the Federal office building, and ending for second, smaller, rally in front of City Hall.
At its height, there were maybe a couple hundred of us. Not too large, but a good sized group for a rainy weekday. But where was the media? I saw only a couple of people who seemed to be taking notes or a few professional photos, but no TV crews. The Move to Amend folks are going to need to get much better at PR if this movement is to take off.
Passing a new amendment to the Constitution may be difficult, but is not impossible, and the stakes could not be higher. While there has always been an undue influence of money in our political process, Citizens United amplifies it hundreds of times over. Corporations are now able to give untraceable millions to SuperPACs that are not bound by any of the controls or limits that we've placed on candidates or individuals. They can say pretty much anything and will drown out the voice of We the People.
We have to make it clear to our leaders, and to the corporate interests that fund them, that democracy is for us human citizens only, and is no longer for sale to the highest bidder. One person, one voice, one vote.
It actually started about 125 years ago with the case of Southern Pacific Railroad v. Santa Clara County. In that decision, the court held that the railroad corporation was entitled to rights under the 14th Amendment. Many cases between Southern Pacific and Citizens United have further expanded the concept of corporate rights and personhood, often at the expense of human citizens.
But the humans have not given up hope, and have begun to fight back. Move to Amend is an organization trying to pass an Amendment to the Constitution that would clearly state that corporations are not people, and money is not speech. Yesterday, they held rallies across the country themed as "Occupy the Courts" aimed at overturning Citizens United and educating people on the need for a Constitutional amendment.I attended in San Jose, where our rally took place in Saint James Park, across the street from the very courthouse where the Southern Pacific case began 125 years ago. There were a few speakers, including a city councilman and a woman who was fired from Walmart for being a whistle-blower, followed by a skit of "campaign speeches" from a robot representing different corporations. We then marched through town, past the Federal office building, and ending for second, smaller, rally in front of City Hall.
At its height, there were maybe a couple hundred of us. Not too large, but a good sized group for a rainy weekday. But where was the media? I saw only a couple of people who seemed to be taking notes or a few professional photos, but no TV crews. The Move to Amend folks are going to need to get much better at PR if this movement is to take off.
Passing a new amendment to the Constitution may be difficult, but is not impossible, and the stakes could not be higher. While there has always been an undue influence of money in our political process, Citizens United amplifies it hundreds of times over. Corporations are now able to give untraceable millions to SuperPACs that are not bound by any of the controls or limits that we've placed on candidates or individuals. They can say pretty much anything and will drown out the voice of We the People.
We have to make it clear to our leaders, and to the corporate interests that fund them, that democracy is for us human citizens only, and is no longer for sale to the highest bidder. One person, one voice, one vote.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Why 15% Should Matter to the 99%
This week Mitt Romney let slip the real reason why he's reluctant to divulge his tax returns. It's not how much money he earns that he's hiding - we're all aware that it's a considerable sum - it's the tax rate he pays on that income that is controversial.
Because Mitt's income is mostly from investment earnings, he pays the capital gains rate of 15% on his millions rather than the current top marginal rate for wages of 35%, or even the average middle-class top marginal rate of 25%. This has left his supporters to explain why this very wealthy man should pay a lower tax rate than most middle-class Americans.
Capital gains, we are told, are very special because of the risks involved. Not every investment pays off, after all. Very true. But, of course, that's why losing investments can be written off as business expenses and deducted from one's over-all income, reducing one's taxes. So, why, when an investment is successful should it be taxed differently than regular employment income?
Well, 15% of $1,000,000 is still more than 25% of $75,000! Kinda like how, if you buy in bulk at Costco, you get a lower price on food. That's fair, right? Well, in as far as that analogy does hold water, the tax code already has provisions for the "bulk buyer" (IE: additional children = additional deductions). In my case, my home (modest by CA standards, but expensive by national standards) gives me quite a mortgage interest deduction. Add that to my business and other expenses and I probably deduct as much from my income than a minimum wage worker earns in a year.
But on the taxable portion (after deductions), I gladly pay a rate that's somewhat higher than the minimum wage worker because of my relative success. And somebody who earns 10-20 times what I do should pay a little higher yet. Certainly no less a percentage. So, why so much lower?
Well, they say, the rich need an incentive to invest. Why bother if your earnings after taxes will barely keep up with inflation? When I hear this argument I always have to reply that I don't think the rich are as lazy as you think they are. I have faith in their entrepreneurial drive that they'd still invest, create, and build, even if capital gains were taxed as regular income. As long as the tax rate is below 100% any gains are still better than a mattress full of cash (and, no, I'm not suggesting a 100% tax).
If you buy that "incentive to beat inflation" argument, then people should be turning down C-level jobs that hit the 35% marginal rate, and even middle-management positions in the 25% range, and all the MBAs would be looking to work in mail rooms. It turns out, however, people prefer to have 65% of $500,000 over having 75% of $75,000. So, why does investment income require a tax rate so much lower than income from labor?
Gosh! You're just envious! After all, everybody has the opportunity to invest and get the tax benefits of capital gains! Well, perhaps we do have that opportunity, but not to the same extent. According to the Washington Post, "The 400 richest taxpayers in 2008 counted 60 percent of their income in the form of capital gains and 8 percent from salary and wages. The rest of the country reported 5 percent in capital gains and 72 percent in salary." When you defend 400 out of 312,877,450 with "everybody can do it," it's more than a bit of a stretch.
Here's the thing about all this in relation to Willard Mittens Romney: the millions he makes each year from capital gains are not even from investing his own money. There is no risk involved. Mitt's millions are part of his retirement agreement with Bain Capital. Every year he gets a nice slice of Bain's profits, even though he hasn't worked there in 13 years.
Of course, while most of his income comes from Bain and other capital gains, Mitt does work part-time as a public speaker. He describes his income from speaking fees as "not very much." It's actually $374,000/year. As a point of reference, $380,000 is the cut-off point for being in the top 1% of earners.
Capital gains have not always been taxed as low as 15%. This rate is the result of tax cuts (from both GW Bush and Clinton) that were supposed to inspire and encourage the wealthy to invest more, thus creating new jobs. As you can see, that plan didn't quite work out.
Many Republicans are now pushing for a new rate on capital gains: 0%. Romney, in his defense, is not one of them (although he does have other tax cuts in his plan). But if Newt Gingrich is elected, Mitt's tax bill will fall to nearly nothing.
So, please, remind me again, why are capital gains taxed so much lower than income from actually working for a living?
Because Mitt's income is mostly from investment earnings, he pays the capital gains rate of 15% on his millions rather than the current top marginal rate for wages of 35%, or even the average middle-class top marginal rate of 25%. This has left his supporters to explain why this very wealthy man should pay a lower tax rate than most middle-class Americans.
Capital gains, we are told, are very special because of the risks involved. Not every investment pays off, after all. Very true. But, of course, that's why losing investments can be written off as business expenses and deducted from one's over-all income, reducing one's taxes. So, why, when an investment is successful should it be taxed differently than regular employment income?
Well, 15% of $1,000,000 is still more than 25% of $75,000! Kinda like how, if you buy in bulk at Costco, you get a lower price on food. That's fair, right? Well, in as far as that analogy does hold water, the tax code already has provisions for the "bulk buyer" (IE: additional children = additional deductions). In my case, my home (modest by CA standards, but expensive by national standards) gives me quite a mortgage interest deduction. Add that to my business and other expenses and I probably deduct as much from my income than a minimum wage worker earns in a year.
But on the taxable portion (after deductions), I gladly pay a rate that's somewhat higher than the minimum wage worker because of my relative success. And somebody who earns 10-20 times what I do should pay a little higher yet. Certainly no less a percentage. So, why so much lower?
Well, they say, the rich need an incentive to invest. Why bother if your earnings after taxes will barely keep up with inflation? When I hear this argument I always have to reply that I don't think the rich are as lazy as you think they are. I have faith in their entrepreneurial drive that they'd still invest, create, and build, even if capital gains were taxed as regular income. As long as the tax rate is below 100% any gains are still better than a mattress full of cash (and, no, I'm not suggesting a 100% tax).
If you buy that "incentive to beat inflation" argument, then people should be turning down C-level jobs that hit the 35% marginal rate, and even middle-management positions in the 25% range, and all the MBAs would be looking to work in mail rooms. It turns out, however, people prefer to have 65% of $500,000 over having 75% of $75,000. So, why does investment income require a tax rate so much lower than income from labor?
Gosh! You're just envious! After all, everybody has the opportunity to invest and get the tax benefits of capital gains! Well, perhaps we do have that opportunity, but not to the same extent. According to the Washington Post, "The 400 richest taxpayers in 2008 counted 60 percent of their income in the form of capital gains and 8 percent from salary and wages. The rest of the country reported 5 percent in capital gains and 72 percent in salary." When you defend 400 out of 312,877,450 with "everybody can do it," it's more than a bit of a stretch.
Here's the thing about all this in relation to Willard Mittens Romney: the millions he makes each year from capital gains are not even from investing his own money. There is no risk involved. Mitt's millions are part of his retirement agreement with Bain Capital. Every year he gets a nice slice of Bain's profits, even though he hasn't worked there in 13 years.
Of course, while most of his income comes from Bain and other capital gains, Mitt does work part-time as a public speaker. He describes his income from speaking fees as "not very much." It's actually $374,000/year. As a point of reference, $380,000 is the cut-off point for being in the top 1% of earners.
Capital gains have not always been taxed as low as 15%. This rate is the result of tax cuts (from both GW Bush and Clinton) that were supposed to inspire and encourage the wealthy to invest more, thus creating new jobs. As you can see, that plan didn't quite work out.
Many Republicans are now pushing for a new rate on capital gains: 0%. Romney, in his defense, is not one of them (although he does have other tax cuts in his plan). But if Newt Gingrich is elected, Mitt's tax bill will fall to nearly nothing.
So, please, remind me again, why are capital gains taxed so much lower than income from actually working for a living?
Friday, December 02, 2011
New eBook Availalbe
I've been playing around with the idea of publishing some ebooks of various material I've written over the years, and the first result of that experiment is now available for Nooks, iPads, Kindles, and most any other device you might have: A Bottomless Cup of Coffee (Short Stories).
I've self published before - several of the stories in A Bottomless Cup originally appeared in the print collection, Aaron’s Intifada and Other Short Stories (still available on Amazon.com), and my Introduction to Fund Development Planning continues to sell (available on Amazon.com as well) - but I've not done any eBook specific projects, which is odd considering how involved I've been with social media and online content creation.
Anyway, I'm now entering the eBook age, and hopefully this is just the first of many projects. If you want to check out the new eBook, it's yours for about two bucks at:
I've self published before - several of the stories in A Bottomless Cup originally appeared in the print collection, Aaron’s Intifada and Other Short Stories (still available on Amazon.com), and my Introduction to Fund Development Planning continues to sell (available on Amazon.com as well) - but I've not done any eBook specific projects, which is odd considering how involved I've been with social media and online content creation.
Anyway, I'm now entering the eBook age, and hopefully this is just the first of many projects. If you want to check out the new eBook, it's yours for about two bucks at:
- Amazon.com (for Kindle)
- Apple iBookstore (iBooks on iPad/Pod/Phone)
- Barnes & Noble.com (for Nook)
- Lulu.com (ePub, various readers)
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
The Occupation is Over: Long Live the Occupation
News from Portland is that the parks have been cleared of all OWS protesters. Closer to home, efforts have been made in Oakland and Santa Cruz to end, or severely curtail, the extent of encampments and daily protests. In the online world it is in current fashion to write Occupy Obituaries, with a general theme of "enough is enough," repeating some popular myths about the movement, and be done with all this protesting nonsense before the holiday shopping season. So, here's my attempt at summing up a few points.
1 - "Enough Already" - Of course, the far right, tea party crowd never supported OWS, but this last week I've seen many posts from people who describe themselves as (at least somewhat) liberal echoing that they're bored of OWS, sick of seeing/hearing about the protesters, worried about conditions in the camps (see #5), and "most important", concerned about the cost to the taxpayers for law enforcement and park clean-up.
While I understand and appreciate each of those concerns, none of them rises to the level where a repeal of the Bill of Rights seems to be necessary. There's nothing in the First Amendment that limits "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" only to when it's convenient for commuters, good for business, in the budget, or when it's sunny outside.
I've not been very active in OWS, but I have spent some time at Occupy Santa Cruz (attended a couple of General Assemblies, took part in protesting, brought food and supplies to the campers). I am also a tax payer and I protest because I pay more in federal taxes than General Electric, PG&E, Dupont, Wells Fargo, and Verizon ... combined.
Is there a cost to the taxpayer (me!) for exercising our right to free speech? Yes. Of course there is. Just as there is a huge cost for elections, multiple branches of government, etc. Democracy and freedom are far more expensive than dictatorship, and generally worth the investment. Freedom is not cost effective, but I'll take it anyway.
And I really don't care if you preface your posting with "I supported them for a while, but..." Whether or not the protests are well organized, whether they have fifty million or only a single supporter, whether or not you've reached the end of you're limited attention span doesn't much matter. Either you support freedom of speech or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose the voice, the time, or the place.
2 - "Get a Job!" - Much of the criticism from the right, that the bench-warmers on the left now seem to have accepted is that the occupiers are all unemployed, on the public dole, and just looking for a hand-out. I can't speak for other cities, but in talking to people at Occupy Santa Cruz I've been surprised by how many of the key people are employed full-time. And not just among the day-time protesters, but even those camping out are packing up at 6 AM, running home for a quick shower, and then going to work before returning the camp in the evening.
The occupiers I've spoken with include lawyers, high-tech engineers, and other "respectable" sorts. Yes, there are people there who are victims of the economic downturn, who have lost their jobs, homes, health care, etc., but they are not the total occupy population.
3 - "Get a Message" - As much as people are repeating the mainstream media's contention that the OWS protesters have no message, I find it hard to believe that there's anybody outside of Fox News who doesn't know that this is about economic injustice, from the ponzi scheme that led to the foreclosure crisis, to the bailing out of the very banks that profited from that ponzi scheme, to Congress' inaction on any comprehensive jobs bill, to the Supreme Court's declaration that corporations are people.
Considering the lack of centralized leadership (see #4) or the engagement of a national PR firm, there's remarkable unity in this message across all the occupations, and coordination of imagery/branding. Yes, there's other complaints being voiced, but the overall theme of economic injustice has been clear.
Others admit that the message is clear, but follow up quickly with, "Complaining is easy, give us solutions." I agree, it's easy to say the outhouse stinks, but tearing it down before installing modern plumbing is a bad idea. Looking back at that First Amendment again, however, I don't see that the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances is limited to those who have ready solutions.
Meanwhile, looking at the signs of protesters I see that they are offering some ideas, whether required or not, including closing tax loopholes and ending corporate welfare, a Constitutional Amendment reversing the Citizens United decision, forgiveness of student loans, prosecution of those responsible for the foreclosure scandal, the passage of a comprehensive jobs bill, and much more.
(And, going back to #2 and the idea that the protesters are all just looking for something for nothing, the only one of the above demands that comes close to that is student loan forgiveness. Most of the protesters are willing to pay their fare share; they only want the same from the corporations and for their government to put people first.)
4 - "Get a Leader" - One of the most frustrating things for the mass media has been the lack of a single person, already in their contacts list, who they can call for comment. This "everybody's a leader" has been great in getting more people involved, amusing to watch the press attempt to navigate, as well as frustrating to those of us in General Assemblies who lack the patience to herd cats for even the most basic and simple decisions.
But beyond being a symbol of the desire for true democracy and consensus, the distributed leadership has been one of the messages of OWS. Distrust of leadership - any leadership - is such an inescapable symptom of our current global political crisis, that OWS protesters rejected any form of hierarchy, even when it would have benefited them.
The right also recognizes and feeds on this distrust of self-appointed leaders. The irony is that the Tea Party protests have been largely funded by the Koch Brothers, and that two of the largest Tea Party groups are suing each other over trademarks and (more vital and valuable) mailing lists. The right's answer to distrust of leaders has been pure astro-turf and deception.
As messy as some Occupy meetings have been, at least it was authentic. But, to move forward, the movement will have to develop some form of leadership, as distasteful as many may find that to be.
5 - "We're Concerned for their Health & Safety" - Yes, it's a concern when you have a few hundred people camping out with a couple of port-o-potties and no showers. But it's their choice. This "we have to clear them out for their own good" argument would have been more effective if the first several times I heard it wasn't from people who opposed health care reform and want to dismantle the EPA and OSHA.
There's much more to write about the Occupy movement, and I'm sure there will be ample opportunity to do so in the future. Yes, there have been problems with the way the occupations have been handled, some of which have kept me from becoming more personally involved, but on the whole I still believe they have been a good thing.
While many of the camps have been cleared for now, I don't believe this is over by a long shot. Lessons will be learned, leadership will be developed, and the people will not politely go inside and be quiet.
1 - "Enough Already" - Of course, the far right, tea party crowd never supported OWS, but this last week I've seen many posts from people who describe themselves as (at least somewhat) liberal echoing that they're bored of OWS, sick of seeing/hearing about the protesters, worried about conditions in the camps (see #5), and "most important", concerned about the cost to the taxpayers for law enforcement and park clean-up.
While I understand and appreciate each of those concerns, none of them rises to the level where a repeal of the Bill of Rights seems to be necessary. There's nothing in the First Amendment that limits "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" only to when it's convenient for commuters, good for business, in the budget, or when it's sunny outside.
I've not been very active in OWS, but I have spent some time at Occupy Santa Cruz (attended a couple of General Assemblies, took part in protesting, brought food and supplies to the campers). I am also a tax payer and I protest because I pay more in federal taxes than General Electric, PG&E, Dupont, Wells Fargo, and Verizon ... combined.
Is there a cost to the taxpayer (me!) for exercising our right to free speech? Yes. Of course there is. Just as there is a huge cost for elections, multiple branches of government, etc. Democracy and freedom are far more expensive than dictatorship, and generally worth the investment. Freedom is not cost effective, but I'll take it anyway.
And I really don't care if you preface your posting with "I supported them for a while, but..." Whether or not the protests are well organized, whether they have fifty million or only a single supporter, whether or not you've reached the end of you're limited attention span doesn't much matter. Either you support freedom of speech or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose the voice, the time, or the place.
2 - "Get a Job!" - Much of the criticism from the right, that the bench-warmers on the left now seem to have accepted is that the occupiers are all unemployed, on the public dole, and just looking for a hand-out. I can't speak for other cities, but in talking to people at Occupy Santa Cruz I've been surprised by how many of the key people are employed full-time. And not just among the day-time protesters, but even those camping out are packing up at 6 AM, running home for a quick shower, and then going to work before returning the camp in the evening.
The occupiers I've spoken with include lawyers, high-tech engineers, and other "respectable" sorts. Yes, there are people there who are victims of the economic downturn, who have lost their jobs, homes, health care, etc., but they are not the total occupy population.
3 - "Get a Message" - As much as people are repeating the mainstream media's contention that the OWS protesters have no message, I find it hard to believe that there's anybody outside of Fox News who doesn't know that this is about economic injustice, from the ponzi scheme that led to the foreclosure crisis, to the bailing out of the very banks that profited from that ponzi scheme, to Congress' inaction on any comprehensive jobs bill, to the Supreme Court's declaration that corporations are people.
Considering the lack of centralized leadership (see #4) or the engagement of a national PR firm, there's remarkable unity in this message across all the occupations, and coordination of imagery/branding. Yes, there's other complaints being voiced, but the overall theme of economic injustice has been clear.
Others admit that the message is clear, but follow up quickly with, "Complaining is easy, give us solutions." I agree, it's easy to say the outhouse stinks, but tearing it down before installing modern plumbing is a bad idea. Looking back at that First Amendment again, however, I don't see that the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances is limited to those who have ready solutions.
Meanwhile, looking at the signs of protesters I see that they are offering some ideas, whether required or not, including closing tax loopholes and ending corporate welfare, a Constitutional Amendment reversing the Citizens United decision, forgiveness of student loans, prosecution of those responsible for the foreclosure scandal, the passage of a comprehensive jobs bill, and much more.
(And, going back to #2 and the idea that the protesters are all just looking for something for nothing, the only one of the above demands that comes close to that is student loan forgiveness. Most of the protesters are willing to pay their fare share; they only want the same from the corporations and for their government to put people first.)
4 - "Get a Leader" - One of the most frustrating things for the mass media has been the lack of a single person, already in their contacts list, who they can call for comment. This "everybody's a leader" has been great in getting more people involved, amusing to watch the press attempt to navigate, as well as frustrating to those of us in General Assemblies who lack the patience to herd cats for even the most basic and simple decisions.
But beyond being a symbol of the desire for true democracy and consensus, the distributed leadership has been one of the messages of OWS. Distrust of leadership - any leadership - is such an inescapable symptom of our current global political crisis, that OWS protesters rejected any form of hierarchy, even when it would have benefited them.
The right also recognizes and feeds on this distrust of self-appointed leaders. The irony is that the Tea Party protests have been largely funded by the Koch Brothers, and that two of the largest Tea Party groups are suing each other over trademarks and (more vital and valuable) mailing lists. The right's answer to distrust of leaders has been pure astro-turf and deception.
As messy as some Occupy meetings have been, at least it was authentic. But, to move forward, the movement will have to develop some form of leadership, as distasteful as many may find that to be.
5 - "We're Concerned for their Health & Safety" - Yes, it's a concern when you have a few hundred people camping out with a couple of port-o-potties and no showers. But it's their choice. This "we have to clear them out for their own good" argument would have been more effective if the first several times I heard it wasn't from people who opposed health care reform and want to dismantle the EPA and OSHA.
There's much more to write about the Occupy movement, and I'm sure there will be ample opportunity to do so in the future. Yes, there have been problems with the way the occupations have been handled, some of which have kept me from becoming more personally involved, but on the whole I still believe they have been a good thing.
While many of the camps have been cleared for now, I don't believe this is over by a long shot. Lessons will be learned, leadership will be developed, and the people will not politely go inside and be quiet.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Verdict In: Football More Important than Child Abuse
By now you know the story: In 2002 a graduate student at Penn State witnessed an assistant coach sodomizing a young boy in the showers. He tried to report it to university authorities and was given the run-around. Now, nine years later, that assistant coach is finally facing charges of molesting several boys over a 15 year period. Also charged are a couple of the university officials who led the cover-up.
Two officials who were aware of the accusations and did nothing, but are not currently under arrest, include legendary football coach Joe Paterno and Penn State president Graham Spanier. Well, make that former coach Paterno and former president Spanier; the Board of Trustees canned them each last night for their failure to protect children from the sexual predator they knew was on their staff.
That should be the end of the story. Justice served. Far later than it should have been, but the right thing to do.
But no. In America we pretend to care about child abuse. But apparently we care about winning football games even more.
Shortly after the news of Peterno's firing was announced, riots broke out on the Penn State campus protesting the actions of the trustees. Preserving the legend of beloved "JoePa," it seems, is more important than any little boys who make have been robbed of their innocence and youth.
Paterno now says (in his prepared statement), "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." Is that the hindsight that by protecting his former heir apparent many more children were abused, or the hindsight that it would end his career in disgrace? I fear it's only the second that motivated that minor bit of remorse.
The coaches and officials at Penn State are not alone in their quiet dismissal of societal condemnation of abusing and raping children. Another major story this last week was the release of a video showing a Texas judge brutally whipping his teenage daughter.
One would think that the judge would have no supporters, but up steps a former English Headmaster to reminisce about the good old days of beating children for a living. While he faults the judge for having acted out of anger, instead of calmly and dispassionately beating his child, this headmaster has no regrets and offers no apologies, "I was merely doing my job in upholding the discipline of the school."
Sure, protecting children is important. But not when it interferes with maintaining order or winning football games. We are Penn State. Go Team!
Two officials who were aware of the accusations and did nothing, but are not currently under arrest, include legendary football coach Joe Paterno and Penn State president Graham Spanier. Well, make that former coach Paterno and former president Spanier; the Board of Trustees canned them each last night for their failure to protect children from the sexual predator they knew was on their staff.
That should be the end of the story. Justice served. Far later than it should have been, but the right thing to do.
But no. In America we pretend to care about child abuse. But apparently we care about winning football games even more.
Shortly after the news of Peterno's firing was announced, riots broke out on the Penn State campus protesting the actions of the trustees. Preserving the legend of beloved "JoePa," it seems, is more important than any little boys who make have been robbed of their innocence and youth.
Paterno now says (in his prepared statement), "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." Is that the hindsight that by protecting his former heir apparent many more children were abused, or the hindsight that it would end his career in disgrace? I fear it's only the second that motivated that minor bit of remorse.
The coaches and officials at Penn State are not alone in their quiet dismissal of societal condemnation of abusing and raping children. Another major story this last week was the release of a video showing a Texas judge brutally whipping his teenage daughter.
One would think that the judge would have no supporters, but up steps a former English Headmaster to reminisce about the good old days of beating children for a living. While he faults the judge for having acted out of anger, instead of calmly and dispassionately beating his child, this headmaster has no regrets and offers no apologies, "I was merely doing my job in upholding the discipline of the school."
Sure, protecting children is important. But not when it interferes with maintaining order or winning football games. We are Penn State. Go Team!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Popular Posts
Twitter Feed
Posts
