Fair Use Notice

FAIR USE NOTICE

OCCUPY THE COMMONS


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0


Sunday, May 15, 2011

In America The Good Don’t Triumph, There is No Justice and Truth is Worse than Fiction

Dissident Voice: a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice



The Good Don’t Triumph and There is No Justice

Brian De Palma's "Blow Out" Thirty Years On

This July 21 is the 30th anniversary release date of Brian De Palma’s political/conspiracy thriller “Blow Out,” starring John Travolta, Nancy Allen and John Lithgow. Critics praised De Palma’s artful weaving of references to other directors and movies and real life events into “Blow Out” but audiences were turned off by the film’s ravagingly sad ending. As a movie heathen, I’m not so interested in De Palma’s cinematic virtuosity, and I feel that the critics never got to the heart of why this is such a powerful film — which is the fact that it’s a deep and devastating attack on America. The film’s numerous similarities and small divergences from today’s political landscape are instructive.

SPOILER ALERT! I reveal the ending of “Blow Out,” so if you haven’t seen it and intend to, you might want to stop reading now.

Travolta plays Jack, a sound technician who serendipitously records an auto accident which turns out to be the murder of the governor of Pennsylvania and potential presidential candidate. Jack rescues Sally (Nancy Allen) from the crash scene and the story follows their efforts to interest the authorities in the evidence they have, the conspiracy/cover-up they are met with and their own fated investigation as they battle against the political operative/murderer Burke, played by John Lithgow. The film is set in Philadelphia against the backdrop of a splashy patriotic ain’t-we-great “Liberty Days” celebration.

Jack and Sally represent marginal members of the American working class, motivated chiefly by guilt and trying to redeem themselves. The fact that they feel guilt is in stark contrast to the powers that be in the movie or to America’s real political, financial and military elite who would find it unfathomable to redeem themselves because they would never imagine that they’ve done anything wrong – except, perhaps, not made enough money or not bombed enough countries.

Jack and Sally are pitted against Burke who is no mere private eye gone bad. No, Burke has superior knowledge of surveillance, wiretapping, the staging of “accidents” and various ways to kill people. It’s never made explicit in the movie but I take Burke as some kind of ex (?) government agent, probably a CIA assassin. He is a one man death squad who ties up the “loose ends” and engages in false flag murders of complete strangers to cover up the murder he really wants to commit. The powerful and privileged are protected at all costs.

The greatness of “Blow Out” is due to the contrast between what America thinks itself to be versus what it actually is. In the movie, as in real life, while the people are having an Old Glory-gasmic celebration of the America they think they live in — freedom, democracy, the light unto the world — in reality, in the underbelly of the nation, the real work is being done by people like Burke, who murder innocent people right and left and get away with it, violating every law and premise the nation was supposedly founded on — except murder and theft are exactly what it was founded on. The “Liberty Days” revelers whoop it up in mirage America, the America that never was or is always just out of reach, just one more election away, celebrating fake freedom (the one that doesn’t know it’s chained up because it never moves) and fake democracy (the one where we’re supposed to be eternally grateful to vote for one of the twin heads, Republican or Democrat, of the capitalist freak.)

“Blow Out’s” roof top climax, played out beneath the exploding fireworks of “Liberty Days,” is one of the most memorable scenes in all of film. Travolta’s character Jack does everything in his power to do the right thing but he and Sally are ultimately destroyed, Sally physically and Jack, more pertinent to everyday life in America, mentally, socially, emotionally and spiritually. When Jack tries to be an honest, altruistic full participant in society, when he becomes the most vital and self-actualized, and the least little bit effective (a hero for the working class, as opposed to Navy SEAL death squad heroes for the ruling class), America promptly destroys him. Jack lives in trickle-down America where evil, not wealth, trickles down and ruins many a small life. “Blow Out” is a great and terrible Greek-like tragedy because Jack gets the person killed that he risked his own life to initially save.

It was actually the audiences, not the critics, who best understood “Blow Out.” The critics were too cowardly and unclassconscious to acknowledge the truth of a film that took on the Great Satan, they could only speak of De Palma’s technical brilliance. But the audiences — they understood in a visceral way, the ending smacked them in the mouth, the ending said all is not well here, their hopes and dreams and notions of justice crushed, innocence laid waste (as represented by Sally), the mockery of the “promise” of America and all the lies told to children every day in every school. Audiences recoiled at seeing themselves as the mindless “Liberty Days” revelers instead of the heroic resisters like Jack and Sally — they understood that they betray the founding icons every day — by never taking a risk to overthrow the illegitimate ruling class — even as they celebrate those icons.

On the roof top in “Blow Out,” on a raw revelatory monumentally sad Independence Day night, the flags wave, the fireworks explode and the cheers rise while, out of sight and under the din, another innocent person is anonymously killed for the American ruling class. That’s the American creation story, by God: the good don’t triumph and there is no justice. America wrecks the world, America moves on — and it all so easily escapes the notice of the revelers. America doesn’t pay, America doesn’t make amends, so get used to it, red man, black man, yellow man, sand man. And if every once in a blue moon the serfs get hit and bellyache, “Why do they hate us!” — and the masters go on a ten-year murder tantrum across the earth — well, for Wall Street, the Pentagon and the corrupt politicians who successfully run on racism and warmongering, well, it’s all good. In fact, it’s a bonanza. Let a thousand Blackwaters bloom. That’s your American revolution, that’s your gift to the world.

De Palma took much more heat for his 2007 film “Redacted” than he did from the 30-year-old “Blow Out” even though the latter will probably go down many years from now as the most consummate film critique of America. (“Redacted” was based on the true story of Abeer Hamza, a 14-year-old Iraqi girl who was gang-raped and murdered in her home by American soldiers. The troops also murdered her mother, father and 6-year-old sister. Just a little slice of life in America’s nonstop unconstitutional wars which weak-ass liberals insist that their hero Obama continue. Yes, liberals support the gang-rape of children and mass murder — see how easy it is to be Fox News when your Dumbocratic targets don’t, in fact, have any principles except getting their unprincipled man elected?)

The one faulty thing about “Blow Out” is that John Lithgow’s character is presented as a rogue operative whereas the lawlessness and murderousness that he symbolizes have always been US government policy, though, unlike today’s world, they used to be officially denied and decried. Also of note: Lithgow’s character is cut loose in the end by his superiors as opposed to, say, the way Obama moved heaven and earth to get CIA agent Raymond Davis, accused of murdering two Pakistanis, out of a jail in Pakistan and back to America.

Another divergence between “Blow Out” and the present concerns the idea of conspiracy. In “Blow Out” there is an all-encompassing successful conspiracy. But that was so then (Reagan) and this is now (Obama). And what’s different now is that the constitutional scholar/shredder Obama has normalized his predecessors’ crimes: undeclared wars, torture, indefinite detention and extra-judicial assassination (including of American citizens) are now openly defended and celebrated. When you can openly get away with these crimes and more, when there is no effective opposition to anything you do, what need is there for a conspiracy?

Now that I’ve given you my bleak interpretation of Brian De Palma’s bleak vision of (bleeping) America, let me cheer you up. I’m no comedian but I do know a few jokes.

Did you hear the one about the country that got its pride back after ten years by summarily executing a 54-year-old dialysis patient? Booyah! You don’t think that’s funny? Well there’s lots of college students, who were only ten years old at the time when the pride was lost, who think it’s a riot… Tomorrow belongs to them and they are well prepared — look at all the American flags apparently stashed in their dorms, ready for any Old Glory-gasmic celebration that comes along…

What about the one where a government walks into a bar and says give me billions of dollars each year to fight a terrorist boogeyman and then, when the same government has the opportunity to easily capture the terrorist and question him about his worldwide links to other terrorists, and put him in handcuffs and frog-march him into court for months on end and demystify him — but, instead, chooses to immediately gun him down and silence him, thus insuring his martyrdom…? You heard that one too? You’re so hip, you must watch a lot of TV!

OK, what about the killing of the terrorist in Abbottabad, Pakistan and the 24-hour aftermath where, in Washington (District of Costellobad), the White House took back the tale of the bloodthirsty fiend shot dead in a fire fight while cowardly using one of his wives as a human shield in his luxurious mansion while his impoverished followers freeze their jihadis off in caves? You don’t think that’s funny? You know, you’re a tough crowd, so let’s just call it a night before I start heckling you back.

Just go out and get the Criterion Collection’s recently released “Blow Out” on Blu-ray or a double disc DVD containing lengthy interviews with Brian De Palma and Nancy Allen, De Palma’s 1967 feature “Murder a la Mod,” a booklet and many other extras.

Randy Shields can be reached at music2hi4thehumanear@gmail.com. Read other articles by Randy.

This article was posted on Saturday, May 14th, 2011 at 12:46pm and is filed under Film Review, General.

Saturday, May 14, 2011

The Five Most Archaic and Punitive States to Get Busted With Pot

AlterNet.org

DRUGS

Even a minor pot bust can be life-altering for people unlucky enough to be arrested in one of these five states.

Police prosecute over 800,000 Americans annually for violating state marijuana laws. The penalties for those busted and convicted vary greatly, ranging from the imposition of small fines to license revocation to potential incarceration. But for the citizens arrested in these five states, the ramifications of even a minor pot bust are likely to be exceptionally severe.

1. Oklahoma. Lawmakers in the Sooner State made headlines this spring when legislators voted 119 to 20 in favor of House Bill 1798, which enhances the state sentencing guidelines for hash manufacturing to a minimum of two years in jail and a maximum penalty of life in prison. (Mary Fallin, the state’s first-ever female governor, signed the measure into law in April; it takes effect on November 1, 2011.) But longtime Oklahoma observers were hardly surprised at lawmakers’ latest "life for pot" plan. After all, state law already allows judges to hand out life sentences for those convicted of cannabis cultivation or for the sale of a single dime-bag.

Patricia Marilyn Spottedcow, 25, learned the truth about Oklahoma’s excessive pot penalties the hard way in February when a judge sentenced the mother of four to 30 years in prison for her role in the sale of $39 worth of herb to an undercover informant. Spottedcow’s sentence sparked national media attention – and public outrage – but neither result has led the judge in the case to reconsider the terms of her confinement.

Similarly harsh sentences for pot are par for the course in the Sooner State. Paraplegic Jimmy Montgomery was sentenced to life in prison – later reduced to 10 years – after being caught with two ounces of medical pot in his wheelchair. After considerable public outcry, Montgomery was eventually granted early release on medical parole – though he later lost a leg from an ulcerated bed sore he developed while in prison. Rheumatoid arthritis patient Will Foster – convicted of marijuana cultivation in 1997 – received a similarly draconian 93-year sentence, later reduced to 20 years on appeal. Foster was eventually paroled and moved to California, where he quickly registered as a legal medi-pot patient. However, in 2009 he was extradited back to Oklahoma to serve additional time behind bars.

Overall, some 13,000 Oklahomans are busted for pot annually. Only 12 other states arrest a greater percentage of their population for weed, and arguably no state sentences those convicted more harshly.

2. Texas. On an annual basis, no state arrests and criminally prosecutes more of its citizens for pot than does Texas. Marijuana arrests comprise over half of all annual arrests in the Lone Star State. It is easy to see why. In 2009, more than 97 percent of all Texas marijuana arrests — over 77,000 people — were for possession only. Those convicted face up to 180 days in jail and a $2,000 fine, even upon a first conviction.

Despite Texas’ dubious distinction as the #1 pot prosecuting state in America, police and lawmakers have little interest in exploring alternatives. In 2007, former Gov. Rick Perry signed legislation (HB 2391) into law granting police the option of issuing a summons in lieu of an arrest in minor marijuana possession cases. Yet aside from police in Austin, long considered to be the state’s lone bastion of liberalism, law enforcement have continued to fervently make arrests in even the most trivial of pot cases.

In 2011, Houston Democrat Harold Dutton introduced House Bill 458, which sought to reduce penalties for the adult possession of one ounce or less of marijuana to a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding $500 and no criminal record. Within weeks, over 2,500 Texans contacted their House members in support of the measure. Nonetheless, House lawmakers refused to even consider bringing the measure to a vote.

3. Florida. According to a 2009 state-by-state analysis by researcher and former NORML Director Jon Gettman, no other state routinely punishes minor marijuana more severely than does the Sunshine State. Under Florida law, marijuana possession of 20 grams or less (about two-thirds of an ounce) is a criminal misdemeanor punishable by up to one-year imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Marijuana possession over 20 grams, as well as the cultivation of even a single pot plant, are defined by law as felony offenses – punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. In recent years, state lawmakers have revisited the state’s marijuana penalties – in each case electing to enhance Florida’s already toughest-in-the-nation criminal punishments.

Ironically, despite the Sunshine State’s long history as one of the nation’s stiffest pot prosecutors, law enforcement have steadfastly refused to report their annual marijuana arrest data to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Illinois is the only other state that elects to withhold this information from federal statisticians.

4. Louisiana. On May 6 the Associated Press reported on the case of Cornell Hood II, who received a life sentence for possessing two pounds of pot. Hood received the maximum sentence under Louisiana’s habitual drug offender law because he had three prior marijuana convictions, although none of them were significant enough to result in even a single day of jail time.

Multi-decade sentences for repeat pot offenders are hardly a rare occurrence. Under Louisiana law, a second pot possession conviction is classified as a felony offense, punishable by up to five years in prison. Three-time offenders face up to 20 years in prison. According to a 2008 expose published in the New Orleans City Business online, district attorneys are not hesitant to “target small-time marijuana users, sometimes caught with less than a gram of pot, and threaten them with lengthy prison sentences.”

Each year, cops make nearly 19,000 pot busts in the Bayou State – some 91 percent for simple possession – and according to Gettman, only three other states routinely punish minor offenders so severely.

5. Arizona. Forty years ago virtually every state in the nation defined marijuana possession as a felony offense. Today, only one state, Arizona, treats first-time pot possession in such an archaic and punitive manner.

Under Arizona law, even minor marijuana possession offenses may be prosecuted as felony crimes, punishable by up to 18 months in jail and a $150,000 fine. According to Jon Gettman’s 2009 analysis only Florida consistently treats minor marijuana possession cases more severely.

Annually, some 22,000 Arizonans are busted for pot and 92 percent of those arrested are charged with possession only. Citing the rising costs of these prosecutions at a time of shrinking state budgets, first-term GOP House lawmaker John Fillmore (Apache Junction) recently introduced legislation, HB 2228, to reduce pot possession to a non-criminal petty offense, punishable by no more than a $100 fine. So how did his supposedly "small government, no nanny state" colleagues respond to his proposal? With “a lot of smiles and laughs,” Fillmore told the Phoenix New Times. Predictably, HB 2228 failed to even receive a legislative hearing from his fellow lawmakers.

For a comprehensive breakdown of state-by-state marijuana penalties, visit NORML’s online map. Jon Gettman’s 2009 analysis, "The Marijuana Policy Almanac: Marijuana Arrests in the United States," is available online.

Paul Armentano is the deputy director of NORML (the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), and is the co-author of the book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink (2009, Chelsea Green).

Saturday, May 7, 2011

The Corporate Takeover of America Just Got Worse

seeking alpha

The Corporate Takeover of America Just Got Worse

by Jason Kelly

I finished a book last month, to be published by Wiley in June, that examines how financial manipulators at the top of every industry buy influence in government to create a legal and cultural backdrop that directs the assets of financially inept people in the general population into government, bank, and big business coffers.

That situation has gripped our nation for more than a century, even though during that time it was illegal for corporations to contribute directly to federal candidates. From my manuscript: "Since the Tillman Act became law in 1907, corporations have been prohibited from contributing directly to federal candidates. They still buy candidates, of course, but for more than 100 years they've had to do so through political action committees and individual members of their companies."

That was how, for example, President Obama accepted $889,000 from oil companies during his campaign, then crowed in ads, "I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore." Technically, he was right, because he didn't accept money directly from them, but rather from their various front groups. His biggest contributor was the financial services industry, which made those in the know roll their eyes at the "change we can believe in" line of bull as Washington's freshest face kept in charge the same crowd of cronies that blew up the economy to begin with: Bernanke, Geithner, Summers.

As bad as the steady corporate takeover of government has been, it got a whole lot worse last Thursday when the Supreme Court overruled two First Amendment precedents and prohibited government from banning political spending by corporations in elections. Under the auspices of corporations having the same right of free speech as individuals, the court dispelled even the veneer of propriety that existed a week ago.

While corporations are still banned from direct contributions to candidates, they can make any ads, videos, or other support material for the candidate of their choice as a form of free speech. Because such exposure tools are what every candidate spends his or her campaign budget on anyway, the result will be the same as if direct financial contributions were allowed.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent that the "court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation" and "will, I fear, do damage to this institution." Even special-interest-backed-Obama called it "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." Too bad they've been able to continue doing so as usual under his administration.

The New York Times wrote in an editorial on Thursday:

The majority is deeply wrong on the law. Most wrongheaded of all is its insistence that corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights. It is an odd claim since companies are creations of the state that exist to make money. They are given special privileges, including different tax rates, to do just that. It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate.

The majority also makes the nonsensical claim that, unlike campaign contributions, which are still prohibited, independent expenditures by corporations "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." If Wall Street bankers told members of Congress that they would spend millions of dollars to defeat anyone who opposed their bailout, and then did so, it would certainly look corrupt.

My book predicted that the situation would only worsen with time, but I had no idea how little time it would take. We can forget any gentle solution to America's national financial woes. What tiny shred of possibility there was of reducing special-interest claims on taxpayer money disappeared on Thursday. The nation will be bled dry by corporations focused on their own financial health, and oblivious to the nation's.

Democracy is Dead: Unlimited Secret Money Has Killed Democratic Elections

AlterNet.org

NEWS & POLITICS

Unlimited Secret Money Is Drowning Democratic Elections


Corporate interests are flouting election law by using anonymous donations, which are drowning out the voices and votes of working Americans.

The 2012 presidential election year promises to be the most expensive ever and unless the Department of Justice does its job, it also promises to be have the most anonymous campaign donations in U.S. history. Unknown corporate interests will fund massive advertising campaigns against and for candidates but the voters will not know who they are or their real agenda. The Obama administration can prevent this further corruption of U.S. democracy by enforcing existing laws.

In the last mid-term elections we saw the evolution of a new form of campaign funding that avoided the disclosure requirements of the Federal Election campaign Law (FECA). The new approach was masterminded by Karl Rove and former Republican Party leaders through American Crossroads GPS. They created a non-profit organization under 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code -- organizations that are not supposed to be primarily involved in elections -- and used it to raise tens of millions in secret donations. In total, nearly $150 million was spent by these (c)(4) groups leaving voters in the dark as to the personal interests of the donors. We can expect that to more than double in 2012 if existing laws are not enforced. Indeed Rove has announced his group alone intends to raise $120 million for 2012.

A coalition of advocacy groups have come together as CampaignAccountabilityWatch.org, to fight back against Rove and others, such as the Chamber of Commerce and American Future Fund, to make sure that they do not violate campaign finance law in the upcoming election as they have done in the past. Our simple request to U.S. Attorneys, the Department of Justice and the Obama administration: enforce existing law.

While the Citizen's United decision allowed unlimited donations by corporations and individuals, it did not allow anonymous donations. The federal election law requires that donors be identified. In order to do an end-around this requirement some political operatives have set up non-profit to hide donors identities. This not only violates FECA but IRS regulations as well. The Department of Justice has the authority to enforce criminal violations of FECA even without action by the Federal Election Commission.

CampaignAccountabilityWatch.org has sent letters to 40 U.S. Attorneys along with more than 12 thousand signatures of citizens urging prosecution of these organizations for illegally using non-profit front groups to violate FECA during the 2010 elections. Campaign Accountability Watch has been talking and meeting with specialists at the FBI on how to use criminal provisions of FECA to prosecute these wrongdoers. The campaign has also filed complaints with the Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service and organizations have filed an FEC complaint last October. No one have been prosecuted for their violations to date.

It is not only the organizations that are very likely violating federal law, but the donors may be as well. Any donor who makes a secret donation to a non-profit in order to violate the disclosure requirements of federal election law should be fully aware that they run the risk of being called before a federal grand jury and even prosecuted if it can be shown that they made a donation willfully and knowingly to avoid campaign finance laws. It just takes one U.S. Attorney to issue subpoenas to these violators for Americans to better understand the need to comply with existing campaign finance laws.

Over the past few months, unlimited, secret money has drowned out the voices and votes of working Americans. Campaign Accountability Watch is letting U.S. Attorneys in over 40 districts know that their constituents want them to empanel grand juries and prosecute FECA violators. These violators may think that they can hide their donors and their books while doing the bidding of corporate barons but they cannot hide them from criminal investigations.

Kevin Zeese is director of ItsOurEconomy.US and spokesperson for Campaign Accountability Watch.

Sunday, May 1, 2011

White Guys with Guns (NRA) focused on ousting President Obama

POLITICO

National Rifle Association members focused on ousting President Obama


A man checks out a rifle at the 140th National Rifle Association exhibit in Pittsburgh. | AP Photo
The powerful gun lobby hopes to galvanize activists going into the 2012 election season. | AP Photo

PITTSBURGH — Liberals are frustrated with Barack Obama for not aggressively pushing gun control, but you wouldn’t know it from the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting.

With no clearly preferred Republican candidate among the 70,000 people who descended on the convention center here this weekend, Obama’s name came up more than any other.

Leaders of the powerful gun lobby talked as if the president had declared an all-out war on the Second Amendment. The dire rhetoric is intended to galvanize activists going into the 2012 election season, despite huge legislative gains last November and significant progress advancing their agenda at the state level.

“In Barack Obama, we have a president who is more opposed to gun ownership than any in our history and who still believes he’ll prevail,” said conservative activist David Keene, the NRA’s incoming president. “Make no mistake about it: Barack Obama, his minions in the Justice Department, his allies in the Congress, and his friends in the media would take our guns if they could and they will if they can.”

The NRA’s renewed anti-Obama focus resonates because many conservatives aren’t enamored with anyone running.

“It’s a potent message,” said Frank Tenerovich, a 71-year-old retiree who lives in the Pittsburgh suburbs. “He’s anti-gun enough that he could take us down the tube. He’s anti a lot of things that I’m for, but that’s the one that scares me the most.”

The NRA has nearly 4 million members, and a large opening exists for the candidate who can win over someone like Tenerovich. He lamented the weakness of all the Republican candidates as he roamed with his grandson around the cavernous convention center exhibit hall to check out the booths of gun makers.

Obama resisted calls for stricter gun laws after the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) in January, ignoring a push from his left to broach the issue in his Tucson memorial speech or during the State of the Union. More than two months after the shooting, he wrote an op-ed calling for a “new discussion” about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals (http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html).

White House officials (especially veterans of the Clinton administration) remember the lessons of 1994, when Democrats lost the House after pushing an assault weapons ban, and 2000, when Al Gore narrowly lost swing states with high rates of gun ownership.

A fear of the wrath of gun activists explains Obama’s effort to blur his differences with John McCain on the issue in 2008, why he signed bills in 2009 that allowed visitors to carry guns into national parks and on board Amtrak trains and why he bent over backward in his March opinion piece to stress that he believes the Second Amendment “guarantees an individual right to bear arms.”

NRA leaders tell gun owners to pay attention to the president’s deeds, not his rhetoric. He may not be overtly hostile, they acknowledge when pressed, but he’s definitely anti-gun. They point to his record in the Illinois state senate, where he backed bans on handguns and semi-automatic weapons. They criticize the two justices he appointed to the Supreme Court: Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

Keene accused the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) of harassing gun dealers and suggested that Obama supports a coming United Nations treaty that would “weaken or gut” gun rights.

Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s longtime CEO, fussed about a botched ATF sting operation that allowed American guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, an episode he used Saturday to call for the resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder.

Speakers referred to those “who he’s surrounded himself with,” including conservative bogeywomen Hillary Clinton and Janet Napolitano.

NRA executives have no plans to back a candidate before the nominee is determined. They see a competitive GOP nomination process as beneficial to the extent that it results in helpful one-upmanship, with candidates trying to outdo each other’s on-the-record promises.

“One of the great things that’s going to happen in this process is that candidates are going to sort themselves out,” said Glen Caroline, director of the grassroots division in the NRA’s political arm. “Many gun owners are going to have preferences throughout the way and are going to be working and volunteering for and supporting different candidates, which is fine because the larger [the] presence we as a community have in any campaign, we can raise issues of awareness on the Second Amendment, we can get commitments from candidates, all with the understanding that it’s healthy to go through a nominating process.”

Caroline made the comments during a two-hour seminar for 60 activists Saturday afternoon. The group swapped war stories and traded lessons learned from the last campaign about mobilizing volunteers to turn out gun owners in swing states like New Hampshire.

The NRA saw huge legislative gains in those 2010 midterms. They picked up an additional 26 allies in the House and seven in the Senate.

This includes Democrats: In his speech at the convention here, for example, West Virginia freshman Sen. Joe Manchin touted his opposition to Obama’s “anti-gun” nominee to lead the ATF.

With a Republican House and essentially a pro-gun working majority in the Senate, Obama couldn’t pursue legislative gun control even if he tried.

Activists, though, legitimately see gains over the last decade as fragile.

Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, noted that the Supreme Court decided the landmark District of Columbia vs. Heller case by a vote of 5 to 4.

“What if he appoints just one more anti-gun justice to the U.S. Supreme Court and we go from one-vote victories to one-vote defeats for generations to come?” he asked thousands of receptive gun owners. “My friends, praying for the health of five Supreme Court justices is not a strategy you want to stake your freedom on.”

Cox said there’s no budget for 2012 political spending yet, and that it will depend on how much they can raise from members. He pointed to the 2000 election as a point of comparison - he said the NRA spent about $40 million.

Many Republicans were lukewarm about John McCain’s nomination in 2008. The Arizona senator championed anti-gun causes during his maverick phase, and the NRA gave him a lifetime C+ rating in 2004.

This year, almost all the serious top-tier candidates have solid ratings from the group. Cox said it’s easier to look at the records of elected officials than those without experience in public office. He had kind words about the governorships of Indiana’s Mitch Daniels, Arkansas’ Mike Huckabee and Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty.

One possible exception is Mitt Romney, who signaled support for the assault rifle ban and the Brady gun control measure during his 1994 run for Senate.

Romney recorded a video greeting that played at an event Friday. Unlike that of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who also sent a recorded video message, his two-minute spiel was not interrupted by applause or cheers.

James Wallace, the executive director of the Gun Owner’s Action League in Massachusetts, complains about Romney’s actions during his time as governor. In 2003, for example, he raided the Inland Fish and Game Fund to balance the budget.

During an interview, Wallace wouldn’t rule out backing Romney later in the cycle, but he said he’s looking for “somebody new and fresh” who “means what they say.”

“Gun owners have a long memory,” he said. “Our people are just frustrated that there’s not someone out there solid, consistently giving the message we want to hear.”

Of those who traveled to Pittsburgh this weekend, Huckabee received the most positive response. He described himself as a proud gun-clinger, attacking Obama’s statement at a campaign fundraiser three years ago that people cling to guns and religion because they’re bitter. But Huckabee running remains an open question, and it might be too late for him to put together a winning team.

Sarah Palin was the star of last year’s annual meeting in Charlotte, where she talked about her life membership in the NRA and once having a baby shower at a gun range. This year, the former Alaska governor was nowhere to be found. She wasn’t mentioned in speeches and didn’t even send a video greeting, as many less-significant political figures did. Many gun owners still like her, but most have written her off and few think she could win.

In his speech at the meeting, Newt Gingrich suggested he’d sign an executive order on his first day as president to change the way the Justice Department prosecutes gun crimes and that he would instruct the State Department not to give in on gun issues at the United Nations or abroad.

“They’re now developing a stealth strategy in which they combine anti-gun judges with anti-gun treaties,” he warned of the Obama administration. “They will then try to strip us of our rights by judicial fiat.”

Many activists have decided to take a wait-and-see approach. In interviews, several said that they’ll be leery of candidates who simply make bombastic promises.

“I can’t even pick a candidate that I think is viable yet,” said Sean Maloney, an election volunteer coordinator for the NRA in Ohio and a practicing criminal defense attorney. “Everybody’s going to be ‘pro-gun.’ Everyone wants to court the vote. … So you’ve got to watch out for that.”

10 Ways That the Birthers Are an Object Lesson in White Privilege

AlterNet.org

NEWS & POLITICS
In an era of racism without racists, the Tea Party GOP Birther brigands provide one more lesson in the permanence of the social evil known as White privilege.

May you live in interesting times. What a timeless and wonderful curse that so perfectly describes politics in the Age of Obama.

With the election of America's first black president we collectively witnessed the ascendancy of a person whose life story embodies the American dream. Obama was not alone in the grand play that is American life. There were other players who competed for the spotlight.

During this same moment America witnessed the rise of Sarah Palin to fame and glory, a woman who rides White populism and racial resentment in much the same way that a witch rides a broom. As a second addition to the Tea Party GOP's Rogues Gallery there is a carnival barker named Donald Trump, a man who once lurked stage left but is now the GOP front runner as he perfectly embodies PT Barnum's famous observation that "there is a sucker born every minute," while shilling for the worst and most ugly nativist and xenophobic impulses of the White Conservative Soul.

Ultimately, the election of Barack Obama has provided a series of object lessons in the durability of the colorline in American life. Most pointedly, Obama's tenure has provided an opportunity for the worst aspects of White privilege to rear their ugly head. In doing so, the continuing significance of Whiteness is made ever more clear in a moment when the old bugaboo of White racism was thought to have been slain on November 4, 2008.

To point: Imagine if Sarah Palin, a person who wallows in mediocrity and wears failure as a virtue, were any race other than White. Would a black (or Latino or Asian or Hispanic) woman with Palin's credentials have gotten a tenth as far? Let's entertain another counter-factual: If the Tea Party and their supporters were a group of black or brown folk, who showed up with guns at events attended by the President, threatening nullification and secession, and engaging in treasonous talk, how many seconds would pass before they were locked up and taken out by the F.B.I. as threats to the security of the State? If the Tea Party were black they would have been disappeared to Gitmo or some other secret site faster than you can say Fox News.

Earlier this week President Obama tried to be the adult in the room by surrendering his birth certificate in an effort to satisfy the Birthers and their cabal leaders Donald Trump and Pat Buchanan. Of course, his generous act does nothing to satisfy the Birther beast for it is insatiable in its madness. Nevertheless, a lesson can still be salvaged by exploring the rank bigotry which drives the Birther movement. In an era of racism without racists, the Tea Party GOP Birther brigands provide one more lesson in the permanence of the social evil known as White privilege.

Scholars and activists have described Whiteness as a type of property, unearned privilege, normality, and invisibility. Donald Trump and the Birthers exhibit a surplus of all of these traits...and more.

Ten Ways That the Birthers Are an Object Lesson in White Privilege

1. Just as Pat Buchanan did with Justice Sotomayor, the Birthers have sullied President Obama as being an unqualified, "affirmative action" candidate. His academic and professional accomplishments are irrelevant. The fact that he won an open and honest election are unimportant. We should know at this point that the life successes of people of color (and to a lesser degree some women) are always questionable and suspect when viewed through the gaze of Whiteness (and sexism). White men are never burdened with the question or doubt of being qualified for any job, at any time, or any place. Their greatness and ability is a fact not a question, never is it to be interrogated. This self-delusion exists despite the fact that white men have historically been the greatest beneficiaries of unearned privilege in the history of the United States. Their mediocrity has been rewarded at every turn.

2. Naturally, the President should be White. Of course, the leaders of trade and industry should be White. The natural order of things equates being White and male with having natural authority and ability--a set of traits which exist without question or doubt regardless of competence or ability. Whiteness deems the inverse for people of color. As President Obama has learned, by mere fact of his birth, and coincidence of the color of his skin, his legitimacy will always be in doubt.

3. Whiteness equals authority. Thus, any White person, at any time, can question the accomplishments of a person of color. The most mediocre of White people, the sum total of whose life has amounted to 1/100th of President Obama's successes (or that of other people of color) can feel legitimate in questioning how the latter came to find their "unnatural" position in the social hierarchy. Whiteness is an advantage in the marathon of life. Through this unearned head-start a psychic wage is paid, one that allows any White person, anywhere, to question how a black or brown person came to be ahead in life for such a thing can never happen in a "just" world. Whiteness allows white folks to not feel embarrassed or ashamed in asking such impolitic and rude questions.

4. Whiteness is a get-out-of-jail-free card. Whiteness is also the freedom to be utterly unreflective regarding the foolishness and madness of one's deeds and statements as long as the target of such madness is the Other. The Birthers, Buchanan, Trump, Palin, Bachmann, Limbaugh, Breibart and Beck engage in routine crazy talk. But Whiteness allows them to be taken seriously (at least at first) for White privilege allows the luxury of being utterly unreflective in most things.

5. White privilege is freedom from accountability. Donald Trump, Pat Buchanan, and the rank and file Birther brigands will not face any consequences for their ill deeds in slandering the President of the United States, or for openly fomenting sedition and rebellion against the government of the United States.

6. The Obama birth certificate debacle has exposed how to be truly American a person must be White. This is one of the central unspoken (and widely accepted) truths of race in America. For example, Sarah Palin channels The Blood Countess Erzebet Bathory and bathes in this bigotry with all of her "real America" talk. Although it is a lie in the face of history, because America is a mulatto culture where the majority of black folks (and of course our Native American brothers and sisters) were in the U.S. many decades (if not at least a century) before the great unwashed masses of white ethnics arrived here, Whiteness still imagines African Americans and other people of color as semi-permanent outsiders. In total, to be American is to be Black. The Birthers in their racial heliocentrism--where to be White is to be the center of the world--are repulsed by this fact.

7. White privilege is the ability to be "normal" and "invisible." Whiteness is never interrogated. Consequently, the White nationalism of the Tea Party GOP and its embrace of the Birthers has been long able to deflect the charge that they are racist or tinged by yearnings for a return to "the good old days" when "those people" knew their place. Because Whiteness is invisibility it works like chaff to obscure the obvious fact that much of the opposition to President Obama has always been about his race and not about policy. The signs at the Tea Parties are ignored or explained away, the racist emails laughed at and/or minimized as trite and silly, and bigoted White folks who display their bonafides whenever given the opportunity are labeled as outliers. There is slippage in naming the White racism of the Birthers as such because so many are invested in denying the semi-permanency of White supremacy in America, a sentiment that still lingers decades after the end of Jim and Jane Crow.

8. Whiteness is the default position for viewing the world. It is a cognitive map and means of processing reality. The election of Barack Obama upsets this world view. Many of those drunken on Whiteness and invested in the version of events that are offered by the White Racial Frame really do think they are operating as a "principled" opposition or that they are "colorblind," when in reality race, and fears of the racial Other, are driving their behavior. Here, Whiteness and white privilege work as pathologies that make a person immune to the real motivations driving their anti-Obama derangement syndrome.

9. Whiteness is the ability and power to reframe reality. Despite whatever documents or evidence that President Obama may offer to silence the growly, rabid hostility of the Birthers and the White Conservative Soul, the terrain for debate will be continually shifted. This is a function of ideology plus partisanship mixed together and combined in the Right-wing echo chamber. This reframing of reality is also born of the narcissism that is Whiteness, for the world is what they/he/she says it is.

10. White privilege is also surprising. Many black and brown folks (as well as others) have been saying from day one that the opposition to President Obama, and the silliness suggested by the conspiranoid Birthers in particular, have been motivated by racism. Those voices were often silenced and attacked as being too sensitive and wedded to some outmoded notion of political correctness. The pundit classes have finally seen the obvious: race is the driving force behind Trump and the Tea Party GOP's obsession with Obama's birth certificate. When those not White said as much they were dismissed. Lesson for us all: Despite our protests and the evidence that black and brown folks may bring to the table, racism does not exist until good White folks say that it does.

Made In America; Real Monsters-- Corporate Personhood: inhuman THINGS that see humans as inconveniences to be gotten out of the way.




May 1, 2011 at 10:47:00

Made In America; Real Monsters-- Corporate Personhood

By Rob Kall (about the author)

Corporations didn't start in America. The West Indies Trading Company was engaging in shock doctrine tactics-- undercutting local workers and industries-- over 200 years ago.

But the USA has created the most destructive, horrific, human life and planet threatening monsters ever. These are very similar to the soulless monsters that are portrayed in the TERMINATOR movie series-- inhuman THINGS that see humans as inconveniences to be gotten out of the way.

flickr image by thekirbster

Corporations have become monsters for a number of reasons, but the biggest one is that the Supreme court, through the actions of a corrupt former railroad CEO (Railroad company heads were the Banksters of the late 19th century US) that led to corporations being given the rights of corporate personhood.

Thom Hartmann wrote the definitive book on this, Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance.
While he was working on the book, Thom sent me a draft, for feedback. That's when it hit me. For over 100 years, science fiction writers have predicted a time when humans and the earth would be attacked by monsters, by aliens, by "Terminators" which attempt to wipe out humans and terraform the earth for their alien needs. Corporations exercising their corporate personhood rights are those monsters.

Save Humanity Kill Corporate Personhood
The way to save the planet and rescue humanity from what could really be extinction we need to kill corporate personhood-- erase it from the books, cancel the crooked supreme court "decision" that Thom Hartmann has documented was dishonestly written into the books.

It could be as simple as a Supreme Court majority invalidating the alleged decision, made in the Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific Railroad case.

When Chief Justice Roberts and his four corporatist cohorts overturned 100 years of election law precedents, they set a precedent that should make it easier for a supreme court with five Democrat appointed judges to make a clear statement that overturns Citizens United AND establishes a clear decision against corporate personhood.

One person-- that's what's protecting the worst monster on the planet-- one ravaging industries and millions of jobs in the US, cultures and communities.

Barbara Ehrenreich writes in American Prospect about Walmart's use of corporate personhood as a defense against a Supreme Court case, using descriptions similar to the ones I've used for "monster" corporations.:

If Wal-Mart is a person, as the Supreme Court contends, it's a behemoth terrorizing the countryside. But when it comes to workers' rights, it remains curiously immune from lawsuits...
So if Wal-Mart is a life-form, it is an unclassifiable one, at least in ordinary terrestrial terms. It eats, devouring acre after acre and town after town. It grows without limit, sometimes assuming new names -- Walmex in Mexico, Asda in the U.K. -- to trick the unwary. Yet in its defense in the Dukes v. Wal-Mart suit, Wal-Mart claims to have no idea what it's doing. This could be a metaphor for capitalism or perhaps a sign that a successful alien invasion is in progress. The only thing that's for sure is, should the Supreme Court decide in favor of Wal-Mart, we'll have a lot more of these creatures running around: monstrously oversized "persons" who insist that they can't control their own actions.
Chris Hedges says, "The question is, how do we stop the powerful from doing as much damage as possible." Ending corporate personhood is one major way.

We need to end corporate personhood. It is at the root of the problems facing and threatening social justice, even democracy itself in the US and beyond. Invented in the US as a malignant interpretation of the 14th Amendment-- the one meant to give blacks equal rights-- corporate personhood is a blight upon the US and humanity.


Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, Host of the Rob Kall Bottom Up Radio Show (WNJC 1360 AM), President of Futurehealth, Inc, more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.