politics-usa « WordPress.com Tag Feed

700 Thrown in Jail as Protest Grows Against Tyranny of Wall Street and Banks

vicharak1 — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:07:54 +0000

This post is courtsey of http://www.Alternet.org

http://www.alternet.org/rss/1/674826/”they%27re_arresting_us_one_by_one”%3A_700_thrown_in_jail_as_wall_st._protest_grows_–_labor_declares_support?ak

AlterNet / By Sarah Jaffe

70 COMMENTS

“They’re Arresting Us One by One”: 700 Thrown in Jail as Wall St. Protest Grows — Labor Declares Support

It’s raining in Liberty Plaza Saturday afternoon as the shrunken crowds fall in around the Occupy Wall Street media center, which still isn’t allowed a tent. They’re keeping the laptops and livestream (which reports 13,000 viewers at one point, from around the world) under a large picnic umbrella and some tarps, and every now and then the call “mic check!” rings out and someone jumps atop a table to relay the latest from the protesters kettled on the Brooklyn Bridge, cuffed, and being loaded onto giant NYPD buses for dispersal to various locations.

The “People’s Mic” is one of the most striking features of the “Occupy Wall Street” community that has sprung up down in the heart of New York’s financial district. Because NYPD hasn’t allowed amplification, speakers confine themselves to short half-sentences, that are repeated back by the crowd. It makes every statement communal–in addition to wiggling your fingers downward if you disagree, or rolling your arms around if you want the person to hurry up and finish, you often simply stop repeating. There’s an engagement, a type of consent that it creates, which is demonstrated when Congressman Charles Rangel shows up just before the march to show his support–Rangel is greeted by the horde of reporters thrusting the microphones not allowed protesters in his face, but Rangel’s words don’t get repeated to the crowd–instead, the most striking feature of his attempt to speak is the crowd’s reaction to a heckler who got in Rangel’s face. The crowd immediately took up the chant “Sit down!” and then “This is a peaceful march!” echoing across the plaza.

There’s only one round of shout-backs necessary in the small crowd during Saturday afternoon, but later that night, at about 7:30 PM, the reports from the legal team are echoed back in waves. It’s almost soothing; combined with the professionalism from the legal team volunteer, who tells the crowd that they have names of 100 confirmed arrested and have dispatched lawyers to get them out, you almost forget that friends, colleagues are standing in the rain on the bridge.

(Photo by Michael Whitney)

AlterNet’s Kristen Gwynne is one of those stuck in the bridge when the police closed off both ends and came in with the plastic cuffs. ”They’re arresting us one by one. I just asked a cop and they said they’re going to arrest all of us. There are hundreds of people who dont have room to sit down. We’re just crammed in,” she reports by phone.

Later, she texts, “Now it’s pouring and we’re huddled five people to an umbrella. People just sang that [Rihanna] song “you can get under my umbrella.” Spirits are high and people are sharing what they have and coming together to protect each other.”

The relationship with the police stationed around the park has been remarkably good, but marches have been contested. The Saturday crowd proves that Friday’s attendance wasn’t just a fluke brought on by a rumor that Radiohead would play for the protesters, and thousands of people join the march–as we pass, the boy clinging to a drainpipe and counting protesters shouts out “1200 and counting!” When visiting UK journalist Laurie Penny and I turn back, we squeeze past easily as many people as were ahead of us. A couple of marchers have a giant balloon cluster floating above with a camera dangling from it, getting a bird’s-eye view of the crowds.

When the texts and Twitter reports start to flood in that arrests are happening on the bridge, that even a New York Times reporter is being held, we rejoin the now-smaller crowd in Liberty Plaza to find out if there’s any news. Reports are confused–some say that you can get off the bridge on the Brooklyn side, and indeed I receive a report from a colleague that he’s on the other side at Cadman Plaza. The jubilant tweets that the police were allowing marchers into the traffic lanes have turned to fear and anger at what many perceive as a trap. Surprisingly quickly, facilitators call “mic check!” and ask anyone who has a smartphone to go to the base of the bridge and record what they see–including clear instructions on a specific app that can be downloaded to stream video instantly to the Web.

From the park, we briefly return to the base of the bridge to see a mass of police officers blocking the entrance to the traffic lanes. The crowd gathered there is mostly pointing cameras and smartphones at the police, but with no one moving on or off the bridge, the scene is tense. Protesters call “Join us!” and “Police are the 99 percent!” at the officers, who stand impassive, making no moves to arrest anyone or to allow anyone, on foot or on vehicles, from either direction, past. In the rain, we return to Liberty Plaza and the media tent, hoping for better news updates, and check updates on our phones.

Even as the NYPD was corralling and cuffing protesters on the bridge, new support was rolling in for the occupiers. Leo Gerard of the United Steelworkers union, North America’s largest industrial union with 1.2 million active and retired members, made a resounding declaration of support:

“The United Steelworkers (USW) stands in solidarity with and strongly supports Occupy Wall Street. The brave men and women, many of them young people without jobs, who have been demonstrating around-the-clock for nearly two weeks in New York City are speaking out for the many in our world. We are fed up with the corporate greed, corruption and arrogance that have inflicted pain on far too many for far too long.”

Working America, the AFL-CIO’s community affiliate which organizes non-union workers, releases a statement as well, offering support and encouragement to the protesters. “It’s obvious what has motivated these protests, and it’s the same thing we hear at the doors we knock on every day,” the statement reads.

News also came in that the NYPD, which according to protesters has not allowed its officers to even accept donuts from protesters in the square, gratefully took$4.6 million from JP Morgan Chase, one of the Wall Street banks targeted by the protesters, in donation to its foundation.

New Yorker and Naked Capitalism blogger Yves Smith writes of the gift, “The Foundation has been in existence for 40 years. If you assume that the $100 million it has received over that time is likely to mean “not much over $100 million” this contribution could easily be 3-4% of the total the Foundation have everreceived.”

The news coming in just as the reports were hitting that police had actually led protesters onto the car-traffic section of the bridge certainly sets the crowd humming (video below shows police marching ahead of the crowd onto the bridge):

Michael Whitney, who was marching with the crowd onto the bridge, tells me, “No one knew we were going over the bridge.” He says that the march stopped, then proceeded onto the traffic lane on the bridge, led by police. “We walked past dozens of police officers who said nothing to us–in the middle of the march, with 1200 people ahead of us. I thought out loud it felt like a trap and a bad idea.”

Whitney continues, “When it became clear police were blocking us from Brooklyn on the walkway and the roadway, we knew it was only a matter of time before arrests began. We started walking against the crowd back towards Manhattan. That’s when we saw a sergeant and two officers walking up the pedestrian walkway, and multiple police vans driving on the roadway. They were getting everybody off the bridge, including the hot dog vendor and an old couple on a bench.”

Smith comments, ”We simply don’t know whether the police would have behaved one iota differently in the absence of the JP Morgan donation. But it raises the troubling perspective that they might have.”

No one knows yet what the next few days will bring; Wednesday will see a march in solidarity with the occupiers which will include The United Federation of Teachers; 32BJ SEIU & 1199 SEIU; Workers United; Transport Workers Union Local 100, as well as the Working Families Party, Moveon.org, Make the Road New York, the Coalition for the Homeless, the Alliance for Quality Education, Community Voices Heard, United New York and Strong Economy For All.

Occupations have sprung up around the country, and with the growing media coverage, the word is spreading fast. With union support comes money and an infrastructure used to planning rallies, strikes and protest actions, and with the community groups come people who aren’t on social media but understand all too well the impact of bankers’ greed. The first edition of the “Occupied Wall Street Journal”, professionally printed as a broadsheet, was handed out along the parade route, and the occupiers issued their first official statement Saturday as well.

The statement reads, in part:

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.

They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

Hena Ashraf, who joined the protests this week, details in a blog post the process by which the official statement was composed and edited; her account highlights both the drawbacks and the strengths of the movement. She writes of calling the facilitators out for unacknowledged white privilege, the way the consensus-based decision-making process worked, and how the protesters learn from each other. “We walked away realizing what we had just done – spontaneously come together, demand change, and create it, in a movement that we are in solidarity with, but also feel a need for constructive criticism,” she writes.

The crowd at the end of the night is unbowed, the mood still jubilant, in a “the flag was still there” sort of way. The square is full again, full of wiggling fingers of assent, echoes of news, dotted with Guy Fawkes masks turned backwards and 1199 SEIU ponchos, brought down from the union. Kristen is released from jail late at night; other protesters are also freed the same evening. Jeff Rae, one of those arrested, tweets pictures from inside his cell before his release, and sayshe is charged with “failure to obey order, prohibited use of roadway, and blocking traffic.” Their resolve is only hardened by their time singing songs of support on the bridge, the honks of support from passing cars, the growing protests around the country, and the cheers back in Liberty Plaza.

*Photos, unless otherwise noted, are by Sarah Jaffe.

Islam has always been part of our America family - President Obama

vicharak1 — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 15:59:29 +0000

“Islam has always been part of our America family.”

President Barack Hussain Obama

Oh, really? I do not recollect presence of any Muslim in 1776 or even during Civil war. I wonder where does President Obama’s history of USA starts?

If Islam is part of the USA family, then this surely is going to be a dysfunctional family at best.

The President Surrenders- PAUL KRUGMAN

vicharak1 — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 04:22:04 +0000

Click below to read the article from New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html?_r=1&src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB

Excerpts:

“And then there are the reported terms of the deal, which amount to an abject surrender on the part of the president. First, there will be big spending cuts, with no increase in revenue. Then a panel will make recommendations for further deficit reduction — and if these recommendations aren’t accepted, there will be more spending cuts.”

“In fact, Republicans will surely be emboldened by the way Mr. Obama keeps folding in the face of their threats. He surrendered last December, extending all the Bush tax cuts; he surrendered in the spring when they threatened to shut down the government; and he has now surrendered on a grand scale to raw extortion over the debt ceiling. Maybe it’s just me, but I see a pattern here.”

“In the long run, however, Democrats won’t be the only losers. What Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever party is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation’s economic security, gets to dictate policy? And the answer is, maybe it can’t.”

News Ltd. - emphasis on LIMITED

garry — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 01:23:54 +0000

‘What goes around, comes around’ and the contemptuous attitude of the Murdoch empire, at last being partially exposed, is now being focussed back upon it and threatens to tear it down.

Largely thanks to The Guardian, Rupert ‘Charles Foster Kane’ Murdoch might at last get his comeuppance. What does he lie awake at night and think about these days? Is he surprised that such vitriol is coming his way? He shouldn’t be. After all, he knows what makes the world tick. That’s why he is so rich – certainly not because he is selflessly committed to news.

Why should he be surprised that politicians would turn on him after all the times they have fearfully and cynically sucked up to him? Why should a shark such as he be surprised that rival editors and journalists would savage him at the first taint of his blood in the water? Why should he be surprised that law enforcement might come crashing down on him when his hand has been discovered in Inspector Plod’s pocket? Why should he be surprised that those of us who have been offended by the naked right-wing propaganda spewed out by the likes of Fox might enjoy the chance to get up on our high horses and look down on him for a change?

He shouldn’t be surprised and he probably isn’t; but is he afraid? Possibly. And he should be.

I doubt that he cares much what Australians think, but he must be wondering whether the British punters will turn on him. For years, they have lustily consumed his grubby, gossipy ‘news’ publications with all those oh-so-naughty page 3 pictures and all that oh-so-convenient and reassuringly simplistic tosh about what a patriotic idea smashing Iraq would be.

And then there is the other side of the Atlantic… Yes, he might just be a little bit afraid.

That might be why he has ratcheted up the contempt and is shrugging innocently about being let down by ‘some trusted people’.

OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT BARACK H. OBAMA REGARDING HIS INABILITY TO "GUARANTEE" 3 AUGUST 2011 SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS

J. E. Clark — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 23:32:29 +0000

The Honorable Barack H. Obama
President of the United States
White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

RE: SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS

Let me make myself perfectly clear.

I am a 57-year-old disabled person who worked for 20 years paying into Social Security and am duly entitled to the disability benefits which I receive. I don’t have retirement. I don’t have a savings account. I am one of millions of people who have paid into the system and depend on the money I get every month in order to live, pay rent, buy food and medicine. I live below the poverty line and struggle every day to survive.

If my rent does not get paid by the 5th of the month, I get taken to court and put out on the street. I have been out on the street before and I would not survive for long with my current disabilities and medical conditions.

And you “cannot guarantee” that MY Social Security – money that belongs to ME, that was taken out of MY paychecks for 20 years – will be available on 3 August 2011. What kind of a monster are you???

It is one thing for you to be playing brinksmanship with Congress. It is another thing entirely when you make not even thinly veiled threats to the most vulnerable people in this country in order to apply pressure on Congress to knuckle under to what you are demanding.

What you said is abusive and threatening. I don’t know about anybody else, but I do not take kindly to being threatened. Nor do I take kindly to being used as a hostage in order to blackmail someone else, which is exactly what you did. Your words and your behaviour is despicable, unconscionable, and highly disrespectful of your constituency who depend on Social Security, as well as highly unworthy conduct for anyone occupying the Office of President of the United States.

No, Mr. President, I WILL NOT go to my Congressman and Senators and encourage them to raise the debt ceiling which you are demanding. I will go to them and tell them that I DO NOT approve of raising the debt ceiling for this country. I will not be part of the madding rush to destruction in our continuing unsound fiscal policies. I will not be blackmailed in that way and I will not allow you to blackmail them that way through me.

It is you who I hold accountable for what happens in this budget crisis. You are the one who is refusing to accept any stop-gap measures, so the crisis is one of your own making. Stop the blackmail and brinksmanship. The people whom you govern will not allow your high-handed tactics to go unchallenged or unanswered.

Sincerely,

Julia E, Clark

Defend Muslims, Defend America- NY Times

vicharak1 — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:50:45 +0000

In the following article, the author holds out the spectre of Muslims not cooperating with the national security agencies, if they felt discriminated against. He did not find any need to advise Muslims to introspect for reasons that have led many Americans to be suspicious of their motives.

Being an Assistant Professor of law he has tried to make a case for Sharia law, etc., but those who have suffered at the hands of Muslims across the globe, very well know that once given a foothold, they would take over the whole country and ruin it with their backward looking, savage, undemocratic mindset. We see what Afghanistan is, what Saudi Arabia is, what Iran is and what Pakistan is going to be.

It is interesting to note that author has used the term Muslim-American twice, instead of using American-Muslim. This reveals the Islamic thinking where the loyalty is not to the nation but to the religion. The very concept of Darul Islam (or Dar al-Islam) and Dar al-Harb, i.e., “Land of Islam” and “House of war” (Land to be conquered for Islam) is at the root of this thinking and reason for worldwide misery caused by its followers.

I am not a Republican and am opposed to many of their policies, but I think they are right when it comes to the caution against creeping in of the Sharia law. Those Americans who mindlessly blabber about freedom of expression and freedom of religion, etc. are naive and do not understand that those principles apply only when everyone respects them. By and large, Muslims do not believe in either of those principles; look around the world where they are in power. They use it as a tool to come to the power. Once they have the reigns in their hand, rest of us, Hindus, Christians, Jews, etc. are going to be Dhimis, second class citizens living at their mercy. Democrats and media outlets like New York Times should smell the coffee and do a service to America by not supporting encroachment by Islam before it is too late.

Gaurang G. Vaishnav

Blog Owner

======================================================================

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR, New York Times

By AZIZ HUQ

Published: June 19, 2011

WITH an eye toward the 2012 elections, legislators in six states have been debating laws explicitly prohibiting courts from considering or using Sharia law, with 14 more looking at wider bans on “foreign law.” They’re taking a clear cue from Oklahoma’s wildly popular Sharia ban, which voters approved as a state constitutional amendment last year by more than 70 percent.

Times Topics: Muslim-Americans | Shariah (Islamic Law)

Such laws are discriminatory and pointless. Civil liberties groups are fighting them in court and calling on state legislators to abandon such bills. But there is an additional reason everyone, including would-be proponents of the laws and the federal government, should oppose them: they pose a significant threat to national security.

To begin with, the bans’ justifications are thin. Despite the worries voiced by candidates in the recent Republican candidates’ debate in New Hampshire, no state, county or municipality is about to realign its laws with religious doctrine, Islamic or otherwise. Nor does any state or federal court today in Oklahoma, or anywhere else, need to enforce a foreign rule repugnant to public policy. Under the legal system’s well-established “choice of law” doctrines, the courts are already unlikely to help out someone who claims their religion allows, say, the subordination or mistreatment of women.

Instead, the bans would deprive Muslims of equal access to the law. A butcher would no longer be able to enforce his contract for halal meat — contracts that, like deals for kosher or other faith-sanctioned foods, are regularly enforced around the country. Nor could a Muslim banker seek damages for violations of a financial instrument certified as “Sharia compliant” since it pays no interest.

Moreover, these bans increase bias among the public by endorsing the idea that Muslims are second-class citizens. They encourage and accelerate both the acceptability of negative views of Muslims and the expression of those negative views by the public and government agencies like the police.

Such indignities arise amid a pattern of growing animus toward American Muslims. Reports of employment discrimination against Muslims to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which declined after a post-9/11 peak, have recently surged. Gallup, Pew and ABC polls confirm a new spike in anti-Muslim views. Most troubling, tallies of hate crimes collected by nongovernmental organizations show the same trend.

In this context, bans like the one in Oklahoma will serve to chill cooperation by the Muslim-American community with counterterrorism efforts. This makes sense: in such an environment, it would be fair for Muslims to pause before, say, passing on a lead to the police, worrying about whether the police would then look at them with suspicion as well.

But the likelihood of such a chill is also supported by four large, random-sample surveys that I conducted with two colleagues, Tom Tyler and Stephen Schulhofer. Our data, collected from Muslims and non-Muslims in New York and London, suggest that the experience and perception of private discrimination have a significant negative effect on cooperation.

This not only affects everyday public safety, but also the interaction necessary to gather information about self-radicalization and domestic efforts to recruit terrorists. After all, it’s simply impossible for the government to gather all that information. For that it must rely on the public, both as a filter and as an aid in interpreting it. If the government lacks strong ties to the Muslim-American community, that kind of filter falls apart.

To prevent the erosion of such support, the Justice Department should better publicize its support for a pending challenge to the Oklahoma amendment. It should also announce that it will challenge similar measures as violations of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion. Doing so would not only protect the rights of Muslim-Americans, but also send a signal that they can rely on the federal government’s support.

To be sure, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has taken steps against anti-Muslim bias, for example by supporting a California schoolteacher’s suit challenging her dismissal for taking time off to make a pilgrimage to Mecca. But these steps are inadequate compared to the scope of public and private discrimination facing Muslim-Americans.

America has been here before. In 1952, Attorney General James P. McGranery filed a legal brief for the plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education, in part, he said, out of national security concerns. “Racial discrimination furnishes grist for Communist propaganda mills,” he said, and “raises doubts even among friendly nations as to the intensity of our devotion to the democratic faith.”

McGranery’s insight remains true today. The federal government needs to do more to defend equal access to the law regardless of faith. To do so is not simply to uphold our core values — it is also to work to improve our nation’s security.

Aziz Huq is an assistant professor of law at the University of Chicago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/opinion/20huq.html

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on June 20, 2011, on page A27 of the New York edition with the headline: Defend Muslims, Defend America.

Call Off the Global Drug War- Jimmy Carter

vicharak1 — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 17:37:36 +0000

New York Times

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

By JIMMY CARTER

Published: June 16, 2011

Atlanta

IN an extraordinary new initiative announced earlier this month, the Global Commission on Drug Policy has made some courageous and profoundly important recommendations in a report on how to bring more effective control over the illicit drug trade. The commission includes the former presidents or prime ministers of five countries, a former secretary general of the United Nations, human rights leaders, and business and government leaders, including Richard Branson, George P. Shultz and Paul A. Volcker.

The report describes the total failure of the present global antidrug effort, and in particular America’s “war on drugs,” which was declared 40 years ago today. It notes that the global consumption of opiates has increased 34.5 percent, cocaine 27 percent and cannabis 8.5 percent from 1998 to 2008. Its primary recommendations are to substitute treatment for imprisonment for people who use drugs but do no harm to others, and to concentrate more coordinated international effort on combating violent criminal organizations rather than nonviolent, low-level offenders.

These recommendations are compatible with United States drug policy from three decades ago. In a message to Congress in 1977, I said the country should decriminalize the possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, with a full program of treatment for addicts. I also cautioned against filling our prisons with young people who were no threat to society, and summarized by saying: “Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself.”

These ideas were widely accepted at the time. But in the 1980s President Ronald Reagan and Congress began to shift from balanced drug policies, including the treatment and rehabilitation of addicts, toward futile efforts to control drug imports from foreign countries.

This approach entailed an enormous expenditure of resources and the dependence on police and military forces to reduce the foreign cultivation of marijuana, coca and opium poppy and the production of cocaine and heroin. One result has been a terrible escalation in drug-related violence, corruption and gross violations of human rights in a growing number of Latin American countries.

The commission’s facts and arguments are persuasive. It recommends that governments be encouraged to experiment “with models of legal regulation of drugs … that are designed to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens.” For effective examples, they can look to policies that have shown promising results in Europe, Australia and other places.

But they probably won’t turn to the United States for advice. Drug policies here are more punitive and counterproductive than in other democracies, and have brought about anexplosion in prison populations. At the end of 1980, just before I left office, 500,000 people were incarcerated in America; at the end of 2009 the number was nearly 2.3 million. There are 743 people in prison for every 100,000 Americans, a higher portion than in any other country and seven times as great as in Europe. Some 7.2 million people are either in prison or on probation or parole — more than 3 percent of all American adults!

Some of this increase has been caused by mandatory minimum sentencing and “three strikes you’re out” laws. But about three-quarters of new admissions to state prisons are for nonviolent crimes. And the single greatest cause of prison population growth has been the war on drugs, with the number of people incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses increasing more than twelvefold since 1980.

Not only has this excessive punishment destroyed the lives of millions of young people and their families (disproportionately minorities), but it is wreaking havoc on state and local budgets. Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pointed out that, in 1980, 10 percent of his state’s budget went to higher education and 3 percent to prisons; in 2010, almost 11 percent went to prisons and only 7.5 percent to higher education.

Maybe the increased tax burden on wealthy citizens necessary to pay for the war on drugs will help to bring about a reform of America’s drug policies. At least the recommendations of the Global Commission will give some cover to political leaders who wish to do what is right.

A few years ago I worked side by side for four months with a group of prison inmates, who were learning the building trade, to renovate some public buildings in my hometown of Plains, Ga. They were intelligent and dedicated young men, each preparing for a productive life after the completion of his sentence. More than half of them were in prison for drug-related crimes, and would have been better off in college or trade school.

To help such men remain valuable members of society, and to make drug policies more humane and more effective, the American government should support and enact the reforms laid out by the Global Commission on Drug Policy.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, is the founder of the Carter Center and the winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on June 17, 2011, on page A35 of the New York edition with the headline: Call Off the Global Drug War.

our lives - loaded guns?

garry — Wed, 04 May 2011 01:12:54 +0000

There is something surreal about ‘news cycles’ and our appetite for celebrity. Life imitates art and the news of the world becomes a movie. After hearing about nothing but Wills and Kate for days and days, we now hear nothing other than the unfolding story of the killing of bin Laden.

Anyway, philosophical considerations of modern news media aside; reading about the life, career and death of the terrorist reminded me of Emily Dickinson’s poem. I don’t pretend to fully understand this poem, but something of the power of its imagery has always haunted me…

My Life had stood – a Loaded Gun -
In Corners – till a Day
The Owner passed – identified -
And carried Me away -

And now We roam in Sovereign Woods -
And now We hunt the Doe -
And every time I speak for Him -
The Mountains straight reply -

And do I smile, such cordial light
Upon the Valley glow -
It is as a Vesuvian face
Had let its pleasure through -

And when at Night – Our good Day done -
I guard My Master’s Head -
‘Tis better than the Eider-Duck’s
Deep Pillow – to have shared -

To foe of His – I’m deadly foe -
None stir the second time -
On whom I lay a Yellow Eye -
Or an emphatic Thumb -

Though I than He – may longer live
He longer must – than I -
For I have but the power to kill,
Without–the power to die–

An eye for an eye makes us all blind

garry — Tue, 03 May 2011 23:07:12 +0000

Geoffrey Robertson today said it for me. Bin Laden had to be brought to justice, not martyrdom. I am saddened at the orgy of self-congratulations amongst those who chosen assassination over law enforcement. Robertson’s reference to the Nuremberg trials is apt…

When the time came to consider the fate of men more steeped in wickedness than bin Laden – the Nazi leaders – the British government wanted them hanged within six hours of capture. The president Harry Truman demurred, citing the conclusion of Justice Robert Jackson that summary execution “would not sit easily on the American conscience or be remembered by our children with pride … the only course is to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused after a hearing as dispassionate as the times will permit and upon a record that will leave our reasons and motives clear”.

He insisted upon judgment at Nuremberg, which has confounded Holocaust-deniers ever since. Killing bin Laden instead of capturing him was a missed opportunity to prove this charismatic leader was a vicious criminal, who deserved to die in prison, not as a martyr to his inhuman cause.

Geoffrey Robertson, QC, is the author of Crimes Against Humanity (New Press).

How Our Laws Are Made: Charting the process - how a bill becomes a law

CIVICA : Centrist & Independent Voters In Coalition for America — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 08:44:21 +0000

The Schoolhouse Rock “I’m Just a Bill – How a Bill Becomes a Law” video has enjoyed a surge of renewed interest due to recent comments made by a prominent United States Republican Congressman. This Congressman’s statements revealed that he sorely needed to revisit what he should have learned long before in Social Studies class. While the Schoolhouse Rock video is a great introduction for kids to the process of lawmaking, it’s a little too simplistic for anyone really wanting to understand the twists and turns a bill takes on it’s way to becoming a law. We found an excellent chart diagramming a bill’s sometimes perilous journey to the land of law, shown below, which was created by Mike Wirth in collaboration with Dr. Suzanne Cooper-Guasco Ph.D. We hope you’ll find it both interesting and useful. Be sure to click on the chart for a larger view.

WSB-TV 2 ATLANTA: MOSQUE MAKEOVERS WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS

J. E. Clark — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 23:27:03 +0000

CREDITS: WSB-TV 2 Atlanta, Georgia

WSB – TV 2 ATLANTA: Mosque Makeovers With Your Tax Dollars

A friend on Facebook posted the link to the above video from WSB-TV Atlanta, Channel 2. It is well worth it to take the 3:06 to view it and listen to what Justin Farmer has to report.

Now, I’m a reasonable woman. I believe in preserving antiquities. I believe strongly in strengthening our international relationships with other countries wherever and whenever possible. I am all for humanitarian aid for those who need a helping hand, especially in times of disasters. But I do not believe in being played for a fool!

Can anyone in government from Capitol Hill to the White House explain to me, a US taxpayer, especially in our current economic conditions, why in the blue blazes we are funding renovations to the sewer system in Cairo in order to preserve a 13oo year old mosque??? Or any of these other types of projects being funded by US dollars given out by USAID?

To say this is an outrage is a gross understatement. People in this country are going hungry, losing their homes and businesses, living on the streets, going without many of the necessities of life, working two or three jobs in order to provide for themselves and their families. Some of them are dying because there is no one who can, or is, willing to help them. People who have worked their entire lives paying taxes and have finally reached retirement age have seen that retirement age raised to 67. The justification for this raise in age qualification was as a cost containment to compensate for the “baby boomers,” who ostensibly have such great numbers, the system is said not to be able to handle it. Those on Social Security have had no benefits increase in two years, in spite of the fact prices have been increasing astronomically in all fields, and there is no increase in benefits forecast for at least the next two years. People are going without essential medical care and essential drugs. The cost for health insurance has increased dramatically. Businesses and workers are expected to pay more and more for less and less. Whole regions and industries are teetering on the brink of economic collapse. Our aging infrastructure is failing at an alarming and accelerating rate.

And we are paying to renovate ancient buildings in other countries.

I would demand an answer to the question “Are we crazy?”, but the conclusion is apparent.

It is high time we tell Washington that enough is enough. Bring the dollars home!!!

What Nonie Darwish’s said in her interview is true: they are laughing all the way to the bank. She should know. Daughter of assassinated Lt. Gen. Mustafa Hafez, she was born in Cairo, grew up and was educated in Egypt, became a Christian as an adult and is a staunch supporter of Israel, whose very IDF assassinated her father. She is also the recipient of the Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute’s “Woman of Exceptional Courage” Award.

As someone who has lived in the international community all of my adult life, I can assure you that throwing money at countries to secure their “friendship” not only is not working, but is having just the opposite effect: they look at us with disdain and derision. And rightfully so. They understand it for what it is: the US going whoring for clients among the nations. These countries will take our money, as long as it is to be had, and, at best, will walk away from us when it is gone. Some have, will and are using it to build themselves into much more formidable enemies than they have been, right in front of our faces. Will we never learn?

In this country, we have a system that we can use to tell our elected officials and government agencies that we, the taxpayers and citizens, are not satisfied with their policies and performances, that we are mad as hell at what is being done. But we do not do it. It is high time we did! It is well past “high time!”

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) addressed this very issue of reviewing US foreign aid programs in his 9 February 2011 speech on the floor of Congress. Of the 192 or so countries in the world, we give foreign aid to over 150 of them and military aid to much of the remainder. The impact of this map tells the story better than words ever could.

CREDITS: http://poe.house.gov

Contacting our governmental leaders and agencies is not just a privilege we have as citizens, it is also our responsibility. Every time we do not fulfill this responsibility, we cheat ourselves of our rights and abandon our futures and those of our children to the will of those who will step up and exercise those rights. This should not be so. Many people say, “It doesn’t make any difference! They are going to do what they want to anyway!” Maybe, maybe not. If our governmental leaders understand that we will not vote them back in office and we will not leave them in peace in Washington to ride out their terms, they will respond. Maybe not the way we would like or think is right and just, but they will respond. Even if they will not, it is still our responsibility to take a stand. It makes a difference in who we are and become as people, to our character and integrity. It makes a difference in what our children learn and who they become. If we are active and involved, chances are better that they will be as well.

There are at least four places we need to contact on the issue of USAID funding which is wasteful and not in the country’s best interest: the White House, both US senators for our state, the US representative for our district, and USAID. While we can call or write, I recommend doing both. We need to make as much noise as possible. We need to be respectful in what we say, direct and to the point, and we need to demand a response. Then we need to follow up our initial inquiry and make sure they understand we are not going to go away and we are not going to let it go.

CONTACT INFORMATION

THE WHITE HOUSE: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact.

The White House Comment Line is: 202.456.1111.

When writing letters, the proper form for the addresses and salutations is as follows:

The Honorable Barack H. Obama
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

US SENATE:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

Find your state and select the senator you want to contact. That will bring you to their listing with a Web Form link. Click on that link and you will be able to send an email. If your subject category is not listed, use “Other.”

When writing letters, the proper form for the addresses and salutations is as follows:

The Honorable [Name]
United States Senate
[Address]

Dear Sen. [Name]:

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml.

Find your state and select the representative you want to contact. That will bring you to their page. Many of the pages require you to enter zipcode + 4 information in order to insure you are a constituent of that congressional district. If you do not have that information, you can find it at the US Postal Service: http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/welcome.jsp. When you reach the Web Form page, if your subject category is not listed, use “Other.”

When writing letters, the proper form for the addresses and salutations is as follows:

The Honorable [Name]
United States House of Representatives
[Address]

Dear Rep. [Name]:

Phone listings and snail mail addresses for constituency offices for US senators and US representatives can be obtained by calling the phone number listed in the federal government section of your telephone book or on their homepages.

USAID: http://www.usaid.gov/public_inquiries.html.

If your subject category is not listed, use “Other.” To contact a telephone information specialist, you can call 202.712.4810 and they will be able to direct you to the proper office. To contact the Bureau of Legislative and Public Affairs – Public Liaison Division, call 202.712.0825.

Rajiv Shah, Administrator

U.S. Agency for International Development
c/o Bureau for Legislative and Public Affairs
Public Liaison Division
Ronald Reagan Building
Washington, D.C. 20523-0016
Telephone: 202.712.0825

When writing letters, the proper form for the addresses and salutations is as follows:

Dear Mr. Shah:

I live in Maryland, as do many of my readers, so listed below for your reference are the online contact links for our US senators and US representatives. Please contact them regarding the issue of wasteful USAID funding as well as any other issues you might want to voice your concerns or opinions.

MARYLAND DELEGATION — US SENATE

Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD):
http://cardin.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD):
http://mikulski.senate.gov/contact/

MARYLAND DELEGATION — US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

District 1, Rep. Andrew P. Harris (R-MD):
https://harris.house.gov/contact-me/email-me

District 2, Rep. C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger, III (D-MD):
http://dutch.house.gov/email-dutch.shtml

District 3, Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD):
http://sarbanes.house.gov/federal.asp

District 4, Rep. Donna F. Edwards (D-MD):
http://donnaedwards.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=52&sectiontree=4,52

District 5, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD):
https://forms.house.gov/hoyer/webforms/zip_auth.shtm

District 6, Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-MD):
http://bartlett.house.gov/Email_Roscoe/

District 7, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD):
http://cummings.house.gov/contact/

District 8, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Jr. (D-MD):
http://vanhollen.house.gov/Contact/

»»»»»»»»»»««««««««««

— J. E. Clark | 8 March 2011

Follow CIVICA On Facebook: When we're not here we're there.

CIVICA : Centrist & Independent Voters In Coalition for America — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 23:11:25 +0000

Join other CIVS in conversation on our CIVICA page at Facebook!

Scott and Joe - A welcome change

joesamagond — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 04:23:56 +0000

Giving credit where it is due: There are two US Senators who have irked me a lot over the past year.

National security, public interest, Manning, Assange and Wikileaks

Charles — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 07:00:55 +0000

National security is usually an overriding reason given by governments to suppress information or persecute those who choose to release these information to the public. Yet, when it comes to defining national security, most officials would have a difficult time, trying to justify the need to classify these information as confidential.

For instance, this MSNBC report claims that the recent wikileaks cables endangered overseas American interests and security as the locations of factories, ports and fuel companies have been released and are now easy target by potential terrorists. This argument is fallacious for two main reasons. Firstly, various key U.S. facilities abroad are already searchable within the public domain. For instance, the locations of US military bases overseas such as Pine Gap in Australia or Diego Garcia controlled by Great Britain. Moreover, the release of the list of these facilities raises another important question on the need for U.S to use ‘apparently innocuous’ places for its covert operations. This can be glimpsed from the identified critical infrastructure which include a Danish insulin plant, an Australian anti-snake venom company and a DRC cobalt mine. The public ought to know why and what these facilities are used by the U.S.

Other released cables reveals information that have significant public interest. For instance, it was disclosed that terrorist groups have managed to attack nuclear weapons sites in Pakistan. According to a Washington expert, this is counterproductive for the West to keep quiet about its fears. In another cable, the American and British government secretly created a loophole allowing the former to store cluster munitions in the Diego Garcia military base even though the latter is a signatory to the munitions treaty. In both examples, it becomes clear that these undisclosed information has less to do with national security than a need to cover up issues of public interest or secret dealings amongst governments.

In light of these revelations, the people behind Wikileaks including the whistleblowers ought to be protected rather than persecuted. The intimidation against Bradley Manning who was alleged to have leaked the Iraq War Logs, Afghanistan War Logs, and US embassy cables; and Julian Assange, the editor-in-chief of Wikileaks are the two most prominent cases to date. Manning, a US army intelligence analyst faces court martial and a jail term of up to 52 years if convicted while Assange faces a possible extradition to the U.S for Espionage.

The claim that national security can be protected by suppressing information amongst member states needs to be challenged. Individuals such as Assange and Manning (if he is indeed the leaker) and organisations the likes of Wikileaks serve the essential role of ensuring that national security is prevented from becoming a convenient excuse into misleading the public to accept government propaganda.

American Stability At Risk Due to Frustration, Anger?

CIVICA : Centrist & Independent Voters In Coalition for America — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:19:57 +0000

Huffington: Public Anger Is Beyond Left or Right

(FROM CBS ) Author and Huffington Post co-founder Ariana Huffington said that the tremendous anger in the United States today is not a product of just the right or the left, and that neither political party stands to benefit from it.

Huffington, speaking in a panel of authors and journalists on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday, said people are sensing doom, and that this frustration can threaten American stability.

“When we have two-thirds of Americans right now who expect their children to be worse off than they are, when we have America ranked number ten in upward mobility – behind France and Scandinavia countries and Spain – when we have 25 percent of young people out of work and 27 million people unemployed or underemployed, we know there is something fundamentally wrong.” ^{READ MORE}

Restoring Civility and Reason in the Political Arena: a pipe dream or a movement in the making?

CIVICA : Centrist & Independent Voters In Coalition for America — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 23:47:31 +0000

Are voters finally fed up enough to change the current modus operandi in American politics?

“Can a centrist movement succeed?” asks one of our favorite conservative journalists, Kathleen Parker in a recent Washington Post opinion article. Parker is referring to the new political movement “No Labels”.

“Political outliers – not quite Republican, not quite Democrat – are forming new alliances in a communal search for “Home.” Exhausted by extremism and aching for real change, more and more Americans are moving away from demagoguery and toward pragmatism.

Soon they may have options. A new political group, “No Labels” ( www.nolabels.org ), is hoping to mobilize and support a centrist political movement. ^{READ MORE}

While we see “No Labels” as an opportunity to give centrists a voice, we see it, more importantly, as a movement that seeks to restore reason to prominence in American politics. Currently in America, reason and politics have seemingly undergone an irreconcilable parting of the ways. This fact is troubling to many voters all across the political spectrum. While the moderate voter may be representative of the voice in the middle crying out for reasonable compromise, any voter who engages in thinking which is independent of the polarizing rhetoric also longs for a return to a more reasonable form of discourse in the political arena. This need for a return to a reasonable, civil standard for interaction in politics is a concern that has been voiced by independent thinking voters irrespective of party affiliation. Given the currently growing dissatisfaction with the divisions caused by political extremism and corruptive demagoguery, an appeal for rhetorical moderation, such as that being made by “No Labels”, could very well could find a receptive audience.

All original content copyright 2010 by Civic Media Network. All rights reserved.

Matt Bai Discusses Independent Voters' Frustrations

CIVICA : Centrist & Independent Voters In Coalition for America — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 10:05:11 +0000

Matt Bai, writer of the Political Times column for The New York Times and frequent contributor to The Times Magazine, shares his insights on the frustrations voiced by Independent voters with C-Span. ^{Read more about Matt}

See Matt Bai’s Interview on C-Span

Voter Disgust Isn’t Only About Issues

By MATT BAI at The New York Times

KEANSBURG, N.J. — If you tune in to any of this week’s candidate debates around the country, or watch any of the ads that are beginning to dominate the airwaves, you will hear that next month’s midterm elections are about all the things you probably thought they were about: job losses and federal spending, the health care law and the Obama agenda.

And yet, if Democrats lose their grip on Congress in November, President Obama will become the third consecutive president to see his party tossed from power on his watch — a sequence that has never happened before in the country’s tumultuous political history. This suggests that however much the issues of the moment may seem to be defining these elections, there are some deeper forces at work, too.

A conversation among a group of independent voters in this working-class town may illuminate at least one such longer-term trend.

The fast growth in the number of independent voters — a broad category that includes those who choose not to register with a major party even though they tend to identify with one more than the other, as well as a lot who are skeptical of both — has been making American politics more volatile. According to a Pew Center poll a few weeks ago, the Republican advantage at the moment is mostly grounded in the party’s 13-point lead among independents, which is about the same margin by which those voters supported Democratic candidates in 2006 and Mr. Obama in 2008.

In other words, independent voters have tended to side with whichever party can legitimately claim not to be in charge at the moment, and ideology doesn’t have a whole lot to do with it.

This tends to make strategists in both parties insane, since they spend most of their time trying to draw out the contrasts between the two parties, and it seems to them that the least the voters could do is pick a side and stick with it. ^{READ MORE}

A version of this article appeared in print on October 7, 2010, on page A24 of the New York edition.

Blue Dogs Lick Their Wounds From Their Mid-Term Election Beating, Get Back On Their Feet for the New Congress: So which PACs are backing the Leaders of the Pack?

CIVICA : Centrist & Independent Voters In Coalition for America — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 04:00:19 +0000

The conservatives of the Democratic Party, the Blue Dogs, lost around 55% of their Congressional membership during the 2010 mid-term election whipping. They’ve now chosen their new lead dogs to replace the fallen.

Who’s Backing the New Top Blue Dogs’ Bark, Bite?

By Michael Beckel for OpenSecrets on November 22, 2010 11:54 AM
Conservative members of the House’s Blue Dog Coalition elected new leaders last Wednesday, after two of these Democrats lost their re-election bids and procedural rules prohibited a third from serving another term.

In their absence, the Blue Dogs have elevated Reps. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), John Barrow (D-Ga.) and Mike Ross (D-Ark.). Shuler will serve as the group’s co-chair for administration, Barrow as co-chair for policy and Ross as co-chair for communications.

Blue Dog Democrats basked in the limelight during the 111th Congress, as they objected to various elements of the legislative agenda promoted by congressional Democrats and President Barack Obama.

Many Blue Dogs voted against the cap-and-trade energy bill, health care reform, Wall Street reform and economic stimulus package. And with their objections often came campaign contributions from the health sector and health insurers as well as the financial sector, as OpenSecrets Blog has previously reported on numerous occasions.

More than half of the Blue Dog Coalition will not be returning to work on Capitol Hill in the 112th Congress next January. Co-chairs Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.), first elected in 2004, and Baron Hill (D-Ind.), first elected in 2006, both lost contentious re-election battles.

But for Shuler, Barrow and Ross, which donors and special interests have these men relied upon to fill their war chests?
^{Read More About the New Leaders Of the Blue Dog Pack}

What’s A Blue Dog Democrat? Click here to find out.

Horse Trading, Partisan Pissing Matches & GOP Foot Dragging: the new START Treaty provides an opportunity for political gamesmanship - but at what price?

CIVICA : Centrist & Independent Voters In Coalition for America — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 13:54:44 +0000

Is the “Party of NO” the “Party of NO Damn GOOD SENSE”?

17June2010 Senate Comm. on Armed Services Statement by ADM Michael G Mullen, USN on New SALT (on pp 12&13)

EXCERPT FROM: 17 June 2010 TRANSCRIPT “Hearing to Receive Testimony on the New START and Implications for National Security” US Senate Committee on Armed Services

CIVICA is scratching its collective head. We’re truly puzzled as to why the GOP is having doubts about the New START Treaty and why they think they need to study it more before voting on its approval. We’ve read the reasons they’ve stated for their position and we can’t really see the bogey man like they’d probably like us to. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., the GOP’s point-man for the issue, says one of the concerns is the need for big bucks to go toward the modernization of America’s nuclear infrastructure. In response, President Obama has made the commitment to invest $80 billion on modernization over the next decade, and, based on consultations with Sen. Kyl, the plan is to request an additional $4.1 billion for modernization over the next five years. Quite an investment in a Cold War era warfare option. Isn’t the US fighting terrorists these days, on the ground, in urban warfare settings and in the hills and valleys of places like Afghanistan? Then there is the argument that New START will gravely impair America’s nuclear capacity. We’re not sure that argument holds much water; we think that if America’s capacity to defend itself would be so impaired, then the Joint Chiefs of Staff wouldn’t have given START their support, since they are in the business of knowing how to defend America. Mercy forbid the politicians might take the advice of some of the best military minds in the world. What we don’t understand is the GOP’s apparent lack of a sense of urgency when it comes to working on ratification of the treaty since it will institute a new inspection and monitoring program that replaces the one that lapsed last year, when the initial START Treaty of 1991 expired. After a nearly one-year lapse, the new treaty would again put in place a system that allows for exchanging information and putting inspectors on the ground. It seems ironic, in light of the fact that the Republicans like to claim that they are the party of national security, that they are the ones who are keeping the US in the position where it can only guess as to what is going on with the Russian nuclear program. We can only hope that a sufficient number of Senators in the party will decide that the nation’s security interests must trump political maneuvering.

CIVICA recommends that Voters contact their US Senators as well as Senator Jon Kyl and Senate Republican leader Senator Mitch McConnell. Tell them that it is URGENT that the New START Treaty be ratified by the Senate before the end of 2010. Be sure to let your Senators know that you’ve also contacted Senators Kyl and McConnell.

Follow this link for a more thorough explanation of the details contained in The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START)

So who supports the New START Treaty?

To begin with, senior former Republican and Democratic national security officials have publicly endorsed the treaty. This group consists of names such as Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright, James Baker and Henry Kissinger; former secretaries of defense William Cohen and William Perry; former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind, former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga, and Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ^{Find out who else supports the new START treaty}

What are President Obama and others who support START saying about the importance of it’s timely ratification?

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., for years the leading GOP voice on arms control and a key New START supporter, chastised Republican leaders, saying they want to avoid compelling their members to take a stand on the issue.

“Every senator has an obligation in the national security interest to take a stand, to do his or her duty. Maybe people would prefer not to do his or her duty right now,” he said. “Sometimes when you prefer not to vote, you attempt to find reasons not to vote.”

Lugar said he fears that the treaty, which was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in September, could be doomed if the vote is left to the incoming Senate, as it would have to go through the legislative process all over again.

“Endless hearings, markup, back to trying to get some time on the floor,” Lugar said. “It will be some time before the treaty is ever heard from again.”

Stephen Flanagan, an expert on Russia and national security at the center-right Center for Strategic and International Studies, said there are two possible reasons for the GOP leadership’s stance: pure partisan politics, or a mix of muscle-flexing and policy negotiation.

He said he suspected that with a more powerful minority, Senate Republicans see themselves in a stronger position to set a price for their cooperation.

Alternately, Flanagan said, “There’s the completely cynical view — that this is a flat-out desire to deny him (Obama) one of his most important foreign policy achievements.”

If the Republicans go that route, however, they’d be “really playing with fire, because there’s the risk that in fact Russia becomes much less cooperative,” Flanagan warned. READ MORE

Obama: “GOP endangers US by delaying nuclear treaty”
Posted on Thu, Nov. 18, 2010 05:16 PM
By MARGARET TALEV, DAVID LIGHTMAN AND JONATHAN S. LANDAY
McClatchy Newspapers

President Barack Obama emphatically put his personal prestige behind the pending New START arms-control treaty with Russia, calling it a “national security imperative” that the Senate pass it by year’s end, as he huddled Thursday at the White House with a bipartisan cast of foreign-policy luminaries from previous administrations.

Obama, who will arrive Friday at a NATO summit in Portugal without the assurances he’d hoped to give Russia on the treaty, said it’s essential to restore U.S. inspections to track Russia’s nuclear weapons. He also said it’s “a cornerstone of our relations with Russia” and vital to their cooperation in pressuring Iran, among other things.

Obama insisted that if Republicans in the lame-duck Senate continue to block passage, they’ll endanger the nation. “The stakes for American national security are clear, and they are high,” the president said.

Even as Obama spoke, however, an effort to forge bipartisan agreement behind the treaty was foundering on Capitol Hill.

A meeting between Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., and key Republicans – including Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the primary GOP obstacle to treaty approval – got off to a bad start when Kerry arrived late, according to a congressional aide familiar with the discussions. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to make a statement.

The meeting focused on process rather than substance, with Republicans asking Democrats what the rush is, and Democrats reiterating that the treaty has had a bipartisan vetting for months and that waiting until the next Congress gets to work could trigger more months of delays.

The meeting ended with no resolution, although Kyl later said he intends to continue consulting with Kerry.

Senate Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said that “the White House is pushing hard, they really want this” but that ultimately “I don’t know if it will come up” for a vote in the lame duck session, or whether Republicans will force the treaty into next year.

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is urging fellow Republicans to support the treaty, and said Wednesday that he thinks the 67 senators needed to approve the treaty will vote for it in the current session because they know it’s necessary.

Kyl and other Republicans have said there may not be sufficient momentum to pass the treaty with lawmakers focused on the U.S. economy and as Republicans press for assurances on defense spending and projects.

Obama said Thursday that his administration is “prepared to go the extra mile” on such assurances, including supporting an additional $4.1 billion in nuclear-weapons modernization that Kyl wants.

“There is no higher national-security priority for the lame-duck session of Congress,” Obama said of the treaty. It “is not about politics, it’s about national security. This is not a matter that can be delayed.”

“I would not be emphasizing this and these folks would not have traveled all this way if we didn’t feel that this was absolutely important to get done now,” Obama said.

The meeting in the White House Roosevelt Room was designed to showcase bipartisan support for the treaty. It was convened by Vice President Joe Biden; Obama said he’s told Biden “to focus on this issue day and night until it gets done.”

The meeting included Lugar and former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga.; former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright, James Baker, and Henry Kissinger; former Defense Secretaries William Cohen and William Perry; former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft; and Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The accord, signed by Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in April, would limit each side to no more than 1,500 deployed nuclear warheads apiece within seven years, or about a 30 percent reduction.

It also would establish a new system for monitoring each other’s compliance with the reductions, allowing U.S. and Russian experts to resume the on-site inspections that have been suspended for nearly a year.

The nearly yearlong absence of U.S. inspectors from Russian nuclear bases and facilities makes it much harder to track advances in Russian warheads and missiles, raises the danger of misunderstandings and imposes higher financial costs on the Pentagon, current and former U.S. officials told McClatchy Newspapers.

“Inspections create transparency between the United States and Russia,” said a U.S. official who requested anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak on the sensitive issue. “When they (inspections) don’t occur, that creates concern. The shared goals of the two countries are to avoid misperceptions and wrong information.”

A former U.S. intelligence official who tracked Russian military issues said the new treaty’s monitoring system is more accurate than the one that ended with the December 2009 expiration of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. He, too, requested anonymity because he isn’t authorized to speak.

Unlike the past, U.S. inspectors would be able to track precise numbers of warheads, bombers and strategic missiles that Russia deploys, allowing the U.S. military to adjust its own deployments more accurately, he said.

Until then, the U.S. must rely on less accurate counting rules that assume Russia is deploying more warheads, missiles and bombers than it actually does, compelling the U.S. military to maximize its deployments, he said.

“Without on-site inspections, the numbers in our intelligence assessments are driven upwards, and so you have a ballooning to the worst case. We adjust our forces accordingly, and off we go to the races,” the former U.S. intelligence official said.

The result is that the U.S. is deploying more nuclear weapons and spending more money than necessary, he said. U.S. inspectors can gauge improvements in Russian weapons designs and make judgments about the readiness of Russia’s nuclear forces, the quality of the personnel and whether Russian nuclear bases are secure from terrorist attacks, he said.

“Good luck figuring this out by satellite,” he said. “It’s a great intelligence collection opportunity.“ ^{LINK to original article: “Obama: GOP endangers US by delaying nuclear treaty”}

Read more about Congressional horse trading and the new START treaty:

“How many Poles does it take to pass New START?”

Could NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg & MSNBC's Joe Scarborough Be Eyeing 2012 Indy Presidential Ticket?

CIVICA : Centrist & Independent Voters In Coalition for America — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:46:24 +0000

Michael Bloomberg & Joe Scarborough: The Independent Odd Couple

They’re the Odd Couple of Guys Outside the System.

The two are friends and, in both public and private, mutual admirers. They spent the day before the midterm elections complimenting each other at a Harvard symposium — Vanity Fair was there to document it all for a spring issue — bemoaning the same political rift they may try to exploit to win the White House.

Well-placed sources tell The Huffington Post that the mayor and the host have talked about running together, with Bloomberg in the top spot. In an interview, Scarborough, a former GOP congressman from Florida, issued a firm yet carefully-worded denial. “We haven’t discussed it directly,” he said, adding, “Have people discussed it in his sphere and in my sphere? I think so.”

Read more at HuffPo

CLICK HERE FOR CIVICA COMMENTS POLICY: READ BEFORE POSTING

Laura Bush's Black Panties & What's Wrong With Obama's Speeches: 5 former presidential speech writers weigh in on these topics & more on C-Span

CIVICA : Centrist & Independent Voters In Coalition for America — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:31:06 +0000

For those not familiar with C-Span Network’s television channels, we’d like to recommend that you check them out. C-Span offers programming that allows the viewer to form political opinions based on fact rather than spin. Recently, C-span aired the program “Presidential Speechwriters: Making History One Word at a Time” presented by The Smithsonian Associates. C-Span describes this program as; “Five former presidential speechwriters discussed the role of presidential speechwriters throughout history and their relationships with the presidents they served. Topics included their assessments of President Obama’s rhetoric.” The moderator was Ken Walsh and the panel consisted of:

• Ted Sorensen, adviser and primary speechwriter for President Kennedy

• Chris Matthews, speechwriter for President Carter

• Landon Parvin, speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush

• Michael Waldman, speechwriter for President Clinton

• Michael Gerson, speechwriter for President George W. Bush

We were delighted to listen to the profound insights as well as to the amusing anecdotal stories provided by this group of men who had a front row seats to the lives of six previous American presidents. It was a real treat to hear the words of recently departed Ted Sorensen in what may have been one of his last television appearances prior to his death on October 31, 2010. We were very interested in how these former presidential speechwriters assessed current President Barack Obama both as a communicator and as a giver of speeches. Below, we’ve taken the liberty to paraphrase some of what they had to say and have also provided some direct quotes from the panel discussion.

Chris Matthews, former speechwriter to Jimmy Carter, discussed the contrast between the image communicated by candidate Obama as compared to that communicated by now President Obama. He stated that a strength demonstrated by candidate Obama was his ability to convey his deep love for America and how his life was emblematic of the opportunity that America has to offer. He pointed to the statement made by Obama “In no other country in the world is my life possible.” as evidence that the presidential hopeful clearly knew what was unique about the potential America has to offer and communicated that knowledge in his speeches in a way that inspired all who heard his message. Matthews also noted, that in addition to speaking about potential, candidate Obama also was able to clearly convey to his listeners those things that hold Americans together- two things, according to Matthews, that President Obama unfortunately has not spoken as much of during his time in office. Matthews felt that President Obama has not explained well to the American people how such things as his economic plans are good for the country and why history shows that these plans work. He feels that the President’s failure to explain his plans clearly, as well as not making the case for why they are good for America, are why the plans were not received well and therefore have opened the President up to condemnation by his “infantile critics”. Matthews cites these failures as part of the reason the new health care program did not sell in spite of the fact that the program finally brought American health care up to the level of the rest of the modern world for the first time in history- something the American people should be proud of. Matthews goes on to say that President Obama is sometimes too intellectual in his speeches, that most people don’t want to think to the second or third step of reasoning and, as Lincoln did, presidents need to bring the people along each step of the way through constant teaching. Matthew finished by saying, “I don’t think he’s taught and he has to be interactive too. This teleprompter is not helping him; he’s talking to the people instead of with us. He has to explain, as a teacher, what he’s been doing. I think he should interact a bit more and he has to listen.”

The panel went on to say that the President has not used the opportunity of teachable moments such as the inaugural address and the his first speech to Congress. There was criticism of the President for not making a speech to the American people explaining the stimulus. Michael Waldman, speechwriter for President Clinton explained, “Presidents have to have a sense of theatricality and a boldness rhetorically, not just about explaining their policies, but being willing to stand up for the philosophy behind it. I think he can do that but I think the moment that people were really listening may have come and gone.”

Michael Gerson, speechwriter for George W. Bush, added, “I think Obama is an interesting example of how someone’s virtues and strengths can be transformed into something different that’s not very helpful. …now we’ve gone into a different time (where) those very virtues that Obama has don’t translate into this moment. He seems cerebral and professorial, where he transcends debates instead of engaging them effectively. There’s a contrast to both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, where both of them could empathize in public; where both of them could make emotive arguments and I think he’s being hurt by that contrast in some ways.” Gerson went on to say, regarding the President, “In fact I think he’s one of the worst democratic populists I can remember and this is a populist time in a lot of ways.”

Landon Parvin, speechwriter for three former presidents (President Ronald Reagan, President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush) observed, “I think that the President is in the kind of situation that President Bush was in at the depths of the Iraq war. I think people aren’t listening, they’ve tuned out, they’ve heard it all before. I don’t hear anything new; there’s a repetition to it. I think he’s at a low point rhetorically right now and needs some new blood and some new ideas.”

Ted Sorenson, chief speechwriter and advisor to President Kennedy, rounded out the discussion about President Obama as a communicator by saying, “He’s been, as Chris said, a little too professorial. As I tell my friend in the White House (referring to one of Obama’s current speechwriters), you’re not writing speeches to give to the MIT faculty or the New York Times Editorial Board; you’re talking to simple, normal, regular, ordinary Americans who don’t feel you care.”

Oh, and what about Laura Bush’s black panties? Well, that amusing story was told by Landon Parvin. Picture Laura Bush lying in bed reading the Washington Post. Now, because we think everybody should to take the time to watch to at least a little bit of the panel discussion, we’ll tell you that you can hear Parvin recount the tale at 107:20 on the video; we hope his story will inspire to listen to more of this informative and entertaining panel discussion.

CLICK HERE FOR CIVICA COMMENTS POLICY: READ BEFORE POSTING

All original content copyright 2010 by Civic Media Network. All rights reserved.

ATTENTION TEA PARTY: Campaigning is a Whole Lot Different Than Governing.

CIVICA : Centrist & Independent Voters In Coalition for America — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 06:08:02 +0000

Is Congress doomed to Gridlock thanks to hard-headed Tea Partiers?

Tea party seeks Capitol clout after election gains

From the Associated Press
Nov. 16, 2010 2:14 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — Tea party activists and other conservatives, eager to transform electoral gains into clout on Capitol Hill, are pressuring Republican leaders to take a hardline approach in the next Congress, shunning compromise for confrontation with Democrats.

The strategy is likely to bring gridlock on major issues — particularly tax cuts and spending — and make it more difficult for President Barack Obama and Congress to find common ground on virtually any measure. It’s also leaving key Republicans, in charge of the House and with larger numbers in the Senate, less room to maneuver as they seek to show they can make the big changes they’ve promised.

GOP leaders have bowed to the pressure already this week.

Article Continued HERE

CLICK HERE FOR CIVICA COMMENTS POLICY: READ BEFORE POSTING

Tea Party Republican Michele Bachmann (Minn.) is making her bid for the Republican Conference Chair, the number four spot in the House leadership

CIVICA : Centrist & Independent Voters In Coalition for America — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 10:05:59 +0000

Rep Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)

But what do they have to say about her back home in Minnesota?

Read on……

Editorial from the Star Tribune (Minneapolis-St Paul, MN)

Bachmann hasn’t earned GOP post
However, Paulsen and Kline merit prestigious assignments.

Last update: November 8, 2010 – 6:40 PM

It’s been 85 years since a Minnesota Republican served as the party’s U.S. House Conference Chair — an influential post sought by Minnesota’s Sixth District Rep. Michele Bachmann. Records list Sydney Anderson as the last Minnesotan in that post. He held it from 1923 to 1925. Records do not confirm that any Minnesotan has served in the equivalent position for Democrats.

The leadership posts awarded to Minnesota’s senior Republican congressional delegation will say much about the GOP’s priorities as it takes back control of the U.S. House.

If the party is serious about governing, it will reward two respected Minnesota representatives — Erik Paulsen and John Kline — with new positions on two powerful committees. Paulsen, just elected to his second term in the west-metro Third Congressional District, seeks a seat on the influential House Ways and Means Committee. Kline, who has represented the south-suburban Second District since 2002, is in line to chair the House Education and Labor Committee.

In contrast to those choices, putting the polarizing, style-over-substance Rep. Michele Bachmann in any kind of leadership position would send exactly the wrong message and would damage Republicans’ credibility. Bachmann, just elected to her third term in the state’s north-suburban Sixth District, is running for the GOP’s No. 4 leadership position in the U.S. House: the GOP Conference Chair.

Bachmann is a legislative lightweight whose priority has been Fox News appearances — not authoring substantive bills or helping her hard-pressed district. During her time in the Minnesota state Senate, she was known for her antigay histrionics — not any actual accomplishments. Bachmann is not qualified to hold the influential post that helped launch the careers of other GOP heavy-hitters, including former President Gerald Ford; former Vice President Dick Cheney, and Jack Kemp, Dick Armey and John Boehner. Indiana Rep. Mike Pence is the current House Conference Chair. Duties include crafting the party’s message, acting as its spokesperson and running party meetings.

Although this newspaper disagrees with Paulsen and Kline on a number of issues, both have won this page’s endorsement in past elections because they are serious, thoughtful lawmakers who have earned their constituents’ trust through hard work. Their congressional colleagues, as well as many industry groups, also hold them in high regard.

Paulsen had an impressive freshman term. His district is home to many medical device companies, and he smartly carved out a niche as an industry expert. He’s cochair of the Medical Technology Caucus. He helped cut a tax on the industry by half and mastered the eye-glazingly complex regulatory issues it faces. Paulsen has proven himself ready for the prestigious but detail-oriented position he seeks.

Kline also has deep expertise in education and labor issues. He has long given voice to teachers’ and parents’ concerns about No Child Left Behind, and he understands that changes are needed. Kline is a collegial colleague, and he’s demonstrated good sense when it comes to an extreme idea pushed by some newly elected representatives: abolishing the U.S. Department of Education. Kline told the Washington Post recently that it is “sort of a talking point. There will be those who campaigned on that language. I’m not sure they always know what it means.”

Bachmann has specialized in nothing but campaign flame-throwing and falsehoods, the most recent of which is the ridiculous claim that President Obama spent $200 million a day on his trip to India. Her 40-plus appearances on Fox News since the beginning of the year also raise a logistical question: How would she have time for additional House leadership responsibilities? Her time is spent caucusing with Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.

Bachmann’s own party leaders — including Pence, House RepublicanWhip Eric Cantor and likely Budget Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin — are endorsing her opponent for the Conference Chair position — Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. They know she’s not qualified. That Bachmann thinks she is raises further questions about her judgment.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE: the Star Tribune (Minneapolis-St Paul, MN)

politics-usa « WordPress.com Tag Feed

700 Thrown in Jail as Protest Grows Against Tyranny of Wall Street and Banks

“They’re Arresting Us One by One”: 700 Thrown in Jail as Wall St. Protest Grows — Labor Declares Support

Islam has always been part of our America family - President Obama

The President Surrenders- PAUL KRUGMAN

News Ltd. - emphasis on LIMITED

OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT BARACK H. OBAMA REGARDING HIS INABILITY TO "GUARANTEE" 3 AUGUST 2011 SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS

Defend Muslims, Defend America- NY Times

======================================================================

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR, New York Times

By AZIZ HUQ

Published: June 19, 2011

Related

Times Topics: Muslim-Americans | Shariah (Islamic Law)

Call Off the Global Drug War- Jimmy Carter

New York Times

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

By JIMMY CARTER

Published: June 16, 2011

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on June 17, 2011, on page A35 of the New York edition with the headline: Call Off the Global Drug War.

our lives - loaded guns?

An eye for an eye makes us all blind

How Our Laws Are Made: Charting the process - how a bill becomes a law

WSB-TV 2 ATLANTA: MOSQUE MAKEOVERS WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS

CONTACT INFORMATION

Follow CIVICA On Facebook: When we're not here we're there.

Join other CIVS in conversation on our CIVICA page at Facebook!

Scott and Joe - A welcome change

National security, public interest, Manning, Assange and Wikileaks

American Stability At Risk Due to Frustration, Anger?

Restoring Civility and Reason in the Political Arena: a pipe dream or a movement in the making?

Are voters finally fed up enough to change the current modus operandi in American politics?

Matt Bai Discusses Independent Voters' Frustrations

Blue Dogs Lick Their Wounds From Their Mid-Term Election Beating, Get Back On Their Feet for the New Congress: So which PACs are backing the Leaders of the Pack?

Who’s Backing the New Top Blue Dogs’ Bark, Bite?

Horse Trading, Partisan Pissing Matches & GOP Foot Dragging: the new START Treaty provides an opportunity for political gamesmanship - but at what price?

Is the “Party of NO” the “Party of NO Damn GOOD SENSE”?

So who supports the New START Treaty?

What are President Obama and others who support START saying about the importance of it’s timely ratification?

Could NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg & MSNBC's Joe Scarborough Be Eyeing 2012 Indy Presidential Ticket?

Laura Bush's Black Panties & What's Wrong With Obama's Speeches: 5 former presidential speech writers weigh in on these topics & more on C-Span

ATTENTION TEA PARTY: Campaigning is a Whole Lot Different Than Governing.

Is Congress doomed to Gridlock thanks to hard-headed Tea Partiers?

Tea party seeks Capitol clout after election gains

Tea Party Republican Michele Bachmann (Minn.) is making her bid for the Republican Conference Chair, the number four spot in the House leadership

But what do they have to say about her back home in Minnesota? Read on……

But what do they have to say about her back home in Minnesota?

Read on……