Occupy Movement must dump camps for mission and strategy

If you look at the latest stamina of President Obama’s rhetoric on issues you would have to agree that it is far more forceful than a year ago.  And it was just a little more than a year ago that the Occupy Movement started; Occupy Wall Street held its first demonstration on September 17, 2011.  At that time the Tea Party was going full blast and deciding much of what was going on in Congress. 

TPers still have their influence but it is waning, evidenced by recent GOP conciliations on the payroll tax cut.

Arlen Grossman, writing in OpEdNews, talks of how the President was willing to make all kinds of deals with the GOP on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the taxing of the rich back in early to mid-2011.  And then the Occupy Movement began to do their number in September and the American public suddenly realized there were several inequities in the system that needed to be fixed. 

It all centered around the 1% that controlled all the wealth, leaving the other 99% to fend for itself in an arena that was clearly weighted toward the 1%.

“Issues of class and economic fairness that had been swept under the rug for years suddenly became issues for discussion. Middle class Americans began to understand that corporations and the wealthy were paying a lower tax rate than they were,” says Grossman.  And Barack Obama became “bolder,” more resolute in where he stood on the issues he had had to appease Republicans on just a year ago.

Grossman adds: “I can't help but think that the Occupy movement has played a major role in reversing the focus of politics from last fall until now. If Occupy disappeared right now, they could get credit for accomplishing quite a bit in a short time.”

The New York Times says that although the Occupy camps are dismantling, it is “far from dissipating.”  They are only regrouping for the next thrust which will include larger marches and strikes coming up in the spring, designed to rebuild momentum, returning to the issues of inequality and corporate greed.  New York City is still the center of the movement but expansion nationwide, even worldwide, has proved the dedication of those involved.

William A. Galston, a senior fellow and an expert on political strategy at the Brookings Institution in Washington said, “They’ve gotten the people’s attention, and now they have to say something more specific.  Average Americans want solutions, not demonstrations, and their patience for the latter won’t last indefinitely.”  Demonstrators have been hearing this for months, but like any new movement, they had to wear through the emotionalism first.

An editorial from USA Today says the Occupy Movement is “…fading out in a whimper.”  The paper also says the movement hit a rich vein of dissent with Wall Street, “But after successfully tapping into this vein, the Occupiers chose a course best described as doing nothing.”  They may have a point that the demonstrators put too much stock in their physical presence in an encampment, but others might counter that they were simply taking time to reorganize.



Pew Research Report



One thing is very clear.  “Occupy must include minorities.” is an article from the Pasadena Sun that comments on the economic regression of the middle-class in America.  It goes on to say, “According to a 2011 Pew Center report, the median wealth of Hispanic households dropped by 66% between 2005 and 2009. That is a larger drop than experienced by black households, 53%, and far worse than the 16% experienced by whites.” 

In other words, who is more likely to be affected by the Occupy Movement that blacks and Hispanics?

The piece made another excellent point that in good times the U.S. favors immigration because of the work force available to do a number of jobs.  But in bad times immigrants are “scapegoats,” evidenced by the anti-immigration law SB-1070 enacted by Arizona.  With the surge in the Latino population, and in particular their recent enterprise toward activism, this should be one of Occupy’s top priorities.

The unemployment rate for black Americans is at 15 percent, compared to around 8 percent for whites.  But the majority of the movement is white as reported by A Fast Company survey recently that found that African Americans, who are 12.6 percent of the U.S. population, make up only 1.6 percent of

Occupy Wall Street

.  The Washington Post also said, “We can’t expect our civil rights organizations and political leaders to help blacks rage against the corporate machine when they are part of it.”

There is no other group of Americans more entrenched in activism for their rights than blacks and it will be a tragedy if they are not encouraged to fight for them alongside the Occupy Movement.

Starbucks position on open gun carry laws creates nightmare

If you are a Starbuck’s fan, and I am, and if you are an advocate of sane gun control, which I am, you might be looking for a place other than your local Starbuck’s store to get your daily coffee fix.  And I might just do that too if the gun bubbas attempt to bully their way around where my wife and I migrate to at least three or four times a week for our favorite brews. 

So far I have not seen one open-carried weapon where we frequent—we are in Arizona and that’s not normal—so maybe there is still hope.  However, that doesn’t mean that half the people we’re sitting around with don’t have a Glock in their pocket.  Hey, they can carry loaded handguns into bars in this state so why not their local Starbucks?  The whole concept amounts to sheer lunacy.

This past Tuesday the National Gun Victim's Action Council (NGVA) called for a boycott on all Starbucks stores because the company allows guns and assault weapons to be openly carried in its stores (in 43 states) and concealed and carried in its stores (in 49 states).  There is the implication by NGVA that Starbucks has been pressured by the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) due to its 2010 Pro-Gun Agenda where the "open carry" movement began meeting in popular major retail chains.





Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz



All the chains but Starbucks banned guns from being carried in their stores.  As a loyal customer, I asked Starbucks to email me their current policy on open gun carry which they did.  It dates back to March of 2010 which coincides with the NRA’s Pro-Gun Agenda so I decided to ask the company a question I felt might shed some light on the matter. 

The question was: “Is Howard Schultz (Starbucks CEO) a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA)?  If you cannot answer this question, please forward this email to Mr. Schultz's office.” 

I waited for over 10 days and when I received no answer sent this email: “As of this date I have not received an answer and would like to hear from someone at your earliest convenience.  Otherwise, I will proceed and write my article with the information I have indicating your response to the above.  That was on February 9, with still no answer yet.

Whether Howard Schultz is or is not a member of the NRA makes absolutely no difference in this matter other to simply clarify his personal position on guns.  If an NRA member, he could be as radical as certain factions of this organization that believe that guns should be available to anyone in the world and be able to be carried by their owners anywhere in the world.  But Howard decided to keep this information to himself and that is his right.

NGVA made this additional statement: “Starbucks has the legal right to ban guns but despite having been petitioned by thousands, asked at a shareholder meeting, and a direct appeal made to their Board, Starbucks clings to this policy that puts millions of Americans at risk every day and encourages the spread of guns being carried in public.”  They add, "Open and conceal and carry are among the reasons there are 12,000 gun homicides each year in the U.S.”



NGCA thinks "Starbucks’ steadfast support of the NRA's lethal pro-gun agenda damages its 'socially conscious company' brand.”  They said the boycott will continue until “Starbucks rejects the NRA's Pro-Gun agenda by banning all guns from their stores and committing to be an Aggressive Corporate Advocate for sane gun laws.” 

The Brady Campaign says: “Fifty six percent of those polled - favor Starbucks and other retail establishments establishing strict ‘no guns’ policies for their businesses - and far more gun owners support a “no guns” policy for Starbucks than believe Starbucks and other businesses should allow firearms on their premises,” this according to a poll conducted for the Brady Center by the polling firm Lake Research Partners. 

That is a pretty strong mandate that Starbucks has opened a can of worms it had better close before the boycotts start to affect their business, and there are even additional gun control organizations threatening more of the same.  Or…before someone is injured or even killed at one of their stores, which, based on daily reports of shootings that occur in Arizona, could happen at my favorite location.

Gun rights fanatics and some moderates say gun control is racist

Ladd Everitt Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has written an article on racism as a concept to explain gun control.  You might laugh at the thought that the gun nuts would come up with this ridiculous hypothesis, but in his piece, Ladd quotes author Adam Winkler, who is a UCLA Law Professor, as declaring that “gun control is racist” in his new book, Gunfight. 

According to Everitt, Winkler implies that gun control is defined by extremists who want to take away all guns from owners and establish a system much like the United Kingdom.  I have been writing on gun control for over seven years now and know this is not true as Ladd Everitt confirms.  He even cites others who concur like Sen. Chuck Schumer, (D-NY) and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns. 

See Ladd Everitt question Adam Winkler over racism and gun control below:

There are others that add to this misconception like historian and author, Clayton E. Cramer, who says, “The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws -- and not in any subtle way.”  He underlines that with, “Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics "in their place," and to quiet the racial fears of whites.”  Shades of Mississippi and Arizona.

Cramer continues in his article with examples like the French Black Code that required Louisiana colonists to stop and if necessary beat blacks carrying any weapon, even a walking cane.  He also talks about the Haitian Revolution of the 1790s, the fear of the first North American English colonies slave revolts, and the 1834 change to the Tennessee Constitution that allowed only “white” men to bear arms in their defense. 

The author sums up the article with the statement, “…gun control has historically been a tool of racism, and associated with racist attitudes about black violence.”  Interesting, but still not proving a real connection between gun control and racism other than the fact that the days of slavery in this country were violent ones.

Everitt says that Winkler “…even acknowledges that an overwhelming majority of African-Americans today support strong, strict gun laws.”  And he adds that “Winkler can cite no example of the contemporary gun control movement being racist.”  This is a modern day comparison unlike the historical one by Cramer. 

And growing up in the South in Mississippi and Tennessee, I was well aware of the killings of the Ku Klux Klan. 



KKK hanging



Once, after I was old enough to drink I said to my father when we were having a beer together in a local Tennessee tavern, that I thought the KKK was a bunch of illiterate barbarian murderers.  He quietly let me know that this wasn’t something you said in this part of the country, particularly in a saloon where everyone had been drinking.  Actually, I grew up in this West Tennessee small town thinking I was the one that was crazy because of my beliefs, but I never gave them up.  I was for gun control then and not once experienced anything racist about it.

If you are interested, I would suggest that you Google “gun control is racist” to see a multitude of sites on the subject.  The gun rights extremists will go to any length to try and prove their point that everyone should be able to own a gun, no matter what their status, and be allowed to take their firearms anywhere in the USA—perhaps even the world—they want to.  But connecting gun control to racism is just wrong.

GOP Congress masterful at blocking anything Obama

The GOP stonewall

The Republican merry band of stonewalling bunglers started out the new year with their same tactics of saying no to anything President Obama presents.  On January 18, the GOP Congress voted to block Obama’s request for $1.2 trillion in additional borrowing authority, indicating the same Republican reaction to “anything Barack Obama” would continue throughout 2012.  Oh, that’s right, it’s an election year. 

Tea Party flake, Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican representative, said, “Until we have a plan to deal with our fiscal crisis, we should not raise the debt ceiling any further.”  In other words, push the problem to as close to the November election as possible, and, by the way, I’m running for Senator.  He also voted against the temporary payroll tax extension back in December 2011, the bill to extend payroll tax deductions and unemployment compensation.

Following is a list of bills, appointments, etc. that this gang of obstructionists has stalled or stopped in their tracks:

• GOP blocks vote on Richard Cordray to head consumer bureau (later appointed)
• Republicans Block Congressional Health Care Disclosure
• GOP leadership blocks congressional insider-trading ban
• Senate GOP blocks Democrat disaster aid 
• GOP attempts to block EPA’s climate change rules
• Republicans block Tax on Companies that ship jobs overseas
• GOP blocks Political Ad disclosure bill
• Republicans block The Small Business Jobs Act (later passed)
• GOP blocks The DREAM Act

• Republicans block repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (later passed)

And there are more that you can see here.

All of which brings us to President Obama’s proposed budget that he says is a "blueprint for how we can rebuild an economy where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded." 

At the same time there is the end of February deadline to pass an extension for the payroll tax cut and unemployment compensation which is sure to heat up the rhetoric since Obama wants to cover the cost with a “surtax on income over $1 million and eliminating some corporate tax subsidies, like those going to oil and gas companies.”  Republicans want to cover it partially by “extending the current pay freeze on federal workers and requiring wealthier seniors to pay higher Medicare premiums,” according to CNN.

If we run into the same GOP barricade that we did in December, the result is that 160 million American families would pay an additional $1,000 in taxes per year.  The package will cost an estimated $160 billion and that is where the President wants millionaires to step up to the plate and pay their fair share.  New chief of staff Jack Lew would not predict passage but recounted the “ugly fight” this past December over the payroll tax, something we need to avoid this go around.

This past Saturday in his weekly presidential address, Obama urged Congress to "stop this middle-class tax hike from happening, period."  He also said "No drama. No delay.  And no ideological side issues that have nothing to do with this tax cut. Now is not the time for self-inflicted wounds to our recovery. Now is the time for common-sense action. And this tax cut is common sense."  Naturally Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, did his number to make the Dems the bad guys.

GOP House Speaker John Boehner wants to vote this week on a Republican plan to extend “…the payroll tax cut -- but not unemployment benefits or a delay of cuts in fees to doctors who treat Medicare patients,” as reported in USA Today.  The White House is wary and press secretary Jay Carney says there is still time to negotiate a settlement.  Not sure there are many Americans that would agree with Carney.

People throughout this country have become weary over the shenanigans of the GOP Congress, including some Democrats, and their lowest approval rating ever supports this.  It’s like they just don’t get it, and until this self-serving clan of taxpayer moochers decides that they do work for us, there will be no change.

We all have a chance to do something about this in November and it will be interesting to see just how concerned voters really are.  Or will it be business as usual?

GUNS: The geography and demography of guns

Richard Florida, who is a Senior Editor with Atlantic magazine and Director of Martin Prosperity Institute of the University of Toronto, has done a study that determines the circumstances that run parallel with firearms deaths at the state level.  He recounts all the accusations that might have caused Jared Loughner’s massacre in Tucson, Arizona, just over a year ago, some blaming politics others the shooter’s mental state.  Florida says we must look deeper for the answers.

Arizona then and now is the center for the fight against immigration with known bigot and racist state senator Russell Pearce, author of the state’s anti-immigration bill, SB-1070, recalled and voted out of office, while his buddy, neo-Nazi J.T. Ready, continues to foster hate against all ethnic groups.  Arizona also has the loosest gun laws of any state in the U.S.  Richard Florida asks if “tighter gun control laws” could have made a difference.  Arizona ranks eighth nationally with 15.1 firearms deaths per 100,000 population.

Florida decided to go to the state level to analyze “…the statistical correlations between firearm deaths and a variety of psychological, economic, social, and political characteristics of states.  But he cautions, “…that correlation does not imply causation, but simply points to associations between variables.” 

Findings: no statistical association between gun deaths and mental illness or stress levels; no association between illegal drug use and death from gun violence at the state level; no evidence in association with unemployment and higher levels of inequality.  So what are the elements associated with firearms deaths at the state level?



Dr. Richard Florida



According to Florida’s study, poverty is one. The correlation between death by gun and poverty at the state level is .59.  An economy dominated by working class jobs is another.  Having a high percentage of working class jobs is closely associated with firearm deaths (.55).  And, not surprisingly, firearm-related deaths are positively correlated with the rates of high school students that carry weapons on school property (.54).

Based on politics and the 2008 presidential election, firearm-related deaths were positively associated with states that voted for McCain (.66) and negatively associated with states that voted for Obama (-.66).  Firearm deaths were far less likely to occur in states with higher levels of college graduates (-.64) and more creative class jobs (-.52).  And states with more immigrants have lower levels of gun-related deaths, which runs counter to the fact that Arizona ranks eighth nationally with 15.1 firearms deaths per 100,000 population.

So back to the question of gun control and whether tougher laws could make a difference.  Florida’s analysis suggests that they do.  He says if you look at the second U.S. map on the above link, “It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place - assault weapons' bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements.”  The highest injury states, Arizona, Alaska, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana have none.  Even Texas has at least one.

Though admittedly with some small sample sizes, the study says “Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation.”  Correlations are substantially negative when considering firearms deaths in states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).  In other words, with more control you end up with less gun injuries and deaths.



The Pew Research Center also did a survey on the demographics of Americans who have views on protecting guns rights and those who feel the need for more gun control.  50% of the country felt more gun control was necessary compared to 46% who didn’t.  52% of those preferring more control were under age 50, 56% under 30.  54% wanting more gun freedom were white compared to 30% black and 21% Hispanic.  The more educated wanted more gun control

Those who were married wanted less control as did registered voters.  70% of Republicans want less control compared to 30% Democrat and 46% Independent.  67% of evangelicals want less control but 63% of Catholics want more.  Mountain states like AZ, CO, ID, MT NM and NV want less control compared to CA, OR and WA that want more.  Naturally, 78% of Tea Party members want less control in contrast to 18% who don’t.

It isn’t exactly overwhelming but it is abundantly clear that more gun control is needed.  As I have said before, it should start with strengthening background checks to catch the mentally ill before purchasing a gun, closing the gun show loophole and drastically limiting the concealed carrying laws for handguns with federal legislation.  Agreed, it won’t sit well with the gun fanatics but I do believe there is a rational faction of gun owners who agree somewhat with my thinking.

RELIGION: How will evangelicals affect the vote in November 2012?



Thou shalt not not conceive



If the Catholic Church outburst over President Obama’s healthcare bill order for religious companies to provide birth control protection, joined now by evangelicals across the country, is any indication of the level of their impact on 2012 voting, it would appear that the White House and Democrats have a fight on their hands.  Add to this the fact that Rick Santorum is not only a Catholic but also an evangelical. 

The question remains just how much reaction there will be from voting religious beliefs if they aren’t necessarily good for the country.

California megachurch pastor Rick Warren said "I'm not a Catholic but I stand in 100% solidarity with my brothers & sisters to practice their belief against govt pressure."  I hate to break this to both Warren and the Pope but 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women practice birth control and those same figures apply to evangelicals and other Protestants.  This comes from a recent report by the Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit sexual health research organization.

What it appears the Obama administration is trying to do is keep certain factions from taking away a right for women who opt for contraception, not simply exert government pressure.

The following Bill Maher video is hilarious:



Southern Baptist minister Phil DaCosta from Atlanta says, “I vote on Jesus first.”  He is a Tea Party member whose priorities are Israel, abortion and marriage.  As a TPer he does want lower taxes and smaller government.  But these people invariably miss the point completely when their emphasis is based on their religious beliefs with no outright concern for the economy and its problems like the jobless, foreclosures, Afghan war, the state of U.S. education and the pitiable Congress some of which the religious right stuck us with.

Jaweed Kaleem, writing in the Huff Post, says DaCosta is just what Ralph Reed, a political strategist and former Christian Coalition director, is looking for.  Reed’s new organization, Faith and Freedom Coalition, wants to “…unite under his relatively new organization that aims to fuse the Bible-based value voting of traditional social conservatives with the grassroots momentum of the Tea Party to form a bloc of voters big enough to influence state and national elections.”

Ralph Reed buddy Jack Abramoff

According to Wikipedia, “in 1996, the Christian Coalition's chief financial officer, Judy Liebert, ‘went to federal prosecutors with her suspicions of overbilling by Ben Hart, a direct-mail vendor with close ties to Reed, then the coalition's executive director.’"  Ralph Reed resigned later during an investigation.  Reed wasn’t charged but the Christian Coalition later sued Hart's firm. 

In June 2005 it was revealed that Reed secretly accepted payments from Jack Abramoff to lobby against Indian casino gambling and oppose an Alabama education lottery.  Abramoff pled guilty to three felony counts in federal court.  So you have to wonder why the Tea Party would want to get mixed up with Reed unless you consider the fact that the Tea Party itself is a fraud.  The Huff Post exposes the “ugly underbelly” of the tea party movement” and the deceit of its stands on taxes and government tyranny.

Rick Santorum branded "Loser"

According to a survey from Reed’s faith and Freedom Coalition, “…32 percent of all voters in 2010 were Christian conservatives, and 72 percent of them voted Republican.”   They helped the GOP gain 63 seats to control the House.  Reed himself asks, “So it is that a presidential campaign that is largely about the economy is nevertheless deeply shaped by issues of faith and morality.”  He adds that the evangelical vote made up 44 percent of Republican primary voters in 2008.

Now enter Catholic evangelical Rick Santorum who appears to have put Mitt Romney on the defensive with his recent wins in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado.  The comment was made that Santorum made them “swoon” at the Conservative Political Action committee (CPAC) meeting recently, even though Romney also delivered an outstanding speech. 

But one political analyst says Santorum won’t survive and the conservative crowd will eventually end up falling in behind Romney.

The GOP may very well end up tossing a coin for the nomination.

UPDATE: Romney wins Maine caucuses and CPAC straw vote.

States try to legislate unions out of business

I have heard before that there is a cycle between unions and corporate management where one prevails in power for a few years, then the other takes over.  It is clear that big business has been in control for several years now thanks to the support of the GOP.  Labor unions have been diluted by the right to work laws, the latter which seem reasonable if unions are allowed to continue to organize and encourage membership.

Enter the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), headed up by the Koch brothers, and started some 30 years ago to draft state (sometimes national) legislation that favors big business.  You might know it best from its backing of Arizona’s anti-immigration law SB-1070, because ALEC was helping promote private prisons in the state to house the arrested illegals.  Arizona’s mock Governor Jan Brewer supported the private prison movement, as did the Republican controlled state legislature.

The fight over union rights has been going on for some time. A bill passed in Ohio was overturned in a public referendum last year.  Wisconsin passed a similar bill that would eliminate most union collective bargaining rights.  As a result, enough signatures have now been collected to recall Gov. Scott Walker.  He actually went to Arizona to promote corresponding legislation for that state that some have said is even more radical than Wisconsin’s.

Brewer met with ALEC this past December during its meeting in Scottsdale, AZ.  Wisconsin Gov. Walker was also there talking to ALEC groups who were meeting at the Phoenician hotel, one of the poshest resorts in the world.  This bunch of bozos basking in opulence while they attempt to deny working people their rights is yet another example of Republican arrogance in putting the desires of the corporate world ahead of the American public.



Jan Brewer, wicked witch from Arizona



The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is taking on Brewer and other extreme right-wing lawmakers in retaliation for her assault on their Arizona members.  Her attack is to limit the ability to negotiate of teachers, fire fighters, police and other public service workers.  In their petition they said, “Where you see public workers and unions as a nuisance to get rid of, we see a movement.”  Once again Arizona has opened a can of worms with an ALEC ring in their nose.

The Huffington Post picked up a recent comment from Phoenix TV reporter Brahm Resnik who lists what the proposal includes;

Make it illegal for government bodies to collectively bargain with employee groups.

Public safety unions would be included in the ban.

End the practice of automatic payroll deductions for union dues.

Ban compensation of public employees for union work.

The sham Gov. Jan Brewer also wants to take away all civil-service protection for state employees so she can fire them at will.  Shades of Donald Trump.

Wisconsin’s Gov. Walker made a bizarre statement at the annual Goldwater Institute dinner.  It said that, “…compromising with unions was ‘bogus.’”  If that doesn’t send union members postal, nothing will.  But the Ohio vote proves that the union vote is still important to political elections and can still be persuasive in the outcome.  At this point the GOP has both Hispanics and unions to look out for in November.

One last point.  Recall papers have been filed to recall Gov. Jan Brewer, in some part obviously due to her support of limiting union rights.  You can help by spreading the word and signing the petition if you are an Arizonan.