Julie Morse's Open Salon Blog

Herman Cain's Death Of A Goldfish

Mon, 5 Mar 2012 17:03:53 -0500

If you have yet to experience Herman Cain's odd new political advertisement, the time has come. [If you DID experience the ad, you've already had your "what the HELL?! moment; feel free to proceed to the commentary.] Herman Cain aptly demonstrates his lack of ability and judgement in new and terrifying ways, and adds to his resume one more job title he would suck at.

At first glance, the ad appears to be a typical, run-of-the-mill doomsday ad. Desolate wasteland: check. Creepy child: check. Naked tree branches: check! Dying goldfish and invisible bullfrog: check! Wait, what? Really?

The ad opens with a quick zoom in on a plain orange goldfish, peacefully swimming around in a glass globe. The next shot is of the poor goldfish being forcibly ejected from his bowl onto parched ground; so begins Herman Cain's brief, bizarre ichthal snuff film.

As the goldfish impotently flops about on eye-searing colored fishbowl pebbles, gasping anxiously, the shot cuts to a small and creepy female child wearing rather a small haystack masquerading as hair. It purposefully stumbles over words like "stimulus" and "economy" in what was likely intended to be an adorable speech impediment, but just comes off as profoundly wrong. Uttering the plagiarized lines of the feeble script while standing indifferently over the desperate fish as it gasps and flops around in the course of dying on the ground of a barren, post-apocalyptic landscape [which really could have used some ravens. What's a barren, post-apocalyptic landscape without ravens?] the child slops water over the fish, burying it alive in black mud. As the gasps of the fish become shorter, and shallower, and Death glides closer, the Goldfish Torturer gives the camera full face and prepares to take questions. Death either understood everything, or just didn't care; he didn't have any questions, at any rate. Or maybe he did, and she just didn't notice because he's invisible. Herman Cain didn't have any questions, either, but then again, Herman just stood on a computer-generated mountain across the way and watched the kid torture and kill a poor little goldfish. [Is that really surprising, considering his foreign policy ideas?] He probably picked out the cringe-inducing neon 80's color scheme of the fishbowl pebbles, too; the bastard. The camera pans out as the kid throws a screaming temper tantrum. Cut to Herman on his mountain, looking smug. A frog does appear to have a question or two, but he's brutally rebuffed by the abrupt end of the ad. [You just know he put in a call to his agent.]

Note: The referenced bullfrog may, in fact, be a wild boar. It's actually more likely, considering that Herman is a wild bore. My apologies to the boar if this is so.

Though Herman's ad appears to imply that those who dare question any of its content will be hunted down by a pack of rabid, ravenous wolves, who will savage the inquisitive nature from your body, along with the rest of your internal organs, those made of sterner stuff may find the ad just a tad perplexing.

Any questions?

Well, yes; I have a few.

Were any goldfish harmed during the making of this ad? Did they eventually end up on a $9.99 pizza? How long after animal-rights activists start screeching will it take Herman Cain to spin the ad as a liberal-left/PETA conspiracy against him?

Why did Herman Cain rip off the "This is your brain on drugs" script? Do his funds not run to hiring writers? Or halfway decent political advisers? Did the Cain Train just steam along, plucking up downtrodden would-be film directors from the gutters outside second-rate urban postmodern art galleries, former political science major college dropout stoners from their smoke breaks in the alley behind a low-volume internet cafe and the local mixed-breed pet store, and a good portion of the unemployed liberal arts degree holders exploding out of the woodwork [to whom everything is a post-apocalyptic landscape following the post-graduation realization that a degree in liberal arts is kind of like a really expensive CDL pulled from a Cracker Jack box; it looks good, but you really can't do anything with it]?

Why is the child stumbling over the pronunciation of "economy" and "stimulus"? Couldn't Herman afford a better actor? Is this meant to be some sort of vague and sorry statement about education?

Why is the child so angry when she asks if there are any questions? Is it because Herman Cain made her kill some goldfish? If I did have any questions, I wouldn't ask someone who just murdered a goldfish, and I sure wouldn't ask her; she sounded pretty pissed, and she looks like she might be a biter. I'm betting her temper was unleashed upon the poor goldfish in the form of a good stomping before it ended up on Herman's pizza, but it's all good; I hear goldfish paillard is the next big culinary trend in the pizza-deal world of cuisine.

And why, WHY is a frog croaking in the background? Anticipating a free dinner of goldfish tartare, perhaps? Fearing that he would be destined to become the Goldfish Torturer's nex t victim? Or worse, the ill-fated star of Herman's inevitable next weird ad? Perhaps it's merely meant to represent the symbolic death of Herman Cain's political career.

Herman Cain as a presidential candidate was frightening enough; how long must we suffer his disturbing efforts to cling to some slim shred of political fame?

Obama's Polished Turd

Sat, 18 Feb 2012 02:02:18 -0500

If you’re one of the estimated 14 million American homeowners stuck with negative home equity or struggling to make your mortgage payments, you may have cheered the recent news of a national mortgage foreclosure settlement, thinking that help has finally arrived. And it has…kind of. Unfortunately, it probably won’t help you.

In an attempt to make voters believe it can be “tough” on Wall Street, the Obama administration is promoting the approximately $25 billion national mortgage foreclosure settlement between the attorneys general of 49 states and the nation’s five largest banks as a significant accomplishment. The settlement is purported to provide substantial help for homeowners, while holding banks accountable for their past crimes related to the mortgage crisis and preventing similar illegal actions in future. In reality, the settlement is nothing more than an election year publicity stunt, savings and opportunities for investors and a “get out of jail really, really cheap” card for Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Ally Financial/GMAC, JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America [BofA].

The need for mortgage relief is clear. An estimated 12.5% of all outstanding U.S. mortgages, or 6.25 million, are in default or foreclosure. 11 million homeowners are underwater, totaling $750 billion in negative equity alone. More than 1 out of every 10 mortgages is in default or foreclosure; 1 out of every 5 mortgages is worth less than the homeowner owes. On average, those homeowners who are underwater owe $65,000 more on their mortgages than their home is worth. Since 2007, 4 million families have lost their homes, and foreclosures for 2012 are estimated to exceed 1 million. Since 2006, home prices across the nation have dropped by an average 30%, and by a whopping 40% in Nevada, Florida, California and Arizona; homeowners have lost an astounding $7.3 trillion in home equity. Home prices decreased around 4% last year, and Fannie Mae’s chief economist, Doug Duncan, estimates that home prices could drop an additional 7% in 2012.

There’s evidence that, far from being over, or on the decline, the situation could become even worse in future. 1 in 7 Nevada residents who purchased homes between 2004-2008 are at least 60 days in default, or are in foreclosure; this is nearly equal to the amount of Nevada homeowners who have already been foreclosed on. Florida’s statistics are even more dire.

In addition to the obvious negative statistics, political considerations demand action in an election year. The mortgage crisis is at its worst so far in the major swing states of Nevada, Florida and Michigan; foreclosure rates are also high in battleground states like Virginia, Michigan, Indiana and North Carolina. That’s more than enough for most would-be presidential candidates to tackle the topic. But state Attorney Generals might not be as motivated to help the President of the United States [POTUS] boost his poll numbers. Under the settlement, though, states can use settlement funds for purposes other than mortgage relief to troubled homeowners, increasing both incentive and pressure for state AGs to sign on.

The perpetrators, details and negative consequences of the ongoing mortgage crisis are fairly obvious. The best possible solutions are pretty obvious, too. For these reasons, it’s all the more surprising that ANY AGs signed onto a settlement granting virtually complete immunity to banks for a crime that is arguably their most common--and most damaging--that provides such dubious and limited benefit to struggling homeowners, let alone all but one. [Oklahoma wisely declined.]

The settlement is expected to help only up to 2 million homeowners, whose loans are owned--or in some cases, serviced by--the five banks that are party to the settlement. The deal excludes mortgages owned by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, which currently represent about 60% of all outstanding mortgages in the U.S. The deal also excludes mortgages owned by banks not party to the settlement and mortgages owned by private investors. Homeowners who are current on payments and do not have negative equity don‘t qualify for relief, even if they‘re having trouble making payments. Homeowners with second mortgages are, for some reason, eligible.

Eligibility is confusing. The banks are required to notify eligible homeowners, but since homeowners won’t know whether or not they are eligible, it’s conceivable that banks could simply fail to notify them without suffering adverse consequences. Homeowners whose loans are serviced by participating banks may believe they will be eligible for relief due to confusion over who actually owns their loans, since servicing banks are not obligated to tell homeowners when their loans have been sold; to the homeowner, it would appear that they servicing bank owned their loan. News of the settlement may encourage troubled homeowners who have barely managed to keep current on payments to default in anticipation of receiving assistance; unfortunately, in most cases, that assistance would never be realized, due to the extremely narrow current scope of eligibility, paving the way to even more foreclosures and economic loss.

An administrator to oversee the settlement will not be chosen for two months; actual help to homeowners won’t even begin for an estimated six to nine months. Banks are being given three years to fully meet the terms of the settlement, which will be about three years too late for the large number of homeowners already in, or at risk of foreclosure.

The settlement places a higher priority on preventing future foreclosures than on rectifying past illegal foreclosures, which fails to hold banks accountable for their crimes. Banks would receive more credit for helping homeowners owing less than 175% the value of their home, and less credit for helping those who owe more than 175%, giving banks less incentive to help many of those homeowners who are in the most need of relief.

Principal reductions, loan modifications and refinancings will only be available to a small portion of homeowners under the terms of the settlement, as these banks only own about 7.3% of all outstanding single-family mortgages in the U.S., per Inside Mortgage Finance. This leaves 92% of American homeowners ineligible for any type of mortgage relief.

Up to $17 billion is supposed to be used for principal reduction and “other forms of loan modification”. While this may sound substantial, it’s really not. According to the New York Federal Reserve, homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages owe an average $65,000 more than their homes are worth. Even if every one of the 2 million homeowners were to receive principal reduction, their mortgages would only be reduced by about $8500 each, on average. When someone is underwater by 175% or more [or even less], subtracting $8500 from the total owed isn’t going to provide significant relief.

Only $3 billion will be used to refinance loans to reduce interest rates.

$1.5 billion will be provided to 750,000 homeowners who were foreclosed on by these five banks from September 2008 to December 2011, which amounts to a $1500-2000 pittance for each of those who wrongfully lost their homes, tens of thousands of dollars or more in mortgage payments, relocation costs, legal fees, and even stress-related medical costs. It isn’t clear whether these homeowners are included in the estimated number of homeowners assisted by the settlement.

$5 billion goes to the states and the federal government; there’s no requirement that it be used for mortgage-related relief, enforcement or prevention. Two states, including the politically torn Wisconsin, have already announced that they will be using a considerable portion--about 20%--of their state’s settlement funds to help balance state budgets rather than help homeowners desperate for relief. Additional states are expected to make similar announcements. Cleveland, who has been forced to divert funds from programs aimed at helping needy families find affordable housing to paying for the demolishing of vacant, deteriorating houses, expects to use $72 million in settlement funds to demolish deteriorating bank-owned foreclosures and other vacancies. Cleveland is suing to recoup additional taxpayer funds spent managing the bank-owned blight. The foreclosure epidemic has been hard on Ohio, a historically important state in presidential elections.

The settlement appears to remove the responsibility of handling missing, erroneous and/or fraudulent foreclosure documentation from the courts to an “independent monitor”. Fraudulent, missing or erroneous documentation would no longer be a valid defense for homeowners against wrongful foreclosure; those cases would instead be referred to the independent monitoring agency. Banks would be allowed to fix “errors” in foreclosures; this practice by the courts led to the fabrication and forgery of foreclosure documents by the banks. The banks would be exempt from civil fines stemming from these illegal foreclosure practices for up to 1% of their loans. It is unclear how the exemption would be calculated, considering that the number of outstanding mortgages held by the banks changes daily.

Bloomberg news reports that the settlement may spur a wave of home seizures, as foreclosures slowed during settlement negotiations. Home prices may continue to drop as foreclosures increase; RealtyTrac estimates that one million foreclosures will be completed in 2012, up 25% from 2011. As home prices continue to decrease, homeowners sink even deeper underwater; the amount of equity they own in their home decreases while they continue to owe more than their homes are worth.

Previous signed settlements with banks have proven ineffective. In 2009, Nevada’s Attorney General, Catherine Cortez Masto, along with the AGs for 10 other states, signed an agreement with Bank of America over fraudulent foreclosure practices at Countrywide, the subprime mortgage lender purchased by BofA. Although the settlement required BofA to provide up to $8.4 billion in loan modifications and foreclosure relief to 400,000 customers, only $216 million of relief had been provided by 2011; in August 2011, Masto asked the courts to void the agreement so that Nevada could pursue alternate remedies on its own.

Separate from the settlement, the Federal Housing Finance Agency announced a new Fannie Mae program that would allow investors to purchase foreclosed homes in bulk to be managed as rentals in a bid to reduce their foreclosure inventory. Investors, who accounted for more than 20% of home purchases in December, are expected to take advantage of bargain prices--30 to 40 cents on the dollar-- and demand for rentals, provided they can meet the $1 million net worth required by Fannie's prequalification form. Private equity funds have already announced plans to purchase billions of dollars worth of foreclosures, and more foreclosure properties will be available at lower prices as a result of the settlement; there are nearly four times as many homes in some stage of foreclosure as there currently are in the programs' inventory.

It’s pretty clear who the winners and losers are in this game. A big smelly turd has been polished and spun into “the largest consumer financial protection settlement in U.S. history”. A large portion of the American public will, unfortunately, see it that way, though homeowners desperately seeking assistance will soon discover differently. Once again, the homeowners have been screwed thoroughly by the banks, this time with the eager assistance of the state and federal governments. For the bargain price tag of $5 billion each [on average], banks have purchased a cheap legal solution to the sticky problems their own crimes created; most homeowners have been denied the help they so badly need, and stripped of a critical legal defense to foreclosure.

The three year time limit for terms fulfillment indicates that the government is expecting the news of the settlement to accomplish more than the settlement itself. Worse, since three years is about three years too late for millions of homeowners; since less than 10% of homeowners would be eligible for any type of settlement relief; since the type of relief most promoted in the settlement is too small to be largely effective, the entire positive impact of the settlement for homeowners may consist merely of the brief glimmer of hope experienced upon the announcement of the settlement.

The settlement provides positive conditions for investors, creating conditions under which home prices decrease even more, and foreclosures increase. This allows investors to snap up large numbers of homes at rock-bottom prices; these homes can be held and rented until prices increase.

But President Obama comes out best. In one fell swoop, he’s gift-wrapped tremendous savings, stabilized/increased stock prices and an escape from legal issues for the banks; supplied his Wall Street campaign contributors with promising, bargain investment opportunities; gained considerable political capital in the battleground and swing states by supplying extra cash in times of budget difficulties; convinced homeowners, gullible in their desperation, that he’s on their side; and increased his poll numbers and popular support in an election year by presenting the American people with a big polished turd that will float around for the next three years while American homeowners circle the drain.

President Obama is, perhaps, one of the greatest American politicians ever.

Which would make him one of the worst Americans ever.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

http://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2012/dud120106.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/foreclosure-settlement-deadline_n_1258833.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/robo-signing-settlement_n_1251025.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/business/states-negotiate-26-billion-agreement-for-homeowners.html?_r=1

http://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/research-analysis/disparities-in-mortgage-lending-and-foreclosures-maps-data.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/13/mortgage-settlement-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-principal-reductions-fhfa_n_1268887.html

The New 3rd World Police State: Welcome To America!

Sat, 3 Dec 2011 12:12:47 -0500

America. Synonymous with freedom to the people of oppressive nations all over the globe--or was, once. These days, we’re seeing examples of the erosion of Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and freedoms with frightening regularity, and citizens of those oppressive nations are standing and protesting in solidarity with oppressed citizens of the United States. Our rapidly dwindling freedoms, combined with the conditions that many Americans are just waking up to discover, indicate that America is developing all the hallmarks of nations we refer to as the Third World. America is also perilously close to completely meeting the generally accepted definition of a police or totalitarian state. Sound alarmist? Sure. But for good reason. Alarmist doesn’t always equate to “wrong”.

Consider the elements of a police state. In a police state, the government: exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political aspects of the lives of citizens; exhibits elements of totalitarianism; restricts mobility; and restricts freedom of expression, particularly with regard to views that are in opposition to the views held by the government. War or national emergency has historically been a precursor to the shift to becoming a police state, as fear generally causes people to accept restrictions and indignities they otherwise would not, in the name of safety.

Political control may be exerted by government-sponsored forces operating outside the laws citizens are subject to, and there is little to no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the government; in other words, the government cannot violate the law, because the government’s actions are the law, even when they’re not. The communications of residents are subject to monitoring by elements of the government, and nations accused of being a police state will generally deny it.

Totalitarianism involves the attempt to regulate every aspect of residents’ lives, and no recognized limit to the government’s authority. This type of system achieves and maintains control via a single political party, economic control, restricted speech, burdensome regulations, mass surveillance, etc. Widespread use of fear inspires terror in its residents, making them more malleable to control; this is achieved through an ongoing propaganda campaign, which is delivered to the people via government-controlled mass media.

Sound familiar? They should.

It’s always seemed odd to me that the nation lauded for being “free” has so many laws that it’s virtually impossible for the average citizen to keep track of them all--and more are passed every year. Our system of law is so rigid that ignorance of even one of the thousands of laws is not an excuse for those who break it unknowingly. These laws cover everything, from marriage to regulating individual seat belt use, use of substances, legal methods of procuring food, IRS, investments, campaign financing, etc. Laws are written in such a vague manner that they encourage expansive interpretation by law enforcement and prosecutors, leaving average citizens in danger of severe consequences for behavior that few would believe illegal.

Freedom of expression was so important in the eyes of our Founding Fathers that they guaranteed us the right to it in our First Amendment. Bear in mind that our Founding Fathers were men who felt so abused by their previous government that they started a war over the right to found their own, and designed the Constitution to protect American citizens from the new government. Since 1925, courts have consistently ruled that our 14^th Amendment applies our First Amendment to states and localities as well. Lifelong American citizens often take free speech for granted, as most of us have never experienced anything to the contrary. But during the overreaching police actions against the Occupy protests, the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of thousands of Americans were violated--publicly, intentionally, and violently. Peaceable, non- violent protesters have, during the practice of peaceable assembly, freedom of speech and airing of grievances, been violently evicted from public property; had their belongings wrongfully seized by police, tossed into garbage trucks and destroyed; have been pepper-sprayed, tear-gassed, beaten with police batons, shot with wooden dowels, bean bag rounds, rubber bullets and other “non-lethal” rounds, sometimes from lethal distances, and have been attacked with stun grenades and sound cannons. These rights violations against dissenting citizens have been so severe that they attracted the notice of the United Nations special rapporteur for the protection of free expression, who is drafting an official communication to the U.S. government, questioning why the government is not taking action to protect these fundamental rights. The First Amendment is far from the only example of Constitutional erosion by the government. For example, our 4^th Amendment rights [unreasonable search & seizure] face regular attack, as does our 2^nd Amendment [right to bear arms].

On the surface, America has two political parties. But if we look at what the combination of these parties have actually accomplished [not much], and who those accomplishments actually benefit [generally, Wall Street], they may as well be one. They certainly go out of their way to exclude any third parties that may not be as willing to play for the same team. Third party candidates do not enjoy the same level of financial support from their small party as do the major party candidates. Third-party candidates are also generally excluded from televised debates, and are not entitled to the level of public campaign financing received by candidates from the major political parties, often placing the cost of television advertising far out of reach. These disadvantages do all but guarantee that voters will remain largely ignorant of the party and its chosen candidates, and that a third party would find it exceedingly difficult to rise to the popularity of the Republicans or Democrats.

The government controls the economy, and even our personal finances, with a heavily biased hand. “Free trade” laws ostensibly allow free trade, but in reality only make fair trade extremely difficult, and contributes to low American wages. The IRS ensures that you make your “contribution” to the government, whether or not your individual circumstances allow you to afford to do so; failure to pay up can earn you a stint in prison. And our government appears to be happy to bail out Wall Street using our money, but refuses to take any significant action to help the millions of families and individuals severely injured by Wall Street’s illegal actions. This helps to ensure that, for the most part, the wealthy stay wealthy, and the poor remain poor.

When you think about it, even our mobility in America is certainly regulated to an amazing degree, whichever mode you choose. To drive, you need a license, a vehicle, insurance, and gas, all of which are, of course, taxed. The license requires two forms of ID, a written test, a practical test, a photo, and processing time. The vehicle can be pricey, and needs to be registered, inspected and insured. Since 1999, fuel prices can be artificially manipulated by anyone with enough cash and time, and the government can manipulate prices as well, in a variety of ways. Taking the bus [other than locally] or a boat requires ID, and, of course, cash. Train stations are now beginning to be invaded by the Transportation Security Administration, and TSA airport security has been an example of gross, government-perpetrated indignity upon the people for quite some time. The choice between allowing an acne-prone, dim-witted barely-high-school-graduate to view you naked on a radiation-emitting machine with transmission and storage capability or permitting a large and frightening ugly woman to sexually assault you in an attempt to discern whether or not you are carrying a bomb in your cervix/testicles is not much of a choice at all. And no one is immune: men; women; diaper-wearing infants; diaper-wearing, terminally ill elderly ladies; breast prosthetic-wearing breast cancer survivors; colostomy/urostomy patients; rape survivors; young children; attractive, large-breasted women; etc. This is done in the name of “safety”, despite the fact that no bombs have been detonated on U.S.-departing planes since 1960. The TSA doesn’t make us safer.

Political control held by those outside the government is demonstrated by the power and influence of Wall Street. Elected government representatives, compelled by fat re-election campaign donations, work to pass legislation favorable to their donors. Such legislation often contributes to the continuation of the gross wealth inequality that pervades America. Past legislation has also been responsible for causing substantial damage to the environment, and to the safety and availability of food, prescription drugs, and other consumable products. While it’s true that the People are responsible for electing their government representatives, it’s also true that corporate campaign contributions pay for campaign ads, in which facts are grossly misrepresented and manipulated; >these campaign advertisements often represent the sum total knowledge that the average American has about the candidates. As a result, representatives who represent only the interests of themselves and their campaign donors are elected. In effect, this makes virtually the entire American government subject to control by the wealthiest 0.1% of the population.

Contributing to this well-established, self-serving cycle is the covert campaign of propaganda. Most Americans truly believe that we have a free press. And we do, in Constitutional terms. But the Constitution only protects us from Congress. Virtually every major mainstream media outlet is owned and/or controlled by corporate interests or wealthy individuals. This encompasses all major TV & radio stations/channels, magazines, newspapers, and even major websites. And the reports of this corporate-controlled mainstream media do not accurately reflect the facts. Reports are carefully crafted to include only those facts which support the positions of those who own or control the specific media outlet. Uncomfortable events are ignored, if possible; if it can’t be ignored, the persons involved are purposefully and persistently discredited.

War creates a common enemy, and feelings of patriotic unity. Endless war and international conflict creates a faceless, constant, omnipresent enemy, and is an excellent way to inspire fear. Enough fear softens the populace into accepting “safety” measures a free society otherwise wouldn’t. Since 1775, there have been only a few years in which the United States was not involving itself, militarily or covertly, in the business of other nations. For the last ten years, we’ve been fighting the “War On Terror”, leading to American fears of brown-skinned, bearded, turban-wrapped, burka-wearing Muslim or mistaken-for-Muslim individuals, unattended packages, and invisible, would-be airliner bombers concealing explosive materials in unmentionable places. While we fret over the loss of expensive, >3oz personal hygiene products at the hands of pimply, authoritarian TSA officials, the United States has been carrying out internationally-illegal operations in more than 120 nations, including raids, bombings and assassinations that kill innocent civilians as well as or instead of the intended targets. At least one American citizen living overseas was the intentional target of one such operation. So much for operating within the law.

Libya is another good example of the executive’s political power operating outside the law. The Constitution, the War Powers Act and U.S. law are very clear, and were violated; much of Congress expressed concern and dismay, but in then end, most of Congress allowed these crimes to stand, despite possessing the ability to remedy the action and to punish the executive who ordered it.

On November 29^th, 2011, a day which I most sincerely hope will NOT live in infamy, controversial portions of S1867, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, were passed, allowing the U.S. military to indefinitely detain American citizens living on U.S. soil without due process or trial, and with nothing more than suspicion of terrorism as an excuse. Section 1031, in authorizing the military to engage in law enforcement actions on U.S. soil essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which protected citizens from military occupation by limiting the ability of governments to commonly use the federal military to perform law enforcement functions within the U.S. The stated rationale for this action is best summed up by South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who claims, “The homeland is part of the battlefield.”

Other than the obvious issues one might have with a constant, active, armed-and-uniformed military presence on our own soil, this law would appear to be incompatible with many of our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, including our Fourth , Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and 14^th Amendment rights, which grant us the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure; right to due process; right to a speedy, public, impartial jury trial; right to be informed of charges against us; right to face opposing witnesses and to present supporting witnesses, right to an attorney; protection against cruel and unusual punishment; right to equal protection under the law. Mere suspicion as grounds for an arrest, not being informed of the charges against you, indefinite detention, torture, and a closed military tribunal, which may or may not even take place within the U.S. do not appear to meet these Constitutionally-guaranteed obligations of the U.S. to its citizens.

In essence, this means that the military can, at any time, come into your home, take you away, hide you in a military prison on a military base, fail to tell you what’s going on, torture you, fail to charge you, and keep you forever, if they so chose. And there’s not a damn thing you could do about it.

Terrifying, especially when one stops to ponder exactly who and what our government’s definition of terrorism includes. The many different agencies tasked with national security have various working definitions, but in general they include: protesters, who, according to the Department of Defense, practice "low-level terrorism"; members of groups which support states’ authority over the federal government; members of groups dedicating to opposing a single issue, such as abortion, or immigration; those who are opposed to federal policies; those who dare criticize government policies, even privately; those who focus on our specific economic issues; those opposed to the wars;; veterans, in general, and of the disillusioned, disgruntled and disabled varieties in particular. “Political deviants” are also on the radar; this is yet another way to discourage people from climbing out of the two-party political rut, as third-party supporters are considered “deviant“.

Combine this with the unsettling news that our “smart phones” apparently come fully equipped with stealth software that has the capability to keep track of the phone’s owner--and the phone’s owner’s business. Per Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, in addition to monitoring location--even when the phone is turned off--this type of software has the capability to record text messages, numbers dialed, keystrokes tapped and websites visited--including encrypted searches--and sends those records elsewhere, makes use of voice recognition software to identify the parties to a conversation, and can even snap surreptitious pics of people and places nearby.

They say that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Unfortunately, America and its residents appear to be existing in a nightmare of endless reruns. The results, and the implications, are terrifying.

We Are The Future of Occupy

Fri, 18 Nov 2011 02:11:46 -0500

As the Occupy movement eases past the two-month mark, everyone seems to be discussing the future of the Occupation. Individual trends and motivations are apparent for each of the major groups involved in the conversation, but a common theme has also emerged. Setting aside the obvious positions of those holding pro- and anti-Occupation positions, it’s important to address the complaints of two major groups that remain; the political pundits and the government.

The individual opinions of political pundits run the full gamut, from rabid anti-Occupation to pro-Occupiers encouraging radical activity. What they have in common is their ever-increasing clamor for Occupy to identify the message of the movement. On the surface, this would tend to support the suspicions of some that political pundits are maintained in remote locales, inside small, inspiration-free cells, with only a steady diet of the single biased mainstream media outlet of their choice as intellectual fuel. The message of Occupy is simple, has been since the beginning, and has spread across the globe; it’s difficult to form a reasonable alternative explanation as to why the pundits still don’t understand the purpose of the Occupation. It’s entirely possible that they only speak sound bite, and while the Occupy message is simple, the talking points are legion.

The opinion of those in government, as always must be derived from combining their public statements with their seemingly opposite actions. The many mayors dealing with Occupations in their towns and cities publicly claim to support the rights of the public to protest. However, as is usual with politicians, there’s always a “but”. The opinions and actions of many Mayors are so similar that one might reasonably suspect collusion. They cite “serious” public health and safety concerns regarding conditions at Occupation sites, feign concern for the rights of non-Occupiers, complain about the overtime costs for the over inflated police presence, and completely ignore the simple, inexpensive solutions to those concerns, instead attempting to bind the rights of Occupiers with local laws that ridiculously purport to trump our Constitution.

This is somewhat tangential, but it must be said. Mayors, if you’re concerned about poop, allow the Occupations to rent porta-potties, or better yet, provide some for them. If you’re concerned about rights, stop trying to make an end run around our Constitution. If you’re concerned about the safety of the Occupiers, stop ordering law enforcement to stun them, beat them, shoot them and gas them. As a bonus, if you cease to order police brutality cold, you can cut the overtime costs by at least a factor of ten, which should help with the costs borne by Occupied cities; so would allowing the Occupiers to clean and repair the spaces they Occupy, as they have repeatedly offered to do.

One of the most common complaints from governments attempting to communicate with the Occupation is the “lack of specific leadership”, which they claim makes negotiating difficult or impossible. This is an odd claim. While it’s true that there are no specifically named leaders, there are certainly people within the Occupy communities who have leadership skills, which have been channeled into ensuring shelter, food, medical care, clothing, information, and a venue for free speech and decision-making.

Anyone can speak at the Occupations, provided they wait their turn. Decisions are made at the regularly-scheduled General Assemblies, which everyone is encouraged to attend and participate in. Mayor Jean Quan of Oakland, CA appeared to be offended by the notion that she was not important enough to skip to the head of the line when she showed up to speak at Occupy Oakland on October 27, 2011; she left rather abruptly without addressing the Assembly after discovering that equality trumps self-important governmental idiocy at Occupy Oakland.

This is, functionally, a non-problem. Politicians don’t like the communications and decision-making structures of the Occupation because it’s a lot easier to convince a few people to come around to your self-serving point of view than it is to convince a large group of people who have sustained physical, chemical, sensory and emotional damage at the hands of the establishment you represent, particularly when you’re the politician that ordered it.

Just as OWS and the rest of the Occupations have no official leadership, maintaining that we are all the leaders, the point of OWS is not limited to official statements and positions that may emerge from the Occupations.

The point of Occupy is EVERYWHERE, and we are ALL responsible for making it. Read something about our government or Wall Street or Big Business in our nation. Read Occupy signs. Learn something. Explain the something you learned to someone else, and show them where to read it for themselves. Go down to your local Occupation and do something. Occupy the Internet. Blog something. Share the facts. Share the details. Examine different perspectives and opinions. Draft your own solutions. Like and Share the work of others to help spread the word. Tell friends about the somethings you read and learned and did. engage in persuasive debate. Occupy the media. Overwhelm them with the Occupy message they demand. Show compassion for their limited ability to comprehend simple, obvious information and offer to explain the message to them, very slowly, using words of three syllables or less in deference to their shortcomings. Offer to supply vid clips and write their copy. Do whatever is necessary to change the mainstream media's Occupy image into our Occupy message. Send links to those in government who purport to represent us, send them snail mail, send them books, call them, email them, go pay them a visit. Do enough, and you might just end up Occupying their consciousness. Who knows what change that could bring?

The next step for Occupy is for everyone, even those who disagree with public Occupations, to Occupy our own homes and Occupy the Internet, and act, on our own, in solidarity. Stop waiting for Occupy to provide all the solutions. Occupy is probably not the vehicle of change. WE ARE.

Occupy paved the way for us. Nations that are not necessarily friendly with American government are Occupying WITH us, in peaceful solidarity. More and more Americans have discovered that something is very, very wrong with the "facts" reported by the vast majority of the mainstream media, and instead are turning to smaller independent information sources for the truth. Thanks to Occupy and law enforcement, America has learned that protecting grass, sparing the public from poop and safeguarding the establishments of white-collar criminals is much more important than protecting the People, our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and our most fundamental American ideals. And still, Occupy stays the slow and steady course, fighting to win the battles of information and perception so that we can win the war of wealth superiority and corruption. What more can we reasonably expect?

Label Me Pissed; Mainstream Media Manipulation Mania

Tue, 8 Nov 2011 01:11:40 -0500

Since the Occupy Wall Street movement began--and since the mainstream media [MSM] actually began to cover it--one thing that really stands out to me is the effect mainstream media labels have on the perspective of the population. Labels are words that, when used, evoke some type of instant reaction; they’re used to best advantage by those on each side of an issue to support their own position. Labels alone usually won’t turn an OWS supporter into the OWS opposition, or vice versa, but they do tend to shove those who are on the fence off it, to one side or the other. Labels also tend to support the decision of those who have made one, one way or the other, because from the time of the decision, they will interpret every label they read as best benefits their own position.

The label of "violence" has been applied by the mainstream media to the act of property destruction, while OWS uses the same label of “violence” when referring to the actions of law enforcement against the OWS protesters. In effect, the mainstream media uses this label in such a way as to equate the destruction of some windows with the bludgeoning, shooting, tear-gassing and stunning via grenade by some members of law enforcement agencies against peacefully protesting people--and since they're using it against OWS, the anti-OWS crowd assumes that everyone in the movement is violent. Since they’re using the same word, someone must be wrong, right? That’s the thing--not really.

Technically, the anti-OWSers are correct. "Violence" can mean "swift and intense force", which could apply to a hammer striking a window, or the force exerted when the police use batons to beat protesters, or the force exerted by the stun grenades law enforcement uses, also known as flash-bangs, which blind, deafen, dizzy and disorient. It certainly applies to a projectile fired from a weapon [as occured in Oakland when law enforcement fired rubber bullets, "bean bag" rounds, wooden dowels and tear gas canisters]. But "violence" also means "rough or injurious physical force, action or treatment" and "an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws". This portion of the definition applies to the actions of the police against the protesters, who were peaceably exercising their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, again making the OWS usage correct. "Violence" can also mean "rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language". We all speak vehemently at times; I doubt that we would label our own speech as “violent”.

So, while the label of "violence" appears to have been correctly applied in all cases, we also see that there are degrees of violence. Speaking emphatically is not equal to window-breaking, which is not equal to hitting people, which is not equal to shooting people or using grenades/chemicals/other weapons that carry the risk of permanent damage or death. The mere labeling of actions as "violent" cannot accurately convey the story; details are necessary to develop an informed opinion.

"Anarchy" is another label that is used frequently when referring to OWS. This is a label which many find extremely negative, and frightening. I used to be one of them. For me, and for many, "anarchy" instantly evokes "confusion; chaos; disorder; a state of society without government or law; political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control". But this definition did not appear to match the message of the OWS movement, nor the tone; I sought an explanation. "Anarchy" also means "a theory that regards the direct absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society." Rather than “anarchy” being a scary, out-of-control situation, it's the political ideal that we don't need government to tell us what we can and can't do; instead, we would each simply choose to cooperate with each other to accomplish the goals we personally believe in. For example, if you want a library, other people who want a library would assist you in building, stocking and running it. If you see a need for food and shelter, those who also see that need would help you build, stock and run a shelter/soup kitchen. Much less frightening, no?

Words are wonderful. They allow us to communicate our thoughts, feelings and positions to one another, and to the world. But words can also be terrible, used to evoke a negative reaction to positive events, and a positive reaction to negative events. They can be used to label people, to identify them as different, separate them from the population and harm them; they can be used to label events, to instantly gain support for or against an action, to divide us from each other.

In our world, the mainstream media currently possesses the loudest voice. They present us with the news and current events they want us to know, in the manner they wish to present it, and with the spin that best benefits their corporate owners. They use words and labels to manipulate the public into taking the position that they present; we generally support that which they present as positive, and oppose that which they present as negative. This is known as bias. It’s often subtle, and it’s unexpected by much of the public. Many of the People believe that the press must tell the whole truth because they believe our Constitution guarantees us a free press. But the press doesn’t tell the whole truth. Facts and details that are extremely relevant to news stories are omitted, or are spun to produce biased results. Under our Constitution, this still constitutes a free press, because our press is only guaranteed freedom from the threat of restrictive laws passed by Congress, not from the pressure of restrictive rules imposed by corporate owners in seeking to create a more malleable, corporate-directed public opinion.

We can avoid this despicable abuse of words and manipulation of the People, using a couple of strategies. The meanings and common usage of words changes over time, and over time, new words, with new meanings and common usages are added to our language. This process does take time, but it's a worthy goal. Smashing a window should not carry the same weight as unjustly shooting, beating or otherwise attacking peaceful people in clear violation of some of the Constitutional rights we hold most dear. We can implement this process right away. We can seek out reliable, independent, alternative sources of news and information, avoiding the mainstream media entirely; we can use the mainstream media solely to learn when something happens, and the particular spin the media places on the event, then seek out our alternative sources to get the specific, unbiased details. We can promote this concept, that our press is not free, that we need to fact-check what they try to sell us, that we need to find and use unbiased, independent, reliable sources. And we can each play our part to immediately end the ongoing attempted manipulation of public opinion, by applying on a personal basis words that constitute labels much more carefully, and by simply seeking out and paying attention to all the relevant facts rather than just reacting emotionally to the label someone with their own agenda has chosen to apply.