Tully's Page

Who's Going to Win?!??

2012-11-06T19:25:00.001-05:00

(Of course, I meant the Major League Soccer Playoff games, not something as tiresome as the Presidential Election...)

3 Political Lessons from Hurricane Sandy

2012-11-04T19:15:00.000-05:00

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, several "gut feelings" I have been experiencing have crystallized. If I have bee known for plain-speaking in the past, this post should take the cake.

Yes, I have one foot in the wild-eyed Progressive Camp and one in the hard-core Libertarian Camp. And this disaster has merely confirmed my eternal position stuck between these two camps.

1) It’s time to stop fighting about Global Climate Change, and time to start DOING something about it. We can not go on trying to survive “100-Year Storms” every year by fighting about whether its caused by humankind or a natural phenomenon. It is REAL. It is DESTRUCTIVE. It has been confirmed by Science. And we must begin to take responsibility for our futures.

For conservatives, it means an end to worshipping at the altar of Big Oil, Corporate Gas, Coal, and cheap gasoline. The answer is not to expand ‘domestic’ drilling to be energy ‘independent;’ the answer is to adopt European architectural standards that consider buildings that draw more energy than they create to be ‘a design flaw.’

For liberals, it means an honest end to “NIMBY” protectionism. Sure, Martha’s Vineyard liberals are all about a green future – unless it's the Cape Wind Project. Sure, western Massachusetts liberals are all in favor of green energy…unless it’s a windmill on their favorite mountain summit. Organized efforts against “Solar Farms” and “Industrial Wind” are in full operation in one of the most liberal areas of the country, based on tortured semantic gymnastics that boil down to nothing more than , “Not In My Backyard.”

Under the US Constitution, Congress and Congress alone is granted the power to regulate Interstate Commerce. There is hardly a good or service that more readily crosses state borders than the nation’s electric grid. It is time for Congress to prohibit local statutes frustrating green energy development. It is time for Congress to end Oil Company subsidies. It is time to Prohibit fracking and require energy-neutral building. NOW.

2) It’s time to stop engaging in a subservient obedience because “Government Knows Better.”

Government does NOT know better. My neighbor did not become omniscient and omnipotent by virtue of being employed as a contractor on Monday, and hired as a Government bureaucrat on Tuesday.

Throughout this disaster, we have been mislead and mismanaged by political offices. From NYC Mayor Micheal Bloomberg, who insisted that this was not a big deal of a storm, to the National Hurricane Center, which refused to issue hurricane warnings for New York and New Jersey, we have been failed by Government. In spite of that, like sheep to the slaughter, we have simply ‘obeyed’ government in waiting for rescue after disaster struck.

Private citizens - willing, able and desirous of helping – have been turned away. Turned away from storm-ravaged neighborhoods in the Rockaways, on Fire Island, on Staten Island. Incredulously, the Federal Emergency Management Agency – “FEMA” – is asking Fire Island homeowners to file for disaster relief online if their homes were damaged. But at the same time, the Suffolk County NY County Executive has ordered the arrest of anyone seeking access to Fire Island…leaving homeowners who are familiar with every square inch of the island’s landscape unable to judge the damage, make repairs, or file FEMA claims - all while off-island government ‘experts’ decide how to assess that very same damage in places where they have never stepped a foot.

When a tree falls across the road, we have been all-too-well trained to ‘call someone” to remove it. In another day, we would have simply gotten out our chain saw and taken care of it.

But today, citizens can not bring goods and comfort to the Rockaways, or Long Beach, or Kismet, or parts of Staten Island, as residents freeze and starve in filth and debris for the sixth night in a row – because the Police won’t let them. After all, the ‘authorities’ supposedly know better, and what they know is that citizens can’t be ‘trusted’ to help fellow citizens.

We need to return to the day when it is acceptable for citizens to engage in self-help, to apply their expertise and knowledge and sweat and tears without being pre-licensed and approved by government bureaucracies seeking to limit their own liability and “control” the repairs.

If I have ever had a Libertarian streak - here it is.

3) We need to completely rethink our strategies as to the very purpose of our military – and even more so, our National Guard.

Today, over 132,000 Americans are stationed abroad in military operations. How much more could they be used here at home!

We do not need troops in Europe, or rebuilding Afghanistan, or engaged in exercises off the coast of Australia. We do not need our National Guard shipped around the world in secret missions in Jordan and Pakistan.

We need a military, and a national guard, that can respond to threats at home. That can rebuild the United States. That can apply their prowess and provide their skills to the suffering HERE.

Rather than being the orphaned step-child of the US military, consigned to trapping boats carrying pot and immigrants - The United States Coast Guard should be the Vanguard of our forces; they and they alone are actually guarding our shores, while the Commander-in-Chief and the Pentagon spend 95% of our military budget in Germany and Afghanistan.

Yes, I am outraged…tired of bureaucracy, tired of government arrogance, tired of the assumption that ‘the people’ are expendable, incapable, and controllable.

My Choice for President: Dr. Jill Stein (Green Party)

2012-11-03T16:03:00.000-04:00

For those who knew me in my younger days when I was a Republican, all I can say is this: today’s Republican Party is nothing like the GOP I grew up in. It has been captured by religious extremists, by hateful leaders who train their supporters in academically dishonest sound bites, and by a scary collection of people who parrot an odd mix of mean-spiritedness, cluelessness, and hypocrisy. Today’s Republican Party is no longer a serious contender for my vote. It is no surprise that they are frothing at the mouth at NJ Governor Chris Christie's post-disaster comments about the President, wouldn't give intellect John Huntsman the time of day, and eventually saw Maine Senator Olympia Snowe leave the party in frustration. End of Discussion.

But for those who know me, and who know I have a Libertarian streak a mile wide and a Liberal soul a mile deep… there might be some head-scratching as to why I can not support Gary Johnson (Libertarian), or, as the vast majority of my friends do, Barack Obama.

No, I support Jill Stein.

There is no question that the 2012 election will be won by either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. And, given my dismissal of the Republicans in the opening paragraph, one could honestly ask me,

“Why, in a close election year, aren’t you supporting Obama? Why would you waste your vote on a candidate who can not win, and possibly ‘throw’ the election to Romney?’

Valid questions, and I am prepared to supply what I believe is a valid answer.

Why aren’t you supporting Obama?

I can not support Barack Obama because I disagree with his actions on the issues that are the most important to me.

One ‘collection’ of issues I have been writing about for several years is the growth of the American Police State: the continued loss of civil liberties, the continued shredding of Constitutional protections against the unwarranted search and seizure of Americans’ private lives, and the new surveillance state. And Obama, in an effort to show he can be as hawkish on security as the GOP, has made that growing police state even worse. His renewal of the Patriot Act, his support and signing of the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA, and his reversal on the issue of closing the Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp belies a willingness to sacrifice liberty in the name of political capital. The coordination of his Department of Homeland Security with local police departments in an effort to suppress the Occupy Wall Street movement evidences a view on ‘security’ that is no different than the Republicans.

On Environmental and Energy issues, the Republicans would have us believe that Obama has squelched domestic development of fossil fuels, thus hurting jobs and our economy. In response, the Obama administration and the Obama campaign have lost a golden opportunity: rather than embrace alternative energy in a real way, they point out that domestic drilling for oil and gas is at an all-time high. The Obama campaign has taken painstaking steps to insure that all of their literature openly embraces the expanded use of domestic oil, gas, and even coal….in addition to clean energies. We need to reverse this, not expand it. Fracking must be ended, not 'studied.'

On related issues, Obama has appointed a notoriously pro-genetically modified food Monsanto Executive to monitor our food supply at the FDA, and coordinated raids on small local farms selling raw milk to local customers. Large Agri-Business and the Chemical industry has gained under Obama, while the family farm has been in the bulls-eye. Obama, as a supposed liberal, is a complete disappointment on environmental issues.

And then there are wars: wars in the Middle East, and the infamous War on Drugs. This nation continues to fight an unwinnable war, with no defined goals, in Afghanistan – troops (including National Guard members) that could have been better-used at home during times of national disasters. Suicides among troops now exceed combat deaths, and those who dare to blow the whistle on military operations – such as Bradley Manning - are imprisoned in conditions that have drawn the condemnation of the world.

In the meantime, Obama has killed more people in one term of office – including innocent civilians – through drone strikes than George Bush did in two. There is NO excuse for this scorched-earth, innocents-be-damned policy.

As for the “War on Drugs,” the United States now has the largest incarcerated population in the world – more than states like China where rights are minimal. This is due entirely to a federally-fueled, failed war on drugs. Obama has increased – not decreased – this war against those who commit victimless’ crimes. This policy has devastated families, made young people ineligible for education loans, and has caused more death and suffering than any recent military operation.

And yet, even while Americans are showing stronger and stronger support for the outright legalization of marijuana – Obama has systematically raided medical marijuana dispensaries in states where this has been legalized. This is not the liberal President, or the ‘hope and change’ I had hoped for.

Where we *should* declare war is on the Bank Mobsters who destroyed our economy. On the issue of Bank Regulation – an issue that is at the top of the list for me – I must point out that Democrats, as a rule, have been as bad as Republicans. The bailouts of Wall Street were not Republican schemes – they were bipartisan. Democrat Chris Dodd in the Senate and Democrat Barney Frank in the House pushed for the bailouts – bailouts Obama supported. Obama added insult to injury by *stacking* the United States government financial arms with executives from Goldman Sachs, thus solidifying an interest group that has been objectively shown to habitually make money through destruction. What Romney did at Bain, Obama’s Federal Reserve and Treasury Appointments are doing from their Presidentially-guarded positions of authority.

And today, the Banks that were ‘too big to fail’ are now bigger than they were before the crisis – with no political stomach on Obama’s part to change it.

I’m sorry, but these are not the kind of positions that I can support.

If a Republican had taken the positions Obama took, I wouldn't consider voting for them for a second. There is no reason I should vote for Obama just because he has a “D” after his name.

But you’re wasting your vote! Look, Obama is not perfect, but if everyone did what you are doing, we’d be throwing the election to Romney!

No, they would be joining me in demanding change.

Historically, Third Parties have had an under-appreciated role in the American politics. It is not just through winning elections that change is secured.

The most important political changes in the last century: Anti-Trust legislation, Women’s right to vote, the right of unionization, the advent of the social security system, the end of the Vietnam War – did NOT happen because the major parties initiated them, or because people continued to vote for the ‘lesser of two evils.’

They happened because people voted for Third Parties. Third Parties have *always* been the engines that have catapulted important change to the forefront of political discourse.

These parties did not ‘win’ the elections – but they raised the issues in ways that were much louder and much more effective. In each case, minor parties demanded these changes – and when the major parties saw their growing numbers, they finally found the political courage to adopt those positions.

Yes, I will vote for Jill Stein for President. The Green Party has a platform that demands an end to military adventurism, the development of clean, renewable energy, the recognition of worker’s rights, the end of the Police Surveillance State, and a change in direction on the War on Drugs (including long-overdue legalized industrial hemp).

I take my vote seriously. When I turned 18, I went to register to vote that very morning. I have never missed an election since then.

The Green Party (or, in Massachusetts, the “Green-Rainbow Party") supports what I believe in. It is precisely because I take my Right to vote seriously, that I will exercise that right by choosing Green and Honkala on Tuesday.

Final Prediction: Obama over Romney, 318-220

2012-11-01T07:21:00.002-04:00

Obama takes the northeast, west coast, the midwest, and the latino mountains. Romney takes the deep south, the plains, and the Mormon Mountains....

National Weather Service Blows it on NYC area Warnings re: Sandy

2012-10-27T17:47:00.000-04:00

In direct contrast with the urgings of The Weather Channel, the announcements of the United States Coast Guard, and its own predictions, the National Hurricane Center of the National Weather Service has stubbornly refused to issue Hurricane watches or warnings, or even tropical storm watches and warnings, for the US Northeast ahead of Hurricane Sandy. The decisions is being criticized by most other weather professionals and first responders.

A flabbergasted Jim Cantore, reporting from Battery Park in Manhattan for The Weather Channel, questioned the wisdom of the decision and urged NOAA to change its mind, while TWC Tropical Weather expert Dr. Greg Postel referred to the NWS decision as "not good judgement" on his national broadcast.

Meanwhile, the United States Coast Guard issued “Port Condition X-Ray” warnings for New York Harbor, the last stage before boats are required to tie up securely or leave. Port Condition X-Ray, by Coast Guard standards, is issued 48 hours prior to expected landfall of a hurricane.

As renowned weather blogger Mike Smith wrote,

“…Meteorologists, as a group, get hung up on technicalities. Even though the storm, until dissipation, will always be the swirl of clouds known as Sandy at its center, over time the storm may transition from having a warm core (classic hurricane) to a cold core (hybrid) two miles above the ground. Other than meteorologists, who cares?

Everyone knows a hurricane is really bad -- and we believe this storm will be really bad. So, a hurricane warning would have told everyone what they needed to know.

Non-mariners don't know the definition of "gale force winds" (FYI: 39 to 54 mph). Disregarding that using hurricane warnings would be clearer, the NWS is going to get hung up on "gale, storm, high wind, inland high wind" and their alphabet soup of warning types with Sandy. Plus, with each individual NWS office having warning responsibility, rather than the National Hurricane Center, inconsistencies may develop. This occasionally occurs with Nor'easters and similar storms.

I believe this is an unfortunate decision by the NWS.”

The National Weather Service itself acknowledges on their site that the storm is a hurricane, and may even intensify prior to landfall:

SANDY IS LIKELY TO REMAIN AT OR NEAR HURRICANE STRENGTH DURING THE NEXT DAY OR SO. AFTER THAT TIME...THE CYCLONE WILL INTERACT WITH A STRONG SHORTWAVE TROUGH AND ASSOCIATED COLD FRONT MOVING INTO THE EASTERN UNITED STATES. AS THIS OCCURS...THE GLOBAL MODELS INDICATE THAT THE CYCLONE WILL STRENGTHEN DUE TO BAROCLINIC PROCESSES...AND THE OFFICIAL FORECAST CALLS FOR SOME INCREASE IN INTENSITY IN A COUPLE OF DAYS.

In spite of this, and in spite of expected storm surges of eight feet along Long Island's south shore, the NWS has refused to issue the normal warnings. Stung by criticism from all other weather sources, the NWS issued a statement just a few minutes ago explaining their actions:

"FIRST A NOTE ON THE NWS WARNING STRATEGY FOR SANDY. IN ORDER TO AVOID THE RISK OF A HIGHLY DISRUPTIVE CHANGE FROM TROPICAL TO NON-TROPICAL WARNINGS WHEN SANDY BECOMES POST-TROPICAL...THE WIND HAZARD NORTH OF THE TROPICAL STORM WARNING AREA WILL CONTINUE TO BE CONVEYED THROUGH HIGH WIND WATCHES AND WARNINGS WARNINGS ISSUED BY LOCAL NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE OFFICES."

("Highly Disruptive?" For who? For their web designer who would have to change the page?)

Yet, as of 3:17 pm today, no such warnings had been issued for anywhere in NY or NJ!

In the meantime, officials in New Jersey and New York are attempting to encourage evacuations of vulnerable coastal areas, without the added ‘encouragement’ of the NWS. Fire Island (NY) ferries have been ordered shut down Sunday mid-day, and the barrier beaches of New Jersey are now under mandatory evacuation orders. This afternoon’s high tide in New York was already one foot higher than predicted, and current predictions are for five-and-a-half-foot surge on top of a five foot astronomical high tide. Computer models at RMS, a company used by the Insurance industry to predict losses from weather events, have suggested that Sandy will be more destructive than Irene, and could cause more property damage (in dollars) than Katrina.

Still, the National Weather Service steadfastly refuses to issue warnings of any type for the NY area.

Perfect Storm...then, now

2012-10-26T08:44:00.000-04:00

Andrea Gail. Satori. Tamaroa. Hannah Boden.

Names that probably mean little to many people…but for some of us, the emotion felt in the gut more than 20 years later is as raw and powerful as the days we learned of them in October 1991.

As many of my readers and Facebook friends know, I was raised on the ocean. My family arrived in New York in colonial days as Dutch sea captains, and, but for a single young brother who stayed home in port, my ancestors were lost to the ocean they loved in 1705 when the Castel del Rey shipwrecked outside New York Harbor in a sudden ice storm.

For my part, the ocean was generally a far gentler mistress. Growing up on Long Island’s south shore, swimming in the ocean, clamming in the bays, fishing with my grandfathers, partying at remote bayhouses, walking on (and occasionally falling through) the ice of frozen canals, and exploring expanses of salt marshes and mudflats that no sane person would venture on were all just a part of growing up. And even when a rip current once took me for a ride, I never really felt fear.

In 1990, I moved to Martha’s Vineyard and took on a state job as the island’s Transportation Program Manager. Being an island, ‘transportation’ largely took the form of ferry and boat traffic, bicycles, and finding new and exciting ways of cramming 100,000 cars on an island designed for ten percent of that in July. Because no one simply arrives on – or flees from - an island quite as easily as on the mainland, our office was also the civil defense headquarters for the Vineyard.

If you compare Google maps with current aerial satellite photos for the Vineyard Town of Oak Bluffs , you will find a curious difference: maps still show a long waterway along the northeast coast of the island named “Harthaven Harbor;” the satellite image confirms that most of it is gone.

The ocean decided to take it.

It was October 1991, and it was the only hurricane in recent times that the National Weather Service chose not to name. Many people refer to it as “The October Hurricane,” or “The Hallowe’en Nor’easter,” but Vineyarders would always call it the “No-Name Nor’easter.”
Author Sebastian Junger would popularize the phrase, “The Perfect Storm,” and chronicle the events of those days with impeccable, moving detail in his book (and subsequent movie) by that name.

The storm was birthed when a typical winter nor’easter absorbed the remnants of Hurricane Grace in a process that exploded on October 28, 1991 off of Nova Scotia. By November 1 the system evolved into a full-fledged hurricane with peak winds of 75 miles per hour (120 km/h), but the National Hurricane Center chose to leave it unnamed. The toll on New England, New York, New Jersey, and people’s lives had already occurred.

The Andrea Gail, a fishing boat out of Gloucester, had tried to turn home from the Flemish Cap, the eastern-most edge of the Grand Bank fishing grounds, on October 24 – heading directly into the meterological equivalent of two textile mill rollers, pulling in and flattening everything in its path. It had been mentioned by fishermen that 35-foot seas was enough to scare even the most hardened seafarer. The buoys off of Nantucket were registering 75 foot seas. Further along towards the George’s bank, those waves rose more than 100 feet – some 30 feet higher than the top of the Andrea Gail’s highest mast.

Contact with the six-man crew ceased on October 28.

Meanwhile, off the shore of Montauk, Long Island, an Air National Guard helicopter ran out of fuel and crashed in its efforts to find another boat, the Satori; the Cape Cod-based Coast Guard Cutter Tamaroa would be sent to rescue both crews. On the Vineyard, the waves were pulling out docks and boats to sea..and completely obliterating the northern entrance to Harthaven Harbor. Another boat was sinking off of Staten Island.

For many, I suppose, these are ‘stories’ they hear on the news, or tales that weather buffs like to tell.

For Islanders, for fishermen, for people who live in the pulse and fury of the sea…it is a much, much, deeper, almost primeval emotional connection. Every fisherman lost at sea on the Vineyard, or Nantucket, or from Gloucester or New Bedford brings an entire community into mourning in a way that is hard to describe to outsiders.

And so, our news folk tell us that almost 21 years to the day, Round Two is upon us. Hurricane Sandy is moving up the coast, where she will combine with a northeaster and a cold front. This time the resulting behemoth – being named “Frankenstorm” by some – will explode closer to land.

Sandy may crash into New Jersey or Delaware, which means the northeast storm quadrant – the harshest – will pound Long Island and New England. And this time, unlike the storm of 1991, it will occur during an astronomical full moon and high tide.

Or, she may follow a path similar to Hurricane Irene, which followed the Connecticut River Valley and dumped enough rain in western New England to devastate roads in Vermont, the Catskills of New York, and western Massachusetts.

I currently live in Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts, right on the Deerfield River. During Irene, the river rose some 15-20 feet, breaching its banks and destroying homes and businesses and much in its path. Massachusetts State Route 2 west of Charlemont was washed away. The Vermont landscape remains visibly scarred from the waters that scoured out valleys, collapsed banks, and carved new channels. Huge boulders I knew well from relaxing at Rock River in Newfane were literally pulverized into sand by the waters power.

Yesterday, the authorities-that-be were opening the dams to drain the river of as much water as possible in anticipation of “Frankenstorm.’ And I admit to feeling a combination of anticipation and unease as we wait…for us, but also for those on the greater waters.

Dr. Andrew F. Brimmer, American Economic Prophet, dies at 86

2012-10-13T08:47:00.000-04:00

Dr. Andrew F. Brimmer, the son of a Louisiana sharecropper and the first African-American appointed as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, died Sunday at the age of 86.

Unlike many within the Federal Reserve who are seen as allies of powerful Wall Street Financial houses, Brimmer spent his life warning Americans about the growing disparity between the poor and the wealthy, and the effect that the outsourcing of American investment would have on low-income Americans.

And that was 30 years ago.

Brimmer earned an undergraduate degree in economics at the University of Washington – Seattle in 1950 and a master’s degree the following year. He then studies economics in India before attending the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, where he earned a doctorate.

He served as a staff economist to the Federal Reserve Board, and was the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs in Washington when he was appointed to the Fed Board of Governors by President Johnson. Having travelled extensively in India and Africa, his particular concern at the time was the outsourcing of American investment dollars and jobs overseas, and the resulting growing schism in America between the very poor and the wealthy. Controversial at the time, he revealed a growing “schism” between middle-class American blacks who were educated and had marketable skills, and a black underclass that lacked access to education and jobs.

The Wall Street Journal criticized his Fed Board tenure. At a time when racial tensions were high, the Journal ran one front-page headline reading “Desire to Aid Negroes Could Make New ‘Fed’ Member More Liberal.”

Dr. Brimmer was part of a federal delegation sent to Los Angeles after the 1965 rioting in Watts (Los Angeles) that left 34 people dead and tens of millions of dollars in property damage. He organized a study that revealed that the purchasing power of the average family in Watts had declined by $400 in the five years preceding the riots, while at the same time all other groups in America had experienced rising incomes.

“I do feel that the economic plight of blacks is a serious matter,” he told The New York Times in 1973. “So I bring the same economist’s tool kit to that subject as other economists bring to examine other national economic problems.”

Initiatives: Melissa Etheredge joins Coloradans in Likely Approval of Legal Weed

2012-10-12T19:53:00.002-04:00

Colorado voters may make that state the first jurisdiction to fully legalize marijuana since cannabis in all forms was prohibited almost a century ago.

Not just medical marijuana. Not just industrial hemp.

But good old-fashioned Weed.

Current polls in Colorado show that 50% of the public support the initiative (known as Amendment 64), while 40% oppose and 10% are undecided.

Adding a last minute push behind the measure is singer-songwriter Melissa Etheredge, who released a YouTube ad yesterday in support of legalizing marijuana.

Etheridge was diagnosed with breast cancer in October, 2004 and underwent chemotherapy. The singer made a memorable appearance in early 2005 at the Grammy Awards, where, bald from the chemotherapy treatment, she performed a cover of Janis Joplin's "Piece of My Heart." In a 2009 CNN interview with Anderson Cooper, Etheridge said she instantly noticed a difference in her pain after using marijuana.

Etheredge says,

"The nauseous, the pain, it was terrible. Prescription drugs were not helping. The only thing that allowed me to function and regain my strength was marijuana and I'm grateful for the relief it provided me. You know before I needed to use marijuana I just accepted the laws that treated marijuana users as criminals. But it's funny how a serious illness can give you a new outlook on life…I now see that it's wrong to arrest adults for using marijuana and it's even more wrong to allow gangs and cartels to profit from selling marijuana. Instead we should allow adults to possess limited amounts of marijuana and we should regulate marijuana sales in order to generate tax revenues for public schools construction and other community needs. To me, regulating marijuana is simply the right thing to do. Please vote yes on Amendment 64."

Proposals to fully legalize marijuana are also on the ballot in Washington state and Oregon. Police chiefs from all three states are frantically seeking to involve U S Attorney Eric Holder in the campaigns to oppose the measures, but so far Holder has been silent on all three.

Since marijuana is illegal under federal law, it is unclear what effect the ballot measures will have, even if passed. The Obama administration has actually accelerated raids on state-legal medical marijuana dispensaries in California and Montana, but growing public support for legalization is now fairly significant on the east and west coasts and in the western mountain states.

Initiatives: Maine Citizens to Approve Marriage Equality?

2012-10-09T07:43:00.004-04:00

In less than a month, Maine may become the first US state to adopt Marriage Equality by popular vote.

In 2009, the Maine state legislature approved same-sex marriage, but it was overturned on a citizen’s referendum by a 53-to-47 margin. But since that time, supporters have built a campaign organization that is likely to bear fruit this November.

“We’ve had 2 ½ years to go door-to-door and target the undecided,” said Matt McTighe, the manager of the Mainers United for Marriage campaign. In that time, over 200,000 one-on-one conversations (in a state of 1.3 millions) have taken place as a result of direct contact by volunteers. In addition, television commercials supporting same-sex marriage have been airing in Maine since the Olympics.
Today, polls show 57 percent of Mainers in support, and only 36 percent opposed.

Turn out in Maine is expected to be heavy, not only because of the Presidential election, but because of a hotly contested three-way Senate race pitting former Governor and Independent candidate Angus King against Democrat Cynthia Dill and Republican Charlie Summers. Maine, more than any other state in the union, has a strong history of supporting Independent candidates over both major parties. King, who leads in the polls, solidly supports the ballot initiative, as does the second-place-polling Democrat. Only the Republican – whose support level has fallen to 16% - opposes the initiative.

As a rule, we do not support ballot initiatives, because civil rights can not – and should not - be subject to popular vote (or mob rule, depending on your perspective). But it will be nice to be able to shut the mouths of those who constantly harp on the notion that ‘the people’ oppose equality.

[This is a first in a series of blog posts dedicated to the under-reported citizens' initiatives taking place around the nation]

.

Obama vs Romney: Oct 1 Update

2012-09-30T08:37:00.003-04:00

As of today, we're looking at a runaway slam-dunk for President Obama over Mitt Romney by an electoral vote of 348-190.

Romney's verbal gaffes and inability to connect with average Americans has seriously hurt any chances he had to pick off important swing states. In fact, it would be fair to say that the election is being lost by Romney more than it is being won by Obama: we expect many normally-Republican voters to just sit this one out in disgust.

Ironically, it was Obama who feared a stay-at-home electorate earlier in the campaign, as progressive democrats grew increasingly disappointed by the President's military and environmental policies. But Romney's penchant for embracing wealthy voters in overt and naïve ways - exacerbated by his wife's general cluelessness - has seen his poll numbers slide in almost every region of the nation.

In fact, President Obama is not polling appreciably better anywhere than he did last election, or than in the last few months; rather, Romney voters have begun to desert him and have decided to stay home, vote for a third party candidate, or remain undecided.

In key swing states - Florida, Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire, and North Carolina - Obama has clearly pulled ahead. States viewed by some in the media as 'swing,' such as Colorado and Wisconsin, were never really in doubt at all and are solidly in the Blue column.

In this month's edition, we also move a few more electoral votes to the Democrats: Iowa, which we had felt confident would go red, is now blue again; and Nebraska - which divides its votes based on Congressional Districts - is likely to give one vote to Obama, in spite of the Republican's successful gerrymandering of Omaha during last years' redistricting.

And, we make note of three more states that are within the pollster's margins of error, but which should be reliably red: Georgia, Montana, and Arizona. We are keeping these in the Republican column for now, but if Romney continues to make these out-of-touch gaffes during the October debates, and if Obama finds a bit more mojo, the Republicans could be looking at losing even these previously safe red states.

I also am going to go out on a limb to make another prediction: overall turnout will be low. Many Americans remain unenthusiastic about both candidates. While some (including yours truly) will cast their vote for a third party candidate, many will stay home. The election will be determined by degrees of disappointment, rather than degrees of enthusiasm.

On 9/11: My Love Affair with New York City

2012-09-11T20:01:00.003-04:00

[What follows is an adapted reprint of last year's 9/11 post]

In 1642, a Dutch ship owner named Bastiaen Van Kortrijk carried a group of settlers to the newly-found colony of Nieuw-Amsterdam. In return for helping to populate the new colony, he was awarded a land grant (or Manor) in what is today called “The Bronx.” His descendents would marry into the Corsa (or Corszen, or DeCoursey) family, another Dutch sea-faring family, who would occupy that land until after the American Revolution, when it was divided and sold off to pay debts (today these lands are better known as Fordham University, the Bronx Botanical Gardens, and the Bronx Zoo.)

The early days of New Amsterdam reflected a spirit of tolerance and diversity that was ground-breaking for its day. Within a decade of its founding, 18 different languages were being spoken in New Amsterdam. The Dutch, in fact, were a minority in their own colony, as Portuguese, free Africans, Germans, French, English, Swedes, Hispanics, native West Indians and Brazilians, Poles, and Bohemians settled the Colony...a far cry from modern nativist cries for an “English-Only!” country. Unlike the strict religious codes of Puritan New England, New Amsterdam guaranteed religious freedom for all, making it a favored destination for immigrating Jews and Quakers. And while the British Crown was guaranteeing a monopoly on all trans-Atlantic Trade for the British East India Company, free global trade was the norm for companies in New Amsterdam.

It’s no wonder that New York Times editorialist Russell Shorto called the people of New Amsterdam, the “UnPilgrims.” Tolerant, diverse, liberal, and commerce-oriented, these people were the founders of New York City…and are the deepest roots of my own family tree.

The Van Kortrijk - Corsa family and their descendents would live though more than 350 years of New York history. They would serve as local guides in George Washington’s army, as the first lithographers at South Street Seaport during the Civil War, and as blacksmiths on the Hyde Park Vanderbilt estate. Three centuries after landing on New York’s shore, my father would be born – where else, but in New York City. He would marry into another local New York family that had, in part, made its mark operating speakeasies during Prohibition – The Riviera, The Chop House, the Lafayette Grill – on Long Island’s south shore in the City of Long Beach. I would be raised not far from there, in Baldwin Harbor, growing up close to the bays and clam flats at a time when living near the canals meant you were on ‘the wrong side of the tracks.’ Accordingly, we were known as “Harbor Rats” and “Clamdiggers.”

One of the most enduring institutions on Long Island – the center of our social circle – were the volunteer Fire Departments. My great-grandfather would serve as Chief of Long Beach; my grandfather, Captain of Hose Company #1 in Baldwin; and my father, as Chief. My Uncle would follow him as Chief, and my cousin remains, to this day, an EMT in Brooklyn. The calendar of our lives was comprised of Parades (My sister and I were both in the Fire Department Drum & Bugle Corps), Tournaments, Department picnics and Christmas parties and installation dinners – and punctuated by the anguish of knowing that loved ones were in the middle of buildings aflame almost every day of the year. The sound of the fire alarm put us all on edge in a way that is hard to convey to those who have not lived with the daily risks to a firefighter’s life.

And so it is in that life-context that I watched in horror as the World Trade Center, one of the iconic symbols of New York City, began collapsing on itself – and on the firefighters and fellow New Yorkers trapped inside.

As one of my friends so poignantly reflected some weeks later in a letter, “Not a single neighborhood on Long Island has been untouched.” My best childhood friend would recount to me the horror of running through lower Manhattan – having been late for his appointment at the World Trade Center – as parts of bodies landed around him and on him. My brother-in-laws' (Bill) family, all new york city residents and workers, would take various routes home, including joining thousands walking over the Brooklyn Bridge. Bill, a hospital administrator, was supposed to be in New York City going over architectural plans...but to quote my sister, "..someone called to tell us Bill was back in the hospital preparing for what would never come---survivors." My cousin, the EMT, would lose six men from his company when the South Tower came down.

And I would stand with fellow New York natives where I worked, and watch, and feel helpless.

In the 10 years since that day, I figure that I have been back to NYC perhaps some 50 or 60 times. Each time, as I approach, I get a bit more animated, talk a little bit faster, and smile a little more broadly. Wo-hops in Chinatown, concerts in Central Park, Ty's and Rockbar in The Village, Sici's in Soho, the pace of the Financial District, The Eagle in Chelsea, student hostels in Morningside Heights, the Garment District, Shows and Bubba Gumps in the Theater District, Arcadia Spa and the Filling Station in Chelsea, my old office and Saturday Night Live studios in Rockefeller Center, The Boilerroom and funky vintage shops of the Lower East Side & Alphabet City, taking in the Cloisters at Fort Tryon Park, outside dining and Tiramisu in Little Italy...and pizza everywhere. I can't get enough.

And in those 10 years, I have been back to Ground Zero at least half a dozen times. I cry each time, without fail, and I do not expect that will ever change. Actually, I do more than cry - I fall apart. Yes, it was an attack on the United States, on western civilization, and on freedom. But for me, it was more than that.

It was an attack on MY city. MY home. MY family. Almost 400 years of MY ancestor’s footprints on a city that outshines every other city in the world in its energy, its excellence, its diversity, its drive.

And while others felt they needed to flee New York in the aftermath of 9/11, I had the opposite reaction. Everything in me screamed, “No one can f*ck with my city like that and get away with it.!”

I may be currently living in New Hampshire, but I am wrapping that up. Someday – soon - I WILL return to my Home.

As Daddy Warbucks sings in “Annie,”

“What is it about you?
You're big - You're loud - You're tough
N.Y.C. - I go years without you
Then I can't get Enough!

Enough of the cab drivers answering back
In the language far from pure
Enough of frankfurters answering back
Brother, you know you're in NYC…

Too busy, Too crazy…
Too hot, Too cold, Too late, I'm sold
Again, On NYC

….Oh NYC
You make 'em all postcards
You crowd, You cramp…You're still the champ
Amen For NYC

The shimmer of Times Square
The pulse, The beat, The drive!

….Oh, NYC
The whole world keeps coming
By bus, By train, You can't explain
Their yen for NYC

NYC
You're standing room only
You crowd, You cramp
You're still the champ
Amen For NYC

Lynyrd Skynyrd Drops Confederate Flag

2012-09-09T18:31:00.000-04:00

Lynyrd Skynyrd – the last of a dying breed – announced today that they were dropping the Confederate Flag as a backdrop to their concerts.

Guys as old as me, raised in working class neighborhoods, will always count Lynyrd Skynyrd as one of the best rock and roll bands of all time. Kings of the “southern rock” style, the band had seven platinum albums between 1973 and 1977, which included their iconic hits “Freebird,” “Sweet Home Alabama,” “That Smell,” and “Simple Man.” The ubiquitous Confederate Flag hung as a backdrop at every concert, and the band regularly expressed pride in their southern (Gainesville, Florida) origins.

But according to the aging members of the band, the time has come to portray themselves as Americans, and the American flag will replace the confederate flag at concerts.

“Groups like the KKK have hijacked the flag, and we don’t want our fans to think that we’re associated with that kind of thinking,” said Gary Rossington, the last remaining original member of the band.

In one of the most famous set of lyrics in rock history, Lynyrd Skynyrd used their song “Sweet Home Alabama” to refute criticism aimed at the south by fellow-rocket Neil Young:

“Well I heard old Neil sing about her;

Yes I heard ol’ Neil put her down.

Well I hope Neil Young will remember

A southern man don't need him around anyhow.”

At the height of their success in 1977 – the year I graduated High School – tragedy struck. On October 20, 1977, just three days after the release of “Street Survivors” – an album eerily named and even more eerily designed with the cover engulfed in flames - their plane ran out of fuel near the end of their flight from Greenvilee, South Carolina to Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The plane crashed in Gillsburg, Mississippi, killing lead singer/guitarist Ronnie Van Zand, Steve Gaines, Cassie Gaines, assistant road manager Dean Kilpatrick, pilot Walter McCreary and co-pilot William Gray. The other band members: Allen Collins, Gary Rossington, Leon Wilkeson, Gary Powell, Artemis Pyle, and Leslie Hawkins) and road crew suffered serious injuries.

After a breakup of the band following the crash, Rossington, Collins, Wilkeson and Powell formed a new band, the Rossington-Collins Band, which released two albums between 1980 and 1983. In an effort to avoid the charge of being a ‘reborn” Lynyrd Skynyrd, they chose a woman, Dale Krantz, as lead vocalist. Rossington and Collins eventually had a falling out over the affections of Dale Krantz, whom Rossington married.

In 1987, Lynyrd Skynyrd reunited for a full-scale tour with five major members of the pre-crash band: crash survivors Gary Rossington, Billy Powell, Leon Wilkeson and Artimus Pyle, along with guitarist Ed King, who had left the band two years before the crash. Ronnie Van Zant's younger brother, Johnny Van Zandt, took over as the new lead singer and primary songwriter The reconstituted Lynyrd Skynyrd has since gone through a large number of lineup changes and continues to record and tour today. One by one, the members of the pre-crash band have left, been forced out, or have died.

In 2004, Rolling Stone magazine ranked the group No. 95 on their list of the 100 Greatest Artists of all time. On March 13, 2006, Lynyrd Skynyrd was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. In October 2008, Lynyrd Skynyrd's song “Freebird” was named the 3rd greatest guitar solo of all time by Guitar World.

Last month, they released a new studio album, Last of a Dying Breed.

Chris Kluwe: Open Letter to Emmet C. Burns, Jr.

2012-09-09T09:39:00.001-04:00

On the ballot this November, Marylanders will be voting on an initiative to enact Marriage Equality in that state. Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo has urged support for that measure (Video below), prompting a strong reaction from anti-equality legislator Emmet Burns. The Baltimore Democrat wrote to Ravens owner Steve Biscotti, urging him to silence his players. That letter was made public, and Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe - who as a gay brother-in-law and is fighting an anti-Equality initiative in Minnestota - responded with the letter below.

Dear Emmett C. Burns, Jr.,

I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of the United States government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail:

1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents in order to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to argue that the Ravens should silence Brendon Ayanbadejo from voicing his support for same-sex marriage, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, but you come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain. What on Earth would possess you to say something so mind-boggingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person's right to free speech. To call that "hypocritical" would be to do a disservice to the word. "Mindfuckingly, obscenely hypocritical" starts to approach it a little bit.

2. You wrote, "Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment and excitement." Holy fucking shitballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who is, according to your Wikipedia page, "deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland"? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you're going to say that political views have "no place in a sport"? I can't even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for "beautiful oppressionism").

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different from what you believe, or act differently from you? How does gay marriage affect your life in any way, shape, or form? Are you worried that if gay marriage became legal, all of a sudden you'd start thinking about penis? ("Oh shit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!") Will all your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely. Gay people enjoy watching football, too.)

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won't come into your house and steal your children. They won't magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won't even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population, rights like Social Security benefits, childcare tax credits, family and medical leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA health care for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gay Americans? Full-fledged citizens, just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter in some small way causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot-in-mouth clusterfuck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I'm fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe

P.S. I've also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage, so you can take your "I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing" and shove it in your closed-minded, totally-lacking-in-empathy pie hole.

Will an East Coast Strike Derail Obama's Re-election Bid?

2012-09-08T16:46:00.000-04:00

Historically, followers of presidential campaigns have looked for an “October Surprise” – a news event with the potential to change the course of the election. Over the past few decades, the “October Surprises” have included a false announcement of the Vietnam War winding down by then-President Johnson during the 1968 Humphrey-Nixon-Wallace contest; Henry Kissinger’s announcement that a Vietnam peace was “at hand” just before the 1972 Nixon-McGovern election; the 1992 (Bush-Clinton) breaking of the Iran-Contra affair; and the release of George W. Bush’s drunken driving arrest just before the 2000 Bush-Gore election.

But sometimes, the ‘surprise’ comes from elsewhere…such as when Iran announced that they would not release the American Embassy hostages just before the 1980 Carter-Reagan election. And that could well be the case this year.

Yes, Mitt Romney might release his Tax Returns (or they may be released to media sources by hackers claiming to have obtained them).

Or perhaps Benjamin Netanyahu will decide to launch a surgical strike against Iran’s nuclear complex, forcing President Obama into the position of taking a hawk-like military stance (which will disappoint progressives, but not be good enough for Neo-con Republicans).

Or maybe it will come in the form of a looming longshoremen’s strike that has somehow evaded news reports, but which could shut down 14 ports and 95% of all shipping traffic on the east coast.

On September 30, the employment contract between the U.S Maritime Alliance (representing container carriers and port operators) and the International Longshoremen’s Association expires. Talks for a new contract broke down on Aug. 22 over wages and benefits, with no clear path to agreement in view. The union had requested a "last best offer” from Management, and the Alliance Management refused. The union said last week that it was now “making preparations” for a possible strike on Oct. 1.

At the urging of the Retail Industry Leaders Association and the National Retail Federation, President Obama has ordered mediators to reopen talks between the groups. The breakdown in talks comes in the midst of a concerted effort by Philadelphia area port operators, in an alliance with Del Monte Brands, to transfer dock operations away from ILA workers and towards lower-paid laborers.

“Many companies are making contingency plans, but clearly even the best plans will be problematic in the event of a full- scale shutdown at East and Gulf Coast ports,” said Peter Gatti, executive vice president of the National Industrial Transportation League this week. “Even the potential shift of that freight will put extraordinary demands on all modes of transportation, particularly for rail.”

In 2002, U.S. West Coast ports closed for 10 days after the Pacific Maritime Association locked out members of the International Longshore and Warehouse union, who it said were intentionally slowing down work. President George W. Bush ordered an end to the shutdown under the Taft-Hartley Act, but the short lock-out cost the U.S. economy more than $1 billion a day.

The resolution – or not – of this situation could well be the “October surprise” for 2012. If the President is able to secure a negotiated settlement, it will earn him political capital.

But if an agreement is not reached, it puts the President in a no-win situation: as long as the strike continues, the economy will be further depressed, and Republicans will seize on the opportunity to criticize the President and unions. If the President steps in and orders the dockworkers back to work, he will be seen as betraying blue collar workers, unionists, and progressives.

I fully expect Obama to win re-election, based on today’s numbers and sentiments.

But if this is the “October Surprise,” all bets could be off - especially in the three critical coastal swing states of Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida...and heavily unionized states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

.

Romney Campaign Buttons Outsourced to China

2012-09-07T14:50:00.001-04:00

[UPDATE AT END OF POST]

For the last 40 years or so, I have collected political campaign buttons, especially Presidential Campaign buttons. I finally decided to shed some of my collection this year, and have been selling some of my prized buttons on eBay. From FDR through the 2000s, I have hundreds of them (including one from 1876, which I intend on keeping).

In spite of the many differences among them, there is a common theme to all of them, throughout the years: they were made in the United States. Whether the candidate was a liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican, there has been a historic tradition that you not only have your buttons made in the America - - you have them made at union shops. The all-pervasive “union bug,” the symbol of the manufacturing unions, has been printed on the edges of US political buttons of all parties for – well, - generations. The "Union Bug" was first used by the "Carpenter's Eight-Hour League," a union that adopted a stamp in 1869 for use on products produced by factories employing men on the eight- (as opposed to ten-) hour day.

I have included some samples from my own collection at the bottom of this post. The “bug” not only sends the message that the candidate supports blue-collar workers and American-made products, it is often used among collectors to validate a button as ‘legitimate’ and not a recent, cheap reproduction. Common unionized manufacturers – still in existence after more than 80 years - include Bastian Brothers of Rochester, NY and N. G. Slater of New York City.

This year’s Republican platform slams China. It criticizes their currency policies (a fair criticism), and goes on to warn of GOP plans to use tariffs and international organizational pressure against Chinese imports. It criticizes the Chinese military presence off of her own shores, and supports weapon sales to Taiwan.

So one would not think that a campaign that is criticizing China; that is threatening tariffs on imports from China; whose standard bearer, Mitt Romney, is trumpeting his ability to create jobs while ducking charges of outsourcing American jobs …would have had its campaign buttons made …

Guess where?

In China.

Just got to shake my head.

[UPDATE: The Romney Campaign was contacted by this Blog on the day we ran this story, through the official campaign Press inquiry channel they requested we use, and was asked to provide the name and address of the company used to make these buttons. The campaign has chosen, so far, not to respond.]

Pictures of Political buttons with American Union Bugs : Gerald Ford (Republican, 1976), Wendell Willkie (Republican, 1940), Jimmy Carter (Democrat, 1976) and John B. Anderson (Independent, 1980).

Elizabeth Warren: Full Text of DNC Speech

2012-09-06T07:32:00.002-04:00

Thank you! I'm Elizabeth Warren, and this is my first Democratic Convention. Never thought I'd run for senate. And I sure never dreamed that I'd get to be the warm-up act for President Bill Clinton—an amazing man, who had the good sense to marry one of the coolest women on the planet. I want to give a special shout out to the Massachusetts delegation. I'm counting on you to help me win and to help President Obama win.

I'm here tonight to talk about hard-working people: people who get up early, stay up late, cook dinner and help out with homework; people who can be counted on to help their kids, their parents, their neighbors, and the lady down the street whose car broke down; people who work their hearts out but are up against a hard truth—the game is rigged against them.

It wasn't always this way. Like a lot of you, I grew up in a family on the ragged edge of the middle class. My daddy sold carpeting and ended up as a maintenance man. After he had a heart attack, my mom worked the phones at Sears so we could hang on to our house. My three brothers all served in the military. One was career. The second worked a good union job in construction. The third started a small business.

Me, I was waiting tables at 13 and married at 19. I graduated from public schools and taught elementary school. I have a wonderful husband, two great children, and three beautiful grandchildren. And I'm grateful, down to my toes, for every opportunity that America gave me. This is a great country. I grew up in an America that invested in its kids and built a strong middle class; that allowed millions of children to rise from poverty and establish secure lives. An America that created Social Security and Medicare so that seniors could live with dignity; an America in which each generation built something solid so that the next generation could build something better.

But for many years now, our middle class has been chipped, squeezed, and hammered. Talk to the construction worker I met from Malden, Massachusetts, who went nine months without finding work. Talk to the head of a manufacturing company in Franklin trying to protect jobs but worried about rising costs. Talk to the student in Worcester who worked hard to finish his college degree, and now he's drowning in debt. Their fight is my fight, and it's Barack Obama's fight too.

People feel like the system is rigged against them. And here's the painful part: they're right. The system is rigged. Look around. Oil companies guzzle down billions in subsidies. Billionaires pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. Wall Street CEOs—the same ones who wrecked our economy and destroyed millions of jobs—still strut around Congress, no shame, demanding favors, and acting like we should thank them.

Anyone here have a problem with that? Well I do. I talk to small business owners all across Massachusetts. Not one of them—not one—made big bucks from the risky Wall Street bets that brought down our economy. I talk to nurses and programmers, salespeople and firefighters—people who bust their tails every day. Not one of them—not one—stashes their money in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

These folks don't resent that someone else makes more money. We're Americans. We celebrate success. We just don't want the game to be rigged. We've fought to level the playing field before. About a century ago, when corrosive greed threatened our economy and our way of life, the American people came together under the leadership of Teddy Roosevelt and other progressives, to bring our nation back from the brink.

We started to take children out of factories and put them in schools. We began to give meaning to the words "consumer protection" by making our food and medicine safe. And we gave the little guys a better chance to compete by preventing the big guys from rigging the markets. We turned adversity into progress because that's what we do.

Americans are fighters. We are tough, resourceful and creative. If we have the chance to fight on a level playing field—where everyone pays a fair share and everyone has a real shot—then no one can stop us. President Obama gets it because he's spent his life fighting for the middle class. And now he's fighting to level that playing field—because we know that the economy doesn't grow from the top down, but from the middle class out and the bottom up. That's how we create jobs and reduce the debt.

And Mitt Romney? He wants to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. But for middle-class families who are hanging on by their fingernails? His plans will hammer them with a new tax hike of up to 2,000 dollars. Mitt Romney wants to give billions in breaks to big corporations—but he and Paul Ryan would pulverize financial reform, voucher-ize Medicare, and vaporize Obamacare.

The Republican vision is clear: "I've got mine, the rest of you are on your own." Republicans say they don't believe in government. Sure they do. They believe in government to help themselves and their powerful friends. After all, Mitt Romney's the guy who said corporations are people.

No, Governor Romney, corporations are not people. People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick, they cry, they dance. They live, they love, and they die. And that matters. That matters because we don't run this country for corporations, we run it for people. And that's why we need Barack Obama.

After the financial crisis, President Obama knew that we had to clean up Wall Street. For years, families had been tricked by credit cards, fooled by student loans and cheated on mortgages. I had an idea for a consumer financial protection agency to stop the rip-offs. The big banks sure didn't like it, and they marshaled one of the biggest lobbying forces on earth to destroy the agency before it ever saw the light of day. American families didn't have an army of lobbyists on our side, but what we had was a president—President Obama leading the way. And when the lobbyists were closing in for the kill, Barack Obama squared his shoulders, planted his feet, and stood firm. And that's how we won.

By the way, just a few weeks ago, that little agency caught one of the biggest credit card companies cheating its customers and made it give people back every penny it took, plus millions of dollars in fines. That's what happens when you have a president on the side of the middle class.

President Obama believes in a level playing field. He believes in a country where nobody gets a free ride or a golden parachute. A country where anyone who has a great idea and rolls up their sleeves has a chance to build a business, and anyone who works hard can build some security and raise a family. President Obama believes in a country where billionaires pay their taxes just like their secretaries do, and—I can't believe I have to say this in 2012—a country where women get equal pay for equal work.

He believes in a country where everyone is held accountable. Where no one can steal your purse on Main Street or your pension on Wall Street. President Obama believes in a country where we invest in education, in roads and bridges, in science, and in the future, so we can create new opportunities, so the next kid can make it big, and the kid after that, and the kid after that. That's what president Obama believes. And that's how we build the economy of the future. An economy with more jobs and less debt. We root it in fairness. We grow it with opportunity. And we build it together.

I grew up in the Methodist Church and taught Sunday school. One of my favorite passages of scripture is: "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40. The passage teaches about God in each of us, that we are bound to each other and called to act. Not to sit, not to wait, but to act—all of us together.

Senator Kennedy understood that call. Four years ago, he addressed our convention for the last time. He said, "We have never lost our belief that we are all called to a better country and a newer world." Generation after generation, Americans have answered that call. And now we are called again. We are called to restore opportunity for every American. We are called to give America's working families a fighting chance. We are called to build something solid so the next generation can build something better.

So let me ask you—let me ask you, America: are you ready to answer this call? Are you ready to fight for good jobs and a strong middle class? Are you ready to work for a level playing field? Are you ready to prove to another generation of Americans that we can build a better country and a newer world?

Joe Biden is ready. Barack Obama is ready. I'm ready. You're ready. America's ready. Thank you! And God bless America!

Democratic Convention Chair Railroads Delegates on Jerusalem

2012-09-05T17:22:00.000-04:00

At 5:00 pm this evening, the Democrats proved that they can be just as disingenuous as Republicans.

In response to a media storm over the 2012 Democratic Party Platform - which had removed references to God as well as a standing platform plank recognizing Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel - the Convention voted to suspend the rules to amend the Platform. The Chair of the Platform Committee then offered the amendments to restore the "Jerusalem-is-Capital" plank and the acknowledgment of God in the Platform. There was no further debate, and a voice vote was called. The vote required a 2/3 affirmative to change.

The Chair called for the ayes and nays.

The Chair appeared stunned at the response.

The Nays were as loud as, if not louder than, the Ayes.

The Chair looked around and smiled in an embarassed-sort-of-way.

In an effort to find an easy way out, he called for the vote again.

This time the nays were clearly louder than the ayes.

This was not the expected outcome. Democrats had huddled for 48 hours in an effort to insure that the rejection of the Jerusalem plank would not cost them the electoral votes of Florida, with its heavy Jewish electorate.

The only appropriate move - as it was broadcast on national television - would have been to call for a roll call vote of the delegates in attendance.

Appallingly, the chair then called for the vote for the third time - and again, the convention delegates clearly voted 'no' on the changes on a passionate voice vote.

The Chair then declared that a 2/3 affirmative vote had been achieved, declared the platform amended, and went on to the opening ceremonies.

The Platform is now a shameful Lie, and does not reflect the vote of the Delegates.

Parti Québécois Victory Marred by Assassination Attempt

2012-09-05T07:42:00.000-04:00

Pauline Marois, leader of the Parti Québécois, is set to become the Province’s first female Premier. Just before midnight, she was giving a victory speech to an electrified audience when a would-be assassin begin shooting near the back door of the hall where they were gathered.

Wearing a balaclava over his face and wielding a rifle, the man got within 20 feet of the stage and opened fire. While Marois and those inside were not injured, one supporter outside in his 40s was killed, and two others were hospitalized. Before the shooting, the gunman managed to set a fire blocking the rear door.

Police captured the man, who screamed “The English are waking up!” in broken French. After being hustled out of the venue, Marois returned to the stage and requested that the victory crowd calmly leave the building before concluding with a few more lines of thanks.

This was the first time the Separatist Parti Québécois had won a Provincial election in 15 years, although they won just shy of the 63 seats necessary for an absolute majority. This summer’s student protests and an unpopular anti-protest law (Bill 78) enacted by the scandal-plagued governing Liberals, hastened elections and the choice of the new Premier. The election was further complicated by emergence of a new party, the Coalition Avenir Québec (Coalition for Québec’s Future, or CAQ), which took almost 30% of the vote across the province and won 19 seats.

This morning it appears that the Parti Québécois (PQ) won 54 seats (DARK BLUE), the Liberals (who are not liberal by US standards) won 50 seats RED), the new CAQ took 19 seats (LIGHT BLUE), and the ultra—hard-line Separtists Québec Solidaire took 2 seats ORANGE). The PQ will need to have the support of legislators from some other party in order to pass legislation.

Within her own party, Marois is largely seen as a moderate who is ‘soft’ on the independence issue, and who would actually take small steps to move towards a more autonomous Québec rather than demand independence. Some Parti members actually quit the party under her leadership because they thought she was too wishy-washy on the independence issue.

Among Anglophones, however, she is painted in much harsher tones. In an English language chat room sponsored by the Canadian Broadcast Company in Montréal last night, some writers were accusing her of hate, racism, and of being ‘a lizard in human form.”

Green Party's Jill Stein: "Winning Labor’s Battles Requires Independent Politics"

2012-09-03T12:12:00.000-04:00

I welcome and endorse the AFL-CIO’s campaign to finally fulfill President Roosevelt’s 1944 call for a second, Economic Bill of Rights, including the rights to jobs, living wages, labor unions, voting rights, health care, education, and retirement security.

As the Green Party candidate for President, my Green New Deal platform already has specific proposals to secure these rights.

● Jobs: Employ the unemployed in public works projects and federallysupported community-controlled cooperatives and other enterprises; create 25 million green and pink jobs.

● Living Wages: Raise the federal minimum wage to a living wage.

● Labor Law Reforms: Repeal the anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act, outlaw permanent striker replacements, and authorize majority card check union recognition.

● Voting Rights: Pass the Right To Vote Amendment to establish an affirmative constitutional right to vote and accurate vote counting.

● Corporate Power: Pass a constitutional amendment to repeal the corrupting court-ordered doctrines that corporations are people and money is speech and establish that corporations and election campaign finance can be regulated.

● Health Care: Enact single-payer Medicare for All.

● Education: Forgive student debt and provide tuition-free public education from pre-school through graduate school.

● Retirement Security: Eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes for high incomes in order to secure Social Security’s indefinite fiscal sustainability.

The AFL-CIO leadership are demanding that the two corporate-financed parties, the Democrats and Republicans, adopt the Economic Bill of Rights in their platforms at their conventions this year.

They must know this a lost cause with the openly anti-union Republicans. They should know that a real commitment to an Economic Bill of Rights is as much a lost cause with the Democrats, who have taken labor’s political support for granted for many decades with no significant pro-labor reforms to show for it.

If they didn’t know that, it should have been clear on August 11 when a 40,000-strong AFL-CIO sponsored rally in Philadelphia called for the Economic Bill of Rights. The rally heard by video from President Obama, who made no mention of the Economic Bill of Rights. Meanwhile, in Detroit, the platform committee of the Democratic National Convention put the final touches on the platform to be adopted over Labor Day week that has no planks to secure any of these economic rights.

The great victories of labor have always been won by independent actions that pressured the political establishment to make concessions. The landmark National Labor Relations Act, which finally established workers’ right to collectively bargain, was adopted in 1935 under the pressure of independent labor political action in the factories, shops, and streets by the ascendant union movement and in the electoral arena in the form of many union resolutions calling for a labor party. The labor party resolutions had credibility because the labor-backed Farmer-Labor and Progressive parties in the Upper Midwest already had two governors, three Senators, and 12 Representatives in their camp in 1935 and they were considering an independent presidential campaign in 1936.

But after the AFL rejected the labor party and went into the Democratic Party in 1936, labor lost its independent vision and its leverage in the political system. It was now part of a coalition dominated by big business.

The anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act passed in 1947 with majority support of the Democratic majority in Congress. Every attempt labor law reform since then has failed when there was a Democratic President with Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress.

● Under Truman in 1949, the Democrats failed to repeal Taft-Hartley in 1949.

● Under Johnson in 1965 and 1966, the Democrats twice failed to repeal Section 14b of Taft-Hartley, the section that enabled states to outlaw union shops (so-called “right-to-work” laws).

● Under Carter in 1977 and 1978, the Democrats failed to pass one bill that would have repealed the Taft-Hartley prohibition on solidarity picketing at construction sites and another bill to reform
the National Labor Relations Board whose long delays and inconsequential employer sanctions had made it a shield for union-busting.

● Under Clinton in 1993, the Democrats failed to pass a ban on permanent striker replacements.

● Under Obama in 2009-2010, the Democrats failed to pass the Employee Free Choice Act for majority card check union recognition. Worse, unlike any previous period of Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, the Democrats failed to even bring the bill to a vote.

The AFL-CIO leadership has taken a small step toward independence by saying they will not give money directly to Democratic committees and candidates but instead spend it “independently” on their behalf. Unfortunately, this often means supporting the very same Democrats who are collaborating with the anti-worker forces that dominate Washington. The words “political independence” are just that --words-- that have no power unless it involves running labor candidates who can challenge both corporate parties. Imagine if labor had spent the over $15 billion they spent on the Democrats over the last 40 years instead building an independent labor party and movement. Today we would have scores of labor party organizers in every state supporting a broadly based party of the working class majority. We would have blocks of independent labor representatives in municipal, county, state, and the national legislatures. We would have a national labor daily newspaper and labor networks on radio and cable. The two corporate financed parties would no longer monopolize U.S. politics. Democrats like Obama would not dare to force new free trade treaties upon workers. Badly needed labor reforms would be back on the table. And halting the decline of real wages and living standards would suddenly be more of a priority than protecting the big Wall Street banks.

The labor movement in every other industrial nation has formed its own party that is independent of corporate money and control. They have been able to organize the working class majority to take
political power, exercise it for the benefit of the working class majority, and secure economic rights, including universal health care, affordable public transit, free public college education, secure pensions, four to six weeks of paid vacation for all workers, paid maternity and family sick leave, and labor laws that protect their rights to organize and strike.

Labor has suffered a crushing series of political defeats in recent years and continuing a losing strategy is clearly unthinkable. It is time to practice the politics of courage rather than the politics of
appeasement. Labor unions must offer reliable support to labor candidates running against both the corporate parties. And rank-and-file workers do not have to wait for the leadership to disentangle themselves from establishment politics. They can vote this year for Green Party candidates who refuse corporate funding and are campaigning for a Green New Deal that already incorporates the Economic Bill of Rights. Vote by vote, we can raise the voices of working people until we have overcome
the corporate domination of politics, and set our country on a progressive course.

JILL STEIN FOR PRESIDENT
www.JillStein.org
PO BOX 260217 - MADISON - WISCONSIN - 53726-0217

.

Bain Capital Subpoenaed on Taxes

2012-09-02T09:09:00.002-04:00

Bain Capital, the Venture Capital Firm that has become synonymous with Mitt Romney’s personal fortune, has been subpoenaed by NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman for possible rampant tax evasion practices.

This blog has been critical over the years of the special tax treatment afforded to profits made from Capital Gains – profit made as an increase on investments - which is only taxed at rates of about 15%. Common wage labor is taxed at rates up to 38%. This creates a tax system that rewards stock and investment trading – which amasses wealth but creates no products or jobs - and punishes the actual creation of goods and services.

This is the legal tax code of course, but Bain is being investigating for making Management Fees charged to clients ‘appear’ to be investment income, rather than the fees they actually are.

Bain (and other firms) have a history of “waiving” the actual Management Fees they charge their clients; but in the place of these fees, they require the clients to place some of their investments in a fund for Bain, so that Bain receives the income from the investment; hence, the money Bain receives is taxed at 15% for capital gains rather than being taxed at 38% for the raw income from a fee.

I will remain a broken record on this issue, especially on Labor Day weekend: income from gambling with financial instruments must not be taxed less than the income earned by construction workers and firefighters and nurses and dressmakers who earn wages for providing the nation’s goods and services.

Whether Bain’s approach is legal or a tax-evading subterfuge will be settled in the court system.

Whether it is ethical and desirable as public policy, in light of how we tax honest labor, is much clearer.

Labor Day: Republicans and Democrats AWOL on Taft-Hartley

2012-09-01T08:54:00.001-04:00

In a broadcast to the AFL-CIO merger meeting On December 5, 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower said,

“You of organized labor and those who have gone before you in the union movement have helped make a unique contribution to the general welfare of the Republic--the development of the American philosophy of labor. This philosophy, if adopted globally, could bring about a world, prosperous, at peace, sharing the fruits of the earth with justice to all men. It would raise to freedom and prosperity hundreds of millions of men and women--and their children--who toil in slavery behind the Curtain.
One principle of this philosophy is: the ultimate values of mankind are spiritual; these values include liberty, human dignity, opportunity and equal rights and justice.

Workers want recognition as human beings and as individuals-before everything else. They want a job that gives them a feeling of satisfaction and self-expression. Good wages, respectable working conditions, reasonable hours, protection of status and security; these constitute the necessary foundations on which you build to reach your higher aims. “

When Eisenhower gave this speech in the 1950s, more than one-third of all American workers were members of a union. Unions were largely credited with bringing about the 40-hour work week, the 8-hour day, the concept of a “weekend,” health coverage, pension reform, and safe working conditions. But today, union membership in the private sector has fallen to 7.2% While some of that is due to changes in industry structure in the US, the single biggest factor that has contributed to the elimination of union protections and bargaining powers is the Taft-Hartley Act.

Passed in 1947 over the veto of President Harry Truman, the Taft-Hartley Act (often known in labor circles as "the slave-labor bill") has been described by Ralph Nader as "one of the great blows to American democracy…that fundamentally infringed on workers' human rights" -- most importantly, their right to unionize.

The includes the following provisions:

- Authorizes states to enact so-called ‘right-to-work’ laws. These laws undermine the ability to build effective unions by creating a free-rider problem—workers can enjoy the benefits of union membership in a workplace without actually joining the union or paying union dues. Right-to-work laws increase employer leverage to resist unions and vastly decrease union membership, thus dramatically diminishing unions' bargaining power. 23 states are currently right-to-work states, with legislation threatening in New Hampshire and Wisconsin.

- Defines "employees" for purposes of the Act as excluding supervisors. This diminishes the pool of workers eligible to be unionized. The exclusion of supervisors from union organizing activity also means they can be used (and coerced) as management's "front line" in anti-organizing efforts; what's more, employers can fire supervisors who try to unionize.

- Defines "employees" for purposes of the Act as excluding independent contractors. It means that institutions such as colleges can hire staff, often using grant funds, as ‘independent contractors,’ thus excluding them from benefits such as health insurance and pension, and denying them union membership and contractual benefits.

- Requires that election hearings on ‘matters of dispute’ be held before a union recognition election, thus delaying the election; these delays enables management to ‘buy time,’ and has been shown to give management an advantage as over time workers feel coerced into avoiding organizing activities.

- Establishes the "right" of management to campaign against a union organizing drive, thereby eliminating the time-honored legal principle of employer neutrality.

- Prohibits secondary and sympathy boycotts—boycotts directed to encourage neutral employers to pressure a defiant employer with which the union has a dispute. Secondary boycotts had been one of organized labor's most potent tools for organizing, negotiating and dispute settlement prior to the passage of Taft-Hartley.

- Enables the federal government to move in and demand an 80-day cooling off period if it deems a strike to be detrimental to the national interest.

The Act sent a clear message to employers: It is OK to bust unions and deny workers their rights to collectively bargain. Today, union membership is at historic 60-year lows, employer violations of labor rights are routine, and illegal firings of union supporters in labor organizing drives are at epidemic levels.

The advent of unions created a balance in bargaining power between ‘producers’ of labor (workers) and purchasers of labor (employers), providing for fairer conditions overall. The attempted destruction of unions through Taft-Hartley and recent political moves against public employee unions represents a scary step backwards in American history.

On labor issues, the Republicans are essentially a lost cause, preferring to regularly side with the owners and investors of businesses at the expense of common workers.

But Democrats have not been appreciably better.

The Taft-Hartley Act passed in 1947 with majority support of the Democratic majority in Congress.

Under Truman in 1949, the Democrats failed to repeal Taft-Hartley.

Under Johnson in 1965 and 1966, the Democrats twice failed to repeal Section 14b of Taft-Hartley, the section that enabled states to outlaw union shops (so-called “right-to-work” laws).

Under Carter in 1977 and 1978, the Democrats failed to pass one bill that would have repealed the Taft-Hartley prohibition on solidarity picketing at construction sites and another bill to reform the National Labor Relations Board whose long delays and inconsequential employer sanctions had made it a shield for union-busting.

Under Clinton in 1993, the Democrats failed to pass a ban on permanent striker replacements.

Under Obama in 2009-2010, the Democrats failed to pass the Employee Free Choice Act for majority card check union recognition. Worse, unlike any previous period of Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, the Democrats failed to even bring the bill to a vote.

Republicans claim that Democrats have been 'captured' by 'big union bosses.' Democrats promise to deliver in campaign appearances, but those promises have amounted to little more than empty lip-service.

It’s time for hardball politics if Labor - and the middle class - is to survive in this nation.

Obama vs. Romney Electoral Map: Sept 1 Update

2012-08-31T19:36:00.000-04:00

As the Republican Circus winds down in Tampa and the Democratic one gets ready to roll in Charlotte, we have decided we need to make four changes in our Election prediction map since last month. The hammering Romney has taken over his taxes and the fiscal ice-water that runs in his veins was only exacerbated by the choice of Paul Ryan as Veep. Ryan's scorched-earth approach towards government programming has even normally Republican seniors sitting up to listen...and independent seniors furious. The pandering to Ryan, darling of the Tea Party, and the adoption of a platform on social issues (abortion, marriage equality) that is so conservative Ronald Reagan wouldn't have been able to abide by it, cements the GOP ticket as an image of a party captured by the lunatic right.

Accordingly, we switch two states from red to blue:

FLORIDA: The Senior citizen vote is critical in Florida, and the choice of Ryan was, in effect, a surrender of the Sunshine State by the Republicans. Add to that the embarrassing voiding of a GOP-lead voter suppression law by the courts, and the endorsement of President Obama by former Republican Governor (and now-Independent) Charlie Crist, who stated, " "I didn't leave the Republican Party, it left me." Momentum is clear for Obama to overcome notorious elections in Florida to take the state. Color it Blue.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Another state with a sizable retiree population that votes in its own interests. A closely watched 'swing state,' New Hampshire Democrats are energized by a Gubernatorial primary that pits two popular Democrats against each other in a contest that has been relatively upbeat and above board. The Republicans, meanwhile, are beginning to show their deep fissures, as Paul-leaning libertarians, Christian fundamentalists, and old-tyme establishment Republicans find it increasingly harder to convey a common message to the voters. We tilt this one, ever so slightly, Blue.

On the other hand, there are two states we are finally resigning to the GOP:

ARIZONA: It appears that in this election, in spite of the outrage among liberals, the young, Latinos, and many independent women at the Republican establishment, they do not command the votes to overcome a significant GOP registration edge. This was a state that I thought might end up in the 'swing' column, but it is clear now that it is Red, at least for the next election cycle or two.

IOWA: This state has gone back and forth, but the most recent polls seem to show that the Republicans are uniting and the Democrats are growing tired and weary of this fight. It seems likely to slide back into the Red column in 2012.

This gives the election to Obama by an electoral vote of 326-212.

And now, the Sleeper Surprise State:

GEORGIA: A Deep South state, many have simply written Georgia off as a Red Republican state like her neighbors Alabama and South Carolina. But Georgia is changing: the metropolitan Atlanta area commands a huge portion of Georgia's electorate, and these are no good old boys. In addition, the minority population of Georgia is growing exponentially: as of the 2010 census, only 56% of Georgians were non-Hispanic whites, while 60% of those under the age of one were minorities. The minority vote will factor in strongly here. Lastly, Georgia has a recent history of breaking for Democrats, such as home-state candidate Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

The latest polls? Romney is still ahead...but only by a 3% margin. I still expect Georgia to go Red, but it will be fascinating to watch the margin of victory; with Obama having won North Carolina and Virginia last go-round, and his expected victory in Florida in 2012, it is possible that 'the Solid South' is becoming a competitive landscape.

.

Separatists Poised for Québec Election Victory: An Analysis for Confused Americans

2012-08-30T20:50:00.001-04:00

In the midst of unparalleled student unrest, a university system that literally shut down for half a year, and a government embroiled in construction-contract scandals, Québec Premier Jean Charest and the Liberal Party appear headed for a major defeat in provincial elections less than a week from today.

The likely victors will be the Parti Québécois and their passionate leader, Pauline Marois. It will be the first chance that the Franco-centric separatists will have to flex its muscle since it lost an independence plebiscite by a mere 1% margin in 1995. Whether the Parti Québecois will win a majority of seats in the largely three-way race on September 4th remains to be seen.

The Canadian political landscape – and the Québécois landscape in particular – rests on different paradigms than the more ideological, American race which has dominated the media from Tampa all week.

Three parties are vying for control of the province – none of which are parties that have any significant role on the national level…but the politics of Canadian nationalism (or ‘federalism’) loom large over this race.

The current government of Québec is dominated by the Liberal Party, a political party that lost all significance on the federal level just a few years ago. The Liberals dominated the national Canadian government under Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien for forty years from the 1960s to the early 2000s; the party was then decimated on the national level, reduced to a mere footnote, winning only 35 of 308 seats in the House of Commons.

But in Québec, the Liberals, under Premier Jean Charest, have managed to hold on to power – until now.

Earlier this year, the Charest government recommended raising university tuition by $1600/year, setting off the largest protests in Canadian history throughout the summer. Charest responded to the protests by enacting Bill 78, a bill that severely limited the right to protest and included “pre-notification” requirements. Initially, the majority of Québec citizens appeared to support the government as against the students, but the enactment of Bill 78 turned much popular sentiment against Charest’s Liberals. The Liberals were compared to the national Conservative Party (the Canadian version of the Republican Party in the United States, which hardly exists at all in Québec.) The Conservatives are grossly unpopular in Québec. Conservative Canadian Premier Stephen Harper inflamed French Québec this year by openly embracing the British monarchy. Harper's conservative, pro-British government in Ottawa created a leftist, French backlash in Québec, and Charest's Liberals have lost support because of it. (In the US, Liberals and Conservatives would never be seen as 'allies;' in Canada, that is not the case.)

If these troubles were not enough for Charest, a long-term investigation of a bribery scandal involving his cabinet members and the construction industry began to hit media outlets during the student protests, further souring even his own traditional supporters.

The Liberal Party’s troubles and a strengthened sense of French culture in Québec have catapulted the Parti Québécois (or PQ) to first place in all pre-election polls. Lead by Pauline Marois, the party is neither left nor right, as much as it is “French.” The party has embraced and exalts Québec’s unique French heritage, and, as such, appears leftist (even socialist) on economic issues, while holding to a very conservative line on social issues of a “French” nature.

The PQ has openly supported the students in their strike, embracing the very French notion of a low-cost, or even tuition-free, university education for all citizens. It has taken a harsh approach towards miners, announcing it will demand higher royalty payments; some have suggested that the PQ will shut down Québec asbestos industry altogether. But while liberal on social issues, the PQ insists on a conservative approach towards “French” issues: the PQ wants to tighten language laws to require greater use of French in business and government operations, and stronger laws preventing the purchase of Québec companies by foreign corporations.

The PQ recently called for laws outlawing the wearing of muslim head scarves as well as religious symbols such as crosses in government office buildings, similar to the militantly-secular culture found in France.

Ironically, it is in the city of Montréal where the greatest political discordance is found: Montréal is the center of the student protests, which the PQ has embraced; it is also the city with the greatest number of bilingual and non-French speaking people in Québec, who will be impactedthe most by the PQ’s stricter language proposals.

Enter the third party: The Coalition Avenir Québec, or “CAQ,” a new party headed by François Legault. CAQ describes itself as right-of-center (and "pro-entrepreneur") on economic issues, but liberal on social issues. It attempts to stake out a ‘middle position’ on Québec independence, rejecting both the separatist platform of the PQ and the Federalist platform of the Liberals. CAQ wants to ‘strengthen’ French language laws (especially in Montréal), and limit immigration, while promoting a French culture within the Canadian federation. Though new, it is outpolling the Liberals on the eve of the election.

Will Montréal voters (and English speakers) continue to embrace the scandal-plagued, anti-dissent Liberals in order to protect their multilingual heritage?

Will French speakers (constituting 80% of Québec’s voters) join the bandwagon to replace the Liberals with a markedly French Parti Québecois?

Or with they choose just a “slightly-less-French” CAQ in the hopes of taking a ‘middle way,” even though the CAQ is an upstart, unknown entity?

Can any of the three parties win a majority of seats in the Québec Parliament?

Nous allons savoir mardi.

Energy: A New Green Paradigm

2012-08-23T10:32:00.000-04:00

As the GOP convention approaches, I am sitting here listening to the Republicans explain their platform on Energy Policy on TV: Increased Oil Drilling, building the keystone pipeline, extracting oil and gas from the Canadian Tar Sands, increased use of Coal, relaxed standards for offshore drilling…..everything appears geared towards an explosion of dirty energy resources for “cheap energy” and Big Oil Profiteering.

Climate Change? The Republicans don’t think government should address the issue.

Are they reading any news reports at all? Here are some of the news reports from the last 3 weeks:

In Iowa, about 58,000 fish died along a 42-mile stretch of the Des Moines River. Biologists measured the water at 97 degrees in multiple spots. (Toledo Blade)

In Connecticut, the Millstone Nuclear Power Station had to be shut down because the water in the Long Island Sound was too warm to effectively cool the reactor. (WWLP)

In Illinois, fish are dying in record numbers as state officials have raised the temperature at which water-cooled power plants can return water to area lakes and rivers. Hundreds of millions of gallons of water per day are now being returned into the waters at temperatures approaching 100 degrees. (Morris Daily Herald)

The weather has affected grain crops as well. Corn futures– which sold for $2.00/bushel just 10 years ago - have surged 60 percent since mid-June, closing yesterday at $8.075 a bushel. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently estimated U.S. corn yields will be at least 20% below the norm.

(Business Week) and (Forbes)

Of course, much of the grain that is being harvested is not going anywhere: The Coast Guard has closed an eleven-mile stretch of the Mississippi River near Memphis to shipping after another barge grounded near Greenville, Miss. (WANE.com)

And in Kansas, “Bare ground and stagnant ponds of water can be seen where a flowing Arkansas River should be.” According to The National Weather Service, the water has ceased to flow at I-235.“There's a quarter of a billion dollars worth of grain in the port of lake providence alone and guess what? we can't move the barge. so, we'll bring in trucks it will take 7,000 trucks. They don't exist,” said Louisiana Agriculture Commissioner, Mike Strain. (WKSN News)

And that means there's less water flowing down Mississippi river into the Gulf of Mexico, and less outflow means saltwater from the Gulf is creeping in. Cities in Louisiana cities have had to purchase emergency drinking water…and the entire city of New Orleans is now at risk. (NPR)

The loss of grain crops also affect the livestock who feed on grain - and eventually, the price of meat on supermarket shelves. And non-food livestock, such as horses, are affected, too.

Tony Caldwell, owner of an 80 acre horse rescue ranch in Indiana, reports “Everybody is using their winter hay now. The pastures are destroyed and they probably won’t recover before winter. The price of hay has doubled, and the availability is down by 75 percent…Today the problem is not nearly as bad as it’s going to be. It’s terribly bad today, but it is going to get a lot worse.” (Business Week)

The hotter weather will not only affect the prices of food, but of health care as well. At least 8 deaths have been blamed directly on this summer’s heat, and that doesn’t count deaths, injuries, and property losses from western forest fires. Nor does it include deaths labeled as ‘respiratory failure’ or ‘natural causes’ from the elderly living in homes without air conditioning. And looming on the horizon is the nation’s largest outbreak of West Nile virus, fed by the drought.

The mosquito responsible for the West Nile virus flourished during the summer's record heat and drought. Updated figures from the Illinois State Department of Public Health show extremely high numbers of the Culex pipiens species have tested positive for the disease — 71 percent in DuPage County and nearly 60 percent in Cook. Officials consider 10% problematic. National figures show 1,118 cases and 41 deaths have been reported to the CDC — the highest number of cases through the third week of August since the disease was first detected in this country in 1999, and a substantial jump from last week's tally of 693 cases and 26 deaths. And the number of reported cases through the third week of August this year is nearly three times higher than the average over the last 10 years, according to the CDC. (Chicago Tribune)

I don't care whether you believe that climate change is natural or man-made. The incontrovertible fact is that our climate IS changing, and it IS warming, and it is CHANGING our landscape. And whether this is part of a natural cycle or man-made, is immaterial: We must respond to it if we are going to avoid more catastrophes like these.

How? By reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

(1) Higher Fuel Efficiency Standards for autos are a no-brainer. I have been disgusted for the last several years attending the New York International Auto Show at NYC’s Javits Center, and reading the mpg statistics on new models. The auto industry thinks it's offering something wonderful when a new car get 23 mpg. They just don’t get it. (Actually, they do: they can continue to offer crappy mileage because they can count on Republicans to obstruct fuel standards, and on Democrats to bail them out.)

(2) Amtrak and High-Speed Rail. This country lags decades behind every developed nation in the world, including China, which has caught up and surpassed us on rail technology. While politicians throw money away on road projects for their home districts, subsidies for oil companies, sweetheart deals to ram through oil pipelines, exemptions for deepwater off-shore drilling safety devices, and auto company bailouts…..they wring their hands and hem and haw about investing in rail. And the Republicans seek to slash Amtrak's budget every year, rather than seeing trains as part of the solution to smog-choked highways.

(3) Energy-neutral Buildings. In Europe, architects presume that a building that consumes more energy than it creates contains a Design Flaw. While the U.S. Congress continues to wring their hands over energy legislation, the European Union is requiring all residential buildings to produce nearly as much energy as they consume by 2020, in part by using renewable power sources. Public buildings will have to meet this standard two years earlier. In urban centers, rooftop gardens and solar panels on a massive scale can lower temperatures, counter emissions, and save energy.

(4) Intolerance for Local NIMBY Obstructionism. Some of the most progressive, greenest, liberal people I know suddenly become ardent conservatives when windmills are proposed in their neighborhoods, or on mountain ridges that will impede their personal views. Too Bad. It is given to Congress and Congress alone to regulate interstate commerce, and if there is any product that crosses state lines, it is the national electric grid. Far too many wind farms have been bogged down in local obstructionism, and it must stop.

(5) Local Farms, Local Food. EVERY community needs to be a Right-to-Farm community (yes, even urban and suburban communities.) Uptight zoning regulations that outlaw chickens, restrict vegetable gardens from front yards, insist on crippling health regulations, and outlaw raw products need to go. The Obama administration has been problematic on the left (FDA raids on raw milk farms), while snooty Republicans have used zoning to protect the landscape of their precious ‘burbs. The more food that can be produced locally, the less food that has to be transported on the nation’s highways - and the fewer dollars and reliance on Monsanto and AgriBusiness.

We need more than Republicans who wear blinders, and Democrats who offer lip service to Energy Policy.

We need a New, Green Paradigm. Now.

Dear Mike Huckabee: On the Issue of Rape, STFU.

2012-08-21T18:14:00.003-04:00

So, Mr. Huckabee, you feel a need to come to the defense of Rep. Todd Akin, the scientific ignoramus who believes that women who are raped don't get pregnant, because “…If it's a legitimate rape the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down..”

I give you credit: you realize the stupidity of that statement, and so you’ve tried another avenue of defense: you claim that extraordinary people – like Ethel Waters – were conceived as a result of forcible rape. And with that as ammunition, you go on your merry way with your ivory-tower, ideological approach towards women’s health.

Well, I'll agree with you on one thing. Sometimes the child who is conceived as the result of a rape can be extraordinary.

My daughter, who I adopted at the age of six weeks, is indeed extraordinary. And she was conceived as the result of rape. She is brilliant, possibly a mensa genius, and at the age of 18 is traveling the world tutoring English and speaking several foreign languages. She can put most adults to shame on any intellectual topic.

But unlike you, Mr. Huckabee, I met her birth mother. A woman proud and dignified at the same time; broken yet proactive; determined yet resigned. As she placed her newborn child in our arms, my heart broke for the woman making this decision to give birth and place her child for adoption….while at the same time I was awestruck and joyful at the responsibility and opportunity she had placed in our arms. Like you, Mr. Huckabee, we saw the immeasurable, boundless possibilities in that life.

But unlike you, we also saw the pain and the angst and the emotional turmoil of the woman who placed her with us. Unlike you, I see her decision as precisely that: HER decision, one that weighed on her every day, and which was hers and hers alone.

Unlike you, Mr. Huckabee, I see the other side of an equation that you refuse to acknowledge exists: the humanity, the dignity, the intensity of a woman making a decisions about the future.

She was a black woman. A woman who had given birth in jail. A woman who was the victim of generational crimes within her family, and of the federal government’s War on Drugs.

She was the kind of woman whose vote you have attempted to suppress with your support for voter id laws.

She is the kind of woman whose constitutional rights you have attempted to remove because of her conviction of a felony.

She is the kind of woman who you have tried to impoverish and marginalize by removing social service programs and nets and rehabilitation efforts.

She is the kind of woman whom the Republican Party has used as a scapegoat in discussing matters of welfare and taxes.

And she is the kind of woman whom you would surround with politician-constrained doctors to examine and direct the course of her life.

Please, Mr. Huckabee, spare me your feigned concern about the future of America, and the potential for children conceived in rape.

You know nothing – and care nothing – for the humanity involved in these situations.

I am grateful for my daughter, and the decision made by my daughter’s birth mother.

But I also aware that the decisions were hers, and not yours.

And it needs to remain that way.