May Day: Socialists of America, Unite!

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday April 21, 2012 · 12:43 PM PDT

2012/04/21 · 12:43

I was asked to post this here, in case there are any socialists lurking in these parts. This is an attempt for socialists to put aside the sectarianism that has for too long divided the left, and to show a united front on May Day. Anyone in New York City, specifically, who would like to participate in joint action on May Day should contact socialistunitynyc@gmail.com

Socialists of America, Unite! on May 1, 2012

Occupy spread like wildfire, setting America ablaze. From large cities like New York City and Los Angeles to small towns like Martinsburg, Virginia and Mobile, Alabama, occupiers are consistently organizing, planning, discussing, and taking direct action for the 99%.

Not since the 1960s and 1930s have so many people taken militant action against the state and capital.

No matter what we think of Occupy’s calls for a general strike on May 1, the important thing is that those calls are resonating on a scale not seen since the days of the free speech fights and the call for “One Big Union” by the Industrial Workers of the World.

It is with this in mind that we, the undersigned, call on all socialists, regardless of organizational affiliation or lack thereof, to unite in joint action on May 1, 2012.

In places where there will be large permitted May Day marches like New York City, there will be a multi-tendency contingent with socialists from a variety of organizations and independent socialists as well. In places without May 1 marches, mass meetings or socials to celebrate May Day might be more appropriate.

Regardless what form it takes, on May 1, 2012 we should act together.

To be clear, we are not saying that socialists who are in unions, campus groups, or other organizations leave or separate from the contingents/actions those organizations are planning.

We are saying that whatever locally based action socialists take on May 1 should be united in order to maximize our visibility, impact, and influence.

Any individual or organization may sign this call by emailing may1socialistunity@gmail.com and/or “liking” our Facebook page.

For more information on how to link up with this initiative or organize a joint action in your area, contact may1socialistunity@gmail.com.

Signed*:

Ben Campbell, Occupy Wall Street

Bhaskar Sunkara, Editor, Jacobin magazine

Billy Wharton, Socialist Party USA

Bob Turansky, Solidarity

Clay Claiborne, Venice filmmaker and The North Star

Chris Cutrone, Platypus Society

Chris Maisano, Democratic Socialists of America

Carl Davidson, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism

Dan La Botz, Solidarity

Jason Schulman, New Politics magazine, Democratic Socialists of America

Fernando Gapasin, Freedom Road Socialist Organization

Manuel Barrera, independent revolutionary socialist

Michael Hirsch, New Politics magazine

Steve Early, Labor journalist, organizer, and member of Newspaper Guild/CWA

Zak, Occupy Wall Street Class War Camp

*Organizations listed for identification purposes only.

Organizational endorsements: John Reed Society; Platypus Affiliated Society

Keep Public Science Public - Kill H.R. 3699

kindofblue

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday January 12, 2012 · 8:25 AM PST

2012/01/12 · 08:25

Support the campaign to kill HR 3699 by sharing it on facebook and twitter.

Carolyn Maloney is my congresswomen. I am a biomedical scientist, and she is congresswoman to tens of thousands of biomedical scientists. Her district NY-14 includes Weill-Cornell Medical College, NYU Medical Center, Mt. Sinai Medical Center, Memorial Sloan Ketting Cancer Center, Rockefeller Unversity, and Hunter College, not to mention Cornell's future $2 billion science campus on Roosevelt Island.

That is why it is so shocking (well unless you know her) to hear that she had sided with the publishing industry against researchers, by co-sponsoring a bill, the Research Works Act, to prevent the public dissemination of science.

After the squiggle I will cross-post a longer explanation from my blog The tl;dr version is that currently the NIH requires the results of publicly funded research to be made publicly available - so anybody can read the latest cancer research, for example. But the for-profit publishers have been lobbying to do away with this requirement so that they can paywall publicly funded science behind exorbitant access fees. HR 3699, co-sponsored by Carolyn Maloney and Darrell Issa, would do just that - prevent public access to public research results.

kindofblue

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday January 05, 2012 · 10:17 AM PST

2012/01/05 · 10:17

The topic of Montana's election financing ruling yesterday has already been diaried - but I spent last night reading the decision and wanted to share some thoughts

Cross-posted to my blog at dailyoligarch.com, Twitter: @dailyoligarch

At stake, Montana's well-titled 'Corrupt Practices Act', enacted in 1912, which specifies:

(1) A corporation may not make a contribution or an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.
(2) A person, candidate or political committee may not accept or receive a corporate contribution described in subsection (1).

The law was challenged by local teabagger, the appropriately-named Kenneth Champion, who felt his rights were infringed if his Bozeman, MT company, Champion Painting Inc., was unable to buy political advertisements to influence democratic elections. You see, Kenneth has important business interests that require it to advocate publicly for political causes: "Ken Champion and his crew can do it all. Hanging sheetrock, mud and tape, interior and exterior painting." Yes, they 'do it all', including licking the boots of corporate America by using their shitty painting company to do the legal bidding of petro-oligarchs in Helena. Despite the fact that there are no laws regulating his god-given right as an individual teabagger to buy or sell political influence, Champion insisted that this right be extended to his alter-ego, Champion Painting Inc., because:

he believes ads attacking or supporting candidates would have more credibility if sponsored by a small business like Champion Painting.

Champion was joined as plaintiff by gun nuts at the Montana Shooting Sports Foundation, and the Western Tradition Partnership, which bills itself as a "grassroots lobbying organization dedicated to fighting environmental extremism and promoting responsible development and management of land, water, and natural resources." Ah yes, the type of "grassroots" movement that rails against "anti-human, anti-access, environmentalist hysteria" and attacks the "radical environmentalism" of Newt Gingrich. Western Tradition Partnershp has since expanded nationally as the American Tradition Partnership, and created a spin-off propaganda outlet, the American Tradition Institute, famous for harassing university professors to obfuscate climate science. The Institute's largest donor is Doug Lair, who made his fortune by selling his oil company to Bill Koch, the poorest billionaire of the Koch clan.

So as plaintiffs you have big oil front group, local gun nut organization, and dimestore millionaire and useful idiot Kenneth Champion - a veritable microcosm of the Republican coalition - united to tear down landmark Montanan progressive-era legislation. And thanks to Citizens United v. F.E.C. they were able to do just that at the level of the District Court. Recall that in that landmark ruling in favor of the oppressed oligarchic minority, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded:

"independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption"

Ah yes, because how could anyone interpret political expenditures by shadowy big oil front groups as giving rise to corruption?

Well, Montana's Supreme Court wasn't having it. It body-slammed Western Tradition Partnership:

We take note that Western Tradition appears to be engaged in a multi-front attack on both contribution restrictions and the transparency that accompanies campaign disclosure requirements. In addition to this case, it is currently engaged in separate litigation in the same District Court involving the Montana laws on campaign spending disclosures. ... Ironically, perhaps, WTP argued in the District Court and in its oral presentation to this Court on appeal that their compliance with these same disclosure laws that it now seeks to invalidate should remedy any concerns regarding the potential corrupting influence of its unlimited corporate expenditures.

and called it out as a shadowy front group for deep-pocketed donors:

WTP, as noted, has been terse in its explanations of its organization, funding, activities, and intent. It claims to be a foreign corporation but it is not a business corporation. Its purpose, according to un-rebutted evidence submitted to the District 13 Court by the State, is to solicit and anonymously spend the funds of other corporations, individuals and entities to influence the outcome of Montana elections. In a promotional presentation directed to potential donors, WTP represented:

There’s no limit to how much you can give. As you know, Montana
has very strict limits on contributions to candidates, but there is no limit to
how much you can give to this program. You can give whatever you’re
comfortable with and make as big of an impact as you wish.
Finally, we’re not required to report the name or the amount of any
contribution that we receive. So, if you decide to support this program, no
politician, no bureaucrat, and no radical environmentalist will ever know
you helped make this program possible. The only thing we plan on
reporting is our success to contributors like you who can see the benefits of
a program like this. You can just sit back on election night and see what a
difference you’ve made.

summarizing tersely:

Organizations like WTP that act as conduits for anonymous spending by others
represent a threat to the “political marketplace.

For their part, the court was unmoved by the egregious injustic done to the gun nuts and Mr. Champion, sheetrock entrepreneur and useful idiot:

First, the depositions of Marbut (on behalf of MSSF) and Champion demonstrate that both have been very active politically in Montana on a range of issues that concern them. Neither could demonstrate any material way in which Montana law hindered or censored their political activity or speech.
...
Similarly, Mr. Champion described his many political activities both on a local and state level. He affirmed that he regularly speaks, blogs, and meets with others, and has run for public office. His complaint was that he believed that Montana law prohibits him from telling his audiences and readers that his company, Champion Painting, also supports his views. Mr. Champion believes that a candidate endorsement by “Champion Painting, Inc.” would be more persuasive than his personal endorsement, and that if his business spends money on political events he will enjoy “tax benefits.” However, in Champion’s case he is the sole shareholder and derives his livelihood from the money he pays himself from the corporation. While the statute forbids the expenditure of Champion Painting’s corporate funds to support or oppose candidates, the burden upon Kenneth Champion, as a sole shareholder, to establish a political committee to advocate for his corporation’s interests and expend funds that he will decide to contribute, are particularly minimal. We conclude, under these facts, Champion’s political speech was similarly not materially impacted by the statute

It corrected the lower court with a narrow interpretation of Citizens United, and noted that the government could ban corporate 'speech' if there was a sufficiently strong interest:

While Citizens United was decided under its facts or lack of facts, it applied the long-standing rule that restrictions upon speech are not per se unlawful, but rather may be upheld if the government demonstrates a sufficiently strong interest.
...
Therefore, the factual record before a court is critical to determining the validity of a governmental provision restricting speech.

It then put the 1912 law in its gilded age context by referencing the class war against the Koch-style robber barons of an earlier era:

Third, the Montana law at issue in this case cannot be understood outside the context of the time and place it was enacted, during the early twentieth century. (Montana became a state in 1889.) Those tumultuous years were marked by rough contests for political and economic domination primarily in the mining center of Butte, between mining and industrial enterprises controlled by foreign trusts or corporations.
...
Examples of well-financed corruption abound. In the fight over mineral rights between entrepreneur F. Augustus Heinze and the Anaconda Company, then controlled by Standard Oil, Heinze managed to control the two State judges in Butte, who routinely decided cases in his favor... the Butte judges denied being bribed, but one of them admitted that Anaconda representatives had offered him $250,000 cash to sign an affidavit that Heinze had bribed him. ... In response to the legal conflicts with Heinze, in 1903 Anaconda/Standard closed down all its industrial and mining operations (but not the many newspapers it controlled), throwing 4/5 of the labor force of Montana out of work
...
After the Anaconda Company cleared itself of opposition from Heinze and others, it controlled 90% of the press in the state and a majority of the legislature
...
Even at that time it was evident that industrial corporations controlled the state “thus converting the state 17 government into a political instrument for the furthering and accomplishment of legislation and the execution of laws favorable to the absentee stockholders of the large corporations and inimical to the economic interests of the wage earning and farming classes who constitute by far the larger percentage of the population in Montana.”

Since history books written by the likes of Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly omit everything between 1865 (when a Republican saved the country) and 1933 (when a Democrat destroyed it), the history lesson continued for the sake of the illiterate teabaggers:

W. A. Clark, who had amassed a fortune from the industrial operations in Butte, set his sights on the United States Senate. In 1899, in the wake of a large number of suddenly affluent members, the Montana Legislature elected Clark to the U. S. Senate. Clark admitted to spending $272,000 in the effort and the estimated expense was over 16 $400,000. Complaints of Clark’s bribery of the Montana Legislature led to an investigation by the U. S. Senate in 1900. The Senate investigating committee concluded that Clark had won his seat through bribery and unseated him
...
In a demonstration of extraordinary boldness, Clark returned to Montana, caused the Governor to leave the state on a ruse and, with assistance of the supportive Lt. Governor, won appointment to the very U. S. Senate seat that had just been denied him.

The court was too kind. Here is what Mark Twain said of William A. Clark, great Senator of Big Sky:

"He is as rotten a human being as can be found anywhere under the flag; he is a shame to the American nation, and no one has helped to send him to the Senate who did not know that his proper place was the penitentiary, with a ball and chain on his legs. To my mind he is the most disgusting creature that the republic has produced since Tweed's time."

Senator Clark died in a Fifth Avenue mansion with a net worth of $150 million. His art collection was donated to the Corcoran Gallery, where it now gives DC liberals the pretense of culture as a brief escape to the daily drudgery of licking the boots of today's Clarks and Pierpont Morgans.

Quoting Harry Fritz, History Professor at UM-Missoula, the court then connected gilded ages past and present:

“What was true a century ago is as true today: distant corporate interests mean that corporate dominated campaigns will only work ‘in the essential interest of outsiders with local interests a very secondary consideration.’” While specific corporate interests come and go in Montana, they are always present

The court then asks:

The question then, is when in the last 99 years did Montana lose the power or interest sufficient to support the statute, if it ever did. If the statute has worked to preserve a degree of political and social autonomy is the State required to throw away its protections because the shadowy backers of WTP seek to promote their interests?

whichs allows a clear conclusion against the big oil shills and teabagger plaintiffs:

Citizens United does not compel a conclusion that Montana’s law prohibiting independent political expenditures by a corporation related to a candidate is unconstitutional. Rather, applying the principles enunciated in Citizens United, it is clear that Montana has a compelling interest to impose the challenged rationally-tailored statutory restrictions. We reverse the District Court and enter summary judgment in favor of the Montana Attorney General

The court ruling was 5-2. For today, big oil front group 'American Tradition Partnership' has retreated to its cave to plan its next move - presumably to the Supreme Court, where they will find a friendlier audience. As for Kenneth Champion, his heroic dreams for the cause of liberty shattered, he will sulk back to his local Bozeman, MT tea party chapter to forever spend his days complaining about 'activist judges' to anyone who will listen.

kindofblue

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday January 04, 2012 · 12:12 PM PST

2012/01/04 · 12:12

Fresh off his treading water performance in Iowa, Mitt Romney was at a New Hampshire town hall today, where an Occupy Boston activist was able to ask him a question about corporate greed. Romney's response?

"You've had your turn, now it's my turn. First of all, you're right it goes to dividends, which is owners. They're not the 1 percent”

Really? Shareholders of corporations aren't the 1%? Oh right, they're perfectly democratic institutions!

Romney continued:

If you can come up with a better system, let me know, Romney said. "Until then, I'm in favor of the one that was promoted by the founders of this country,” he said.

Well, he's right there - this country was founded on oligarchy and the repression of the masses, and Romney is certainly in favor of that.

Of course, when another woman presumably tried to actually let him know of a better system (i.e. not unfettered "free market" capitalism), his new sidekick swept in to keep the rabble in line:

"Hey, be quiet," McCain told the woman, who began to speak again without a microphone.

Ah, our friend the maverick, now shilling openly for the bankster class. Good to see you again, ya old curmudgeon.

kindofblue

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday December 04, 2011 · 5:55 PM PST

2011/12/04 · 17:55

Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich told Occupy Wall Street protesters, "go get a job, right after you take a bath."

However it is Gingrich who is rolling around in dirty money. Since leaving the House of Representatives over a decade ago in a cloud of ethics violations, Newt has amassed a fortune of between $7.3 million and $31 million by the peddling of political influence:
- He was personally paid $840,000 by the Chamber of Commerce
- He was paid more than $1.6 million from Freddie Mac, which he claimed was for work as a "housing historian"
- In one year he made $312,500 from Growth Energy, an ethanol lobby
- His for-profit "think tank", the Center for Health Transformation, was founded to lobby on behalf of health insurance and pharmaceutical corporations, such as Wellpoint and Pfizer.
- He was paid a monthly retainer by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, one of the largest lobbying organizations in the country
- His 527 group, American Solutions for Winning the Future, was funded by big oil and coal companies and worked to oppose climate change legislation and promote offshore drilling.

kindofblue

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday November 30, 2011 · 6:30 AM PST

2011/11/30 · 06:30

Today, November 30, President Barack Obama is coming to New York City for what is, I believe, the first time since Occupy Wall Street began. And why is the president visiting? To speak at the UN? No. Pres. Obama is coming to town for the sole purpose of raising money from the 1%, holding three fundraisers, including a $35,800/plate dinner. This corrupt system, where the wealthy can buy influence over our politicians and government, is central to frustrations of OWS. And OWS realizes that there is no way that the Democrats and Republicans, left alone, will do anything to fix it - both parties are beneficiaries.

Therefore, OWS will demonstrate against the presidential fundraisers today. We will leave from Bryant Park (41st and 6th) at 6:00 PM. We have not paid $35,800 a person, but we will show up at the presidential dinner uninvited. In doing so, we hope to start a national conversation about the corrupting influence of big money on our government. OWS has already started a conversation about economic inequality, and it's about time we started one about political inequality.

OWS is not demonstrating for or against any politician. We realize that the problem is far bigger than any one man or woman. We are demonstrating against that system where economic inequality results in political inequality, and that political inequality is used to further economic inequality. This system must be stopped, and the most vulnerable cog in the system is campaign finance reform.

So this isn't about the president. You will see us demonstrating again when Mitt Romney comes to town. But for now, join us, at 6 PM at Bryant Park, to march on the presidential fundraiser.

Edit: There has been a slight change of plan. We will still meet at 6 PM at Bryant Park, but we will instead greet him as he arrives at his Sheraton fundraiser, at 53rd and 7th.

Edit 2: Heh - was not expecting this to make the rec list on a Democratic party blog. I am sure there will be blowback, and unfortunately I will not be around to address many comments - I have signs to make! Hope to see some of you later! I'll be holding an "OCCUPY" banner with a stylized Obama-O.

Edit 3: Just to be clear the 'Occupy Obama' wording is mine and mine alone, not OWS - I highly doubt they would consense to that. I don't consider it offensive, but if you do then blame me and me alone. And if you find the image below of Obama in an Anonymous mask offensive, again, blame me and me alone.

Edit 4: I have changed the image, not out of agreement with the criticism, but solely to avoid a flamewar. Somebody else censored the title to remove any mention of Obama.

Edit 5: Removed to avoid a flame war Sorry, I have a habit of responding to negativity in kind.

A call to occupy political fundraisers

kindofblue

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday November 24, 2011 · 7:20 AM PST

2011/11/24 · 07:20

The first two months of Occupy Wall Street were glorious, culminating in an incredible day on #N17. What started as just a hundred people camped in a non-descript square ended up in hundreds of thousands across the country engaged in an unprecedented conversation about inequality. However, OWS has been forced, by action of Bloomberg and the NYPD, to enter its second stage. It no longer has access to Liberty Square in any meaningful way - the park is surrounded by barricades and draconian measures are enforced to prevent organizing out of that space. While plans to "re-occupy space" are being discussed, it is also time for OWS to assess how the second stage in the movement might differ from the first.

It is my opinion that while OWS has been very successful in drawing attention to economic inequality, it has been less successful in drawing attention to political inequality, oligarchy, and corruption. Part of this is that the corporate media and our corporate-bought politicians would prefer to paint the entire movement as "economic frustration". You can hear this point of view, for instance, in President Obama's OWS remarks - they are always about the economic issues, but not about the fundamental systemic corruption that gives rise to those economic issues.

Thus, I believe it is important for the second stage of OWS to point the spotlight on just how corrupt our politics has become. The coexistence of OWS alongside the elections of 2012 will provide the natural venue for this. Of course, discussing elections at OWS always seems to get people nervous - there is a lot of fear of being "co-opted" by Democrats, and some people truly think that electoral politics are broken beyond repair. To address these views, it is my belief that OWS should exist outside of the political process, and should adopt a strategy of highlighting just how undemocratic out politics has become. This position should be able to accomodate both reformers (e.g. get money out of politics types), and those more radical (e.g. direct democracy types).

As a first strategy in this regard, I am launching an affinity group of OWS, entitled Occupy Political Fundraisers. As New Yorkers, we all know the role our city plays in the political process - politicians come to New York solely for the purpose of high-dollar fundraisers, generally with the fat cats of corporate America, and the financial services industry in particularly. We will no longer sit idly by and watch this corruption of our political system take place right before our eyes. In New York, we will demonstrate at and/or peacefully disrupt any and all high-dollar political fundraisers. In the process, we hope to draw attention to the fact that our democratic values are being sold right in front of our eyes. We are non-partisan. We do not advocate for or against any particular candidate, but rather against institutionalized bribery. We will protest the corrupting influence of money on politics regardless of the politician. For example, our first two demonstrations will center around:

Nov. 30 - President Obama fundraiser in Manhattan, Facebook Page
Dec. 14 - Mitt Romney fundraiser in Manhattan

We call upon people around the country to do the same. Many already have, and they have inspired us. We believe that a national conversation on the corruption of our democracy by money is badly needed, and this conversation can only be credibly had if it is brought up in a non-partisan manner.

As you can see, the first action is just a few days away, as President Obama will be attending several fundraisers in New York on Wednesday evening - the first time he has done so since OWS began. This was just announced, and we will be organizing this over the next few days. If you are interested in helping with these actions, either message me, or you will be able to meet me over the next few days at OWS Direct Action, or OWS Political and Electoral Reform. Also, I plan on stopping by Liberty Square this afternoon for some turkey day stuffing.

Happy thanksgiving! Let's take back our country!

What the NYPD really thinks about OWS

kindofblue

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday October 20, 2011 · 3:21 PM PDT

2011/10/20 · 15:21

This morning I read a piece in Mother Jones entitled What the NYPD really thinks about Occupy Wall Street. The author interviewed a few sympathetic cops, painting a "they're part of the 99%" picture.

While I'm certain there are many sympathetic cops there, I don't think that tells the whole story. So I decided to head over to Thee Rant to see an alternate perspective. Thee Rant is a message board for enlisted officers. Think of it as Free Republic for the NYPD. It's certainly not representative of the entire NYPD, but still, these are real NYPD officers posting their completely unfiltered thoughts on the protests. Normally I would not venture into the cesspool of Thee Rant, but I thought it important to present a counterbalance to this "cops are sympathetic" report.

So what do these officers really think about Occupy Wall Street? A selection of comments after the jump:

kindofblue for Occupy the Mall - the March of the 99%

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday October 12, 2011 · 9:42 AM PDT

2011/10/12 · 09:42

I would like to announce #occupythemall, a nascent grassroots/netroots movement to organize and mobilize our nationwide protests towards an enormous march on the National Mall. With proper organization, this will be our generation's historic march on Washington. We, the 99%, will descend upon Washington to demand our government back from the 1% that owns it. However, it will not be simple. As much as I love what OWS has done (you can often find me in liberty square) the truth is that our best event (Wednesday, Oct. 5) came with the aid of major organizing by our allies. Tahrir square similarly involved enormous organization. A march on Washington of sufficient size to demand action by our politicians seems unlikely to arise spontaneously. We will need hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of participants coming together from all over the country.

Poll

1837 votes Show Results

When should we Occupy the Mall?

1837 votes Vote Now!

When should we Occupy the Mall?

January 2012

456 votes

February 2012

107 votes

March 2012

354 votes

April 2012

479 votes

May 2012 or later

371 votes

We shouldn't

68 votes

Why do we protest?

kindofblue

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday October 07, 2011 · 8:45 AM PDT

2011/10/07 · 08:45

After being arrested with 740 others for taking the Brooklyn Bridge I was asked by a relative to clarify what our protest is about. Here is what I came up with:

We protest the growing inequality in this country, where the collective wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of the very few while the middle class is steadily eliminated and the poor are left without basic needs.

We recognize that while the economic recession has greatly worsened matters, this is not a cyclic phenomenon. This has been the story of the last thirty years. This has been the story of our generation. Middle class income has stagnated while the wealth of the few has grown exponentially. For many years the middle class felt that they shared in that prosperity, but that was proven largely illusory. Our wealth was a bubble, while the few continue to enjoy record profits. Their greed can never be satiated.

We realize that these economic inequalities are brought about by political inequality. Our politicians are bought and paid for by the ultra-rich and the industries that they commandeer. They raise tens of millions of dollars from the corporate elite, and like the mayor of New York they are increasingly of that elite. We speak out against a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. We demand democracy.

kindofblue

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday October 01, 2011 · 5:22 AM PDT

2011/10/01 · 05:22

Something changed yesterday. We are bigger now, not only in numbers, but in presence and diversity. We are of all backgrounds, ages, colors - we are the 99% and we will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. You could feel it as you walked through the Municipal Building arcade to police plaza, greeted by throngs of photographers. They are now paying attention. They are starting to take us seriously.

More after the jump, but most importantly - if you can be in NYC, the march is today @ 3 PM! The goal is for today to make last night look like a dress rehearsal. This will be the biggest demonstration yet.

kindofblue

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday September 21, 2011 · 11:50 PM PDT

2011/09/21 · 23:50

One of the most frustrating things about being a liberal is watching Democrats constantly let the Republicans frame the terms of the debate. The Republican strategy of using language to advantageously frame the debate was clearly laid out in Newt Gingrich's GOPAC memo of 1996, in which he described how language is a "key mechanism of control", and listed a set of negative words with which to define Democrats. "Welfare", "bureaucracy", "taxes", "spending", "unionized", "liberal". All of these words were meant to be used as weapons by Republicans to attack their Democratic opponents. What is frustrating as a liberal is having to watch Democrats run from these words, tacitly accepting their negative connotations - accepting that taxes and spending are at best necessary evils, welfare (a term meaning health and happiness) is actually bad, unions are only to be mentioned quietly in primaries, and one must avoid that culture-war term "liberal".

Newer
Older

RSS

May Day: Socialists of America, Unite!

Keep Public Science Public - Kill H.R. 3699

In which MT Supreme Court Smacks Down Big Oil Shills and Useful Idiots

Romney: Corporations are the 99%

Dec. 5 - OWS to Newt Gingrich: "You take a bath"

OWS Demonstrates @ Obama Fundraisers - Nov. 30, NYC

A call to occupy political fundraisers

What the NYPD really thinks about OWS

Occupy the Mall - The March of the 99%

Why do we protest?

Day 15 - Occupy Wall St - Who says our message isn't getting through?

Obama channels Matt Santos, 'class warrior' a 'badge of honor'