Electronic Pen

NIKOLAS KOZLOFF FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

With all of the media now focused on the Occupy Wall Street encampment in Lower Manhattan, it’s easy to lose sight of the real human tragedy unfolding right across the bridge. I’m referring to Brooklyn, New York’s most populous borough, which has suffered mightily since the economic meltdown of 2008. Though the crowds participating in the Occupy Wall Street movement are now more racially diverse than at the outset of the protests, most disadvantaged Brooklyn residents are still shying away from demonstrations. This fact is most glaringly evident when one takes the 2 or 3 train from Fulton Street near the protests and heads out into Brooklyn: while most of the protesters are young and white, the subway riders are predominantly African-American and Caribbean.

For the time being, the protesters certainly enjoy a certain degree of momentum and enthusiasm. However, if demonstrators want to see Occupy Wall Street turn into a mass movement in the long-term, they will have to learn how to appeal to poorer Brooklynites and to address residents’ local concerns. As they continue to organize, activists should recognize a simple premise: in New York, not all districts are created equal. Indeed, the unemployment rate in Brooklyn rose from 4.7 percent in 2008 to 10.1 percent in January 2011, making it one of the worst afflicted counties in the state. Though the recovery is helping to spur some job creation, for example in the health field, other jobs have vanished forever. In particular, crucial sectors such as construction and manufacturing have been hit significantly.

For Brooklynites, the situation is vexing and befuddling as many are forced to choose between changing careers or trying to cobble together a couple of smaller jobs. Some university graduates have become so discouraged that they have ceased looking for new employment altogether and instead pursue other options like heading to graduate school or continuing to work their old college jobs. Perhaps that is understandable given that young people have few options other than retail sales, with an abysmal starting salary of about $15,000, and waitressing.

From The Hipster Generation to Food Stamps

Think of Brooklyn and images of affluent young hipsters may come to mind. In recent years, the district of Williamsburg has become synonymous with this up and coming generation. Meanwhile, many residents living in other prosperous white neighborhoods such as Park Slope, Brooklyn Heights and Cobble Hill may be oblivious to serious economic dislocation afflicting other parts of the borough, where some are forced to subsist on social security and food stamps.

Indeed, there’s been a great racial discrepancy in the jobs figures, with black unemployment in New York averaging five points higher than whites, and Latinos averaging four points higher. Overall, New York ranks as the third most unequal city in the country in terms of wealth disparity. Hollywood, however, continues to focus upon Brooklyn’s affluent elite as witnessed by such recent films as The Switch. The movie, which stars Jennifer Aniston, deals with a young woman who finds happiness with a wealthy sperm donor friend who lives on the Promenade in Brooklyn Heights.

A world away from the Promenade, teachers are being handed the pink slip and it is disadvantaged kids in poor areas like East New York and Brownsville who are getting hit hardest. Cuts in educational services are just the tip of the iceberg for impoverished communities, however: reportedly, food pantries are being stretched to their limits. Facing a stagnant economy, high unemployment and low levels of charitable giving, not to mention high food prices, soup kitchens in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Crown Heights, Prospect Heights, Midwood and Bushwick are feeling the pinch with administrators reporting a dramatic increase in whole families turning up for help.

Reportedly, even the hipster women of Williamsburg are turning to waitressing to make ends meet. Known for its concentration of so-called “trust-funders” or, more humorously, “trustafarians,” Williamsburg has a reputation for gentrification and white entitlement. Now, however, parents of the younger generation are scaling back and have stopped buying their children new condos, let alone subsidizing rents or providing cash to spend at local boutiques or coffee houses.

In a sign of the times perhaps, one web site has sprung up to draw attention to locals’ economic plight. Called Unemployed Brooklyn, the site is run by a single woman named “MatchGirl.” While looking for a job in the fashion industry, Matchgirl uses her sewing skills to make stuffed animals and sell them over the internet to make some extra income. Matchgirl’s objective is to “vent frustrations, insights and inspirations about being unemployed…tips for cheap places to eat and shop in Greenpoint/Williamsburg, Brooklyn.”

A Painful Four Years

The recent troubles cap a number of painful years for local residents. The problems started in 2008, when Brooklyn families started to face eviction and foreclosure on condos they had purchased from corrupt developers. As a spate of real estate crimes proliferated, ranging from deed forgery to mortgage fraud schemes, Brooklyn’s district attorney belatedly announced it was time to set up a specialized unit to investigate and prosecute such offenses. When a group of young filmmakers started to produce a documentary film about the mortgage scandal in Brooklyn called Subprimed, they received harassing letters in the mail from lawyers representing local developers.

Humans weren’t the only ones to be affected by the foreclosure crisis --- even pets were displaced. In an unusual protest, animal rescue groups brought more than 400 dogs to the Brooklyn Bridge ranging from Chihuahuas to Great Danes. According to organizers, many pets lost their homes to foreclosure and animal shelters had been hard hit by the economic downturn.

By 2009, one could walk down any commercial street in Brooklyn and spot vacant storefronts and advertisements announcing 70% off sales. Take Bay Ridge and Sunset Park, middle class immigrant communities with large numbers of Chinese, Ecuadoran, Lebanese, Mexican, Russian, Ukranian and Yemenite families: though these enclaves managed to escape the high foreclosure rate hitting Bedford-Stuyvesant, East New York, Bushwick and Crown Heights, local entrepreneurs started to hurt with businesses ranging from restaurants to jewelers to clothing stores going through a downturn. In a brainstorming fever, business owners wracked their brains in an effort to lure customers, offering up everything from holiday chocolate tastings to weekend brunches to Feng Shui consultations.

Poverty Enters the Popular Culture

The economic malaise has advanced to such a degree that it has begun to have an impact upon popular culture. As far back as 2009, a local exhibit called “Plan B” explored how artists had been affected by the downturn. One exhibitor created a photo series documenting how she had been laid off by Hearst Magazines, featuring shots of boxes piled up one on top of another. Yet another artist constructed a sculpture made up of discarded circuit boards, meant to signify the “garbage economy.”

In a second work, the same exhibitor featured a simple easel meant to symbolize the local plight of artists. The idea behind the work, the artist remarked, was to “create an easel that can be stored in your room if you're renting or you only have one room and you've been kicked out of your studio due to financial concerns. What happens to a lot of artists in New York is they don't make art anymore, and then they're stuck in this crappy job where they're not really happy but they can't earn enough money to rent a studio to make more art, so I'm trying to offer them a solution.”

In theater, too, the theme of economic hard times has figured prominently. Take for example a recent play which ran at the Brooklyn Lyceum Theater in Park Slope, based on one of Arthur Miller’s lesser known works. In “The American Clock,” a Manhattan family moves to Brooklyn after losing its fortune. Playwright and essayist Miller himself moved to Brooklyn as a child, and his play is based on his own experiences during the Great Depression.

A large ensemble cast, including train-riding hobos and Wall Street tycoons, retells the story of the depression. “It’s very satisfying to be able to do this play during what we hope will be the end of the Great Recession, because I don’t think it ever really had its moment in Arthur Miller’s lifetime,” said the play’s artistic director. “He hoped this would be a warning to people, that the clock is ticking on the American dream, and the play needs to be heard.”

Brooklyn musicians, meanwhile, have been singing about economic hard times. Take Dan Costello, a songwriter based in Bushwick who became exposed to socially conscious musicians like Pete Seeger and Woody Guthrie through his politically active parents. In Recession Songs, his 2009 album, Costello sings on one track “Hey Mister, where’s my bailout? Give me a bonus Mister, you gave one to AIG.” On yet another track, Costello sings “I think I’ll dumpster dive at Whole Foods, Day old bread that can still be chewed. Organic Apples that are slightly bruised, but ugly produce is still good for you.”

From Occupy Wall Street to Occupy Brooklyn

With all of the economic dislocation occurring just across the Brooklyn Bridge, it’s disappointing that Occupy Wall Street has not been more successful in attracting the poor and destitute to its cause. Yet, when you consider that many Brooklynites are simply too stressed out to attend demonstrations and are having a difficult time keeping their heads above water amidst the downturn, the lack of diversity in major demonstrations becomes understandable.

Another difficulty has to do with the spatial geography of Brooklyn: though it’s the most populous borough in the city, communities are spread out and isolated from one other and bridging cultural differences amongst the dizzying array of nationalities is a formidable task. A new group, Occupy Brooklyn, hopes to remedy the situation and has already started to organize locally. Perhaps, this most recent offshoot of the Wall Street movement might concentrate its efforts on downtown Brooklyn and Borough Hall, a busy district which by day is extremely diverse from a racial standpoint.

Though Occupy Wall Street has now become much more of a mainstream movement, it will need to do much more outreach to marginalized communities across the river if it wants to ensure that its demonstrations have the desired effect. At long last, it seems that the protesters have opted to take up my earlier pearl of wisdom and Occupy Oakland has called for a general strike no less. The action is scheduled for November 2, and could also spur a similar effort in Lower Manhattan.

If it does call for a general strike, Occupy Wall Street will have to shut down major thoroughfares like the Brooklyn Bridge. A couple of weeks ago, when protesters attempted to do precisely that, they were turned back by the police. Yet, perhaps this time the demonstrators will have increased numbers on their side and may link up with their compatriots in Brooklyn.

Will Occupy Wall Street remain a Manhattan movement, or will it manage to marshal the sympathy of those living in the outer boroughs who are most affected by the recession? In the coming weeks, Occupy must prove that it can move beyond its own base and become a truly mass movement capable of bringing about real, systemic change.

Nikolas Kozloff, the author of Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left, resides in Brooklyn. Visit his web site here.

read more

Where do such inconsequential people get the nerve to criticize their betters when they have so little to offer in terms of either foreign or domestic policy or intellect?

There was a time when I thought there could never be a more reprehensible, more ignorant presidential candidate and eventual president than George W. Bush, but I was wrong - - a man who served two terms still mispronouncing the word nuclear - - a person so insensate, as to find humor in a search for weapons of mass destruction under tables, and behind lecterns at a press correspondents' dinner. Who could have imagined that the leader of the free world could be so embarrassingly idiotic as to sign on for an unnecessary war financed by tax cuts that would leave the country in a mountain of debt?

The awful truth is, of course, that he was motivated by personal demons and incomplete intelligence that drove him to make incredibly bad foreign-policy decisions, compounded by less than well-founded economic considerations. The worst part of his malfeasance remains, however, the continuing insistence on his part and that of his ne'er-do-well vice president, that their administration was right to undertake an endless war without figuring out where or when it would end and to undermine our country's good name by using torture and calling it enhanced interrogation techniques. In a reference that often comes to mind in terms of what went on during the Bush years, there are always those who insist when a wolf is at the door that it is just a dog.

We have passed through a gruesome period of our history that will leave a multitude of unresolved issues behind, but at least for the moment the Iraq war itself is no longer our responsibility. Of course President Obama is being criticized by the likes of John McCain, Lindsey Graham and others who say we should stay in Iraq for "as long as it takes" whatever that means to them,-  - ten more years, twenty, 'til the end of time? None of the war hawks ever suggest a way to pay for our foreign involvements even as they rant repeatedly about our "debt crisis."

Unfortunately these old militants keep hanging on, but as it turns out a new crop of equally inept members of our political vessel has arisen to drive home an agenda that promises to be as bereft of intellect and clearly defined objectives as the one that preceded it. In fact the new group, supported by and elected through the good offices of the tea party, promises to be an even greater threat to the country's equilibrium than their numbingly ineffectual counterparts. Watching the current crop of presidential hopefuls is as dispiriting an exercise as any yet imagined. And the possibility that one of them might actually become president is too daunting to imagine.

Some of them are too intellectually dim to be taken seriously. Others have agendas that defy the boundaries of reasonable discourse. Between the right-wing rhetoric and the economic schemes being promulgated by the Republican zealot class voters have precious little to hang on to that is enlightened and holds any hope for the future. And beware when Rick Santorum says "let me tell you a little story." His rendition of what occurred after the birth of his son was a tear-jerker of the first order. I understand he was making a point that his severely damaged infant who died soon after birth was a real person, not just a bunch of cells to be discarded if he failed to grow and prosper. But I don't think I'll ever get past the picture I have in my head of the Santorums gathering up that infant and taking it home to show their little brother to his five children.

As for the others, not one of them seems to have a seriously developed plan to move the country forward in terms of the economy or foreign policy. It is amazing how familiar the 'solutions' they support are. What are their supporters thinking when 9-9-9 is embraced by so many of them or when Medicare is seriously discussed as a voucher program? And when House Leader Paul Ryan accuses Democrats of class warfare are there still folks naïve enough to believe his attacks when Republicans, deep in the blame game, try to accomplish their agenda with such transparent tactics?

One can only hope the electorate has gotten a little smarter this time around and will reject the gang of lack-luster Republican candidates who have nothing to offer but empty rhetoric.

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

As the medical condition of Marine Iraq war veteran Scott Olsen appears to have improved, he is becoming the Neda Agha-Soltan - the martyr of the Iranian Green Revolution - of the "Occupy" struggle for economic justice.

What occurred this week in Oakland - including the wounding of Olsen - shouldn't have happened. In June of 2004, the Oakland Police Department reached an agreement to refrain from using the kind of bloody and militarized tactics that they employed earlier this week.

According to a November 2004 San Francisco Chronicle article:

Oakland police will no longer indiscriminately use wooden or rubber bullets, Taser stun guns, pepper spray and motorcycles to break up crowds, under an agreement announced Friday....

The new policy settles part of a federal class-action lawsuit filed by 52 people who claimed their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly were violated as they targeted two shipping companies with contracts tied to the war in Iraq.

"What we've done is create a comprehensive policy that really provides a much more sensible, reasoned approach to managing demonstrations and crowds," said Rachel Lederman of the National Lawyers Guild in San Francisco.

Obviously, as Olsen's situation demonstrates, the Oakland Police did not adhere to the letter or spirit of the 2004 agreement on Tuesday night. Lederman told the San Francisco Chronicle that when the policy was negotiated, "these projectile weapons are very dangerous. It was only a matter of luck that someone wasn't killed on April 7, 2003, in Oakland. That's what we're trying to prevent."

Lederman is referring to a 2003 Oakland police riot against anti-Iraq war demonstrators that resulted in the serious wounding of many protesters. In fact, according to ThinkProgress, "the demonstrators were not without recourse. They took the city to court, and Oakland eventually awarded $2 million to 58 demonstrators for police abuses."

You would think that after signing an agreement and paying out taxpayer money to "compensate" for abusive police practices, the Oakland Police Department would learn how to behave in a civilized fashion when dealing with people exercising their First Amendment rights.

Meanwhile, the Oakland School Board voted on Wednesday night, this week, to close five elementary schools, in large part due to budget constraints. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Oakland school district officials say that the school closings will save about $2 million a year, about what the Oakland Police Department paid out to protesters it abused in 2003.

****

If you'd like to receive these commentaries daily from Truthout/BuzzFlash, click here. You'll get our choice headlines and articles too. ...

read more

BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

In July 2005, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) (http://www.zoa.org/) presented Pat Robertson with its State of Israel Friendship Award at their "Salute to Israel" dinner. "We wouldn't do it," Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), told the New York City-based newspaper, The Forward. "He's not deserving, but I have no objections to other groups honoring him."

In May 2008, after it was revealed -- at the Talk To Action website -- that Pastor John Hagee had delivered a sermon stating that God sent Hitler to hunt the Jews and chase them to Israel, the ZOA issued a press release in defense of Hagge, calling him "a staunch friend and supporter of the State of Israel, of Zionism, and of the Jewish people" (http://4international.wordpress.com/2008/06/13/zoa-is-right-to-defend-hagee/).

Now, three-plus years later, on Sunday, November 20, one of the two featured speakers at the ZOA's 114th Anniversary Louis D. Brandeis Award Dinner will be Glenn Beck.

And the ZOA has chutzpah enough to lecture the Occupy Wall Street movement about anti-Semitism.

Perhaps hoping to drum up some publicity for its upcoming dinner, the ZOA has issued a press release calling for the president, Congress and other public officials to condemn incidents of anti-Semitism in the Occupy Wall Street movement.

In the Press Release dated October 19, and titled "ZOA To President Obama & Congress - Condemn Anti-Semitism Of Occupy Wall Street Protestors," the organization called upon President Barack Obama Congress and other public figure "to explicitly condemn the manifestations of anti-Semitism that have figured prominently in the demonstrations of the 'Occupy Wall Street' protesters."

ZOA National Chairman of the Board Dr. Michael Goldblatt said, "We are frankly appalled and concerned that President Obama and Congressional leaders have not quickly and publicly condemned the numerous manifestations of anti-Semitism that occur regularly at the Occupy Wall street protests. This failure is all the more serious when the President and Congressional figures have spoken sympathetic words about these protests. When people start publicly blaming Jews and Israel for their problems, it is time for our political leaders to speak out.

"This contrasts sharply with the way Democratic leaders were quick to condemn alleged anti-black racist remarks and actions by Tea Party members on the basis of reports later proven to be false. They were willing to condemn the Tea Party even though two of its most repeatedly invited speakers have been African-American figures, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain and Representative Allen West (R-FL)."

"The charges of racism against the Tea Party were fully documented in IREHR's report, 'Tea Party Nationalism' (http://www.irehr.org/issue-areas/tea-party-nationalism/the-report), and have never been proven to be false," Devin Burghart, vice president of the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights, told me in an email. "Further, IREHR never made bigotry a partisan issue; it is a moral issue.  And the fact that Jewish Republicans in California condemned an anti-Semitic ad placed by a local Tea Party group, proves that opposition to bigotry is not partisan either."

Regarding charges of anti-Semitism in the Occupy Movement, Burghart said that his organization "has already pointed out that there are known anti-Semites trying to wheedle their way in to the Occupy movement.  [However,] the anti-Semites are having greater or less success depending on the city and the local movement."

Burghart added that "in a movement in which groups such as Jews for Racial and Economic Justice play a significant role as Jews, and a movement where Sukkahs were built in a number of cities, it would be a serious mistake to describe the movement as anti-Semitic."

Defending Beck

Last year, the ZOA planted itself firmly on the side of then Fox Television's Glenn Beck when he claimed that George Soros, who Beck has called "The Puppet Master," was a Nazi collaborator who, as a teenager, participated in the theft of property owned by Jews by the Nazis.

Instead of condemning Beck for his recklessness, in a press release (http://www.zoa.org/sitedocuments/pressrelease_view.asp?pressreleaseID=1968), the ZOA "expressed its concern over the strong criticism that a number of American Jewish leaders and other prominent Jews in recent days have directed at ... Beck, for his criticism of Israel/U.S.-basher, financier George Soros, regarding his behavior in Nazi-occupied Budapest in 1944."

"In that year," the press release stated. "Soros' father obtained forged papers and bribed a government official to save his son, George, then 14 years old, by taking him in as his alleged godson under a falsified Christian identity. In this capacity, George Soros accompanied his fake godfather on his appointed rounds as a government official, confiscating property from Jews who were to be deported to their deaths in Auschwitz. George Soros later said that he felt no guilt, remorse or difficulty whatsoever for being in this situation. In fact, he wrote in a forward to his father's book, 'these ten months [of the Nazi occupation] were the happiest times of my life ... We led an adventurous life and we had fun together.'

"Regarding this circumstance, Mr. Beck said recently on his radio show that Soros 'used to go around with this anti-Semite and deliver papers to the Jews and confiscate their property and then ship them off. And George Soros was part of it. He would help confiscate the stuff. It was frightening. Here's a Jewish boy helping send the Jews to the death camps. I am certainly not saying George Soros enjoyed that, even had a choice - I mean, he's 14 years old. He was surviving. So I'm not making a judgment, that's between him and G-d' ('Soros enjoys taking countries down,' November 10, 2010).

In a piece for The Daily Beast, dated November 10, 2010, Michelle Goldberg wrote that Beck's  invective  against Soros "was a symphony of anti-Semitic dog-whistles."

The criticism of Soros, who has long been a target of the right, "went beyond demonizing him; he cast him as the protagonist in an updated Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Goldberg, the author of Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism and The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power and the Future of the World, pointed out. "He described Soros as the most powerful man on earth, the creator of a 'shadow government' that manipulates regimes and currencies for its own enrichment. Obama is his 'puppet,' Beck says. Soros has even 'infiltrated the churches.' He foments social unrest and economic distress so he can bring down governments, all for his own financial gain."

Abraham Foxman, the ADL's national director and a Holocaust survivor himself, said that "Beck's description of George Soros' actions during the Holocaust is completely inappropriate, offensive and over the top. For a political commentator or entertainer to have the audacity to say-inaccurately-that there's a Jewish boy sending Jews to death camps, as part of a broader assault on Mr. Soros, that's horrific... To hold a young boy responsible for what was going on around him during the Holocaust as pawrt of a larger effort to denigrate the man is repugnant."

While IREHR's Devin Burghart wished that the Zionist Organization of America, "may live long and be well," he emphatically noted that "they did not honor themselves by honoring Glenn Beck."

UPDATE: The Jewish Forward, in an October 28th article by Eric Alterman, comdemns the "pernicious attempt to brand protest as anti-Semitic: GOP tries to raise campaign bucks by tarring Occupy Wall Street"

It should also be noted that more than a thousand Jews chose to observe Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement and holiest day in the Jewish year, at Liberty Park in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street.

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Perhaps the best way to occupy Wall Street is by pulling our money out of big banks.

Sure, it's a big inconvenience to find a credit union or local bank that then doesn't have thousands of branches around the country. But if the banks that are "too big to fail" collapse because of a lack of consumer confidence in their ability to financially serve the nation, a new system that is based on rebuilding the American economy and customer service might emerge.

In, for instance, dissecting just some of the reasons (ten) to leave Bank of America, Nomi Prins writes for Truthout that we can choose where we keep our money:

Without being broken up via a new, strong Glass-Steagall Act, when banks need to find ways to make money, they resort to extorting it from their sitting ducks, er - customers. Meanwhile, that's where credit unions, which are not-for-profits owned by their members and not by outside shareholders, come in. They generally don't engage in crazy derivatives trades, or charge unnecessary fees for holding your money or for letting you pay bills with it, or for online banking. In terms of personal attention, among other economic reasons, the credit and smaller community banks are a much better bet.

The banks "too big to fail" otherwise have us as hostages. While a pocket park in Manhattan is "occupied," the "Masters of the Universe" who control America's financial system are sitting quite pretty. Washington, DC, is in their pocket from the White House down. In the US, controlling trillions of dollar in money gives one the keys to that kind of power.

As has been pointed out over and over again, the very people who are responsible for the near financial collapse of America are still in charge through a revolving door between Wall Street and the federal government. ProPublica just did an update about all the financial chieftains who cratered the economy and have not been prosecuted. In fact, none of them have been charged with any wrongdoing as individuals.

Although the feds arrested a Goldman Sachs board director the other day, there doesn't appear to be any ongoing Department of Justice investigation to indict the main culprits of the recession. The charges against Rajat Gupta are for insider trading, a narrow range of trading for profit with privileged information.

As BuzzFlash at Truthout noted recently, "Big Banks Don't Want Your Money, Unless You Pay Them to Keep It - for Real."

Prins reminds us that the fastest way to reforming Wall Street may be by proactively moving our dollars to credit unions and banks that cater to Main Street - and where we are treated with respect, and our money is used to invest in the economic infrastructure of our communities.

read more

TONY PEYSER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Are the Republicans so foolish, now

Just single-minded doctrinaires

That they really want to double down

On tax breaks for millionaires?

read more

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 - Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was joined by other members of Congress today in asking the State Department inspector general to investigate whether conflicts of interest tainted the process for reviewing a proposed crude oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

In a separate letter to President Barack Obama, Sanders, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) and a dozen other senators and congressmen cited "serious concerns" about the integrity of the review and asked the White House to withhold any decision on the project until the inspector general's investigation is completed, made public and evaluated.

TransCanada, the company proposing the Keystone XL pipeline project, reportedly was allowed to screen private firms competing to perform an environmental impact study on the pipeline.  Cardno Entrix, the politically-connected firm ultimately selected to conduct the environmental impact study, had significant financial ties to TransCanada.

"Given the significant economic, environmental, and public health implications of the proposed pipeline, we believe that it is critical that the State Department conduct thorough, unbiased reviews of the project," the lawmakers wrote to Deputy Inspector General Harold W. Geisel.

Their letter posed a series of detailed questions designed to determine whether the selection of the firm and the environmental review process was "free of actual or apparent conflicts of interest."

The 1,700-mile pipeline would carry more than half a million barrels of oil a day from Canada's tar sands to refineries in Texas. The State Department is reviewing the proposal because the pipeline would cross the international border between the United States and Canada.

To read the letter to the State Department office of the inspector general, click here.

To read the letter the President Obama, click here.

read more

MITCH HALL FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

The Norwegian peace researcher Johan Galtung defined peace in these terms: "By peace we mean the capacity to transform conflicts with empathy, without violence, and creatively - a never-ending process."

As an Oakland resident who voted for you to become mayor, I am disheartened that you did not respond to the Occupy Oakland movement as an opportunity to build peace in the community. Instead you authorized the police to use brute force to remove the nonviolent Occupy Oakland encampment, to confiscate and destroy their property, to arrest people exercising their rights of freedom of speech and assembly, and to fire tear gas and rubber bullets on the peaceful demonstrators who were marching the next night.

Why did you not respond more humanely and intelligently? You could have practiced empathy by holding public forums in which you and your staff listened to learn and acknowledged understanding of the real issues that motivated the movement. You could have practiced nonviolence by negotiating for the protection of public health and safety at the encampment, if those were indeed your genuine concerns. You could have practiced creativity in learning from and collaborating democratically with the protestors.

Instead, you joined the ranks of so many  politicians who ally themselves with the wealthy, powerful elites and show no real respect or care for the common people who just want decent jobs, housing, food, health care, education, and safety in this land that is being despoiled by the Wall Street speculators, corporate robber barons, and politicians who serve them.

The Occupy Oakland protestors were giving witness to the suffering of more and more people, to egregious, documented abuses of power, to the disenfranchisement and impoverishment of the "99%" while the "1%" enrich themselves selfishly and indecently in contravention to humanity's most precious ethical and spiritual norms, and to the virtual prostitution of the politicians to their insanely wealthy corporate patrons.

Yes, Mayor, you have demonstrated that you and the police at your beck and call have the power to enforce your will, violently if you choose. That took no imagination or creativity and showed no empathy. You have only added one more dismal episode to the chronicles of injustice that these courageous Occupy Oakland protestors were trying to call to the attention of the public, the media, and people, such as you, in positions of power.

If your conscience ever awakens about this failed opportunity for truly meaningful leadership, if you ever feel remorse for the suffering you have ignored and also augmented through police action, I wonder if you will ever apologize and try to build peace by practicing empathy, nonviolence, and creativity and addressing the legitimate concerns that have brought people out onto the streets all over this country and world in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street.

UPDATE: On Thursday, Mayor Quan issued a statement of regret over the police riot in Oakland and expressed personal support for the Occupy Wall Street movement. As to how the Oakland police will take action in the future, it remains to be seen.

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH FOR TRUTHOUT

Many of the banks "too big to fail" don't want your money if you're one of the 99 percent.

No, it's not a joke, according to The New York Times. Basically, the banks are sitting on so much cash that they don't want more. That is why they are raising the costs of putting money into a bank and accessing your money. In essence, they don't really want your business unless you're in the top 1 percent or are willing to pay "access" fees.

This sounds absurd, but follow the non-job-creating logic of the banks, according to the Times:

Though financial institutions are not yet turning away customers at the door, they are trying to discourage some depositors from parking that cash with them. With fewer attractive lending and investment options for that money, it is harder for the banks to turn it around for a healthy profit....

Normally, banks earn healthy profits by taking in deposits and then investing them or lending them out at substantially higher interest rates than what they pay savers. But that traditional banking model has broken down.

Today, banks are paying savers almost nothing for their deposits.

The result: many Americans get as little as .01 percent interest on their savings; get charged as much as $20 a month for banking services such as checking unless they keep several thousand dollars in some big banks; and are, as BuzzFlash at Truthout has noted, even being assessed a monthly fee at Bank of America for using a debit card to access their own money.

But have interest rates on credit cards fallen as interest on savings accounts have just hovered over going into the negative zone? No, of course not; not only have interest rates on credit cards stayed excessively high, additional charges and increased fines are now being levied on credit card users.

This is almost like an absurdist comedy, except absurdity has become the reality today when it comes to "banks too big to fail."

They don't even want your money anymore; it might cut into their profits that come from putting you into debt. And too many Americans can't even afford loans, so the banks are just churning out dividends and bonuses.

It's enough to make you want to occupy Wall Street. But who would think of an idea like that?

****

If you'd like to receive these commentaries daily from Truthout/BuzzFlash, click here. You'll get our choice headlines and articles too. ...

read more

JACQUELINE MARCUS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Stop and think about this for a moment, because it's one of the central reasons why the U.S. is sinking from all sides of the ship.  A government that spends $750 billion dollars a year on defense cannot possibly sustain a vital economy, nor can it produce jobs.  NPR reported recently that the amount the U.S. military spends annually on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan, alone, is a whopping $20.2 billion, according to a former Pentagon official.

This is absurd, especially when solar panels can light up the entire Middle East with power.  Solar panels are cheap now, and that's creating a boom market for the green energy companies.  In an AP article, it's revealed that "solar energy may finally get its day in the sun."

The high costs that for years made it impractical as a mainstream source of energy are plummeting. Real estate companies are racing to install solar panels on office buildings. Utilities are erecting large solar panel "farms" near big cities and in desolate deserts. And creative financing plans are making solar more realistic than ever for homes.

What do all the U.S.-targeted countries have in common? Oil.  As John Pilger explained in his excellent assessment, U.S. Combat Troops Descend on Africa, it should surprise no one that Obama is sending combat troops in Africa after Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya: "Where the Americans bring drones and destabilization, the Chinese bring roads, bridges and dams. What they want is resources, especially fossil fuels."   China buys oil.  Unlike China, the U.S. oillionaires don't want to pay for oil when they can exploit our military forces to occupy the oil fields for free.  In any event, the American consumer is not going to benefit from the oil grab.

After a decade of lies, you can't blame Americans for being somewhat skeptical about the U.S. withdrawing from the devastated ruins of Iraq at the end of this year, and indubitably there's more to this story: read David Swanson's Goodbye Iraq? Not Exactly. "Thousands of mercenaries will be employed by the State Department. Iraqi police will be trained to U.S. specifications on the U.S. taxpayers' dime. We will maintain the world's largest embassy. And I have to assume the CIA is not departing."

read more

BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Capitalizing on political friends and contacts has been the name of the game throughout Allbaugh's career. Now he hopes to do for Rick Perry what he did for George w. Bush; help guide him to the White House.

In Quentin Tarantino's film Pulp Fiction, Harvey Keitel plays Winston Wolf, an underworld problem solver. When two hit men, Vincent Vega (John Travolta) and Jules Winfield (Samuel L. Jackson) accidentally shoot their informant Marvin in the face while driving, "The Wolf" is called in take charge of the situation. Under "The Wolf's" direction, the car is meticulously cleaned, the body is hidden in the trunk, and their bloody clothes are disposed of. "The Wolf" has taken care of everything in a timely manner.

While there's no murder scene to be cleansed, Texas Governor Rick Perry's campaign is shot full of holes. His poll numbers are down, his debate performances were wretched, his credibility is shot, and his re-birthing of the birther card displayed continued poor judgment. His newly unveiled economic plan is a Forbesian rehash. For Team Perry and his billionaire backers, it's time to call in the big guns.

And that's where Joe Allbaugh, who, according to Karen Hughes' book Ten Minutes from Normal dubbed the Texas Bush team of Karl Rove, himself, and Karen Hughes, "the brain, the brawn and the bite," comes in. At 6 feet 4 inches and 275 pounds, Allbaugh was clearly "the brawn" of the group that was later called the "iron triangle" by the national media.'"

A longtime comrade of George W. Bush, Allbaugh worked as then-Texas Gov. Bush's chief of staff before running the Bush's 2000 campaign, including the ruckus in Florida over the recounting of votes.

As a reward for Bush's victory, Allbaugh was named the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

read more

ROBERT CREAMER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Last Thursday's Washington Post headline blared: "Debt panel's lack of progress raises alarm on Hill."

In fact, it is far better for everyday Americans if the so-called Super Committee fails entirely to get a deal.

The overarching reason is simple: any deal they are likely to strike will make life worse for everyday Americans - and worsen our prospects for long-term economic growth.

Of course that's not the view of many denizens of the Capitol, who are still obsessed by the notion that it is critical for the Congress to produce a "compromise" that raises revenue and cuts "entitlements."  There are three reasons why these people are wrong:

read more

PAUL BUCHHEIT FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

By now, every sensible American, and some Republicans, have recognized the folly in Herman Cain's 9-9-9 (or more aptly called the 9-0-9) plan. Even Cain himself is starting to see how unfair it is. He tweaked the plan to exclude poverty-level families from the 9% income tax burden.

But let's take a closer look at the effect of the plan on middle-income Americans. Congressional Budget Office figures show that the top quintile of Americans paid 25% of their incomes in federal income taxes in 2006. The middle quintile paid 14% of their incomes in federal income taxes. According to a study by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the top quintile paid about 2% of their incomes in state and local sales and excise taxes, while the middle quintile paid approximately 5%.

So at this point, total taxes for the rich are 27% of their incomes (25% + 2%). Total taxes for the middle are 19% of their incomes (14% + 5%).

With 9-0-9, the federal income tax rate would go from 25% to 9% for the top quintile, and from 14% to 9% for the middle quintile. Since the average state and local sales tax rate is currently about 9%, a 9% federal rate would essentially double it. So sales taxes would go from 2% to 4% for the top quintile, and from 5% to 10% for the middle quintile.

So now, total taxes for the rich are 13% of their incomes (9% + 4%). Total taxes for the middle remain at 19% of their incomes (9% + 10%).

Overall, based only on income and sales taxes, the tax responsibility of upper-income Americans would suddenly be much less than that of middle-income Americans.

As for the third part of 9-0-9: despite all the clamor for corporations to pay SOMETHING (9% is better than nothing), the fact is that the top 100 companies in America paid an average tax of 12% from 2008 to 2010. With 9-0-9 they'd be paying less, too.

The Beatles' most famous nonsense song started "Number 9...Number 9...Number 9..." The sentiment is still relevant today.

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

What a difference a city makes.

In Oakland the other night, the police violently stormed an Occupy Wall Street encampment in that city. "Dressed in riot gear, the police used rubber bullets, flash grenades, and gas canisters to forcibly evict and/or arrest the demonstrators who remained in the plaza," according to ThinkProgress.

But a few hundred miles to the south, in America's second-largest city, a sea of tents peacefully surrounds the Art Deco Los Angeles City Hall.

In fact, on October 12, the City Council of Los Angeles endorsed the occupation:

After nearly three hours of public comment dominated by Occupy Los Angeles demonstrators, the City Council voted Wednesday to support the movement calling attention to what activists say is a growing gap between the nation's rich and poor.

The resolution sponsored by Councilmen Richard Alarcon and Bill Rosendahl supports the "peaceful and vibrant exercise in First Amendment Rights carried out by 'Occupy Los Angeles.'"

Visiting the Los Angeles tent city of protest a little over a week ago, BuzzFlash at Truthout couldn't see even one police officer in sight - literally. It was so peaceful that, given the corporate mass media's attention to conflict, the Los Angeles occupation is getting little national attention.

Yes, the Los Angeles City Hall is located in a relatively deserted part of what is a relatively small downtown for the second-largest city in the US. Yes, there are virtually no residents around to use as an excuse for a crackdown, as is being done by Mayor Bloomberg of New York.

But there is something else at work here. The city of Los Angeles has been allegedly ripped off by big banks, according to TIME magazine. It has also been mulling a bank accountability proposal that would benefit consumers and homeowners, as well as ensure transparency in loans to the city:

First introduced more than two years ago, the proposal had lost steam until the zeal of Occupy Los Angeles gave it momentum, according to its sponsor, councilman Richard Alarcon. "We felt the resolution kind of captured the spirit of the entire movement," Alarcon says. "We were sort of kindred spirits." If implemented, the initiative would set up a report-card system to rate banks and deny them business if they score too low.

Banks' scores would be determined by factors such as the number of home-loan modifications they give to homeowners to prevent foreclosures, how much lending they do to small businesses and whether the institutions have committed fraudulent activity. And there is reason to suspect fraud. In 2008, the city of Los Angeles filed a lawsuit against 35 financial institutions alleging wrongdoing like rigging bidding processes to manage city debt. The suit has yet to be settled as the city waits for state and federal investigations to conclude amid similar accusations in other cities.

When looking for the potential of Occupy Wall Street to redresses grievances through action, perhaps one should follow the famous quotation from the 1800s: "Go West young man."

In this bicoastal nation, it is gratifying to see a Los Angeles tilt toward occupying Wall Street.

read more

MICHAEL GALINSKY FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Presaging in many ways the context of Occupy Wall Street, Battle for Brooklyn (see trailer here) is a gripping documentary about how the 1% at the top squeeze the bottom 99% by literally evicting them from their homes and businesses.  In this case, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his elite allies used the power of eminent doman, which is meant for public projects, to clear a Brooklyn neigborhood.  The catch was that the eminent domain power in this case was intended to enhance the profits of a private developer at the expense of tearing down a community. This is how the 1% operate and Mayor Bloomberg, when asked about the lofty goals of the building project being met, assured the media and New Yorkers that he had the word of the developer, Bruce Ratner, and that was good enough for him.  But, as is often the case with "crony capitalism," there is no accountability now that Ratner's promises have not been met.

The project, known as the Atlantic Yards, is currently basically a big parking lot (due to the economy) except for the construction of a stadium to house the now "Brooklyn Nets."  Michael Galinksy, who co-directs the documentary with Suki Hawley, wrote this reflection on why OWS gets it right in taking on "crony capitalism."

My 9 year old daughter loves to come with me to the movie theater when we show our film, Battle for Brooklyn.  She was one and a half years old when we started making it, and we finished it this year. Last week on the way to a screening of the film she said, "I don't get why certain words are bad.  Like it really doesn't mean anything if I say  sh#t, sh#t, sh#t.  It's just a word."  I grew up with a psychologist father who talked like a sailor, so I'm to blame for her casual relationship with curse words.  "It's cultural," I explained.  "It's a way of being in the world that is deeply ingrained and re-enforced over time.  At a certain point, everyone believes it's bad, so it gains a kind of power through the collective understanding." I then tried to bring up the idea of frames as different perspectives on society, but that was a little over her head.

Speaking of frames, when I showed the first draft of this to my partner Suki, she complained that it wasn't focused enough. This is true. It isn't focused enough for the hyper-focused kind of writing we have come to expect.  However, we are entering a new era of intellectual and emotional curiosity, so please allow me to stretch my revolutionary wings and write in a more open/Occupy inspired manner.

This discussion with my daughter got me thinking a lot about our film and our work in general. We make movies about people who are usually just outside the mainstream culture, fighting to be heard, and fighting for what they believe in.  Our films are just as much about media as they are about the people in them.  Essentially, our characters (and our films really) are often up against a culture that looks at the world through a slightly different frame. When media, or the culture, expects one kind of story and are given something else, they think that the storyteller has failed.   As with this piece, my partner thought she would be reading a super-focused blog post connecting Occupy Wall Street to our film.  Since that was her expectation, in her eyes I had failed.  Rather than looking at intention as a measure of success, our culture looks at expectation.  Through this frame of mind it's easy to see why the media initially dubbed the Occupy Wall Street movement a failure. The protesters hadn't show up with press releases, and a "clear" message that could be easily packaged or angled for the 5 o'clock news.  However, the movement was in many ways a reaction against precisely that type of frame.

Occupy Wall Street is about smashing the overriding cultural frame on the ground and stomping on it. It's no surprise that the media, which is so dependent on that very frame, had a violently negative reaction to the message.  It's exciting to see how fragile the frame was though, and how easily it is falling apart.  For the past dozen years, as we have worked on films that deal with media, we have found a somewhat intractable frame in both the making and distribution of our films.  As my Facebook friends will tell you, I have been excited about this movement from day one.

In 1999 we began a documentary about an underground publisher who was trying to re-publish a discredited bio of G.W. Bush.  In short, the publisher and the author had a very hard time trying to revive the book, and the media didn't make it any easier.  We, as the filmmakers, also had difficulty getting the media and the general public to understand what we were trying to do.  The film was titled Horns and Halos because it was about showing the good and the bad in the situation, as the book had tried to show all sides of Bush.  At our screening in Washington D.C., half of the audience thought the movie didn't attack Bush enough, and half thought we hadn't been hard enough on the publisher and author.  We had tried to step outside the divisive frame of left vs. right, but the people weren't having it.

As we were distributing Horns and Halos, we began shooting Battle for Brooklyn.  In a nutshell, the film is about a community fighting to save itself from being bulldozed for a basketball arena and 16 skyscrapers.  We read about the "development" project, branded Atlantic Yards by the developer, in the New York Times, and were immediately struck by the fact that the article sounded like a press release.  When we saw a flier screaming, "Stop the Project!" we knew that we had a way in.  We filmed the fight for well over 7 years, and increasingly focused in on the story of Daniel Goldstein, who ended up leading the fight against the project and being one of the last people in the footprint as the project was pushed through.

When we had first started the film, I would discuss the development project, and our documentary, with my neighbors (we live near the project site).  They all thought there was no use in even looking into it because it was a "done deal."  The mayor, the governor, and the senator all supported it.  "How can it be stopped?" they asked. "They shouldn't even bother, they'll drive themselves crazy."

Meanwhile, the elected officials who actually represented the direct area where the project was to be built were against it.  Most of the people living within the project site agreed with my skeptical neighbors. Six months after the project was announced, faced with the threat of eminent domain and a multi-year battle to save their homes, almost all of the condo-owners in the footprint accepted a buyout from the developer. It was later learned the buyouts had actually been paid for with public money. This left Daniel Goldstein as the only person living in his 31-unit building.  The media portrayed him as a NIMBY who was standing in the way of necessary and publicly beneficial "progress."  Thousands of his neighbors stood with him, and appreciated what he had done, but outside the circle of people who really knew what was going on, there was an effort to characterize him as a villain.

The larger community surrounding the project's footprint was somewhat divided about the development plan, but there was a strong base of opposition.  To counter this movement, the developer went right to the corporate playbook and started to buy off community groups and purchase help from others to support the project.  When the press treats reporting like theater, reality gets lost in the shuffle.  In the papers and on TV,  the community group actively fighting the project and supported by thousands of donations from local residents, gets the he said/ she said treatment in relation to the developer.  Nearly every news story gets launched by a corporate press release, and just like Occupy Wall Street, people who don't go down to check out the situation for themselves have no idea of what's going on.  One thing that has driven the OWS movement, though, is that people have gone down, and they've found a very different picture than what they've been told.  The papers are telling them one thing and Facebook is telling them another.  This process leads to deeper questions about the media, and what is really being delivered to the public.

When a developer spends millions of dollars to control a narrative, it is quite effective. In one scene, which didn't make it into the film, ACORN Executive Director Bertha Lewis announces that her group has negotiated a 50/50 housing deal.  According to this deal, half of the apartments in the complex will be "affordable."  She is asked about the people who live in the project site, and replies that they will all be offered comparable apartments in the new complex.  Afterwards, Daniel Goldstein confronts her with the fact that most of the people in the footprint have already been forced out.  She admits that she hasn't actually started talking to residents yet.  Two weeks later, the developer announced that they were adding 2300 condos, and all of a sudden the 50/50 housing deal looked more like 70/30.  A couple of years later it was revealed that the developer had given a financially troubled ACORN a $500,000 dollar gift, and a $1 million low-interest loan that was never repaid.

One scene that did make the film's final cut reveals that another group that supported the project had expected to receive all of its funding from Forest City Ratner Companies.  In fact, of the six groups that signed a community benefits agreement with the developer, only two, including ACORN, had a significant track record of working with their communities in a large-scale way.  Four of them did not even exist before the project was announced.

Now the project has been forced through.  Nearly 1,000 people and businesses were displaced, and a heavily subsidized, privately-owned arena is under construction  All the buildings have been torn down and there are no apparent plans for the promised housing.  Instead, there are at least 16 acres of demolished and empty lots. Much of this now dormant space will persist as massive parking lots until economic conditions improve.  Of the 15,000 jobs promised, the amount of workers on site has fluctuated between a few hundred to five or six hundred.  Of those jobs, only a handful have gone to local residents.

A project that was sold as a panacea for poverty, unemployment and a housing crisis has ended up as a mostly vacant quagmire in the middle of Brooklyn.  Still, two days after officer Bolonga maced people in the face at Occupy Wall Street, the developer of the Atlantic Yards project and the government put on a big show (with Jay Z and his Maybach on display) to announce that ...drum roll please...they would be changing the name of the New Jersey Nets to the Brooklyn Nets!  Rome was burning, and the press was eating free food and dutifully reporting on this major announcement while ignoring the real situation that was going on just over the bridge.  There were literally hundreds of press people present for the Jay Z-Nets announcement, and for the most part, they all printed their stories and ran their footage as requested.  It was a giant magic trick:  Look over here at the shiny car and the celebrity and ignore all of the broken promises.

As with Horns and Halos, we've had a bit of a difficult time getting people to understand what we were trying to do with the Battle for Brooklyn, and frankly we released it before people were quite ready for its narrative.  Essentially it is the Occupy Wall Street film before OWS.  Michael O'Keefe laid it out well in his article in the Daily News on October 18th.

Our film lays bare all of the elements that have enraged the masses.  An extreme version of corptocracy-a willing government taken over by corporate interests against the interests of the people-in which a developer plans a project, calls all the shots, and gets the government to steamroll the public process and provide unbelievable levels of subsidies. The media follows the corporate script, reporting on the story when the developer issues press releases, and dutifully repeating ridiculous assertions about revenues, housing, and jobs without doing any due diligence whatsoever.  As a citizen, it was infuriating and mind numbing.  As a filmmaker, it was painful.  As we are not "accredited media," we were shut out of the dog and pony show on numerous occasions.

People are fed up with outsourcing their rage to groups like MoveOn, and thinking that the few extra bucks a month they pay for their Credo phone will change anything.

We had one great line in the film that we eventually took out, because we found a way to show it instead of tell it, but it's relevant here: "It's in the interest of the developer to keep the community divided, because if the community is divided he can get what he wants pushed through."  In early cuts of the film the audience felt cheated out of their own discovery of this concept when it was handed to them so directly.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is largely related to this idea.  The people are uniting, and it will be much harder for those who want to defeat them this time.

read more

TONY PEYSER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

More proof that those

Fond of the NRA

Tend not to have had a

Very high GPA.

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Who is causing the most disruption to residents in southern Manhattan? The New York City Police Department (NYPD).

As BuzzFlash at Truthout has noted, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been developing a PR contingency strategy to shut down Occupy Wall Street (OWS). One of his primary media claims is that the OWS encampment at Liberty Park is disturbing and inconveniencing residents of the area.

But, in reality, the massive deployment of the NYPD in the Wall Street district is itself a large-scale disruption of the community in that area. If Mayor Bloomberg's alleged standard of not "bothering" neighborhood residents and workers is any means test for obeying the law, the NYPD "occupation" of lower New York City should be halted.

At a recent hearing of two of the many New York City-area neighborhood advisory committees - the combined Quality of Life and Financial District Committees - a Firedoglake blogger was able to record some of the comments on the issue under discussion: what to do with OWS in Liberty Park.

Interestingly, many of the attendees complained about the massive police presence:

Another woman says she lives in area and the real problem is the police. They won't let her pass through on her bike to get home. She supports OWS.

Yet another WASPY patrician looking woman says that she has been made a prisoner in her own apt, but not by OWS, by the police. She thinks they are overreacting. She supports OWS

71 year old woman says police barricades are endangering her life, not OWS.

Local merchant complains about the barricades too. Say the barricades are disrupting business not OWS.

Young woman gets up, says that she has grown up in NY all her life, that the city has always been loud and dirty and folks should just get used to it.

Yes, some residents did complain about OWS, but some of these objections were political, such as the man who said "that protestors aren't occupying Wall Street, but because it's near Ground Zero they are occupying Ground Zero!" (Liberty Park is adjacent to the old Twin Towers site.)

Tom Engelhardt of TomDispatch recently wrote about the militarized occupation of Wall Street by the NYPD:

Their stakeout in Zuccotti Park is geared to extreme acts, suicide bombers, and terrorism, as well as to a conception of protest and opposition as alien and enemy-like. They are trying to herd, lock in, and possibly strangle a phenomenon that bears no relation to any of this. They are, that is, policing the wrong thing, which is why every act of pepper spraying or swing of the truncheon, every aggressive act (as in the recent eviction threat to "clean" the park) blows back on them and only increases the size and coverage of the movement.

Engelhardt also confirmed to BuzzFlash at Truthout that the area is heavily barricaded and that police cars are everywhere, not to mention the helicopter flyovers and the watchtower over Liberty Park itself. Engelhardt estimates that "on an everyday basis, a squad of 10 or 15 friendly police officers could easily handle the situation."

But Bloomberg has deployed - as BuzzFlash at Truthout has already pointed out - a publicly financed police force with access to advanced technological powers and prone to primitive outbursts of brutality to annoy, harass and wail away the night with sirens, disrupting the sleep of area residents.

In this case, who will arrest the police and Bloomberg for disrupting, inconveniencing and violating the rights of residents and workers in the financial district?

It should be noted that the combined committee hearing did end with a recommendation calling for more limited drumming -- which has become a contentious issue both within and without OWS in terms of whether or not to limit it -- and increased sanitation facilities, which the city could provide instead of spending such excessive funds on unnecessary police force. The recommendation was a defeat for the New York City Real Estate Board, which was hoping for a recommendation to close Liberty Park at night.

****

If you'd like to receive these commentaries daily from Truthout/BuzzFlash, click here. You'll get our choice headlines and articles too.

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Consistent with the Wall Street standard operating procedure of privatized profits and socialized risks, the Bank of America has allegedly transferred 75 trillion dollars in potentially toxic derivatives to enable the money to be covered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

What does this mean in plain English?

It means that we, the taxpayers, are once again insuring the casino gambling financial bets of another bank too big to fail. So, while the Tea Party and the Republicans in Congress rail about cutting taxes, they are saying nary a word about taxpayers covering the shady financial gambling of big banks. The potential loss of $75 trillion, insured by government money, dwarfs budget deficit "austerity" talks.

And the Bank of America - although it is the largest US bank in total financial assets according to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) - is not a good investment for taxpayers right now, even though it recently showed a profit on paper. According to Bloomberg:

Moody's Investors Service downgraded Bank of America's long-term credit ratings Sept. 21, cutting both the holding company and the retail bank two notches apiece. The holding company fell to Baa1, the third-lowest investment-grade rank, from A2, while the retail bank declined to A2 from Aa3....

Bank of America's rating is now four grades below the one Moody's assigned to JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), the biggest U.S. bank by deposits at midyear, and a level below the rating given to Citigroup Inc. (C), the third-biggest. Bank of America is the only U.S. lender that lacks a rating of A3 or higher among the five firms listed by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency as having the biggest derivatives books.

So the free market isn't really "free." Wall Street depends upon hard-working Americans to keep them from the negative results of taking bad risks in an effort to turn large profits and big bonuses. If you own a small business and take such risks and they fail, you go bankrupt. If you run a Wall Street bank "too big to fail," average Americans cover your losses. Call it Wall Street socialism.

Ominously, in regards to that 75 trillion dollars that we are now backing with our dollars, a Reuters columnist recently wrote a commentary headlined, "Is Bank of America preparing for a Chapter 11?"

It would be great to go to Vegas and have all your gambling debts covered by the house. That's the Wall Street way - and the US government is the house.

The taxpayers are holding up Wall Street, not the other way around.

****

If you'd like to receive these commentaries daily from Truthout/BuzzFlash, click here. You'll get our choice headlines and articles too.

read more

NIKOLAS KOZLOFF FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

After a couple of weeks trying to find their groove, Occupy Wall Street protesters are now on a high and are set to take their movement to the next level. First came the announcement that New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg would not dismantle the encampment at Liberty Plaza, and then, as anti-capitalist demonstrators took to the streets in cities as far afield as Madrid and Rome, activists may have sensed that Occupy Wall Street stood to become truly global in scope. With the mushrooming of protest across the United States, corporate executives are sitting up and taking notice, while both the Republicans and Democrats have been forced to recognize the growing power of demonstrations. With the 2012 presidential election just a year away, it is not inconceivable that Occupy Wall Street will exert a political impact upon the campaign.

read more

ANN DAVIDOW FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

It is decision-making time in our country - - not just time to pick the right candidates for the upcoming election but for beginning a process that will illustrate just what kind of people we are. The sad part of this exercise is that we are up against people whose moral imperatives stretch the limits of truth and decency until they are so weak and ineffectual they could be drowned in a bathtub.

Leaders and wannabe power brokers fail to pose realistic solutions, choosing instead to let politics guide them through a thicket of complicated options. And having chosen partisanship over rational processes they commit us to dead-end policies that limit our ability to develop thoughtful procedures that might actually lead to more fruitful endeavors. Partisan maneuvering is a shaky premise upon which to build a viable governing structure and it keeps us from approaching our condition from a common-sense perspective. Having a political point of view shouldn't mean we give up conducting our lives in a thoughtful manner. But today too many of us seem to have chosen the easy way out of adopting an ideological premise and sticking with it to the bitter end regardless of what evidence might otherwise suggest.

read more