Tag Archives: Obama. Romney

WORDS OF POWER AND CIVILITY: FREE SPEECH ON LIBYA,EGYPT, AND ISRAEL, By Louise Annarino,September 13,2012

Words of Power and Civility: Free Speech on Libya, Egypt and Israel, By Louise Annarino, September 13, 2012

As Associate Director of Legal Affairs at Ohio University in Athens,Ohio, I was asked each autumn to speak to the newly-arrived International students regarding American laws, and what they needed to know to avoid legal problems while studying in the United States. I started ,as is my usual practice,with the U.S. Constitution. I then described our judicial structure, the difference between civil and criminal law, and the role of local police, state highway patrol and the FBI.  There were 2 areas students were most interested in:  traffic laws and 1st Amendment free speech issues.

Freedom of speech was a phenomenally novel concept to many of our students,whose first reaction was to question whether I had misspoken, or they had misunderstood. When I explained we could even burn our flag as show of political protest, several students inevitably leapt to their feet. This seemed beyond the pale to them, as it is for many of us. We discussed how free speech did face limits through reasonable regulations meant to keep the peace;for example,one cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theatre. I also explained that it was often a component of active civil disobedience for which dissidents must expect consequences, often a stint in jail. I told them about The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail, Martin Luther King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail, and Ghandi’s peaceful resistance campaign against British occupation of India. I cautioned them to understand that Americans guard free speech, even when the speech is uncomfortable, inane, even hateful. We even have a children’s rhyme “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never harm me” as a model for controlling our response to speech with which we disagree, or which is used to “attack” us. Police may intervene only to keep the peace;not to stop speech.

I have been thinking about these afternoons exploring what free speech meant to these students, what impact their new insights into American law and cultural mores would mean once they returned home. This programmed afternoon event led to many on-going friendships with students who would stop by my office to discuss American law and the Bill of Rights in the privacy of my office. We talked about African-Americans knocked off their feet by water hoses, attacked by dogs, clubbed by police as they marched for civil rights and an end to Jim Crow laws. We talked about American anti-war activists. We talked about American terrorists: KKK, Aryan Nation, CCC and other such fanatic fringe groups around the world, and their threat to civilized societies. We developed a common understanding about the dangers such groups posed not simply to life and limb but to free speech,freedom of assembly,freedom of religion, of the press etc.;and, to the very survival of government by the people. For violence breeds contempt for the speech of those who use it to instigate such violence.

I think about these young men today. I wonder what they expect of us;and,what we can expect of them. The theatre we discussed is no longer a crowded building; but, an internet of social media and viral videos. When a hate-monger on one side of the world shouts out hate-speech to arouse and instigate a response, violence on the other side of the world too often erupts. We must be sensitive to the fact that America has been blessed with immigrant influxes,especially along our coasts, which opens American society to cultural differences and reduces tribalism. Countries emerging from tribal structures to begin building democratic republics need our calming influence on such forces;not an aggressive disdain for their struggles. “Chest beating” does nothing to build the good will needed to strengthen the hand of those  fighting off the fanatic fringe. A policy of diplomacy and dignity, tolerance and respect for diversity, guidance and support for democratic reform shows President Obama’s power as a statesman. This is not a sign of weakness; but, of strength. Because he is a strong man who knows how to use the power of his office, and his personal power, he does not need to beat his chest.

“Violence as a response to speech has no place,” in society says Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

After condemning the attacks and the death of our Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others, “Justice will be done,” says President Obama.

“It’s disgraceful that the Obama administrations’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks,” said the Romney campaign.

Rence Priebus, Chairman of the Republican Party tweeted, “Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic.”

Today, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney and FOX news continued to lie about President Obama’s response in an effort to undermine his national security accomplishments, and undermine his leadership at home and abroad. Is this the action of patriots? When Americans are being attacked and killed, when we have American troops and diplomats in the field, when we should be decrying ignorant and malicious rhetoric we have a candidates for president and vice-president throwing fuel on the fires burning abroad. They blame not only President Obama but those in diplomatic service whose lives are being licked by the flames.

While diplomatic efforts by Obama and Clinton to assure the world the United States is not waging war on Islam, but on terrorism, Romney goes even further to undermine our diplomacy in the middle east, asserting that Obama is no friend of Israel. He even lied that Obama refused to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In fact, the two spoke on the phone since they will be addressing the U.N. on different dates: Netanyahu is scheduled to be in NY on the 27th,Obama on the 25th.There are disagreements between them as to strategy; but, not as to the goal of Israel’s security. Netanyahu and Romney  are double-teaming our president and his foreign policy. This is no time to play such political games. There is room for disagreement . Within Israel there is disagreement. A Netanyahu deputy disagrees on setting Iran “red line”, much as Clinton and Obama have.

Israeli Deputy Prime Minister for intelligence and atomic affairs Dan Meridor, and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, agree with President Obama’s approach. When Mr. Romney is president he can set America’s foreign policy, but not before that event occurs. Since when does a private citizen,even one running for president, join with the leader of another nation to undermine American foreign policy?  Definitely not in the midst of rising unrest near our embassies. President Karzai canceled a trip abroad today fearing the unrest will spread within Afghanistan and against our troops. Should not Romney,Ryan,and Priebus be equally concerned about our troops?

Fact-checkers were busy today assessing Libya/Obama statements of Romney/Ryan/Priebus as untrue. Meanwhile the Neo-cons advising Romney seem eager to push them to continue to lie and create such unrest abroad it could justify their desire to increase military defense spending. Ryan and Romney insist military spending must be increased 20% to keep America safe. They are talking about increasing contracts to corporate arms producers and defense contractors with financial interest in companies such as Mr. Cheney’s Halliburton Corp. They are not talking about veteran’s benefits, which the Ryan/Romney budget cuts. They are not talking about the safety of our troops.

The sad truth is that free speech allows liars to tell untruths about political figures and celebrities because of an exception to defamation charges for public figures. One cannot sue a congressperson by a defamation claim for comments made on the floor of the House or Senate, either. Public and political figures have to defend themselves against lies all the time. We have a notion that “the truth will out”. This might have been true when newspapers,television stations and radio openly and transparently competed with one another;now, one person (or his corporation,think Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes) can own multiple media outlets, even all,within any geographical area. CITIZENS UNITED did away with any transparency requirements which would at least alert us to the names of purveyors of lies. Truth will out is a fantasy. Our town is now the entire world. And media moguls with financial,nee political,agendas rule the town.

Those who have no sacred history of free speech wonder why the U.S. does not simply arrest those hate-mongers and liars who keep throwing fuel on the fires of fanatics. They expect and ask us to arrest, and punish, such persons. While I would love to see them punished, it is not easily done when they can defend their speech as free speech. But, they must face consequences.They must be held accountable…and they will be…if we can discover who they are. Any company supporting such messages of hate, bigotry, and deception should be boycotted, its employees unionized, and its directors removed by shareholder actions. Politicians who join in the game must be denied out votes. We can use speech, our free speech, to see justice done and consequences suffered. We cannot give up our sacred freedoms but we can use them, teach them and spread them throughout this country and the world community.

Words have power, and we must use them wisely, compassionately and forcefully as have our President and Secretary of State. Thank you Mr. President and Secretary Clinton. Thank you citizens of the world, who seek freedom, including free speech for your people. As you build your new democracies,guard it well.

UPDATE/ JUST REPORTED ON RACHEL MADDOWS/9:13 PM:

Attack on Libyan embassy was not a protest but organized attack.4 cars pulled up flying black flags,witnesses say it was response to killing of Libyan AlQuaeda leader by drone attack. As we learn mire we will understand more, and perhaps strengthen our ties with a free Libya and its people.,many of whom were also injured in this attack. It is still imperative that we allow our president and secretary of state to address foreign policy and security issues abroad,and strengthen our ties to emerging democracies and persons of good will. We must hold accountable all those who would weaken and undermine our efforts to seek peace with the nations of the world,despite the difficulties we face.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

WHO DO YOU TRUST?, By Louise Annarino,September 9,2012


WHO DO YOU TRUST?,BY Louise Annarino,September 9,2012

Johnny Carson,whom some of you will recall with a wide smile as the best-ever late-night talk-show host, started his television career as host of late-afternoon show called WHO DO YOU TRUST? It came to my attention when my 5th grade teacher chided him for using “WHO” rather than the correct “WHOM” in the title.  Obviously, the nuns were watching this show when they returned to the convent after classes. That was enough for me. I had to check this guy out. So, I switched over from American Bandstand one day and I was hooked! He and his side-kick Ed McMahon,kept me in stitches as they ran the game show. Later, Johnny took over for the 11:30 p.m. time-slot on NBC. Johnny kept me laughing for many years;just the memory of his skits and famous poses still make me laugh. “always keep ‘em laughin’ ” is the mantra of all forms of entertainment.

The political conventions,where politics becomes entertainment, are now over. Article after article has parsed these events ad nauseatum. Talking heads have even parsed the comments of their fellow commentators. There is only one question left for me: “Who do you trust?”. That is the person for whom you will vote. How do you know whom to trust? The one who makes you laugh or smile.

Laughter is disarming. We only laugh when we are able to relax and let down our defenses. We only let down our defenses when we trust s person. We literally get “weak with laughter”; and, some like me actually can laugh so hard they “fall down laughing”. Doctors in the Netherlands can explain why. I am more interested in WHEN we allow ourselves to laugh, only when we feel safe enough to get weak or fall down. There was a lot of this behavior at the Democratic convention; not so much at the Republican convention. Democrats are not funnier than Republicans. Nor do they have a better sense of humor. Both events had their fair share of people in funny hats and outrageous costumes. Only one had a guy talking to an empty chair and that was at the Republican convention. I have scoured the internet for photos which show the Republican delegates enjoying their convention and the mood I see is somber,concerned,annoyed,and solemnly patient; with a few smiles interspersed,a balloon launch,and cowboy hat toss. In searching photos of the Democratic delegates I see laughter to the point of tears and weakness, relaxation,pleasure, joy and hope. I also see such trust in the candidate that the delegates were relaxed enough to let down their defenses and enjoy their convention.

This reminds me of a trip a brother and I took to Hawaii sitting in the non-smoking section of the plane. Our section of the plane was quiet except for the recurrent flip of a magazine page. From the smoking section shrieks of laughter poured forth. They sounded like they were having a lot more fun than we were having.I could not laugh while my white knuckles gripped the armrest, knowing sharks were circling below readying for lunch when our plane crashed into the Pacific Ocean. Smoking and drinking allowed for a relaxation I could not imitate while flying. Fear had its grip on me. Nothing was funny. I trusted the laws of aerodynamics, but not possible human error.

There will alway be human error. We are not gods. We do not expect our leaders to be gods, nor are they God’s representative on earth, despite what some politicians imply. There is no moment when God chooses our next candidate no matter what Teapublicans  insist. We choose our candidates. Republicans chose Romney-Ryan. Democrats chose Obama-Biden.  Who makes you smile? Who makes you weak in the knees with laughter? Who trusts you? Who do you trust?

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

SYNERGY OR SERENDIPITY? RACISM IS ALIVE AND WELL IN OFFICES OF SECRETARIES OF STATE,BY Louise Annarino,August 18, 2012

SYNERGY OR SERENDIPITY? RACISM IS ALIVE AND WELL IN OFFICES OF SECRETARIES OF STATE,BY Louise Annarino,August 18, 2012

Synergy is two or more things functioning together to produce a result not independently obtainable.

The Suppression of the African-American vote deserves a blog entry all its own. I recently wrote about the general suppression of early voters in Ohio. Such behavior is disgraceful. But, suppression of the African-American vote is truly beyond the pale of thinking Americans.Perhaps no one is thinking. Perhaps the intent is not so deliberately racist as it appears. However, I find it difficult to believe what is happening in Ohio and simultaneously in so many states had not been planned.

General systems theory would remind me of serendipity; perhaps it is simply a “surprising happenstance” that the votes of those groups who so strongly supported Barack Obama in 2008 are being systemically suppressed throughout the country during the 2012 election. 95% of African Americans in the U.S., 97% in Ohio, voted for Barack Obama in 2008. “With population growth and increased voter participation among blacks, Latinos and Asians, members of all three groups cast more votes in 2008 than in 2004. Two million more blacks and 2 million more Latinos reported voting in 2008 than said the same in 2004. Among Asians, 338,000 more votes were reported cast in 2008 than in 2004.” http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1209/racial-ethnic-voters-presidential-election  An even higher turn-out among these groups is expected for the 2012 election.

It is estimated no fewer than 93,000 persons voted on the week-end before the November 2008 election. Since not all county election boards keep a daily tally of voters this number may be far lower than actual votes cast. There is no way to prove the race of voters on that or any other week-end. However, we do know that African-American churches “Souls to the Polls” projects bus hundreds of thousands of African-Americans to early voting after church services on Sundays, including the final Sunday before election day. We do know that getting to the polls, early or on election day is a struggle for single mothers, students, older persons, those relying on public transportation, and those working longer hours for less pay. We have a collective a memory of who was left standing in long lines, who had to leave the lines without voting in 2004; and who formed long lines throughout the interior hallways, and out the door to wrap themselves in a line extending around Veteran’s Memorial and into the parking lot on week-ends in 2008. African-Americans stood witness as far larger percentage of voters in-line than the percentage of African-Americans living in Ohio. For African-Americans, wek-end voting is a necessity, not a convenience.

The recent efforts in Ohio,Pennsylvania and other states to make it more difficult to vote are being justified using the same arguments which were used to deny African-Americans and women the right to vote; which later were used to impose a poll tax or literacy test to deny African-Americans their place at the polls. Now, we face a bigger hurdle. The systemic institutionalization of voting rules meant to turn voting rights into mere privileges as a means of controlling whose vote will get cast,and counted.

We elected an African-American president, while white men thought they could still hold onto power. Putting a woman, Sarah Palin,on the Republican ticket was not enough to overcome the changing demographic. What’s next, a woman president? An African-American woman president? A Latino, Latina or Asian president?

I believe what we are seeing is synergy, not serendipity. Racism coupled with the power held by state Republicans to regulate voting is threatening our elections. On NPR this morning a man was questioned about his opposition to congressional candidate Christie Vilsack. His reason for opposing her, “No way. It’s a man world”. It really isn’t; not any longer. The only way to keep the U.S. “a man’s world” is to suppress the vote of those who would easily and happily live in a multicultural America.

On August 6, 2012 The Honorable John Lewis (D-GA) stated on his facebook page: “47 years ago today, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law. It is a shame and a disgrace that today we bear witness to a deliberate and systematic attempt to make it impossible for some among us to vote. It is an affront to those that suffered and struggled, and especially to those who gave their lives so that others would be free to choose their own elected leaders. We must resist every effort to make it harder and more difficult for people to register and vote.” Yesterday, I listened to an interview of Congressman Lewis on CNN where he was asked whether the racist environment during his civil rights days marching with Dr. King for the Civil Rights,where he was set-upon by dogs,hosed,beaten and jailed was worse than what we see and hear today. Congressman Lewis said  (I paraphrase) “It is the same. But then, it was only in the South. Today it is everywhere in the country.”

The struggle for the right of African-Americans to vote continues as we demand the restoration of week-end voting in Ohio, the removal of unobtainable documentation requirements for and end to voter ID in Pennsylvania, and a slew of other burdens and obstacles to voting across the country. If the vote of one person can be denied, the vote of every person can be denied. While it is clear what is being denied to African-American voters we must recognize it could also be denied to every voter, even to those like SoS Husted. He and his party may not always hold power. They should not forget they are simply one of us, as we are all part of the whole. The precedent he is setting treats the right to vote as a privilege to be controlled and doled out according to the whims of those in power. This is dangerous to all Americans.

Once again, African-Americans are on the front-lines defending the constitution we all love, witnesses to the need of those in power to oppress even it means their own self-destruction. We must stand together or we will fall together. As Sen.Robert Kennedy once said,  “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” African-American,white,Latino,Asian,men,women we must stand together against the folly we are witnessing.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under COMMENTARY, POLITICS

WHY ROMNEY IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AND AWAY FROM TAX DISCLOSURES,By Louise Annarino, August 3, 2012

WHY ROMNEY IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AND AWAY FROM TAX DISCLOSURES, By Louise Annarino, August 3, 2012

Recently, (Democracy for America)DFA members attempted to deliver more than 245,300 petition signatures to Romney’s Boston campaign headquarters, asking for disclosure of more of his tax returns. They were turned away and escorted out of the building. This not the first, nor will it be the last request for more information from Mr. Romney regarding his tax returns. Every time he is asked he inadvertently drops another tidbit of information not only by what he let’s slip  (I’ve been audited a few times) but by what he refuses to discuss (I don’t know if I ever paid zero% but I’ll get back to you). To give him credit he never squirms while he skids.

Now, Senator Harry Reid is playing a well-worn political game of filling in the missing blanks for Romney with unsubstantiated allegations that Romney did not pay any tax for more than 10 years. This may or may not be true. This may be fun to watch. Games are fun to watch. I think this is too serious a matter to play games. I also find it undignified and wrong to make unsubstantiated charges against anyone. Besides, I don’t think Romney would refuse to open his tax returns for scrutiny simply because he paid no or very little tax. He is too proud of his ability to use the system for his personal gain to want to hide his skill at making and keeping money. He clearly has no qualms about outsourcing workers, gutting and shutting down companies. He brags about it constantly. He knows Americans admire millionaire entrepreneurs, and each aspires to become one. This would not be enough for Romney to fail to disclose his tax returns. There must be more than how much he earned and how much tax he paid in those returns and their attachments. There must be more he does not want us to know.

I would submit that Romney hides his returns for the same reason he is running for president. He is running as the front man for the now-global military-industrial-banking complex – the Great Pirates– which has been seeking more power over government.We have openly watched this replacement of political power owned by American voters with corporate power owned by too-big-to-fail-or share business since Ronald Reagan’s presidency through George W. Bush’s. President Obama’s greatest fight to change the way Washington works has been with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and ALEC via the Republican Party and Blue-dog Democrats. Obama’s pragmatism is the only thing which has saved him and us thus far.

When Reagan busted the air-traffic controller’s strike it was a blow against unions. The union of American workers was hard fought, opposed at every step by the Great Pirates. They have tried ever since to dismantle unions because unions are the one thing standing in their way of absolute domination of workers, wages, hours, safety and working conditions. Unions have led the environmental and consumer movements by opening our eyes to unsanitary conditions,unsafe products,hazardous chemicals and processes, and threats to our health and safety. Unions have led the movement for technical schools and training, access to higher education, and improved school models and increased funding for education.The Great Pirates want to eliminate the EPA, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Department of Education, Federal Reserve and any institution in their way as they seek to maximize profits at the expense of our people and our planet. They seek small government or no government so they may pursue wealth with no restrictions, and no concern for anyone’s welfare but their own.

Mr. Romney, like George W. Bush is not his own man. He belongs to the Great Pirates fraternity, and is proud of it. But, he and they cannot afford for us to discover how that fraternity works against us. Why Romney? Why now? The Great Pirates now have firmly in place a global consortium of business and banks. They ply their trade across borders and seas as pirates of old did. They seek to control not only American workers, but the world’s workers. They have alliances not only with American bankers but with the world’s bankers. It is no mystery that Romney met privately with British bankers while in London, the same persons associated with LIBOR. Do we know why? We do know he was fund-raising. Fund-raising from foreign interests?  He told us this. It is not a point of shame nor worry for him. What don’t we know about his foreign associations with the old friends  he met with while abroad. It is reported he is an old friend of, and used to work with Bebe Netanyahu. Doing exactly what?

What is it about politics that renders Romney silent? He is a bright and literate man, capable of organizing and running companies. What is he hiding? He disappears inside himself when campaigning, and becomes robotic and nonsensical. Since his first political run for Governor of Massachusetts,this is his campaign modus operandi. He is uncomfortable and unsure of what to say unless someone else writes his script. Then he knows no shame, no uncertainty. Like George W. Bush, he is not his own man. He is the Great Pirates’ man. In front of the American public, he is only comfortable stepping back inside himself and being their man. It pays very well. Neither the Great Pirates,nor Mitt Romney, would have it any other way.

And,why has the Republican party shoved aside its great conservative intellects like Buckley, Will, and Krauthammer for tea-party ideologues like Buchanan, Palin,and Bachmann? The coffers of the Great Pirates exceeds the traditional Republican campaign chest, which in part led to McCain’s loss in 2008. Popular support for Obama with most donations less that $200 and a changing demographic less supportive of the Republican party platform cleared the way for tea party candidates supported by Great Pirates to win seats in the House and Senate in 2010. Republican leaders of Congress Sen.Mitch McConnel and Rep. John Boehner had little financial choice but to allow the tea party front for the Great Pirates take the lead strings from their tired,tight hands. Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan,bidding for leadership, jumped the Republican ship for the Pirate ship to McConnell’s and Boehner’s chagrin. If Congress is at sea, it is because the Great Pirates have boarded the Ship of State.

Their next goal, planned and put into operation since Inauguration Day, is to mutiny against the captain and make President Obama a one-term president.

The answer to why this multi-billionaire would run for president is not merely ego, nor to “outdo Dad”. He is the right pirate for the times, but he can’t tell you that!

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

99 BOTTLES OF BEER ON THE WALL,By Louise Annarino,July 30,2012

99 BOTTLES OF BEER ON THE WALL, By Louise Annarino,July 30,2012

Political ads once were pieces of artful rhetoric. Remember “A Town Called Hope” extolling the virtues of presidential candidate Bill Clinton? Most ads were likewise lovely to watch, whether one supported the candidate extolled or not. They were inspirational, clarified a candidate’s position and beautifully if not nicely done. Even the infamous nuclear explosion reflected in the iris of a child picking flowers as an attack on presidential candidate Barry Goldwater was lovely to watch. It was consider-over-the top because it exceeded the extant of Senator Goldwater’s stance on nuclear armament, and was quickly pulled from the market having been shown only once. But once was enough to create an image of a man willing to lead Americans and the world into nuclear armageddon.

Just once, we were exposed to an ad which distorted and demeaned a candidate. Once was too much for television executives who pulled the ad because of public outrage and dismay. Today, political ads of distortion and outright lies are repeated ad nauseatum like the song “99 Bottles of Beer On The Wall”:

 

99 bottles of beer on the wall,

99 bottles of beer,

Take one down.

Pass it around.

98 bottles of beer on the wall.

(repeat with 1 less bottle until no more bottles are left and end with)

No more bottles of beer on the wall,

No more bottles of beer,

Go to the store and buy some more,(KOCH Bros. et al)

99 bottles of beer on the wall.

The internet messaging of lies is even worse. At least the possibility of vetting an ad or disclosure exists within broadcast and print news departments.The internet is unfiltered. The race-baiting, homophobic, misogynist attacks against President Obama, his staff, appointees, and supporters goes unchecked.

I recently received an email message from a childhood friend with the same old attacks (i.e. Muslim foreigner,baby and jobs killer, hates business, caused recession, brings terrorist infiltrators into government, stupid liar and cheat) against President Obama with a new twist. At top of the page was a photo of suit-clad smiling white man claiming he was a classmate of the president’s at Columbia and knew Barry well, and who knew the items in content of piece used to attack were true. At the bottom was a Snopes link which he asserted proved the truthfulness of the email content. My friend pointed this out to me since I had on several prior occasions disproved her attack emails by replying with the facts to dispute her specific allegations, and often used Snopes as secondary source since she found it hard to believe my research data from NYT, London Guardian, BBC, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, LA Times, historical texts, US Constitution, specific laws and regulations etc. I checked the Snopes link. The question Snopes agreed to answer was “Is this person the source of these allegations?” The answer was “Yes, this person is the source of these allegations.” The truth meter read “true”. What!

I answered my friend that the only truth was that the man who claimed to tell these lies did tell these lies. That does not make lies true! This person asked me two years ago to NEVER send her any political information, nor my blog articles since she hates politics. I never send her a thing until she sends me a pack of lies. Then, I reconstruct each issue, provide her factual data and point out the mistruths. I honor every persons right to their own opinion; but, no one is entitled to their own facts! How can one answer such idiocy? Her behavior is not based on a search for truth so we can each make an informed decision with the needs of all sides considered; it is simply a need to be right and justify her hatred for President Barack Obama.

What is so disturbing is not simply the ads and e-mail/facebook messages themselves, but the willingness of people to share demeaning and untrue attack ads with no effort on their part to check for truthfulness. I can appreciate that not every voter is a political wonk, not many have the time to fully explore issues or candidates, and very few take the time to research before forming an opinion. What I cannot accept, what I refuse to accept, is that these voters believe their opinion is so sound as the opinion of the voter who does explore policies, records and world views of each candidate. It is not. They are not of equal weight. The uninformed opinion has less value. It is often wrong. It is often based upon lies and distorted reality. It is worthless.

I de-friended a person on FB yesterday after she began posting increasingly racist imagery on poster cartoons attacking President Obama, baby-killer comments and other derogatory attacks. I had repeatedly pointed out her racist content over the past weeks. I once asked her why all of her posts were anti-Obama and none pro-Romney. To all of which I received no response. I chalked up her behavior to ignorance, not ill intent. Yesterday, she posted another hate-filled photo attack. I ignored it at first. Later I saw her friend had commented with a question, “ But, who can we vote for? I could never vote for Obama whom I hate with a passion.” She replied to her friend, “I don’t know, but I hate him too much to vote for him.”  Those comments explained a lot. I have had enough of hate and hate merchants. They sell hate. I don’t think they can consciously admit why they are acting so, because at the deepest level they really do know why. We all know why. We just are too polite to mention it. I am not so polite; the reason is racism.

What happened to the American voter who sought to learn the voting record of a candidate, wanted to understand a candidate’s policies on various issues and why a candidate espoused those particular policies? What happened is that those Americans in either party are demeaned along with the candidate they support. They are called names: Obmanoids, Romneyites, babykillers, feminazis, even N*****lovers. This is unacceptable in any America past or present. Racism seems to trump acting with American value behaviors. We fought a civil war over this already.

What happened to American voters who believed in playing fair in order to elect the best candidate? What happened to the American voter who would rise in outrage over lies and distortions? Who would not tolerate attacks from either party on constitutionally protected race,creed,color, or religion? Where are these Americans? Where is a press corps, news executive, ad executive who refuses to air outright lies as political ads. Where is the journalist whose follow-up question challenges the lie which has just been told? Who refuses to allow a false premise as the basis of a response? Who can look a candidate in the eye while asking the question? Who can frankly challenge racist comments? Who can ask why being Black in America disqualifies every action taken by our president?

Racism is at the core of my understanding of what is going on here. It is not a means of avoiding valid attacks on our president, who has never claimed perfection, who only does the best he can with faint support by his own party and extreme refusal to participate in governmental action of ANY kind by the Republican party. Racism; not pure and not simple.

It is painful to watch newspersons obsequiously ask questions they know will not be answered, while Romney smiles with superiority. The smile is not one made in response to a good joke, or as a punch line on himself as President Obama often uses in response to uncomfortable questions. It is a smirk and a grin responding, “I’m not tellin’ and you can’t make me. Na, na, na, na,na na!” This same “na,na,na” attitude is heard coming from the mouths of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner; from every republican House Committee Chair. Have you been watching? Are you listening? “I can hang you from a tree in a political ad any time I choose. Na, na,na,na.na.na!” Oh, it is clear what has happened to American politics, and why there is so little public outrage.

I understand such intransigence by a candidate and his party supporters, supported by subliminal racism, makes it difficult to report the truth. But not impossible. I dread to imagine the softball questions posed to candidates in upcoming debates. I hope the debates won’t be just another round of 99 bottle of beer on the wall. I need a drink!

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

REPUBLICANS SPEAK WITH FORKED TONGUES RE: SMALL BUSINESSES, By Louise Annarino,July 14,2012

REPUBLICANS SPEAK WITH FORKED TONGUES RE: SMALL BUSINESSES, By Louise Annarino, July 14, 2012

 

My first small business was collecting newspapers and magazines from the garbage cans along the alley running beside our house when I was first old enough to pull a wagon. My Mother watched me and my brother as we trudged along pulling our load across the street to Mr. Schombarger’s junk yard. We placed the full wagon on the scale built into the roadway after the heavy trucks had cleared;then, climbed up the steps to the loading dock to watch the weight register on the huge scale above our heads. “Remember the numbers”, Mr. Schombarger would remind us. Next, we ran down the steps to empty the wagon’s contents into a bin provided by a worker, and pulled the empty wagon back onto the scale. “Okay, kids, come up and watch the numbers again”,said Mr. Schombarger, as he weighed the empty wagon. Subtracting the numbers gave us the weight we would be paid for our load. We were rich! Our business kept us in penny candy from Mrs. Rowe’s corner store every night, with an ice cream cone once a week, and if we saved our money, an occasional comic book. Whenever we needed more money we collected more paper. We were our own market.

 

I also ran errands for neighbors for ten cents (to Mr Van’s or Mrs. Rowe’s neighborhood groceries), for a quarter for a trip to the A&P uptown; cleaned woodwork and washed windows, a quarter; and helped with babies, free service. When I was 12 I began babysitting for $1 per child per night.

 

My brother had a paper route. Being a girl, I was not eligible for a route. He graciously offered me a chance to make some cash. If I delivered all his papers and made his route collections I got to keep 10% of his salary. I fell for the scam. I loved working, and getting around the sexist system firmly in place. Women still work the same jobs for less money. Some things never change. Ask Lily Ledbetter.

 

I once earned enough money to take my entire family to the New York World’s Fair for a full week by making fondant-rum candy shaped and decorated like small pieces of fruit. My father noticed my experiment, took the dish to his restaurant the next day and came home with 35 orders. Every day after school for months I made 30-50 dozen candies, placing 12 on each milk glass bowl lined with green Easter grass. Seeing the World’s Fair was a dream come true. Running a small business is in my blood. My dad and uncles had a small business for 38 years, The Center Cafe. It is daunting, calls for daring, and is plain hard work with long hours.They are our country’s economic lifeblood.

 

Everyone agrees small businesses are the engine driving America’s economy. Small firms of less than 500 employees make up 99.9% of America’s businesses. (see more at  http://www.smallbusinessnotes.com/small-business-resources/how-many-small-businesses-are-there.html). Of these, 96% have 50 or fewer employees.(see more at   http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/small_businesses.htm Only 3% of small businesses earn more than $250,000 per year. Approximately 70% of the wealthy don’t own a small business. Obviously, the wealthy 2-3% don’t want the amount they earn above 2% to lose overgenerous tax breaks. But they argue a different story.

 

Despite these facts, to president Obama’s announcement that he would ask Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts for incomes below $250,000, Mr. Romney replied this is an unacceptable and burdensome tax increase on small business,never mentioning the impact on his very large business income. Congressional Republicans expressed their opposition stating that many small business owners report their business income as personal income. But, as the president correctly points out the tax increases is only on the amount earned over $250,000; and, it affects 3% of small businesses. Under the president’s plan 98% of households and 97% of small businesses would receive a tax cut. (see more at New York Times (7/10/12)

 

The factual distortions of Republican leadership, including those of presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) and House Leader, Rep.John Boehner (R-OH) each of whom should know better, do not serve the country well.  If the tax cuts expire for earnings $250,000 and up, the deficit could be reduced by $700 billion over the next 10 years. (For more, see Extend Bush Tax).

 

Yesterday, the Senate Republicans blocked The Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act using the filibuster to keep a vote from even reaching the floor. The bill gave business tax credits up to $500,000 for boosting payroll,thus hiring more workers. It gave a 1 year extension a 100% rate under which businesses can claim bonus depreciation tax deductions on capital investments to install new equipment, open more manufacturing lines etc. (see more at (http://influencealley.nationaljournal.com/2012/07/senate-republicans-block-small.php). The bill was estimated to create  nearly 1 million jobs, 650,000 in small mom and pop operations by use of a cap. Next week, Republicans are expected to block a bill which would give tax breaks to firms returning overseas jobs to the U.S. and raise taxes on companies that off-shore. Certainly, Mr. Romeny can’t be happy about the impact such a law would have on his off-shore ventures.

 

The rational given by Republican for blocking the bill that it was overpolitical underscores the true reason for blocking a bill which would move forward the country’s economic recovery…to block President Obama’s re-election at the expense of small business growth and more jobs here in the U.S.  While decrying the lapse of tax credits to earnings above $250,000 because of their distorted claim of a negative effect on small business, while blocking bills in support of small business is the height of Republican hypocrisy. Using the filibuster to play political games is immoral bully-behavior and we must call them out for such irresponsible and destructive behavior towards this country and its people’s welfare. The president has the bully pulpit; but,the Republicans are simply bullies who attack each of us to get to him. (see more at http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/republicans-filibuster-small-business-bill-block-job-creation/6dlhw1l?from= ).

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

ROMNEY VS. BIDEN AT N.A.A.C.P. CONVENTION,By Louise Annarino, July 12, 2012

ROMNEY VS. BIDEN AT N.A.A.C.P. CONVENTION, By Louise Annarino, July 12, 2012

Mitt Romney knew to whom he was speaking at the N.A.A.C.P. convention. He spoke to the moneyed-base of the republican party. He did not expect to win the support of the civil rights group with his “self-deportation” policy. Apparently, he would have been a proponent of the “back to Africa” movement  to solve the “problem” of slavery decades ago. Nor did he expect his attack on Obamacare to meet with applause. And, of course he knew the members of an organization which fought for civil rights and faced police dogs and water hoses, beatings-bombings-lynchings, and the murder of its icons would not sit quietly while he called the first African-American president a failure who betrayed them. He had to know his comments would fall like boulders into a sea of opposition. What he did not know is that his policies are racist. Not only his policies, but his very presence.

How can I say his very presence is racist? Because he gave the impression, through his own body language and tone, and the publicly made and well-played talking points used to paint him as brave for going into the sea of blackness, i.e. “We have to give him credit for even attending this event.” Why does he deserve credit for making an appearance and asking for the vote of African-Americans? He wants to be president. Why does he deserve credit for going before this group?  Did we say he deserved credit for appearing before any white group? What is he afraid of? More politically important, what does he want us to be afraid of? He is playing on our own fears, the fears of white Americans of all things black and of African-Americans in groups. Oh, we easily offer, “I have a friend who is African-American”, but how comfortable are we as a lone white person in a black group?

I don’t ask these questions lightly. I spent years on college campuses, among the defamed by Mr. Romney liberal elite, watching students, faculty and administrators separate along racial lines in campus dormitories, study halls, cafeterias, fraternities and sororities, parties and social events at all levels. And, I notice white people move near the emergency call button when a group of African-Americans enter an elevator. I notice white waitpersons avoid taking the orders of African-Americans in certain restaurants. I notice African-American children disciplined by white lifeguards for running at the pool, as a group of white children run past the scene. I notice a white car dealer mistaking an African-American customer in a business suit arriving to pick up his new Lexus for the part-timer newly hired to wash cars. I notice white co-workers inviting everyone but African-American co-workers to week-end party. Even my noticing this last incident is tinged with racism. Why would I think African-American co-workers would want to party with people who treat them badly every day of the week? Do I, like Mr. Romney, expect credit for noticing? Being a white racist is a role with strong cognitive dissonance.

Day after day, in small ways white people don’t even notice, our racism shines through. it is a constant struggle. And Mitt Romney’s advisers know it. When they say “give him credit” we respond positively to Romney. Why? Because we want credit for fighting our own racism. We feel wronged when someone like me alleges racism is an issue in this election. We cannot admit our racism even to ourselves, especially to ourselves. But, we will never overcome it by hiding from it;it will only make us vulnerable to race-baiting like that we watched from a candidate who braved appearing before the N.A.A.C.P.

No one gave Senator Joe Biden credit for appearing before the N.A.A.C.P. Why not? He presented himself differently. He did not anticipate anything special. He came as an equal. He came with a commonality of interest which transcends race, yet addresses  the results of racism. He did not view his presence as a gift deserving of thanks. He came with thankfulness and respect. There was a moment when his tone seemed obsequious, when he shouted out to his friend “Mouse”,but Senator Biden was no stranger within this group. Long ago, Joe Biden faced his own racism and embraced his responsibility to address the results of racism. Joe Biden is a member of the N.A.A.C.P. The lovely thing about sincerely reaching across racial boundaries is the generous acceptance one is given. Senator Biden was well received. Mr. Romney could have been well-received had his appearance been sincere. Given his true motivation, his appearance, with only three sets of boos, was very generously received.

1 Comment

Filed under POLITICS

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THAT CURTAIN: SEC.501(C)(4) AND THE 2012 ELECTION,By Louise Annarino,July 10, 2012

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THAT CURTAIN: Sec. 501(c)(4) and the 2012 Election, By Louise Annarino, July 10, 2012

We live in the Land of Oz these days; not the movie, but our very lives, Is anyone out there listening to Dorothy’s lament? She has suffered through terrible storms, as have we: climate change, unfunded wars, 9/11 attack, bank fraud, mortgage melt-down, economic recession/depression, privatization and de-regulation, destruction of the middle-class, erosion of a safety net, attacks on public servants,women, immigrants and union workers. She fears she has lost all. She sees no clear future. The American Dream seems to be merely that, a dream. She simply wants to find her way home, home to the familiar where she feels safe, where she awakes from dreams with the ability to make them happen. Unfortunately, like Americans today, she does not realize she has the power within herself to find her way.

One person finally listens to her; but only when he realizes he can benefit from bringing her within his fold.He opens the door to Oz, invites her in,and promises her exactly what she wants. She falls for the mirage created by a Karl Rovian version of a “very nice man” but “very bad wizard” who uses tricks and deceptions to build a false idea that Dorothy and her buddies must risk all, and take on the formidable Wicked Witch of the West, an enemy he fears and has been unable to contain, before he will help her go home to Kansas. He fully expects she will not survive the ordeal; thus, he is no danger of having to make good on his promises. A typical political operative.

But Dorothy, again like Americans, is determined to succeed with the help of her stalwart friends. It is her willingness to put every concern aside and throw a bucket of water on Scarecrow whom the witch has set afire, which melts away the witch, and her threats. Dorothy saves herself, her friends, the entire city of Oz, even the Wizard himself.

When Dorothy returns to Oz the Wizard plays games with her three compatriots:the Cowardly Lion is given a badge for courage, the Scarecrow is given a diploma for his brains, and a ticking clock to the Tin Man for a heart. Each of these qualities are already present within the characters, but like Dorothy, they have been unable to recognize this fact on their own.

In a memorable scene while Dorothy awaits word from the wizard regarding her return home, her dog Toto pulls back a curtain revealing a man turning gears on the machinery which has created the lie that is the Land of Oz, the lie the people of Oz have also fallen for. He shouts into his microphone, “Pay no Attention to the man behind that curtain.” The wizard sees his power crumbling, and Dorothy sees the truth. She confronts him with such conviction, not allowing him to pull the curtain closed again, and he admits his flawed humanity.  If only we had journalists, politicians, and jurists so brave as Toto, so fearless as Dorothy, so willing to pull back the curtains and reveal truth.

Perhaps we do. Despite the fact that the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) is slow to act, and probably will not do so before 2012 election, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee filed a formal complaint this week against three social welfare groups, charging them with willful violation of federal election law: Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies,Americans for Prosperity, and 60 Plus Association. THese organizations hid behind the curtain provided by section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, which grants them tax exempt status for social welfare work and allows donors to remain anonymous. Public policy is often written into the tax code. In the case of 501(c)(4)s all funds collected are deemed to serve a social welfare purpose which would likely save the government tax dollars which would otherwise need to be spent to assure the public welfare tasks performed by the  organization.

What are these organizations actually doing? Buying political attack ads against specific Democratic candidates. Crossroads (Rove and former RNC Chair Ed Gillespie) has already spent $25 million on ads attacking President Obama, and plans to spend nearly $40 million (Rove’s Crossroads GPS) attacking Democratic senatorial candidates. Americans for Prosperity (David and Charles Koch) has poured $1 million into Ohio to defeat Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown, attacks only Democratic candidates, and has chapters in at least 38 states.(see more at http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=Americans+for+Prosperity.) In 2009, Rachel Maddow opened the curtain on 60 Plus Association (Pharmaceutical Industry) disclosing its ties to the GOP, disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the lobbying group Bonner & Associates.  (see more at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=60_Plus_Association) Social welfare? Welcome to Oz.

To anyone willing to pay attention to that man behind the curtain it is clear the major purpose of such groups is federal campaign activity, political benefit not social welfare. Therefore, they should not be treated as 501(c)(4) organizations but as political committees, and their donors must be disclosed. Then, each of us, like Dorothy and her companions, will be able to see the truth behind the messages, tricks, distortions and lies that are Oz; and, find our way home. As a result of CITIZENS UNITED, President Obama has for the first time accepted donations from PACS and SUPER PACS, but not from a 501(C)(4) organization. He refuses to draw a curtain over our eyes. His donors are disclosed, along with his tax returns, and bank balances. Is the Mitt Romney behind that curtain? He may be a very good man but he is a very bad wizard.

(see more at http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/campaign_finance/index.html) and http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/us/politics/democrats-want-fec-to-restrict-donor-shielding-groups.html?_r=1&ref=campaignfinance)

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

IS IT REAL OR FICTION? By Louise Annarino

IS  IT REAL OR MERELY FICTION ?

Louise Annarino

June 26,2012

When presidential candidate Mitt Romney declared “Corporations are people, my friend… of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People’s pockets. Human beings my friend” 1, he was combining two fictions: political argument and legal principle. He made the statement to explain why he would not reduce the deficit or protect social security and medicare by raising taxes on corporations. His economic policy has always been based on a long-ago disproven “trickle down” theory, and is consistent with the above comment. Theoretically, if one becomes rich off corporate success one does not need social security nor medicare.

But a theoretically consistent analysis does not mean the premise of the theory is correct. One must ask, how many Americans will achieve such success? How many Americans are given “golden parachutes”2 when they are fired or severance packages designed to maintain their employed-level lifestyle when they retire?3  Not public employees! Yet, Romney sided with Wisconsin Governor Walker and Ohio Governor Kasich in decrying the excessive retirement benefits available to public workers.4 Governor Kasich and candidate Romney share another commonality; their pursuit of personal wealth resulted in reduction or loss of pension and retirement benefits for hundreds of thousands of workers: In Kasich’s case, Ohio public employees including state workers,teachers,law enforcement and fire personnel; and, in Romney’s case workers in companies his equity firm salvaged or savaged.

Courts have used the concept of legal fiction since ancient Rome. “This jargon refers to the law’s ability to decree that something that’s not necessarily true is true. It’s somewhat like a person in a discussion agreeing to accept an opinion as fact for the sake of argument in order to move the discussion along. Legal fiction helps to move proceedings along.”7 Corporate personhood is one such legal fiction.It is employed simply to determine the legality of corporate agreements (contracts) and business proceedings. However, we all understand that this is FICTION and not REALITY. Therefore, it is incumbent that such a discussion tool be used judiciously by our courts. Corporations have super-human qualities which must be constrained when using the legal fiction of personhood.

How do courts use legal fiction? Not always with judicial restraint. For example,In CITIZENS UNITED the U.S. Supreme Court recognized corporations as “persons” entitled to the 1st. Amendment political speech protections of human beings, opening a floodgate for unchecked billions of dollars of corporate donations. Last week in KNOX v SEIU “The five conservative justices, led by Justice Samuel Alito, and two concurring liberals,…held that, from now on, non-members have to specifically tell the union to take money out of their paychecks for political purposes; that is, they have to opt in.6,8 It makes sense that an individual worker cannot be forced to donate to a political effort he does not support. Unions allow workers to opt out of such political funds. Now, workers must opt in. This change restrains union efforts to effect political change on behalf of its members. Must corporations likewise now seek approval of each investor before donating to political candidates, campaigns, PACS, and SUPERPACS? Or, does corporate personhood override the 1st. Amendment rights of investors? Why are unions treated less like persons than corporations? Whether one agrees or not that the Supreme Court used this fiction judiciously in CITIZENS UNITED, courts ought to at least use it consistently. Stare Decisis, another legal term, requires such consistency. If such a shareholder challenge should come before the court it would help answer any question one has regarding the politicization of our highest court. Can you imagine a campaign finance system where investors must opt in before corporations can make political donations?

As politicians move to raise money and seal the deal with voters, one can merely hope the misleading conflation of legal fiction with political fiction will stop.Mr. Romney’s corporations are people comment sounded a false note; and, it may be why his comment was greeted with such disdain. Despite his intentions, It just sounded wrong to average citizens who could care less about legal fiction while dealing with real life. Most of us would agree with Elizabeth Warren’s political commentary, that corporations are not human beings, despite a legal fiction used solely for judicial argument.7 Mothers don’t tuck-in corporations. Fathers don’t shoot hoops with them. Voters don’t vote for corporations; they vote for a man or woman who understands their reality and will not harm them. The rest is fiction.

  1. .http://technorati.com/politics/article/video-mitt-romney-says-corporations-are/  Romney made these remarks at the Iowa State Fair in August, 2011.
  2. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/01/golden-parachutes-21-ceos-landed-100m-plus/ So-called golden parachutes are contractual provisions that compensate executives, if they are terminated without cause.
  3. http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/09/news/economy/romney_taxes/index.htm  Romney “is still pulling in millions from Bain Capital, a private equity firm he founded in the mid-1980s and retired from in 1999.Of course, it’s common for retiring executives to walk away with big retirement packages. But Romney pays only a 15% tax rate on his take, unlike executives at corporations, who typically pay 35%.Why? Because Romney was a partner in a private equity firm and some of the money he still receives from Bain — $13 million over the past two years — is “carried interest.”
  4. http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Political-Action-Legislation/Romney-Finds-Soul-Mate-in-Walker-s-Assault-on-Workers-Retirement-Security “Romney’s focus on pension cuts isn’t surprising. After all, in his role as corporate raider and takeover king at Bain Capital, workers’ pensions were often the first thing to go.”
  5. http://www.examiner.com/article/huge-lehman-brother-payouts-report-recalls-ohio-gov-kasich-s-time-at-the-firm “Former Congressman John Kasich clearly was not a banker, but he found a home at Lehman nonetheless. As a one-time Ohio State Senator and then as a Congressman for 18 years, Kasich had easy access to many doors. Among them were doors to Ohio pension funds.According to published reports at the time, Kasich opened doors for Lehman Brother’s private equity department and investment officials at the Ohio Police & Fire Pension and the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System in 2002. Kasich made the case that Lehman would be a good broker for real estate and other investments.Lehman Brothers losses at Ohio pension funds.When all was said and done, after the nation went spinning into what is now called the Great Recession, the Ohio Treasurers office, which acts as custodian but does not invest pension monies, calculated that the funds had a combined $480 million loss in market value solely from Lehman investments. Other sources, using different calculations, said the direct losses were closer to $220 million.”
  6.  http://mnlabor.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/how-the-supreme-courts-knox-v-seiu-decision-could-dismantle-union-security-around-the-country-news-politics-alternet/ “The public sector union contract has to cover all the workers in the agency, not just card-carrying members– and  all the workers benefit from the resultant pay raises, health benefits, pensions and other goodies. So non-members are expected to contribute something to the direct cost of negotiations. (Workers who don’t support the union shouldn’t get to enjoy the better pay and working conditions that their union colleagues fought for, but employers haven’t historically been willing to pay people less for NOT being union members. They much prefer to bribe, cajole and threaten workers to reject the union.).Public sector unions have been major political players, too (see: Scott Walker’s targeting of Wisconsin’s public employee unions).This is partly because fundraising for politics has been relatively simple: with everyone’s full knowledge and ample notice given (called “Hudson notices”), a percentage of both members’ and non-members’ funds could go toward political work. Anyone could opt out of this political fund, and their money would be reimbursed.”
  7. http://www.examiner.com/article/elizabeth-warren-educates-mitt-romney-explaining-why-corporations-are-not-people “Mitt Romney tells us in his own words, ‘I think corporations are people.’ No, Mitt, corporations are not people. People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs,” Ms. Warren said. “Learn the difference…And Mitt, learn this,” she continued as she strongly delivered the night’s best line, “We don’t run this country for corporations, we run it for people.”
  8. http://www.afj.org/connect-with-the-issues/the-corporate-court/knox-v-seiu.html Service Employees International Union (SEIU) represents 1.8 million people in health care and public service. Non-member public employees are required by California state law to pay SEIU a “fair share fee” to defray the costs of union representation on their behalf. To that end, each year SEIU sends its non-members a notice, as required by the Supreme Court, which informs non-members of their fair share fee and of their right to object to paying non-chargeable expenditures including money spent for political advocacy. Those fees are calculated based upon expenses during the previous year and do not take into account unforeseen expenses.In 2005, SEIU issued a valid annual notice informing non-members of the percentage of their dues which would be allocated to union representation and gave them 30 days to opt-out of paying amounts associated with non-representation functions. The notice stated that dues were subject to change based on actual costs. A month later, SEIU imposed an emergency temporary assessment fee to defend against attacks on union plans and charged non-members who objected to the increase the percentage set forth in the initial notice as the amount associated with union representation. A group of nonmember state employees in California challenged this practice in a class action suit against SEIU.Employees claim that SEIU’s failure to send out a supplemental notice when the union imposed a special assessment violated employees First and Fourteenth Amendments rights by forcing non-union employees to subsidize union political activities. SEIU counters that its notice was constitutionally and legally sufficient because the Supreme Court has recognized that the notice did not require an exact determination of the yearly expenditures, but merely a good prediction based upon the previous year’s audits. The Court previously recognized the impossibility of anticipating expenditures at the outset of the fee year and that once the union sent the original notice it need not send a second notice speculating how a fee increase might be spent. The district court found for the employees, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that a temporary fee increase did not require an additional notice.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

DADDY

A break from global politics to family politics today. I was one of the fortunate kids with a good father. I often think of what he would say about the world today. It is really not so different from the one he first deciphered with me. He was a strong Republican;on the local Republican Central Committee. One of his best friends since childhood was Rep. John Ashbrook, a very conservative Republican. Another childhood friend he remained close to his entire life was the Chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party. This openness to diverse political thought worked just fine back in Dad’s day. Dad was a die-hard republican but he could listen to another point of view. He would make jokes about the other guy “talking like a guy with a paper hat”; but, he would later affirm the “guy might have something there”. He always told me to find a union job which would offer the greatest job security, protection, and best work environment. He was self-employed and could not imagine working for anyone else without a union. Today, his party is intent on destroying unions. Times have changed. I don’t know if dad would have changed to fit the party but I doubt it. He would have told his party it was “talking like a man with a paper hat”. I still don’t know the origins of that phrase,but I get its meaning.

It was understood and Dad imparted to me that all politicians, and all attorneys, are “crooks”; always have their hands out for a donation, or in your pocket for taxes. He told me whenever another’s behavior confused me to “follow the money” and all would be made clear. Still, politics was the core of the community and important stuff according to Dad. He suggested I attend both the Teenage Republicans and Teenage Democrats,both led by friends of his, to see how each party  operated. He encouraged me to visit Congressman Ashbrook when he held week-end office hours at the  Licking County court house and confront his support for Rhodesia even though it practiced apartheid. He knew his friend would deal with the concerns of a fledgling Democrat as equally important to the concerns of a Republican constituent.

In his later years, as he saw the benefit of Democrtically supported programs such as PELL grants, equal pay for women, voting rights, Title VII and Title IX, social security, medicare, disability benefits, unemployment compensation etc.his view of political theory mellowed. His view of politicians did not. He thought the crook Nixon deserved what he got, thought Reagan behaved wrongly and owed the nation an apology for the Iran-Contra Affair, thought Bill Clinton was a sleazy womanizer (most men in power are) but not deserving of  impeachment. By today’s standards he would be a liberal Republican and that description would absolutely enrage him. He prided himself on his conservatism, and voted for John Kennedy, even though “his old man made his money as a bootlegger”. He never asked anyone except the VA for anything. His first reaction to any liberal suggestion was opposition until we discussed it more fully and he could then see some value in the program or policy. Like most hard working small business owners, he had little spare time to research anything on his own, but was willing to learn and change when facts were brought to his attention. He was not an ideologue. He was man who believed most persons could make it on their own.

He also acknowledged some could not. Quietly, anonymously, he helped those people. Sometimes, he thought he could do it better than government. Most other times, he acknowledged government could do it better. He understood the benefits and limitations of government. He held government accountable. That is a true conservative.

We seldom agreed on political theory, and seldom disagreed in political practice. Most moderates are like that. They can see the good in both sides, and the bad in both sides. They want what works for the country. How I miss my dad, those old style Republicans, those moderate voices of reason who could laugh, live, love and work together with Democrats.

On this Fathers’ Day I hope you will recall your own father kindly, if he is no longer with you. And, if he is, let him know how much his wise counsel has meant to you. If we can’t find common ground with our own fathers, how can we hope to find common ground with anyone? There are those who will try to stop an approachment, who do not want Republicans and Democrats to find common ground with one another. Such Tea Party types like “a good fight” better than peacemaking. Ignore them. Have a happy  Fathers’ Day. I’ll be thinking of my conservative, Republican dad. I share my poem with you below:

DADDY

Louise Annarino

Fathers’ Day 2012

Those laughing eyes

and strong hands

which fashioned safety

from the strands

of life

which too often looked

like a cage

but was nothing more

than a ladder

one could climb

on his lap

where every problem

could be left

in his care

so all consuming

which too often felt

like loss of self

but was nothing more

than a cushion

against hard knocks

he absorbed

with his own body

to protect

his children with

a father’s love.

1 Comment

Filed under POLITICS