Documentary Films Do Good--Let's Have "Motivation Stations" at the Occupy Locations

Recently this journal expressed a fervent hope that the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, which has organized sites globally, would become "Too Big To Fail". (That's the phrase that justified the outlandish tax-funded bailouts of financial institutions that proceeded to lay off millions and then pay their executives large bonuses).

The "Occupy" groups seem to have coalesced around more articulate "demands".  But now that the weather is becoming frigid and inhospitable, it would be nice if these protesters had something to keep them motivated.


I recently happened to catch both of the documentaries "Capitalism: A Love Story", and "Inside Job", running on our local cable stations.  Both of these films exposed, for anyone who cared to look, the corruption that led to the financial crisis that has finally moved average people to demonstrate.  Moore's film was especially prophetic.


The filmmakers and their studios, who have crafted important pieces of work that deserve, and need, to be seen, should be prevailed upon to make these films available for legal, free exhibition at the Occupy sites.


Set up what I would call "Motivation Stations". Put up tents filled with information about why the movement has begun, and yes, set up projectors, plasma TV's, laptop computers, anything that is handy, to run these films in continuous loops.


It was heartening to see Michael Moore show up at the Oakland site (click on this HuffPost link), and pay tribute to the Iraq War Veteran who was critically injured in the violent police action that sought to disperse the assembled demonstrators.


Moore, and Charles Ferguson, through their films, can be present at all the sites.  Make the films available, for free. Make sure the Occupiers never forget why they are there, and motivate them to keep going.

"Occupy Wall Street" Should Become "Too Big To Fail"

"Occupy Wall Street" has become a world movement, from Times Square (above) to Europe. I saw images from protests in Rome.  Having just been there, I was filled with a mixed sense of pride, in their solidarity with us; and sadness, in that so many people so far away are feeling the same economic pain. 

Those who control the media, who would have some reason to feel threatened by this movement, can no longer ignore it.  They can, however, try to cast doubt on it.

The coalition of common people, union groups, workers and students was being painted by reporters as an inarticulate mob not unlike a crowd at a Grateful Dead concert.  The protest had no center; no one knew what the result of all of this unrest was supposed to be. 

The ostensible leaders of the Occupy Wall Street groups tried to turn this uncertainty into a virtue.  There was anger and frustration in the air.  There was a shapeless desire to "organize" around common goals that would stir the passions of the disenfranchised, goals that could realistically be achieved. 

But now that the oligarchs who are ruining our country and the world have successfully turned public opinion against the idea of unions (unions are not altogether blameless, either), the call to "organize", to fight against worker exploitation and economic corruption, wasn't stirring enough .  

Reporters make the whole thing seem pathetic just by asking a spokesperson, "What do the protesters WANT?" And the response is often indefinite, and vaguely idealistic, nothing urgent or threatening enough to force the the have-it-alls to concede to... to what?

I was pleased to see the Chicago Tribune publish a list of twelve clear, concrete goals from Occupy Chicago, demanding what needs to be done and by whom. See the list here. 

From my point of view, for anything to come to the table, something drastic has to happen. 

And so, if a reporter asks, "What do you want?",  I want the response to be something  simple like this (with the backing of the thousands in the streets to see it through):

"We want our homes back. We want our livelihoods back. We want our lives back.

We want to see those who were rewarded for taking these things from us be brought to trial and to humbling justice.

We want to force Congress to pass legislation to redistribute the wealth.

If that does not happen, we will invoke our Second Amendment rights, and redistribute it by force.

And we will be TOO BIG TO FAIL."


Rome "Day of Rage"


Madrid


Berlin


London

A Political Rant On Tax Hikes, Deficit Reduction, and American Voters

President Obama is now adamant about reducing the deficit by at least 3 trillion dollars in 10 years. He unveiled a plan at the white house to cut spending and ask the most fortunate citizens to increase their fair share in tax revenue.

I had some random thoughts about Obama's new strategy, and his chances for getting elected for a second term, considering the state of our electorate.....

--As far as the tax hikes, there have been many articles about what Obama's administration is calling the "Buffett Rule". It is named for Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor, who is tired of the rich being coddled with lower tax rates than most middle-class Americans.... 

--Obama made the tax-the-wealthy plan one of the planks of his election.  His vehemence at this particular time has caused many pundits, even his supporters (even Jon Stewart) surmise that he is merely campaign posturing.

Stewart had a great editorial a week ago about "Campaign Obama" (click HERE). 

--Ah, education...I could go on and on.  As Bill Clinton said this morning on the Today Show, many American voters adopt an ideology, even when it has no basis in fact.  And these Americans cast their votes accordingly.  I totally agree, in the eloquent statement made by a friend and fellow writer, that "ignorant, and naive voters probably do best by staying away from the polls..."

--Ironically, politicians, in spite of what they say, do not want an educated electorate.  For one thing, the current method of campaign advertising would not work among a high-functioning, thinking and reasoned populace.

--The Republicans have co-opted many of the disenfranchised and disadvantaged, and have appealed to their fears about issues that have little to do with their best interests.... 

--The "tea partiers" seem to be those who are comfortable with regimentation, who prefer to take orders, and WHO DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD...which is why they look for a a "parental" leader, a "priestly" leader, even a "militaristic" one (follow orders, don't question them). These voters are easily led, are uncomfortable with logic, and vote "en masse", like lemmings.

--They can feel good about exercising their "patriotic duty" without having to take personal responsibility for their choices.

--Democrats have a harder road, in general.  They trade in abstract ideas (like civil rights. justice, etc.) which are ambiguous, not concrete.  Their voters require a thoughtful internalization of ideas before accepting them, and then they can take action.  For this to occur, these voters should be better-educated.  Democrats find it harder to appeal to the emotions of their core constituents.

(And politicians are a prime example that you don't have to be intelligent to be wealthy...)

Enjoy the Jon Stewart video..

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Transformer - Campaign-Based Economy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

In the News: "Pass This Jobs Bill Now!"

Last Thursday, President Obama gave his long-awaited speech before Congress.  In it he outlined a bill, which he has just submitted to Congress, to create new jobs in a variety of industries, generate tax revenue (especially by increasing the contributions of "job creators"), and grow the economy.


Our friends in the UK printed the full text of the speech, with a video, in The Guardian.  You can read and see it here.


Already, as expected, there is push-back from Republicans in Congress. Even though the resistance doesn't seem as heated as in early August with the "debate" over the debt ceiling, there is still a marked reluctance to give full support to this bill.


To me, Mr.Obama's speech was impassioned, stirring, and sensible.  If the bill he described is the bill he is asking Congress to pass immediately, I see no reason why reasonable people should not champion for it, and vote it into law.


My view?  Republicans should pass it, all of it, right now.  They should pass it for their own survival, if nothing else.


Much of the deadlock in American Government has been a result of a blind refusal by conservative Republicans to hand Mr. Obama anything that looks like a victory, even when these same Republicans have rallied for the same ideas Mr. Obama has proposed.


In other words, it is possible that Republicans may block this bill in spite of their support for many of its ideas,  BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE  IT MIGHT WORK, and might be the right bill for this moment in history.   And to let Mr. Obama claim credit for an economic victory would, for some Republicans, be akin to political suicide. Otherwise, I see LITTLE REASON why ANYONE would be reluctant to vote for this particular bill.


The bill seems no worse than anything else put forth so far by our political leaders.  Nothing else has worked, and there is very little time before the next election.  And people are hurting, as is our infrastructure and our economy in general.


IF REPUBLICANS FEEL THIS BILL IS GENUINELY THE WRONG SOLUTION TO OUR ECONOMIC WOES...All the more reason they should pass it, all of it, and right away.  If they feel that strongly about the bill's ineffectiveness, they should play the noble enablers, give Mr. Obama enough rope, as it were, and then say "we told you so" later.  If the bill does nothing to promote job growth or economic recovery, then Republicans will have an issue on which to hang their campaign; and the White House...and Congress...will be theirs in 2012.


Of course, if it passes, and the economy shows signs of coming back...Well, then the Republicans can at least have the satisfaction of having done something for the good of the economy and the country... A naive view on my part, as most of these leaders reside on a self-made plane of existence, far removed from the citizens they purport to represent. 


A very smart speech on the part of Mr. Obama, and an interesting quandary for the Republicans as a result....

Tax Breaks For "Job Creators"

Many Americans, concerned that essential programs will be cut to reduce the deficit, reasonably expect that America's wealthiest citizens and corporations be taxed at a higher rate, and contribute a more equitable share to the common good of the country.  Under such extraordinary economic circumstances as we see today, tax breaks that were extended to the wealthy, under former President George W. Bush, should be rescinded. 

The  monetary amounts raised by this requirement would help the country's financial health, and would hardly be felt as a dent in the pocketbooks of these enormously wealthy citizens and corporations

Yet, in an effort to block this reasonable requirement, many political figures, most of them among the country's wealthiest citizens, fight tooth and nail against this idea, stating that it is bad policy in a weak economy to tax "job creators".

The term "job creators" is rarely debated or questioned, neither in Congress nor in the White House.  But it is such a bald-faced misdirection that it cries out for immediate scrutiny from intelligent journalists, concerned citizens, and political leaders.  The protection given "job creators" should be a leading topic on the news, covered relentlessly.  So-called "job creators" should be made to justify the misleading title they seem to embrace.  I wondered why this concept was rarely challenged over the airwaves.

Based on a large number of writers in the blogosphere addressing this topic, I am not alone, which was a comfort, albeit a small one.

The lack of calling-out of these "job creators", who are getting rich on the backs of a dwindling workforce, is especially irksome in light of the recent bleak U.S. employment news, and the discouraging haggle over Mr. Obama's upcoming speech  to address the jobs crisis (as though either the Republican presidential debate, or the season premiere of the National Football League, were the ONLY two nights available to discuss a topic that should have been done two years ago--or whether these two competing events should have had any bearing on this address in the first place).

By the way, Mr. Obama acquiesced to the Republicans and their Presidential debate, and will now compete with a season-opener football game.  Bad judgement on the President's part; unnerving, almost laughable disrespect from the Republicans.  All political theater, on every side.  No matter.  My instinct suggests that a majority of football fans would not have tuned in to the speech, nor supported Obama's plan, no matter when the speech was scheduled to be given.  

Lila Shapiro's Huffington Post article on Friday, September 2, nicely summarized the alarming news that continues to bode ill for our economic recovery. Americans, meanwhile, remain either too scared or too complacent to take to the streets, preferring instead to retreat to their football games, or to their paternalistic Republican despots (who they naively think represent them), or to the two or three jobs (if they can find work at all) they must work to make ends meet:

The number of those out of a job for six months or more remained above 6.0 million in August and accounted for 42.9 percent of the unemployed. A total of 2.04 million were out of work for 99 weeks -- the limit for jobless benefits in some states -- or longer, a slight rise from 2.01 million last month, according to BLS figures not in the report.

"Their horizon for a brighter day is moving away from them," said Carl E. Van Horn, a labor economist at Rutgers University and co-author of a recent report focusing on the long-term unemployed. "Their optimism has been crushed by reality: They are still not working, or if they are working they're making a lot less money. You're either devastated or you're hurting, that's the range."

Meanwhile, corporate profits remain at pre-recession levels of strength. Many experts say that robust corporate profits alongside stagnant wages and declining workweeks points to a grim future for America's workforce.

"Many companies have simply come to the conclusion that labor is just too expensive," said Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist at The Economic Outlook Group. "We are moving increasingly into a labor-less society."

Perhaps there should be a requirement that tax breaks be extended to those who can demonstrate that they have created new American jobs each year, for Americans on American soil, whether they be a wealthy individuals, corporations, or small entrepreneurs who nevertheless have successfully grown to the need to hire workers.  Make it a simple process to account for added jobs; make loopholes difficult to create, or easy to dispense with.

Every one else on the highest end of society would have to ante up.