Most people who live or work in NYC aren't the least surprised to hear or read about Muslim victims killed by the terrorists. We interact with Muslims on a daily basis. It's perfectly ordinary for us.
However, for people who know less about the city, this may be a surprise. In any case, keeping this in mind gives one a different perspective on the efforts of the far right to lump all Muslims in our country with the Islamic extremists.
Samad Afridi Ashraf Ahmad Shabbir Ahmad Umar Ahmad Azam Ahsan Ahmed Ali Tariq Amanullah Touri Bolourchi Salauddin Ahmad Chaudhury Abdul K. Chowdhury Mohammad S. Chowdhury Jamal Legesse Desantis Ramzi Attallah Douani SaleemUllah Farooqi Syed Fatha Mohammad Hamdani Salman Hamdani Aisha Harris Shakila Hoque Nabid Hossain Shahzad Hussain Talat Hussain Mohammad Shah Jahan Yasmeen Jamal Mohammed Jawarta Arslan Khan Khakwani Asim Khan Ataullah Khan Ayub Khan Qasim Ali Khan Sarah Khan Taimour Khan Yasmeen Khan Zahida Khan Badruddin Lakhani Omar Malick Nurul Hoque Miah Mubarak Mohammad Boyie Mohammed Raza Mujtaba Omar Namoos Mujeb Qazi Tarranum Rahim Ehtesham U. Raja Ameenia Rasool Naveed Rehman Yusuf Saad Rahma Salie Shoman Samad Asad Samir Khalid Shahid Mohammed Shajahan Naseema Simjee Jamil Swaati Sanober Syed Robert Elias Talhami Michael Theodoridis W. Wahid
A lot of liberals and progressives were outraged by the Democrats' wealthcare bill that takes care and money from poor, middle class, and elderly Americans and gives a ton of money to HMOs, health insurers, and the rich people who speculate in their stocks. The vast majority of liberals and progressives were outraged by the US Supreme Court's Citizens United decision which absurdly claims that corporations have constitutional rights and that campaign contributions are "speech."
Yet, very few people have made the connection between the two.
The US Supreme Court's attack on democracy took place on January 21, 2010 and the wealthcare bill passed that March. This is really important. Efforts to include a public option and to roll back some of the wealthcare bill's many attacks on the non rich were being fought up to the end. Nearly all of those efforts collapsed at the end, in a political landscape reshaped by the Court's decision to disenfranchise ordinary Americans.
It's become obvious to me that the Democrats decided that corporations now have absolute power in our country and that Democratic voters and grassroots activists don't matter anymore. They made a calculate decision to side with the corporations against us.
This follows a pattern of refusing to take actions (if necessary by budget reconciliation) that would improve the lives of middle class and poor Americans such jobs bills and the Employee Free Choice act. In fact, the Democrats were so leery of even allowing for the possibility of using budget reconciliation that they didn't even pass a budget this year.
The problem with the Democrats' gambit is that midterms are decided by turnout, and the GOP style policies of the Democratic Party leadership has given liberals and progressives little reason to vote at all, unless it is to vote Green.
The saddest irony is that none of the "justices" that voted for corporate meddling in elections has any legitimate right to be serving on the court at this time. Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy were involved in the theft of the 2000 election, and they should have been impeached and removed from office for it. The nominations of Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court were invalid because George W. Bush never was legally the President of the US and therefore had no legal right to make any appointments to any government body.
Corruption leads to more corruption, which leads, in turn, to more corruption. It's no wonder our country is in so much trouble.
Posted by
libhom
Sunday, August 29, 2010
0
comments
Parody Video of Meg Whitman's Efforts to Buy California Governor's Office
Donna Smith community organizer with the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, American SiCKO and is a national single-payer healthcare advocate. She has a wonderful commentary comparing the Blagojevich office selling controversy with the routine practice of the super rich buying political offices. The full commentary can be found on Michael Moore's website.
Forgive me for being a tad confused. I am finding it difficult to understand why one person goes to jail for privately selling an appointment for elected office while others have a legal right to buy their elected positions. The U.S. Supreme Court says corporations are persons in terms of exercising free speech through political contributions. Other persons who behave more like corporations than persons are spending personal fortunes buying positions of power in the public sector. Meg Whitman is working hard to buy the governorship of California. Rick Scott is doing the same in Florida. Millions and millions of dollars of their own personal fortunes have already been spent in their primary battles and both plan to spend “whatever it takes” to win. In both states, the good that could be accomplished with what these two corporate born and bred candidates are spending to win their elections points to how insane our election process has become.
In contrast, former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich faces another trial and millions in public funds will be spent trying to convict him of selling his favor in the appointment of a new U.S. Senator to Barack Obama’s seat after the 2008 Presidential election.
We call selling a political office a crime; we don’t seem to mind buying those same seats.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like what Blagojevich purportedly did. In fact, I am annoyed beyond what is probably reasonable that the former governor of my home state of Illinois makes the appointment process seem so ugly and tawdry. Illinois just doesn’t need any more corruption scandals. There are millions of wonderful, honest people in Illinois who deserve the best of governance.
Is it acceptable if a corporation contributes huge amounts of money with the intent of gaining political and policy favor? It certainly is legal. In fact, the Supreme Court said we violate the “corporate person’s” First Amendment rights to free speech if we limit their spending on campaigns and issues.
But wait. Suggest that the same political or policy favor will be granted during a private phone conversation and you may go to prison? More...
Ms. Smith is in California, so it is hardly surprising that she is focused primarily on Meg Whitman's jihad to use her dirty EBay money to buy the governor's office there. Meg Whitman certainly is incredibly evil. However, those of us in NYC have seen the disastrous effects of Michael Bloomberg using tens of millions of dollars from his personal fortune (plus millions more in Bloomberg Financial's charitable donations) to buy the mayor's office here three times. Bloomberg is doing everything to destroy everything distinctive about a city he despises and to drive out middle class and poor residents. He sees giving money to his rich friends to be the main purpose of the city's treasury.
Our corrupt US Supreme Court, our lax and hypocritical anti corruption laws, and our complicit corporate media have completely obliterated any real democracy in America. I strongly admire Michael Moore's long standing commitment to supporting democracy in our country, and I also admire his efforts to provide a platform for others doing the same.
Posted by
libhom
Saturday, August 28, 2010
0
comments
Mock, Paper, Scissors usually is filled with delightful snark, but this time, Tengrain has expressed how I feel about Osama bin Mehlman coming out better than I could.
Congress Should Reject Conservative Religious Groups’ Call For Taxpayer-Funded Job Bias, Says Americans United
August 25, 2010
If ‘Faith-Based’ Charities Want To Discriminate In Hiring On Religious Grounds, They Shouldn’t Get Public Funds, Says AU’s Lynn
Americans United for Separation of Church and State today urged Congress to reject an appeal for public funding of “faith-based” charities that discriminate in hiring on religious grounds.
In a letter to every member of Congress today, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, World Vision and other conservative religious organizations demanded that faith-based charities get government subsidies even if they hire only job applicants who meet certain religious criteria.
Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, “I am appalled that these religious leaders are trying to undermine the civil rights protections that every American counts on. If government pays for a social work position, every qualified applicant should be considered for the job regardless of their views on religion.
“At a time when the economy is hard-hit and a lot of people are out of work, it is disgraceful that some religious leaders want to deny government-funded job opportunities on the basis of religion,” he continued. “Members of Congress must say no to this exercise in discrimination.”
Lynn said the signers of today’s letter represent only one part of the broad spectrum of religion in America. He noted that groups representing the Jewish, Baptist, United Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Unitarian and Quaker communities have strongly opposed government-subsidized job bias.
Leading civil rights and civil liberties groups have also opposed this kind of hiring discrimination.
Lynn noted that public opinion polls show that Americans reject publicly funded faith-based bias by a wide margin. According to a 2008 Pew Research Center poll, 73 percent of Americans say organizations that hire only people who share their religious beliefs should not receive government grants.
There are a few things I would also like to bring up on the subject.
1) Government funding of religious organizations under any circumstance violates state/church separation. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the "establishment of religion," not just the establishment of a religion. There is no possible way that the government can fund religious groups or use them to provide services without establishing religion.
2) The very act of being a religious charity is discriminatory. An inclusive charity includes people and provides services to people regardless of faith or freedom from faith.
3) The very premise behind the hate based initiatives is bigoted against freethinkers. These existence of them is based on the claim that religion makes people better, which is as fact free as it is insulting to atheists and agnostics.
4) There already are plenty of greedy and power mad corporations corrupting our government for their gain. The last thing we need to do is add churches and religious groups to the corrupting entities. Privatization has been proven itself to be a corrupting influence in every society where it has been tried, and churches already corrupt human societies enough as it is.
5) When President Obama followed through on his campaign threat to expand Bush's hate based initiatives, this was terrible news for the First Amendment and the civil rights of atheists. What did surprise me was that many in the LGBT community were actually surprised when a lot of the funded churches and people making funding decisions were viciously heterosexist. All the major religions in this society are bigoted against queers. If they have their hand in the till, queers suffer.
Posted by
libhom
Friday, August 27, 2010
1 comments
Refusing to go along with the corporate media's and extreme right's narrative about the proposed Tribeca mosque which would be two blocks from Ground Zero, a 911 Families group has again expressed its support for building the mosque and cultural center in that location. From Peaceful Tomorrows 8/14/10:
9/11 Families Applaud President Obama's Support of Religious Freedom August 14th, 2010
New York, NY, Aug. 14 -- September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows applauds President Barack Obama for his statement in support of the building of a mosque near Ground Zero. On that day, members of our organization paid the ultimate price. We lost loved ones in the tragic attacks, attacks perpetrated by criminals. Our losses will never be redeemed; our wounds will never fully heal. On 9/11/2001 while many of us buried our loved ones we also took heart in our nation's principles and our rule of law. Ours is a nation that fights for religious freedom. Many of us who call ourselves Americans do so because we came to escape religious persecution in other lands.
We applaud President Obama for his leadership on this issue. Simply put: we lost our family members on 9/11/2001, but will not lose our nation, too. America, the concept and the people and the land thrive when we chose to trust in our principles rather than cave to our basest fears.
What better place for healing, reconciliation and understanding than Ground Zero? We honor our family members by practicing American principles and moving forward from Ground Zero to a future of peaceful coexist
I remember reading about the hearings for the proposed mosque in Manhattan. 911 families spoke out on both sides of the issue. Nearly everyone from the neighborhood spoke out in favor of the mosque, regardless of whether or not they were 911 families. The original opposition came from outsiders who know nothing about New York and who hate queers, Jews, and people of color just as much as they hate Muslims.
Corporate media thugs were quick to promote the hypocritical anti mosque campaign for reasons that aren't too difficult to figure out. The last thing their corporate masters want is for middle class and poor Americans to realize that our real enemies are not the people who want to build a mosque in Tribeca. The real enemies of the American people are the people who control the financial institutions a few blocks away on Wall St.
Posted by
libhom
Thursday, August 26, 2010
1 comments
The corporate media is beating the drums about this being a bad year for the Democrats, yet they seldom seriously mention Republicans taking the Senate. There are a lot of reasons for this, many of which are worth discussing.
Current Senate Makeup: 57 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents.
That's a lot of ground to make up in one election. The one thing that might help the GOP is that Joe Lieberbush is likely to switch from Independent to Republican if they can get to 51 seats. Ben Nelson is likely to switch from Democrat to Republican under those circumstances too. The problem for the rogue elephants is getting to 51 seats.
Let's look at some of the obstacles facing Republicans as they try to seize control of the Senate.
Open Seats: GOP 8 vs. Democrats 7 Now that Murkowski has lost her Alaska primary, the GOP will have a lot of open seats, one more than the Democrats. This spreads the GOP pretty thin financially.
The Teabaggers What a problem for the GOP. First, they have gotten incredibly weak candidates nominated in Nevada, Florida, and Kentucky. The GOP just has lost its incumbent in Alaska. It's highly likely the Florida Senate seat will shift from GOP to independent because of this. The Republicans will have to spend a whole lot more money to win the other three seats, which should have been easy pickups/holds for them. The teabagger candidates also will put off moderate voters.
Probably even worse for the Republican Party is the effect that the teabaggers will have on Democratic voters. The Democratic politicians have done a lot to demoralize their voters this time, but the thought of teabaggers running the country is enough to get a lot of Democratic core constituencies off to the polls. GOP turnout would be high this time with or without the crazies, so there isn't any real benefit to them. Also, the teabaggers keep saying "vote against all incumbents" which doesn't exactly help GOP incumbents.
Fundraising Deficit The GOP's Senate campaign committee his still way behind the Democratic one in cash on hand. The Republicans have been doing somewhat better than their opponents in recent months, but not enough to make up for the huge early money lead the Democrats have.
Bush There may be some swing House seats where Bush is more popular than Obama, but that is the case in few, if any, Senate seats which currently are held by Democrats. Reminding voters of how the economy was in freefall under Bush will give Democrats an edge.
Two Loopy Multimillionaires The GOP probably hoped that failed former HP CEO Carly Fiorina and former WWE CEO/Diva would help the party by self financing. However, both politicians have a tremendous amount of baggage, especially Ms. McMahon. Their primary victories also further the perception that the GOP is for sale.
Racist Hysteria The racist hysteria in the GOP against Latinos is at a fever pitch. This will almost certainly shift many Latino voters to the Democratic Party and dramatically increase turnout among Latino Democrats. Racism is playing a role in the hysteria over a proposed mosque which would be a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. Before 911, Arab and Muslim voters trended Republican because the Democrats were perceived as being more pro Israel. The GOP is doing everything they can to push Muslim and Arab voters to vote for Democrats this time out.
Then, there's the rampant anti black hatred that permeates the GOP and their media enablers. This will give African American voters added incentive to vote this time, even though Obama's policies haven't been that much different than Bush's.
Partisan Affiliations of Current Officeholders: 18 GOP - 16 Democrats Despite the fairly large majority of Democrats in the Senate now, a majority of seats open for election this time are held by the GOP. Having to defend a few more seats is a small disadvantage for the GOP.
Off Message Mosque Hysteria Republican candidates should be running on the economy, in terms of standard electoral strategy. Yet, the GOP is obsessing on a Tribeca mosque a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. That mosque will have no impact on the lives of the people outside of Manhattan and has overwhelming support there.
Can They Do It? It's possible. Obama and the Democrats on Capitol Hill are governing so much like Republicans that they may just flush their Senate majority down the toilet. The economy is in a holding pattern at the moment, which isn't exactly helping the party in power, and the Democrats seem to have little interest in pushing through the jobs programs that would get people back to work or running ads attacking Republicans as being against jobs. Dithering, conservativism, and cowardice among the Democrats are the only hopes the GOP has of grabbing the Senate.
Posted by
libhom
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
2
comments
British Petroleum is still an incredibly evil corporation. The alleged end of the Gulf oil spill may have moved them out of many of the headlines, but their behavior hasn't improved. They still deserve to be boycotted and put out of business. Here are some examples of why.
British Petroleum Weaseling Out of Cleanup Commitment
New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu had some recent comments that suggest that British Petroleum is poised to renege on what little they were doing to clean up their oil spill. (CNN 8/19/10)
Landrieu said the spill and cleanup efforts were a continuing threat to New Orleans and other Louisiana coastal areas. "BP and others are acting like this is the beginning of the end. It is not," he said. "We have no confidence in the claims that much of the oil is gone." In fact, he said, a study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released Tuesday "found 70 percent of the oil is still in the ecosystem. This is the beginning of the beginning," he said.
Remember when the Obama administration was shilling for British Petroleum, parroting their lies about most of the oil being gone? Even the Obama administration has given up on that one. If British Petroleum gets itself out of the headlines, they will take advantage of the lack of spotlight to avoid cleaning up their mess.
Much of British Petroleum's Spill Losses Will Be Subsidized by the US Treasury
If you want an example of just how corrupt our tax system can be, look at how British Petroleum plans to write off their spill costs, avoiding taxes on the taxable portion of that money. Oil companies already are some of the worst examples of corporations not paying anywhere near their fair share in taxes, even without this latest outrage. How much will British Petroleum claim on their taxes, according to Public Citizen, the figure is roughly $10 billion.
Thanks to big money campaign contributions, our government has all the money in the world for this corruption, but Social Security supposedly must be reigned in. How about reigning in the corruption instead?
British Petroleum Used Corporate Ad Money to Overtly Control and Censor the Press
Corporations have used all sorts of pressure to censor unfavorable coverage, but British Petroleum was one of the first to use ad pulling to shut down unfavorable coverage at least as early as 2005. (Advertising Age 5/24/05)
Days after financial services giant Morgan Stanley informed print publications that its ads must be automatically pulled from any edition containing "objectionable editorial coverage," global energy giant BP has adopted a similar press strategy.
Zero tolerance According to a copy of a memo on the letterhead of BP's media-buying agency, WPP Group's MindShare, the global marketer has adopted a zero-tolerance policy toward editorial coverage it is not informed about in advance, "regardless of whether editorial is deemed positive or negative."
The memo cites a new BP policy document entitled "2005 BP Corporate-RFP" that demands that ad-accepting publications inform BP in advance of any news text or visuals they plan to publish that directly mention the company, a competitor or the oil-and-energy industry.
British Petroleum was already spending $95 million in ads in this country, showing that there has been real power behind this policy.
However, the real purpose of the ad buy wasn't to directly influence public opinion. It was to position British Petroleum as an even more important advertiser in order to influence corporate media coverage. It worked. Corporate news outlets spun spill stories much more to the oil giant's favor than they had done before.
British Petroleum's Role in Bringing About Iran's Islamic Fundamentalist Regime
British Petroleum did incredibly evil things under its original name, Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and did it with the assistance of a pliable and corrupt US government. This time it was the Eisenhower administration. First, their greed and thievery caused them problems in Iran. From LA Progressive 6/24/10:
With exclusive rights to extract, refine, export, and sell Iran’s rich oil resources, the company reaped enormous profits. Meanwhile, it shared only a tiny fraction of the proceeds with the Iranian government. Similarly, although the company’s British personnel lived in great luxury, its Iranian laborers endured lives of squalor and privation.
In 1947, as Iranian resentment grew at the giant oil company’s practices, the Iranian parliament called upon the Shah, Iran’s feudal potentate, to renegotiate the agreement with Anglo-Iranian. Four years later, Mohammed Mossadeq, riding a tide of nationalism, became the nation’s prime minister. As an enthusiastic advocate of taking control of Iran’s oil resources and using the profits from them to develop his deeply impoverished nation, Mossadeq signed legislation, passed unanimously by the country’s parliament, to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
The British government lashed out at the people getting screwed over by this corporation, imposing a trade embargo against Iran. Britain then tried to overthrow Mossadeq, but they were unable to do it because President Truman refused to cooperate. President Eisenhower's incredibly corrupt Sec. of State, John Foster Dulles, happily changed that policy.
To the delight of Anglo-Iranian, it received a much friendlier reception from the new Eisenhower administration. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles had worked much of his life as a lawyer for multinational corporations, and viewed the Iranian challenge to corporate holdings as a very dangerous example to the world. Consequently, the CIA was placed in charge of an operation, including fomenting riots and other destabilizing activities, to overthrow Mossadeq and advance oil company interests in Iran.
Organized by CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt in the summer of 1953, the coup was quite successful. Mossadeq was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life, the power of the pro-Western shah was dramatically enhanced, and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was once again granted access to Iran’s vast oil resources. To be sure, thanks to the key role played in the coup by the U.S. government, the British oil company—renamed British Petroleum—henceforth had to share the lucrative oil extraction business in Iran with U.S. corporations. Even so, in the following decades, with the Iranian public kept in line by the Shah’s dictatorship and by his dreaded secret police, the SAVAK, it was a very profitable arrangement—although not for most Iranians.
If not for the brutality and thieving of the Shahs and their corporate overlords, there never would have been an Iranian Revolution against them, and the world's first militant Islamist republic wouldn't have happened. This action also discredited the US throughout the world, especially US rhetoric about supporting democracy, the effects of which were felt most acutely in the Middle East.
If a pliable US administration going along with the same reprehensible corporation that was involved in past corruption and misdeeds sounds familiar, it should.
Posted by
libhom
Saturday, August 21, 2010
4
comments
As you have probably heard, Target gave $150,000 to a corrupt PAC which was used for political ads to support the viciously hetersexist Tom Emmer, the GOP candidate for Governor in Minnesota. Queer activists have called for a boycott of Target and of Best Buy, which is guilty of making a smaller but substantial contribution for the same purpose. MoveOn.org has joined in, though they are more focused on the partisan aspect of the issue.
There are Facebook groups calling for the boycotts of Target and Best Buy. There have been protests at some Target stores. Some LGBT activists have gotten quite creative.
The boycott is getting attention in the queer press, such as this Washington Blade article, as well as getting some coverage in the hetero press.
The Boycott Target group has the following contact information.
The HRC has refused to support the boycott, being too beholden to corporations to fight for our rights, as usual. They wasted time with a bullshit meeting with Target instead of joining the fight. The more you know about the HRC, the less likely you are to give that parasitical and corrupt organization a dime.
I've already skipped a trip to Target and did some online shopping with somebody else because of this. I don't go to Best Buy more than once or twice a year, but this will definitely cut back on my shopping there.
Target's claims about this also offend me. They say that they are exercising their free speech rights. There are two facts that neither Target nor the rightist majority on the Supreme Court recognize.
1) Campaign contributions are not speech.
2) Corporations have no constitutional rights. Only people do.
Bigotry, corruption, and lies are disturbingly common in corporations. What is new about this is seeing so many people fight back. It's about time.
The Victory Mosque is just the visible tip of a very large iceberg. Beneath the surface of Western societies, Muslims are waging a campaign of infiltration, subversion, sedition and social sabotage, with the objective of destroying our countries and way of life from within.
First, let's look at the "Victory Mosque" phrase. It's totally made up, though not originally by the commenter. This mosque in no way was ever proposed or promoted as a "victory" anything. The first three words of the comment are an extreme example of the gullibility of people on the right. If they don't like something, they will believe anything about it.
If all the stuff about "infiltration, subversion, sedition and social sabotage" sounds familiar to you, you are remembering old anti communist rhetoric from the McCarthyist era, either from personal observation or by reading about it in a history text. The right is playing on the same fears that were used during the 50s without irony, and some people actually fall for it.
There really is a copy and paste laziness in far right rhetoric these days. They can't adapt to the fall of the Soviet Union, so they project their old fears onto a new enemy, or rather a caricature of Muslims. Yes, Islam is irrational and can be dangerous, but that is true of every religion. The notion that we should be looking out for evil Muslims everywhere who are out to get us is rather paranoid, especially when you consider that many Muslims in the West immigrated here to get away from Islamic extremism.
Nostalgia is always a bit fuzzy. But, nostalgia for old fears is so bizarre. Yet, that's exactly what the right has.
Paranoia, ignorance, gullibility, and intellectual laziness are the hallmarks of the 21 Century right, and that comment was a blatant example of those problems.
Posts
