It is worth repeating what Ryan wants to do with the budget. He would start by cutting the budget by about 5 trillion dollars over ten years. At least he does not want to put his plan into operation immediately. He would take that money from Medicaid. He would cut and discontinue monthly food stamps for probably millions of single mother households. Mostly whatever else the poor and needy require to just get by will disappear. Unemployed workers would be dropped from the rolls until they spend down their cash savings below two thousand dollars, as if the unemployed have that much cash, if any, on hand. He would also cut Pell grants. So much for education. Ryan believes government welfare, in his words, “ dissolves the common good of society and it dishonors the dignity of the human person.”  By killing anti-poverty programs, because that is what he would do, Ryan believes he will restore human dignity and thus reform the social compact.

The trouble with the Ryan budget is that it is a perfect fit for the Republican ethos that says numbers come first, people last. For Republicans, people are statistics, ciphers, and pixels on a virtual ledger. They are merely numbers on a chart, an actuary’s dream. Once on the chart, they number among the walking dead. If a person cannot help him or herself, why should anyone else help? Especially if the person is among those in society who no longer contribute the way Republicans want them to.

The New York Times ran a story several weeks ago about how poor mothers on welfare are faring in the recession. The story especially cited Arizona, the poster child of state  conservatism, where life in the poor lane is more difficult every day. Arizona is one of 16 states that cut welfare rolls since the recession. Single mothers suffer the most. And because they cannot make ends meet, “they have sold food stamps, sold blood, skipped meals for their children, shoplifted, scavenged trash bins for bottles and cans … and even returned to relationships with violent partners – all with children in tow.” Due to a variety of circumstances, many of these women fight addiction and depression, sometimes separately, often in combination, and sometimes dangerous to those around them. Cutting them off from government help is not the answer to solving their problems.

Equally relevant, The Employee Benefit Research Institute has some fascinating news about America’s aging population. In a study that took place before and during the first year of the Great Recession “between 2005 and 2009, the rate of poverty among seniors rose as they aged.” It is highest for the oldest of the elderly, meaning that almost 15 percent of those older than 85 were living in poverty in 2009. The poverty rate for women is almost double that of men. One in 5 single women over 65 lives in poverty. The odds of a health crisis striking at any time go up 45-55 percent for those who live below the poverty line.

According to the Center for Rural Affairs, using the Great Plains for the basis of its study, rural areas have higher poverty levels than urban centers and the region as a whole. Studies reveal, “that there is often not enough food for a healthy life.” Add to this that people often have to choose between “ adequate food and other expenses such as medical expenses.” The study finds, “that childhood poverty is higher in rural areas in the region than the general poverty rate.”

We have a situation here that is not going away soon. According to a Census Bureau report issued in 2011, 46 million people were living in poverty, the highest number in the last 52 years. That translates into more that 15 percent of Americans living below the poverty line. As the Great Recession only slowly abates, that number has surely gone up.

Fix entitlements, you say Mr. Ryan. Cut welfare, you say. Reduce government help for the poor. Wear your actuarial green eyeshade and your horse blinders to keep out the truth. Maintain that chasm between your Republican blindness and what is real. With all this, I wonder, have you, Mr. Ryan and your colleagues ever heard the cry of a hungry baby? Did you ever see the face of an undernourished child or watched helplessly as an elderly person drifts away at the end of his or her life because he or she has no food or medicine? 

Editor’s Note: All photographs and graphics by EN2008.

However, the Paul campaign rejected the possibility of waging a battle at the national convention to unbind the Nevada delegates from having to vote for Romney. Carl Bunce, the Nevada chairman of Paul’s campaign, adopted a conciliatory tone on Sunday, and said that Ron Paul’s goal was to defeat President Obama in November, not to be a divisive factor within the GOP. “I do not want this party to fall apart. We are building a stronger party, we need to stay united. Just because you have the power doesn’t mean you always have to wield it. Just because you have the sword doesn’t mean you have to strike,” said Bunce. Regardless of Bunce’s statement, some Paul supporters are hoping that there might be a brokered convention where the nomination fight goes beyond the first ballot, opening the way for Paul to win.

Paul is very much behind Romney in the delegates count, with a bit less than 100 against 856 for Romney- according to a count by AP.  Romney is still 288 delegates short of the 1,144 that he needs to get the nomination. With Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich out of the race, Ron Paul is the last man standing in the way of  Mitt Romney’s nomination. Romney could get around 100 delegates in Tuesday’s primaries in North Carolina, West Virginia and Indiana. But even if Romney remains the “inevitable” GOP nominee in the eyes of most, Ron Paul has made some gains in recent days. Adding to his sweep in Nevada, Paul took 11 delegates away from Romney in Maine when the Texas congressman supporters won control of the Maine GOP convention on Sunday and elected Paul delegates to the Republican party national convention.

Ron Paul’s decision to stay in the race until the national convention will give him the opportunity to address important issues ignored by most US politicians and mainstream media. For example, Paul is a vehement opponent of CISPA ( Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act), which he views as another instrument to attack free speech protected by the First amendment of the US constitution. Last Friday, in San Diego, Ron Paul got a standing ovation after attacking the ongoing effort by the Federal government to censor the Internet. “Without the first amendment, it is very difficult for us to get our message out, and I want to make sure the first amendment is protected on the Internet as well. The first amendment wasn’t written so that you can talk about the weather, it was written so that you can talk about controversial things and even challenge our own government,” said Paul.

Editor’s Note: All photographs by Gage Skidmore.

Dick McManus, Democrat, Everett/Mill Creek, WA, is running for Congress, 2nd CD-WA, this coming fall.  As Chief Warrant Officer/counterintelligence special agent, US Army, retired, he has a great deal of information to share with poignant prescriptions for change concerning American foreign policy with Israel.

Candidate McManus writes:

It is time for America to use our military to force Israel to return the occupied territories

Israel has failed to obey 69 UN resolutions and the UN passed Resolution 242 calling for Israel to withdrawal from the occupied territories. Article 49 Geneva Convention shall not transport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies and that is exactly what Israel has been doing since their 1967 war.

I demand Israel leave all the occupied territories and turn it over all the land on West Bank to the Palestinians. I support ending all foreign aid to Israel until they leave the Occupied territories and turn get rid of its nuclear weapons.

If we care about the long-term security of Israel it is time for America to use our military force to return the occupied territories to the Palestinians.

For the history of terrorist attacks conducted by Israel and their history of espionage against the USA, see HERE and HERE

For more about how Israel has been treating the Palestinians  see HERE.

A few years ago, the much maligned prune hired a PR firm and emerged with a flashy new advertising campaign and new name: the dried plum. The other day, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney shined up the controversial health insurance mandate by calling it “the personal responsibility provision.”

A prune by another name? Call it what you will, but that crucial heart of the Affordable Health Care Act, now the center of debate at the Supreme Court, could put a kibosh on the whole deal. While Court watchers say it could go either way, most lean toward a conservative 5-4 toss out, The question, then, becomes, can any of the health care overhaul be salvaged? Justice Scalia signaled all would be trashed, while Justice Ginsburg asked “why must it be a wrecking ball and not a salvage job?”

Some commentators suggest only the very fringe provisions, the overstuffed pork that swelled the Act to 2,700 pages ( the size inspired Justice Scalia to invoke a sardonic reference to the 8th Amendment and the Justices facing “cruel and unusual punishment” reading the darn thing). So while provisions for black lung and Native Americans may remain main intact, pre-existing conditions and the spiraling premium pricing blitz will be back in play. In other words, the insurance companies will be back in the driver’s seat without the “mandated” influx of new customers.

Politically, some on the left think a loss will really be a win. James Carville, who was around for the Clinton health care debacle offered his curious take on CNN’s “Situation Room” on Tuesday.

“I think this will be the best thing that has ever happened to the Democratic Party. You know, what the Democrats are going to say, and it is completely justified, ‘We tried, we did something, go see a 5-4 Supreme Court majority.’”

Okay, but how exactly is that good news for the Dems?

“Then the Republican Party will own the health care system for the foreseeable future. And I really believe that. That is not spin,” Carville said.

Well, there may be some truth there, and certainly the Repubs have absolutely no alternative to what they’ve dubbed ‘ObamaCare.’ The Party of No has been all about shouting down anything that has the President’s fingerprints on it and doing their best to make Obama a one-termer ( something which, despite the economy and perhaps this defeat, is so far from good enough Sarah Palin could never see it from her back porch). And Romney, the likely GOP nominee, has his own problems as the “godfather” of Obamacare.

Still, politics aside, who will suffer? Millions of Americans, denied care do to pre-existing conditions and prohibitive costs. I know I’ve heard the leftist chants to re-energize and re-organize the Single Payer efforts, But how many years, realistically, will that take? The Affordable Health Care Act, as messy as the legislative sausage making was, holds so many vital provisions that would help so many Americans. Steps in the right direction now threatened by a perilous obstacle course.

If we continue the status quo, the skyrocketing costs will soar to levels that will surely toss many more out of the insurance market. And the burden will be passed on to those of us fortunate enough to cling to coverage.

Spin it any way you want, left, right or center, but regardless of your political affiliation, if The Supremes strike down the mandate and, with it, likely the whole shebang, it will be a lose-lose for all Americans.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

We already knew Palin was the McCain campaign’s Hail Mary pass. Down in the polls and with seemingly nothing to lose they plucked the new Alaska governor out of obscurity, thrusting her onto the national stage with limited vetting. What comes next plays out in predictable fashion. We already know the story and the outcome.

So why bother watching “Game Change?” The acting. Yeah, it’s that good. As is the make-up artistry. Moore is the main attraction, of course, nailing everything from Palin’s voice, mannerisms and mood, shading her performance with a depth and empathy that transcends Tina Fey’s brilliant satire. She does, in fact, generate sympathy and ire as we watch Palin swat away interview and debate prep advice and nearly spiral out of control as the rigors of the relentless campaign and media spotlight take their toll.

Woody Harrelson, as Steve Schmidt, the senior advisor most responsible for the Palin pick, is also formidable. And the oft under-rated Ed Harris offers another magnificent turn a John McCain.

Beyond that, you may discover a better understanding of the high-stakes, often cynical machinations of presidential campaigns. But I’d suggest the purely fictional “The Ides of March” is a far more compelling film, with unexpected twists and turns, and lessons that may have greater resonance.

While it’s a good film, I wonder how much more powerful “Game Change” might have been if it were made five or ten years down the road. With time’s fermentation and the lens of perspective, this episode in American political history will surely provide a far more intriguing and potent lesson. Something future filmmakers are apt to explore.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

Thirteen is not a lucky number by any measure. It never has been. It will never be. Ask any gambler who plays the horses or the slots. Ask anyone who fears a black cat crossing his or her path. Ask anyone who walks around an open ladder instead of walking under it. Superstition is powerful. It often guides people in how they lead their lives. With hardly a yelp, today the number 13 is popping up everywhere and, as usual, it is impossible to ignore, especially knowing that 13 plays a big role in the fight that will continue between the confrontational Congress and the White House.

Ratings for President Obama’s State of the Union were down 13 percent from the last State of the Union he delivered. There is no question that the 112^th Congress is the worst ever. At least in my memory it has no competition for that accolade, and if things keep going the way they are now, its only competition will be when the 113^th Congress comes along on January 3, 2013. There it is again, 13 attached to 2000. Thirteen is an inescapable number and concept.

Here are some statistics from a recent Washington Post/ABC News Poll.  Eighty-four percent disapprove of the job Congress is doing.  Of Democrats, 67 percent disapprove and only 33 percent approve. That compares with 75 percent of Republicans who disapprove and only 21 percent who approve. When the Republican-dominated House of Representatives fights President Obama on everything he proposes, do most of its members who thrive in negativity heed the voters back home, or are those Republican members so arrogant and tone deaf that they have lost their hearing? They have certainly lost their bearing, at least for someone who does not think like a Republican. But here is the real problem. When added together, the figure from that poll leave us with, you got it, 13 percent in total who approve of the job Congress is doing.

I worry about that 13 percent. They must be living under a rock or maybe in a hermit’s cave if, for whatever reason, they think America is getting decent results from its elected representatives. Come out, come out wherever you are and smell the roses of reality, please. I understand, too, that the 13 percent could change. It could be higher. It will probably be lower. No matter. Today 13 percent rules the bottom of the heap.

Consider too, the haughtiness of those in Congress who ignore the 84 percent of the public who believe it is doing a terrible job. Congressional leaders on the right try to convince us they are doing what they call “the people’s work.” They try to convince us that what they are doing is in the interests of all the American people. There is such a sharp split between some American people and those who disagree with them that it makes me wonder if we should call those who disagree “the un-American people.” That idea does not resonate in my community.

Are you as tired as I am of hearing the politicians we sent to Washington claiming they are doing our work? I can tell you they are not doing my work. Did people vote our representatives in Washington into office to do their personal bidding or those of the people who voted for them? Obviously, the politicians in Washington are incapable of reading real tea leaves. Obviously rhetorical, so I will let it go with the idea that the members of Congress believe they know better than those who sent them to Washington do. If our sitting representatives believe that 13 percent is all they need to foment their kind of change, this country is in worse trouble than anyone can imagine. But it is common among elected officials everywhere for them to believe the few over the many. The authority of official office does weird things to the inside of a politician’s head. Those men and women do not care for their constituents. They only care for themselves. Power is everything for them. I believe their concept of power is rooted in a sense of righteousness, the worst quality that they bring with them into office.

I worry all the time about the 13 percent. I find those who make up the 13 percent confounding. Who are they you may ask. Rarely does a pundit consider what is going on inside the minds of the 13 percent. All I know is that they are the ones who approve the job Congress is doing. But wait. Of the 13 percent who indicate they approve Congress, only 3 percent strongly approve its work while 11 percent only approve somewhat, whatever that means. It seems those who are the 13 percent cannot quite make up their minds about how badly Congress is serving its constituencies, doing what a fumbling John Boehner and his clueless Republican minions call the work “the people sent us to Washington to do.”

Congress has a long way to go before we see the bright lights of success. If the public managed to trust and accept Congress for the work they do even more than 50 percent of the time, this country would be better off, especially if that 50 percent was center, left of center, liberal and progressive. 

Most people would argue that the use of violence for the protection of self, their loved ones, or those more vulnerable, is justified.  Not as revenge, but as a necessary measure to combat a crime in progress.  A desire for revenge may be understandable, and even acceptable to some, but that’s not the topic.  The topic is defense.  The defense of others and ourselves.  The immediate interference in an assailants ability to inflict harm, or end a life, as the result of their current actions.

The state often uses a doctrine of preemptive measures to justify its violence.  Evidence of a crime is not necessary.  A perceived threat, or imagined potential of a challenge to the states ability to maintain control, is all that is required to warrant acts of violence ranging from human rights violations against individuals to military actions killing hundreds of thousands.  Even if a misguided sense of Nationalism causes you to agree with this doctrine, like revenge, preemptive action is not the topic.

Defense is the issue.  The right, even the necessity, to employ violence as a means of protection, is the point.  If someone is committing an act of violence against you, you have the right to use violence to stop them.  If someone is committing an act of violence against someone unable to defend themselves, you have the obligation to use any means necessary, even violence, to stop them.  Sometimes, employing violence as an act of self defense against an overwhelming enemy serves only to draw attention to your plight, or the plight of the defenseless, and bring others to your aid.  This too is a justified use of violence.

An argument over the definition of violence is often used to distract from the real issue.  The real issue is violence against humanity, or humans.  You may consider throwing a brick through a window violent.  You may be right.  However, if your value system equates a window, or a brick, or the corporation that owns the window that the brick flew through, with a human life, you may have much deeper issues to be resolved.

If your argument is simply that violence begets violence, you’re ignoring the fact that continued passivity has only encouraged increased violence.  Corporations, and States, have never ceased their acts of violence because of a lack of opposition.  They only stop once they get what they want.  To acquiesce, and accept their terms for your compliance, is not a victory for passivity.  The control and ownership imposed when we comply is a grotesque act of violence against humanity in and of itself.  By those rules, you must give up your life in order to keep it.  It’s a slave mentality.  Excuses not to defend oneself, or the vulnerable among us, are simply that, excuses.

There’s been a great deal of discussion about the ‘violence’ of Black Bloc tactics.  The unconscionable act of vandalizing the ill-gotten property of corporations and financial institutions, that fund the endless wars and exploit millions of workers, has received criticism from all quarters.  These institutions, that treat people as disposable, seem to have convinced many that they have the right, protected by the state, to have the resulting profits treated as unassailable while they remain unaccountable for their crimes.  Protesters, on the other hand, are held to a strict code of conduct not applied to the criminals that victimize us all. If this continues to be allowed, what does it say about our values?

State sanctioned crime, including brutality and murder by the police, the military, and the prison system, as well as corporate crime committed through depraved indifference, criminal misconduct, and intentional acts of violence, do not even find their way into the annual FBI crime statistics.  There is not one mention of a banker complicit in profiting from the scuttling of the economy in 2007, or the politicians that assisted them.  George Bush, Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, or companies such as Halliburton don’t make any ten most wanted list for the millions of lives they’ve destroyed through unjust military campaigns or war profiteering.  There’s no bounty being offered for Big Oil or Big Pharma executives, or their Boards of Directors, despite the damage they inflict on the environment and billions of people. But, somewhere in the FBI tomes that catalogue the sins of man, you’ll find a record of that single broken Bank of America window for which some poor schmuck was punished.

WalMart, the worlds largest corporation, exploits workers at home and abroad, both in manufacturing and retail, and destroys the communities it invades with impunity.  The very existence of a WalMart store is a guarantee that thousands, perhaps even millions, of  lives are been negatively impacted, exploited, and often irrevocably ruined.   Where is the outrage over that? Why are they allowed to continue?  An individual guilty of the same would be locked away.  WalMart gets tax breaks, and politicians lining up for ribbon cutting ceremonies for the next new super center.

If there is a criticism of Black Bloc tactics, perhaps it should be that they have been insufficient to stop the ongoing corporate and state violence.  What good is breaking a window, or spray-painting a wall, or rolling a dumpster into the street and setting it on fire, if nothing comes of it but negative press?  All the good intentions, the important message, and the righteous cause, are useless without a medium to communicate them to the masses.  Independent and social media have grown but they are nothing compared to corporate media.  What reach the new media does have, and the growth it has experienced, is being actively challenged by legislation designed to allow the state to censor, control, and even eliminate it.  Symbolic action alone is not getting the job done, and it faces even more barriers to its efficacy in the future.

If you are witnessing someone being assaulted, what good is yelling at a brick wall, wishing that those on the other side might hear you? Wouldn’t the best way to stop the assault be to stop the assault, by whatever means necessary?  Yelling at the wall, or spray-painting ‘HELP’ on it, may make you feel like you’re doing something, but what are you actually accomplishing?  Perhaps we need to judge actions based on their ability to achieve a necessary goal rather than simply on the statement they make.  Perhaps actions that bring an end to the crimes being committed will speak louder than actions that simply provide fodder for the mainstream media. Perhaps this should be the real criticism for Black Bloc tactics.  Not that they are too radical, but perhaps that they are not radical enough.

Black Bloc tactics have been the equivalent of a single courageous individual taking a stand against an overwhelming enemy, hoping that others will hear their plea and come to their aid.  As a society we’ve responded with cowardice.  We know that corporations are responsible for the ongoing assault on our environment.   We know that the State enables and supports them. We know that the State is becoming increasingly violent and oppressive.  We know that our government has been corrupted, purchased by the very forces it should be protecting us from.  We know that our rights and freedoms are being eroded by a state that monitors our every move and polices our every action. We know all this.  We know this despite the corporate mainstream media’s best attempts to stand as a brick wall between us and the truth. We know it is happening.   Yet, we stand by and allow the assault to continue.  We’ve become the crowd that stands around and criticizes the person who tries to stop the domestic violence. We are no better than the abuser we enable, perhaps worse for siding against those trying to do the right thing.

It’s ironic that those we know are responsible for killing both our planet and our fellow human beings are honored, while those that break a few windows, and spray a little paint, are characterized as a cancer.  CEOs responsible for countless deaths, and irreparable damage to our environment, have easy access to the President and are afforded all the protection the police, military, legislature, and judiciary can provide.  A protester will be granted only the wrath of the State if they come too close to the White House gate.

These values are backwards.  We protect those that would do us harm while we demonize those that fight for our protection, our freedom, and our emancipation.  Their actions pale in criminality compared to the State and the corporations they protest. In fact, it can be argued that their criminality only exists in the definition applied by the State, and the wealthy that control it. Are we shunning the cure while the real cancer is left untreated?  Is it because the cure needs to become more aggressive, and stop the spread of the cancer, in order to receive recognition for its true value?

We need to take an inventory of what we value before it’s too late.  We are trapped in a mindset of rewarding exploitation, corruption, and criminality – as long as it produces a profit – while condemning those with the courage to oppose it.  Somewhere deep down we know tis is wrong because we praise the courage of the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Syrians that are battling against corruption and oppression.  We just seem unable to show the same courage ourselves, and compound our sins by criticizing those that do.

We need to stop offering harsh judgment of Black Bloc tactics.  It does not speak well of our values. Those tactics, given the needed amount of support, can move beyond attempts to get our attention and potentially bring an end to the violence being perpetrated against humanity by the wealthy, the corporations they own, and the States they control.  In order to do this we need to join the struggle, not allow our cowardice to condemn it. There is right and there is wrong, and fighting to stop something that you know is wrong, is right.

all photos by Ap?s

The indefinite detention clauses ( section 1021 and 1022) in the legislation are a direct attack upon the civil rights of all Americans and are in essence in breech of the US Constitution.  The detention closes represent yet another step taken towards an erosion of the freedoms which are the very foundation of American society. The detention sections of the NDAA give the Executive branch wide and unchecked powers to detain, via the US military, any person “who was part of/ or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”

The law is ill defined and opened to interpretations. The provisions also target anyone who commits a belligerent act against the US or its coalition allies and aid enemy forces, under the “law of war without trial, until the end of the hostilities”. The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, or the transfer to “any foreign country, or any other foreign entity.” The NDAA, if applied, would make legal the “rendition” program run in secret by the CIA during the Bush administration.

After signing the NDAA, President Obama made the clarification that his administration “will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” However, the only provision from which US citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals  accused of being members from al-Qaeda and other “terrorist” groups, military detention is mandatory. For US citizens it is optional. There is no exemption for US citizens from presidential power of detention, either by the military  or by civilian agencies such as the CIA, DHS or FBI, only from the requirement of military detention.

Civil rights organization such as the ACLU are vehemently opposed to the NDAA. In their view “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this or future presidents to militarily detain people captured from any battlefield.” The call for action by this coalition of activists concerned by freedom and civil liberties is “No more left, no more right, time to unite. Stand and fight”.

Joseph Snook, from Wake Up America Southern Oregon is one of the organizers of Monday’s protest. He made the following statement:” A group of conservatives, Libertarians, and Tea Party activists by the name of Wake Up America Southern Oregon is proud to unite with the Southern Oregon Occupy Movement to take a bold stand against the NDAA. Further, it is time that “We the People”, all of us unite!”

Emery Way from Occupy Ashland stated: “Occupy Ashland is standing with libertarians, progressives, conservatives and the Tea Party alike to speak out against the attack against our civil rights which is the NDAA. In times such as these, when the injustices of a system and a government become too large to ignore, it is vital that we stand together not as members of a political party but as fellow citizens and human beings to defend our precious freedoms.”

Indeed bills like the NDAA,  in combination with the Patriot Act, are “legal” slippery slopes giving the executive branch the legal tools to potentially impose  martial law and  crack down on political dissent in a similar repressive fashion than the one used in fascist states. Let’s hope that this type of protest and action-uniting citizens across the political spectrum- to defend basic civil rights enshrined in the US Constitution become the rule and not the exception.

Editor’s Note: All photographs by Justin Norman.

In the past thirty six hours, several stories have emerged to highlight a growing problem that threatens the continued effectiveness, and perhaps the very existence, of the Occupy movement.  Left-wing politicos have come out against radical tactics such as those of the Black Bloc.  Establishment activists involved in Occupy seek to end the actual occupations recently raided by police in favor of more traditional, less radical models. And, President Obama has decided that accepting Super-PAC money for his campaign machine is now acceptable.

That last reference may seem disconnected, but, once you understand the dynamic that has been developing within the Occupy movement, you will see how the possibility exists that Super-PAC money could find its way into supporting a kinder, gentler, more establishment friendly Occupy movement.

There has been a struggle within Occupy for the control of the leaderless, horizontally organized movement.  Professional activists, equipped with the resources of the establishment that employs them, offered structure to the chaotic beginnings of this fledgling populous uprising.  Everything from tents and sleeping bags to organizational structure, General Assembly facilitation, Internet platforms, and targets for the populous anger of Occupiers was readily provided by well-connected insiders.

This was not an insidious conspiracy perpetrated by evil people.  Many professional activists firmly believe that they are doing the right thing.  Many of them are doing very good things.  Unfortunately, for all their good intentions, many of them are a part of the very establishment that the Occupy movement is protesting, and the good work they do actually serves to legitimize that system.

These professional activists did not come with a malicious intent to co-opt and destroy Occupy.  Not all of them, anyway.  Some may have been seeking only to serve their resume, or their pay-check, but others came with sincere intent to do good.  This does not, however, change the fact that the establishment that they are a part of, and that they bring into the Occupy movement, is a serious danger.

The leaderless nature of Occupy left an unintentional vacuum that these organized and structured activists filled.  Now, almost five months later, the movement is starting to look more like the lame attempts of the past than the agent of courageous and radical change it promised. Except perhaps Oakland. The problem gets compounded when these establishment activists not only monopolize the agenda and choose the targets of the populous movement, but dictate its strategy and tactics as well.  After decades of campaigns that have failed to move the political dial in any direction other than against the 99%, professional arrogance still drives them to insist that they should play a leading role.

Occupy Wall Street’s on-line discussions have worried over how to solve the problem of ‘disruptive outsiders’ for the ‘connected insiders.’  Many of those that actually occupied the public spaces were referred to as if unworthy, bothersome, and too full of dissent and challenges to a preordained agenda to associate with the pompous authors of these missives whose words made them seem more intent on earning their place in society as the next generation of bleeding heart Liberals, sipping their lattes, dreaming of limousines.

Seemingly towards that same end, OccupyDC has instituted an ironically controlling model of facilitation and consensus building that uses strict process to tightly control the groups deliberations and limit any dissension, thus allowing little resistance to proposed agenda items.  Similar problems exist in most of the major city occupations.  The General Assemblies in many cities experienced near, if not outright mutinies because of these controlling tactics only to, all too often, fall victim to the same problems once again.  The Occupy movement seems to have its own internal 1%, and, in this microcosm, success will only come when the 99% finds emancipation here as well.

As a result, in America, a populous uprising in solidarity with the 99% around the globe is rapidly becoming the play-thing of privileged white kids, in one of the worlds most privileged countries, using the Occupy movement to further their career goals and/or narrow its focus to domestic, and even partisan issues.  What started out as our best last chance for revolutionary change, true emancipation, and a sustainable future, is devolving into just another vehicle for doing good deeds for the unwashed masses while leaving the system that enslaves them intact.  Their rhetoric says “empower all,” but their underlying methods ensure that they maintain control.

Occupy, or at least that portion of it that has come under the spell of the establishment, seems to have forgotten its end game.  Five months ago, protesters occupied public spaces across the country in order to take their democracy back from the 1% that purchased it.  Now, they have declarations that include every social issue imaginable, and are so long that you can forget why you came there before you get half way through them.  Rather than stay on point and emancipate themselves from the appropriating class that lords over them so that they can reclaim their democracy and deal with these issues, they’ve been tricked into bringing all the issues in with them.  And… it’s about to get a whole lot worse.

After the past weeks rash of police raids, leveling the last and longest standing occupations in the country, establishment activists are pushing to forget about occupying the public spaces and focus on issue related goals.  This will divide the movement and bring it completely inside the establishment activist structure.  Rather than take to the streets and fight as a united 99% against the 1%, as part of a GLOBAL movement, occupiers are being asked to choose among the many existing domestic social campaigns and work for reform within the current establishment that wants to capitalize in the Occupy brand.  Good programs, but not what Occupy, and the global movement it claims to be part of, represents.

Last month I wrote a post about an employee of the Democratic Party campaign machine within Occupy DC.    The post focused on an employee of NGP VAN (the consulting firm that runs the Democratic campaigning machine), who was very active within OccupyDc, and hosted a meeting at Change.org headquarters in Washington, DC, to discuss ‘coalition building’ between ‘like-minded’ organizations and the Occupy movement across America.  I was immediately attacked by establishment activists and those within Occupy DC that see them as friends.  I was summarily removed from all OccupyDC listservs and committees that I sat on, targeted with a barrage of obscenities, and threatened with physical removal if I returned to McPherson Square.

This was not done through the General Assembly.  Nor by the Spokes Council.  Neither was it done by the majority of those that actually occupied McPherson Square.  It was not the result of any restorative justice meeting or due process of any sort.  It was the arbitrary actions of the establishment activists that were enraged by my exposee’, and some others that they’ve convinced to do their bidding, who decided that they alone could grant themselves the power to do such things.  Apparently the 1% within Occupy will cling to its power as firmly, and act no less unjustly to protect their interests, as the global 1%.

With Obama’s announcement that he will now be accepting Super-PAC money, the result of the coalitions proposed in this meeting and vehemently defended by establishment activists and their naive, unwitting accomplices could very easily result in these monies filtering down to the Occupy movement.  The organizations that want to ‘build coalitions’ with Occupy are part of the Democratic Party Machine.  Their efforts and programs to support Democratic Party candidates could, and very likely would, receive funding from these super-PACs. Money raised as a direct result of the Citizens United decision could end up funding, or being used to support, the movement that should be back in the streets and public spaces fighting against it.  This is pathetic.  Where did things go wrong?

Co-option does not come like the police executing a raid.  It doesn’t twist your arm and push you into obviously compromising positions. It comes as a helpful friend, and a trusted ally.  It often comes offering needed support, material sustenance, guidance, and promises of more. Sometimes it even comes without realizing that what it intends is co-option.  You only realize that you’re in a compromised position after the damage is done.

Many of the establishment activists can honestly be described as good people trying to do things that they believe will bring improvement to the lives of many.  That doesn’t change that they are part of the establishment that the Occupy movement is supposed to be fighting against and that the improvements they offer do nothing to change the status quo or crush the power of the ruling class.   All those that offer such support are not necessarily doing so with ulterior motives, either.  Occupy is wading into deep waters, full of dolphins and sharks, and they’re wearing Lady Gaga’s meat bikini.  They need to be careful who they’re swimming with.

Not all establishment activists are necessarily a threat.  There is a big difference between activists that have been working to feed and shelter the homeless, fight for living wages and safe work places, or protect women from domestic violence, and political  ‘activists’ whose only goal is to elect a candidate deemed acceptable by a corporate owned political party.  There’s the real danger… and that’s where the deep pockets wanting to help – and ‘build coalitions with Occupy’ – are coming from.

Oakland, with its long history of direct action activism, and relative lack of establishment politicos and partisan ‘activists’, has avoided the domestication that is plaguing the Occupy movement across the country.  They’ve become the ‘wild-child’ of the Occupy movement and perhaps its only hope for a future.  They’re also scaring the living shit out of those that want a kinder, gentler Occupy movement to see them through this election year.  Occupy can, and should, learn a lot from Oakland.  Those that hold power will not give it up without a fight.  They will not be shamed into submission.

Even Gandhi’s non-violent civil disobedience was active, not passive.  Gandhi did not comply with the police, or the military.  He did not retreat.  He did not back down.  Gandhi was a shrewd strategist.  The Black Bloc only breaks windows and other material objects that symbolize the wealth of the 1% and the oppression of the rest of us.  This is not violence.   Gandhi had more in common with the Black Bloc than with obedient protesters who comply with police and watch their encampments razed right in front of them, as if it were a spectator sport, while they whine for the loss of the rights and freedoms for which they’re unwilling to take a stand.

Establishment activists, that have elevated themselves to positions of authority, have put so much emphasis on protesting with only the appearance of defiance that many protesters  have forgotten why they are protesting in the first place.  The problem has become so extreme that when I’ve asked some what their goal is, many protesters responded with “to protest peacefully.”  They’ve allowed their singular goal of emancipation from rule by the appropriating class to become so convoluted that they’ve forgotten it.  They’ve allowed a tactic imposed by those that work within the establishment to become the goal.

Being arrested as one of those protesters ‘willing to be arrested’ during a protest has become a strange ritual.  First, it is not a tactic, it is a statement, and often a statement that only serves the ego of the arrested through the retelling.  A real statement might be doing something meaningful for which you really might risk arrest, and a great tactic would be to avoid that arrest so that you can do it again.

Peaceful civil disobedience is a very strong tactic, but it is not the only one.  Rather than fight within the movement for a singular tactic against a myriad of goals, the movement should be working towards a myriad of tactics against a singular goal.  The Black Bloc, Anonymous, establishment social service advocates, the rank and file along with the entire army of workers, and peacefully civil-DISOBEDIENT occupiers should be working in concert to destabilize the system that enslaves them all, not fighting against each other about whose tactic is more correct, or more valid, while accepting money and support – even indirectly – from the establishment they purportedly seek to depose.

• Peaceful protesters sleeping in the parks will not make the bankers and politicians run out of their offices, apologize, recommit to democracy, and return all of their ill-gotten gains.

• A groundswell of activism within domestic social services alone will not destabilize the status quo.

• The rank and file, and workers in general, have been suffering decline for over thirty years and urgently need to join their efforts in solidarity with more diverse and radical tactics against the corporate juggernaut seeking to wipe them out altogether.

• While an assault on the digital records of all financial and capital holdings of the 1% would have an impact,  without physical support it will result in little more than a glitch in the system, even if it’s a serious glitch.

• And, although warriors in the street may provide fodder for corporate media while they work to both weaken and expose an oppressive police state that serves the 1%, those with the means to support, articulate, and contextualize their struggles should do precisely that.

Occupy is in danger of being redefined, divided, and domesticated as part of the establishment that provoked its genesis.  Through naivety, and a gross misunderstanding of the enemy it faces, it’s in jeopardy of being purchased by the same corporate dollars used to deny the emancipation it craves.  This cannot be allowed.

If there is a coalition to be explored, it is between Occupy, Black Bloc, Anonymous, non-partisan social activists, all workers of the country including the rank and file, and the many others who make up the 99%, without establishment strings attached, that can bring a diversity of tactics to a singular goal.  Not the other way around.  Right now, some within Occupy are building bridges with the establishment and walls between the 99%.   This tactic to destroy Occupy must be stopped.   The 99%, in all its forms, with all its diversity of tactics, must come together and focus on a singular goal against the establishment that supports the 1%, rather than be divided against each other and dispersed among a myriad of goals by that establishment.

But should the Mayor of Stepford wrap up the nomination, don’t expect to see a lot of elephants dancing in the streets. Watch Romney’s performance at the debates, on the stump or TV and its easy to see why there’s an enthusiasm deficit among Republican voters. To borrow Gertrude Stein’s assessment of Oakland, California: there is no ‘there’ there.

But Romney’s formidable lack of conviction and his stiff, occasionally scolding game show host demeanor are nothing compared to all the unanswered questions about his personal wealth, corporate raider pedigree and that prickly matter of elusive tax returns.

What exactly is Mitt Romney hiding? And how long can he hide it? I was struck by his facile audacity when MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell asked him about publicizing his tax returns last week. He swatted the suggestion away like a pesky fly in his campaign ointment. “It’s not required,” he said. Then, when pressed again, said if elected, “I’ll consider releasing them.” Really? We all know such an aristocratic whiff wouldn’t be ignored for long.

And now we’re starting to learn– what many of us have long suspected– Romney’s not paying his fair share.

Hiding assets and dodging the tax burden may be emblematic of Romney’s corrupt hypocrisy. Check out the trailer of the short Romney doc produced by Winning Our Future, a Super Pac supporting Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich who bitterly promised to fight on after a disappointing fourth place Iowa finish ( fueled largely by the Romney Super PAC ad campaign against him), has softened his direct approach. A little. He served nary a solid hard ball against Romney in Saturday night’s debate (taking heavier jabs at Santorum and Ron Paul), but came out with a stronger swing on Sunday. Newt called Romney out on both his “weak moderation” and “pious baloney,” the latter referring to Romney’s insistence that he is the only non-politician running.

Whether the nasty Newt plays hardball in South Carolina and beyond or not may not matter. The damage has been done. And he ( or his surrogates; always fun to watch them dodge and weave around any actual responsibility) just handed the Dems great campaign ammo.

Of course, I hope Gingrich, Santorum and Paul stick it out for the long haul. Keep Willard spending his Monopoly money, wear down what reputation he has left, and keep the political junkies amused. Hey, Kim Kardashian can get re-married and divorced again before this one is all over. It’s the best Reality TV show going.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.