Month: September 2011

Since the Yankees and Tigers are in a long rain-delay, I thought I’d talk a little baseball. I haven’t paid much attention to baseball this season. It seems like I pay a little less attention each year. But I find it hard to believe that the Red Sox let manager Terry Francona go. They went from 1918 to 2004 without winning a championship. Then Francona became manager and they won two championships in eight years. He’s probably better as a manager than all but one or two of his players are as players. If the team had bad chemistry, they’d be better off changing players than getting rid of one of the top managers in the game. And who is going to replace him? Bobby Valentine? Valentine and the Fenway Faithful will be like oil and vinegar.

As for this year’s World Series, I’ll be thrilled with a Yankees-Cardinals matchup. I’ve wanted to see the matchup my whole life. Another Yankees-Phillies matchup would be awesome. If the Yanks don’t make it, I hope the Tigers go to the series. Cardinals-Tigers would be cool. I just don’t want to see the Diamondbacks, Rays, or Rangers in the Series. If the Brewers make a run, I’ll be happy for them. This is probably their best chance to win a World Series because I don’t think they’ll be able to hold the team together for next year.

Who are you pulling for?

What’s bigger? Chris Christie’s girth or Newt Gingrich’s self-regard?

I am seriously considering the possibility that someone put some strong hallucinogens in the coffee at the New York Times. How else can we explain the column David Brooks produced this morning? It’s as if he was pondering why conservatives attack the concept of empathy and he started daydreaming. Gee, maybe empathy really isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. I mean sometimes juries award lesser sentences on convicts who look sad. And, doesn’t empathy lead directly to nepotism? Of course it does! You know what really makes you a better person? It’s not empathy, it’s finding a dime in a phone booth. Did you know that some Nazis were a little verklempt about mowing Jews down with machine guns? How did that empathy work out?

I mean, sweet Jesus, someone give the man a Benzo.

Not that I necessarily believe every accusation leveled at Anwar al-Awlaki in this Washington Post piece, but assuming most of it is accurate I can’t see much of a difference between what he has been doing and what Usama bin-Laden was doing in the lead-up to 9/11. The only difference is that al-Awlaki was an American citizen. And because he was an American citizen he presumably had some rights that bin-Laden did not. In the eyes of the administration he forfeited those rights. They killed him this morning with a predator drone strike somewhere in the hills of Yemen.

On the one hand, I can’t help but feel a sense of relief. He has been linked to several attacks and plots against the West, including in Canada. He was an inspiration for many more plots and attacks he was not directly involved in. He actively called for Muslims to attack American citizens, which does raise serious questions about whether we should honor his citizenship.

On the other hand, this is very problematic. An American citizen has been killed by the U.S. government without any judicial process. The evidence against him has not been tested in any court. Some of the evidence is available to the public, such as recordings of his sermons and videos he posted on the Internet. There’s no doubt that he incited violence against U.S. interests and innocent civilians. But the more damning evidence, such as his role in the Christmas bombing plot, is circumstantial and based on the say-so of our intelligence agencies.

Here’s my problem. Based on what the government says it knew, I can understand that they did not want to leave this man free to continue his activities. It’s our government’s responsibility to keep us safe, and this man was quite dangerous. I also understand that capturing him was impractical. It’s a highly unusual situation that our laws are not presently designed to address. I don’t know if a similar situation will ever present itself again, but we need to craft our laws in a way that can account for this type of situation so that there is some legal review of some sort before a U.S. citizen can be assassinated by his own government.

Because, let’s face it, without any legal process, the government could manufacture evidence against a U.S. citizen who is a harsh critic and who gives sermons that incite people against U.S. policies. We don’t know what the line is where the government can disregard a citizen’s rights, declare him an enemy of the state, and kill him. Even if we agree that al-Awlaki crossed it, we don’t know at what point he crossed it. And it’s not a simple question to answer.

Is the only reason it was permissible to kill him because it was not practicable to capture him? Can we codify that in law? Or, was it permissible to kill him because of things he said? If I lose my temper and call for the killing of some U.S. citizens, can my citizenship be stripped? Can the government drop a bomb on my house? Do I have less right to the courts if I’m living in Amsterdam instead of Pennsylvania? Shouldn’t there be a legal review for stripping people of their citizenship before they can be treated extrajudicially?

Remember that we are relying heavily on the government’s story here. It may be convincing in this case, but nothing prevents the government from lying or exaggerating or telling us things that would never stand up in court.

Congress should not just applaud this successful elimination of a deadly enemy. They should get to work figuring out a legal process that can account for a situation where a U.S. citizen is making war against us and cannot be captured and brought home for trial. I would advise some criterion be created for first stripping someone of their citizenship, and it should be a very high bar that must be met to the satisfaction of a panel of judges. Because, if we don’t create something like that, this action this morning will create a terrible precedent that can be abused by future administrations.

This is the finalized  call to action  of #OccupyWallStreet as posted at NYC General Assembly | The Official Website of the GA at #occupywallstreet.

Declaration of the Occupation of New York City
Posted on September 30, 2011 by NYCGA

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.

They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.

They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless nonhuman animals, and actively hide these practices.

They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.

They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.

They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.

They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.

They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.

They have sold our privacy as a commodity.

They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.

They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.

They have donated large sums of money to politicians supposed to be regulating them.

They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.

They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantive profit.

They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.

They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.

They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.

They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.

They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.

They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts. *

To the people of the world,

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

Join us and make your voices heard!

*These grievances are not all-inclusive.

.

Anwar al-Awlaki Killed: Officials in Yemen Confirm Al Qaeda Cleric Dead

(ABC News) – The American-born radical cleric al-Qaeda Anwar al-Awlaki, a major jihadist figure who U.S. officials say inspired several terror plots against the U.S., was killed overnight in Yemen, U.S. and Yemeni officials told ABC News.

A senior U.S. official told ABC News the U.S. had been tracking al-Awlaki for some time and had just been waiting for the perfect moment to strike. A Yemeni official said al-Awlaki was killed along with an unknown number of al Qaeda confederates, possibly in an airstrike.

“They were waiting for the right opportunity to get him away from any civilians,” a senior administration official said.

Born in New Mexico and educated in Colorado, al-Awlaki rose to prominence among extremists as a member of the al-Qaeda affiliate al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and was a vocal preacher of jihad. His online teachings have been cited as part of the motivation behind several attacks on the U.S. homeland — from the Fort Hood Massacre to the attempted Christmas Day bombing and the Times Square bomb plot.

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

Your early morning moment of awe brought to you by NASA (you know one of those socialist organizations that’s stealing our tax dollars and probably giving them to aliens who will take away all our guns):

Here’s the description of this unusual event from NASA’s Video Gallery:

This gorgeous view of the aurora was taken from the International Space Station as it crossed over the southern Indian Ocean on September 17, 2011. The sped-up movie spans the time period from 12:22 to 12:45 PM ET.

While aurora are often seen near the poles, this aurora appeared at lower latitudes due to a geomagnetic storm – the insertion of energy into Earth’s magnetic environment called the magnetosphere – caused by a coronal mass ejection from the sun that erupted …

The Irish Presidential campaign finally enters its formal campaign phase with the deadline for valid nominations closing at 12.00 noon yesterday. Polling day is the 27th. October. A record 7 candidates have managed to reach the minimum threshold for nomination – the support of 20 members of either house of parliament or four county councils. The office of President itself is largely a ceremonial one so the campaign focus is on personalities and on social/moral/value issues which tells us much about how Irish voters see themselves and want to see themselves represented in Ireland and beyond.

The three most significant events in the lead up to the campaign were the failure of Fianna Fail – the major party of Government since the founding of the state – to nominate any candidate; the nomination by Sinn Fein of Martin McGuinness, the Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland; and the resurrection of the campaign by David Norris who had earlier withdrawn his candidacy in the face of a controversy surrounding the letters he had written to the Israeli High Court in support of a clemency plea for his former partner on a charge of statutory rape of a Palestinian minor.

The campaign seems destined to be dominated by controversies surrounding McGuinness’ former role as an IRA commander, and Norris’ judgement in supporting a former partner on statutory rape charges. However the range of candidates on offer is likely to confer a significance to the campaign out of all proportion to the importance of the Office of President itself. The seven declared candidates (in order of their level of first preference support in a recent opinion poll in brackets) are as follows:
David Norris, Independent, (21%)

Instrumental in the elimination of discrimination against gays in Ireland and a long time champion of civil and human rights generally. I have mixed feelings about his candidacy and feel he will do well on first preferences but lose out to a blander candidate on transfers of lower preference votes.  However, the very fact that he retains substantial support in the wake of the scandal surrounding his views on pederasty and support for a former partner convicted of statutory rape in Israel is a sign of how far Irish public morality has moved in the past two decades.  He deserves a significant amount of the credit for that change, and if nothing else, will enliven what could have been a very dull campaign.

Michael D. Higgins, Labour, (18%)

A long-standing Labour member of parliament and cabinet minister, Michael D., as he is popularly known, has a distinguished record on human rights issues and has also written books as a sociologist and poet. Now 70 years of age, his candidacy has uncomfortable echoes of the time when Áras an Uachtaráin – the Presidential Mansion – was seen as a retirement home for senior politicians. However it would be unfair to typecast him as a typical establishment figure and he is likely to do well on transfers of lower preference votes.

Martin McGuinness, Sinn Fein,(16%)

Together with Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness has been the key leader of Sinn Fein and leading architect of the Peace Process.  He has never hidden his early membership of the IRA but there is controversy as to how prominent he was in its military activities – with many security briefings describing him as its Chief of Staff. Although many of the founding members of the Irish state and prominent members of early governments had backgrounds in the fight for independence and 1922 civil war, many regard his candidacy as inappropriate as the President is titular head of the Irish Army which was only so recently at war with the IRA. He may not do well on transfers of lower preference votes, but his candidacy is a brilliant coup by Sinn Fein exploiting the failure of Fianna Fail to nominate a candidate and could well allow Sinn Fein to supplant Fianna Fail as the third largest party in the state at the next general election.

Mary Davis, Independent, (13%)

A prominent disability campaigner and CEO of the 2003 Special Olympics World Summer Games, Mary Davis’ main handicap is that many feel that three Presidents in a row named Mary might be a bit much! (She would be following in the footsteps of Presidents Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese). However she is politically savvy, genuinely independent, and very transfer friendly, so she may well be the dark horse of the campaign.

Gay Mitchell, Fine Gael, (13%)

Gay Mitchell is a socially conservative working class politician in a middle class dominated Fine Gael party who upset the party leadership by challenging their preferred nominee for the election – Pat Cox, former President of the European Parliament. Never a Cabinet Minister, he has nevertheless been a reasonably active member of the European Parliament and is a proven vote getter in his Dublin bailiwick. With Fine Gael’s popular support still at c. 40% in the polls, he has failed to inspire even his own party’s core vote but the presence of Norris and McGuinness on the ballot paper is sure to mobilise more conservative Fine Gael voters and I would expect him to poll considerably better than current opinion polls indicate.

Sean Gallagher, Independent, (11%)

At 49, the youngest candidate in the race, Sean Gallagher is running as a former farmer, youth worker, community activist, entrepreneur, and current reality TV personality whilst downplaying the fact that he was, until last year, a member of the Fianna Fail national executive and their Director of Elections in his local constituency.  The Fianna Fail brand has become so toxic in the wake of the banking scandals that Fianna Fail have failed to nominate a candidate of their own to avoid humiliation and Sean Gallagher will probably get much of their residual vote whilst claiming to be running as an Independent.

Dana Rosemary Scallon, Independent, (6%)

Dana is a former Eurovision Song Contest winner, MEP, and conservative Christian broadcaster in the USA who received 14% of the vote in the last contested Irish Presidential election in 1997. Although there is undoubtedly still a strong social conservative vote in Ireland which will be energised by the presence of Norris and McGuinness on the ballot paper, she has been languishing in the polls probably because she is seen as something of a relic from a bygone age when conservative Catholicism was the unquestioned prevailing ruling ideology of the land. Her transfers will probably go mainly to McGuinness (a fellow northerner) and Gay Mitchell, a another relatively socially conservative candidate.

—–

The 7 candidates provide quite a wide spectrum of political views ranging from the nationalist left of Martin McGuinness and the traditional left of Michael D. Higgins to the socially progressive David Norris and the more conservative Dana and Gay Mitchell. Because this is a single transferable vote  election where voters vote 1,2,3 in order of their preference, the final outcome is likely to be determined by 4, 5, 6 and 7th. preference votes which tends to favour the blander and more centrist candidates who do not actively repel centrist or moderate voters. Opinion polls in the early stages of a presidential campaign are notoriously inaccurate guides of final voting behaviour, and any of the top five candidates above probably still have a realistic chance of being elected.

In many ways this election is but a distraction from the very real economic and political problems facing the nation, and yet the campaign will undoubtedly contribute to a sense that the Irish polity is still capable of generating the democratic legitimacy which has played a significant role in preventing riots in the street as in Greece. If Norris is elected, he may be the only openly gay head of state in the World. If McGuinness is elected it will confer legitimacy to a recent urban guerilla campaign and set Sinn Fein up to replace Fianna Fail as a major force in Irish politics. Mary Davis would continue a recent tradition of strong, independently minded women in the highest office in the land and Michael D. Higgins would help to cement the rise of Labour as the second largest party in the state. A success for Gay Mitchell would provide a further popular endorsement for the relatively conservative policies of the Fine Gael led government.

The Office of President may not, of itself, be particularly powerful, but the campaign and result of this election will give an interesting insight into how the Irish polity is developing in response to the current economic and political crisis in Ireland and Europe.

.

SIGTARP Report: Lenders left Tarp too soon, says audit

(FT/Huffington Post) – SIGTARP’s findings do little to change widespread impressions that the government’s Wall Street rescue handed out billions of dollars in taxpayer funds without extracting lasting change in return, with many institutions able to continue operating much as they had before the crisis.

Citigroup, Wells Fargo, PNC and Bank of America successfully lobbied to leave the federal bailout program early in 2009, even though the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation had recommended they take additional steps to shore up their assets. According to SIGTARP, in 2009, these four banks repeatedly tried to leave the bailout program, also known as TARP, ahead of schedule, claiming that the stigma attached to the bailout would damage investor confidence in their stability.

Bank of America was especially persistent, submitting 11 separate exit proposals to the Federal Reserve Board in less than a month. The banks, particularly Citigroup and Bank of America, also expressed concern that if they stayed in TARP, they would be subject to the program’s restrictions on executive compensation.

Between December 2009 and February 2010, all four banks were allowed to repay their bailout funds and leave TARP, even though doubts remained about whether they’d taken sufficient steps to secure a big enough safety cushion of capital. In the end, the process by which these banks exited TARP was “ad hoc and inconsistent,” the report says.

BofA exited Tarp on December 9 2009, when its share price closed at $15.39. It has since plunged about 60 per cent. It closed at $6.35 yesterday.

• Geithner’s Treasury Continues to Oppose Imposition of Conflict-of-Interest Barriers

Finance regulator crafts new derivatives rules with outside help

(Sunlight Foundation) Oct. 14, 2010 – Morgan Stanley representatives attended sixteen meetings, according to the disclosures. Morgan Stanley recently decided to move parts of its derivatives trading desk from the outside broker-dealer where it is currently housed to the larger umbrella of the bank itself. The bank is also viewed as the bank least hurt by any new regulation of derivatives trading.

The other bank which is expected to feel little pain from new regulation is Goldman Sachs. Goldman representatives also attended sixteen different meetings with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Among all bank holding companies, Goldman Sachs is the most dependent upon trading for revenue with estimates that $11.3 billion to $15.8 billion of their 2009 revenue–$45.2 billion–came from derivatives trading alone. Goldman’s representatives were often accompanied by Peter Malyshev, a former CTFC staffer-turned-lobbyist.

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

If you haven’t heard about this already, the NY Transit Workers Union (TWU) Local 100 voted to join the protestors in the financial District of New York City, and so have the Verizon union members. Other unions, including the Teamsters (yes, those Teamsters who once supported Ronald Reagan) have issued public statements of support for Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests. Here’s a link to a business publication about this story:

A member of TWU Local 100 told a reporter that they would join the protest Friday at 4PM. […]

Occupy Wall Street has been picking up some decent support from unions in the past few days. Yesterday we reported that the Teamsters Union declared their support for protestors, and we also found out that the United Pilots Union had members at the protest demonstrating in uniform.

Today we learned the Industrial Workers of the World put a message of support on their website as well.

… Verizon union workers have joined the protestors in NYC.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/a-massive-union-just-voted-to-side-with-the-wall-street-protesters-2011-9#ixzz1ZNNy1Cpz

It should be noted that OWS is a non-violent protest movement despite the best efforts of the conservative media and blogs to spin the story that they represent thugs, criminals, etc. Indeed, the only real violence we have seen has been from certain NYPD offciers and commanders (I don’t wish to impugn all of the members of the NYPD by the actions of a few), particularly this individual, Tony Bologna (how apt a name):

It would be foolish at this point for National Democrats, especially members of the Progressive Caucus to keep standing on the sideline. Whether the heads of the major Democratic Party organizations (DNC, DSCC, Obama for America, DCCC, etc.) like it or not, the people (mostly young people, but that is changing, too) have decided the Democratic Party is not an effective mechanism to change the system, a system that is bleeding old and young alike, not only of money, jobs but also hopes and dreams.

My question for the major national Democratic political leaders is when will you come out to actively support OWS and attend the protests yourself in a display of solidarity? I won’t hold my breath, but it is my belief that failing to join with the people who organized this movement, or at the very least express support for the protestors, will be detrimental to Democrats in the 2012 elections. Whether you like it or not, these people are a major part of the base that helped Democrats obtain control of Congress in 2006 and elect the President in 2008. If the party ignores and abandons them, hoping to shove them under the rug, while still maintaining cozy relationships with Wall Street financiers who would love to see a Republican in the White House, as Senate Majority Leader and as Speaker of the House–well, I see that as the Democrats collectively offering Wall Street and Republicans the opportunity to cut Dem candidates off at the knees in November 2012.

The country is ripe for the message the protesters are pushing, even if no one in Big Corporate Media is willing to accept that yes, they do have a message. And that message is not hard to divine: simply stated, it is time to stop enabling the casino operators and Banksters on Wall Street and fight for the working poor and middle class, the elderly on fixed incomes and everyone else who has seen their dreams deferred extinguished by the “Protect the Top 1% Firsters.” Why do you think the Republican candidates try so desperately to portray themselves as populists and not as aiders and abetters of the corporations and speculators who robbed us (we the people and our governments, state, local and federal) with their full acquiescence during the Bush years?

Because they fear a Democratic party that would actually support and promote a genuine reform movement and a reform agenda, rather than the one that exists now: weak, indecisive and still trolling for campaign cash on their knees from the very same people who hate their guts. Let me quote to you these words from Glenn Greenwald with which I agree:

A [significant] aspect of this progressive disdain is grounded in the belief that the only valid form of political activism is support for Democratic Party candidates, and a corresponding desire to undermine anything that distracts from that goal. Indeed, the loyalists of both parties have an interest in marginalizing anything that might serve as a vehicle for activism outside of fealty to one of the two parties (Fox News’ firing of Glenn Beck was almost certainly motivated by his frequent deviation from the GOP party-line orthodoxy which Fox exists to foster).

The very idea that one can effectively battle Wall Street’s corruption and control by working for the Democratic Party is absurd on its face: Wall Street’s favorite candidate in 2008 was Barack Obama, whose administration — led by a Wall Street White House Chief of Staff and Wall-Street-subservient Treasury Secretary and filled to the brim with Goldman Sachs officials — is now working hard to protect bankers from meaningful accountability (and though he’s behind Wall Street’s own Mitt Romney in the Wall Street cash sweepstakes this year, Obama is still doing well); one of Wall Street’s most faithful servants is Chuck Schumer, the money man of the Democratic Party; and the second-ranking Senate Democrat acknowledged — when Democrats controlled the Congress — that the owners of Congress are bankers. There are individuals who impressively rail against the crony capitalism and corporatism that sustains Wall Street’s power, but they’re no match for the party apparatus that remains fully owned and controlled by it.

But much of this progressive criticism consists of relatively (ostensibly) well-intentioned tactical and organizational critiques of the protests: there wasn’t a clear unified message; it lacked a coherent media strategy; the neo-hippie participants were too off-putting to Middle America; the resulting police brutality overwhelmed the message, etc. etc. That’s the high-minded form which most progressive scorn for the protests took: it’s just not professionally organized or effective.

As Glenn notes, these criticisms seem at best wrong-headed and misinformed, and at worst the result of sheer envy that someone other than “professional” Democratic activists are being held up as champions of the “little guy and gal.” Yet, why would a young man or woman, a recent graduate say of a university who cannot find a job or can only find work that is menial in nature, much less the vast numbers of other, older unemployed and under-employed Americans, not feel legitimately that the President and the Democratic Party let them down?

I know some don’t like to hear the comparison, but FDR was willing to be hated in order to pass legislation that would save Wall Street and Big Business from their own greed and short-term thinking. Obama, despite being hated no matter what he does, has consistently presented himself as a man willing to compromise with the very political adversaries who would impeach him if they could, and who have stated that their only goal is not to help the country’s economy improve and lessen the suffering of the millions of people harmed by the “Great Recession,” but to defeat Obama in 2012.

Appearances (or as we now say “perceptions”) are everything, and the Republicans and conservatives, and their wealthy funders such as the Koch brothers, have been winning the perception war since the day Obama took office (some might even argue since before he took office). The perception, which I believe is an accurate one for the most part (though it really doesn’t matter what I believe), is that Obama has been too weak or too compromising in negotiating with conservative Democrats and Republicans and too reluctant to aggressively back promote progressive policies and his progressive supporters. The other perception many hold is that he has been too willing to embrace policies that Republicans supported when Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich ruled the House roost in the mid-90’s. I won’t bother with all the evidence that supports these perceptions because that isn’t my point. The point is that this is how many Americans, right or left, view Obama and by association the Democratic party. You cannot change those perceptions unless you are willing to take aggressive and, yes, risky actions to reverse them.

And yes, I know about Obama’s “Jobs Plan” but is anyone listening to him at this point? Not among the many working class and rural white Americans who have been deceived by the Fox News propaganda machine, not among many in his own party (as evidenced by the news of discontent with Obama’s continual attempts at rapprochement with the House Republicans and Speaker John Boehner during the debt ceiling debacle) and certainly not among many of the very activists whose tireless efforts in 2008 made the election of our first non-white President a reality three years ago.

The major accomplishment that the Obama administration and his defenders point to again and again is the health care reform legislation known as the Affordable care Act. Yet, as many of us know, that legislation is deeply flawed, gave away far too much to the Pharmaceutical and Insurance Industries and has not yet been viewed by the public as a panacea for our health care systems failures–and with good reason. People are still paying too much for lousy insurance, many of the most important provisions of the bill don’t kick in until 2013 or later, and if the Republicans win the presidency in 2012 (something I think is far more likely to occur than many Democrats realize) the ACA will be repealed and Paul Ryan’s “Killing Medicare Softly” proposal will be reinvigorated and re-introduced in Congress.

Yet, even assuming Obama wins re-election, in 2016, if this economy has not completely reversed course, guess what? Say hello to Mr. or Ms. Republican President who will work to repeal the ACA and kill Medicare as soon as he or she takes the oath of office. As it is, Medicaid might already have been terminated long before 2016 depending on what happens over the next half-decade. Meanwhile, nothing is being done to create jobs now despite all the rhetoric issuing from Washington.

Yet, in the face of this inaction it is the Republicans, especially the Tea Party version, who are united. By their sheer stubbornness they are destroying our economy by refusing to take any action that would increase demand for goods and services. Many progressives, meanwhile, are in disarray, and President Obama’s main concern appears to be re-election by any means necessary.

Sadly, his political advisers seem to think that the protestors on Wall Street and other young activists not under his campaign’s direct control are his enemies and not the allies he needs, and that his party needs. They are needed because the Democrats lack a true populist counter-movement to the Tea Party extremists, who despite their unpopularity in the polls continue to dominate both the rank and file of the Republican base and a significant faction of its elected officials. Considering the media advantage these radicals enjoy, I find it difficult to believe that Democrats will make major gains in the House and Senate in 2012 so long as the American people are not presented with a alternative movement from the left, one just as dedicated and just as devoted to their causes.

The OWS may appear to be just DFH’s at present, but I believe that any Democrat who stands up to actively and publicly support them will benefit from doing so. Elizabeth Warren seems the most likely Democrat who might take that plunge, but I would settle for anyone, even people out of power such as Howard Dean. The more the Democrats ally themselves with these young people, the more this movement will grow, the more it will diversify and the more attention it will garner.

Frankly, I sincerely believe this may be a turning point in our democracy. The Democratic party can sit on the sidelines and watch to see if they survive the negativity and deliberate refusal to cover the movement by the media elites, or they can jump in with both feet now and promote and support this movement.

I’d prefer the Democratic party stand for something other than “We’re Not as Bad as Republicans,” which other than the 2008 election seems to be the party’s default position over the course of my lifetime. Is it a risk? Sure, but one I believe will best serve the the Democrats in the coming elections and our country’s people in the long term as well. If Democrats do not act to support this movement, however, I believe they simply cede the field to the Republican activists and Christian Dominionists, while sheltering behind their safe walled blue enclaves hoping the people will someday wise up and return them to power. Well, I have news for you, the last time that strategy of passive defense worked in politics was — never.

So what is it going to be, Mr. and Ms. Democratic Politician? Stand and fight beside the people you say you support, or sit this one out because that’s what the conventional wisdom is whispering in your ear?