Morning Java: IRS Scandal? Really! How About Citizens United Scandal?

Enjoy while the caffeine kicks-in!!!! “The World As 100 People,”  to go along with your Sumatra,  Kopi Luwak Indonesian, Kenya AA, Tanzanian, French Roast, Kona Coast, ‘Black Ivory’ [Thai Elephant Dong],  Jamaica Blue Mountain, Ethiopian Yirgacheffe, Costa Rican, Espresso,  Moyobama Peruvian Organic, Indonesian Blend, Coffee Latte, Kauai Blend (often bitter), Colombian Red Lips, or your Folgers 100% Colombian. Coffees of the World

The issues surrounding the IRS and its “targeting” of conservative groups poses a bit of a dichotomy for me.  

First, I am not one who relishes government peeping at its citizenry unless that citizen has proven via their actions they are a direct threat to the greater society. All to often, we read or hear about a vile acts and wonder, “Now, why was that person not under arrest, or why was that person no being watched?”  I will grant backing away from my conviction regarding government scrutiny in that case and that case only.  In  fact, I found it most distasteful to read about the FBI’s involvement in the psychical “squashing” of the Occupy Wall Street movement, even though I knew physical manifestation of the movement would be very short-lived. The FBI must have infiltrated, spied upon, and guided local authorities in strategies to rid cities of the physical encampments.

As a liberal, rest assured I would be mighty upset if the IRS targeted groups that carried “liberal” titles. I will add, however  conservative groups generally choose identifiers that denote themselves as conservative. 

On a secondary basis, I recognize that there are times when dynamics place pressure points of systems and those systems need additional “propping-up”; for lack of a more expedient term. One such dynamic was the Citizens United SCOTUS Decision in 2010.  It should be noted that the Koch Brothers are major contributors to the founding of citizen’s United.  Do you think for one second the Koch Brothers have interest in so called, “social programs” regarding federal governance? Enough said on that point, for now. Post Citizens United the number of requests for 501 (c)(4) certification grew exponentially. despite Justice Alito’s consternation and mouthing, “that’s not true  at the President State of the Union Speech, the president’s words became prophetic.

Characteristics	501(c)3	501(c)4	527
Ability to engage in politics	Not supposed to engage in any political activities, though some voter registration activities are permitted	May engage in political activities, as long as these activities do not become their primary purpose	Politics is what 527s are *required* to do
Endorsing Candidates	CANNOT Endorse Candidates	CAN Endorse Candidates	CAN Endorse AND Field Candidates
Campaign Spending	Prohibited	Permitted but taxed	Required
Lobbying	Some lobbying	Substantial lobbying	No direct lobbying
General Political Advocacy (not related to legislation or the election of candidates.)	Yes, as an educational activity.)	Yes, provided it is not the primary activity of the organization	Yes
Contributions	Able to accept unlimited, tax-deductible donations	Able to accept unlimited, non tax-deductible donations	Able to accept limited (based on FEC regulations), non tax- deductible donations.
Donor Reporting	Donors kept anonymous.	Donors kept anonymous.	Donors are publicly reported.
Must apply with the IRS	YES	NO	YES

Outside the Beltway published the following analysis, and for me it seems very credible and laden with facts. 

The following chart, included in the IRS audit, demonstrates that in the wake of Citizens United, there was a marked increase (~40% a year) in the number of 501(c)4 applications being submitted to the IRS.

Let me note that this period—2010 to 2012—also saw the maturation of the Tea Party. And research into Tea Party communities shows that the accepted wisdom was that new Tea Party chapters should immediately file as 501(c)4 organizations. Ironically, of the three organization tax designations in question—501(c)3, 501(c)4, and 527—only 501(c)4 allows for a group to self-declare their status without first filing with the IRS. The advantage to filing is official recognition, which is only necessary if an outsider challenges the group’s 501(c)4 status. Otherwise, for all intents and purposes, the only thing required to operate as a 501(c)4 is to say that you‘re a 501(c)4. 

Getting back to the IRS scandal, the broader point I’m trying to make is that, whether intentional or not, the very structure of 501(c)4, combined with the Citizens United decision, and the rise of the Tea Party, unexpectedly transformed the 501(c)4 from simply being about social welfare to being about politics. And that this was, generally speaking, a relatively rapid change.The scenario so far is as follows.

We have Tax law written as far back as 1959 without modification for post Ronald Reagan 1980s GOP politics.

We have a selectively crafted SCOTUS heavily stacked with judicial activist by GOP presidents. Heck, the SCOTUS could have included the Neanderthal Robert Bork. Did you know Bork was Romney’s Chief Legal Advisers?

We have a Citizens United decision in favor of an organization the the Koch Brothers heavily support and fund.

We have  a Koch Brothers funded tea party replete with anti-government sycophants, armed  domestic terrorist brandishing weapons in public, racist signage and placards and a need for funding operations. As you know, people with people dislike two things about contributing. They generally do not want to be taxed, and in the case of political contributions they have no desire to have their names associated with their contributions. Thus, the circular and existential threat of Citizens United.

We have the coming 2011/2012 election campaigns with a green Citizens United light for secretive contributions.

What we really have is the smell of a rat!


I have read reports that progressive groups were also delayed in approval of certification. Moreover, there are reports not of one request was denied. They were to a point all approved.  

The IREHR, Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights published a detail piece on May 17th. The piece includes data related to certification denials. 

The Tea Party and the IRS “Scandal” The Actual Facts of the Case Excerpt A May 14 draft report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that none of the 296 questionable applicants had been denied, “For the 296 potential political cases we reviewed, as of December 17, 2012, 108 applications had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied, and 160 cases were open from 206 to 1,138 calendar days (some crossing two election cycles).” (p. 14)  In fact, the only known 501(c)(4) applicant to recently have its status denied happens to be a progressive group: the Maine chapter of Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office. Although the group did no electoral work, and didn’t participate in independent expenditure campaign activity either, its partisan nature disqualified it from being categorized as working for the “common good.” The Inspector General’s report found that in the “majority of cases, we agreed that the applications submitted included indications of significant political campaign intervention.” (p. 10).  In fact, only 91 of the 296, roughly 31%, of the applications reviewed for the report did not have “indications of significant political campaign intervention.” In other words, more than two thirds of those flagged for processing by a team of specialists had those indications.

Nation of Change published a piece on Monday of this week related to what some insist on calling a scandal.  The writer at Nation of Change questions, “Scandal or Hoax.“

William Boardman  (See permission statement at article end) Published: Monday 3 June 2013 What seems much stranger, but not as surprising as it should, is that so much of the media goes on reporting as fact the partisan political version of a story that never happened. Can’t Anyone Here Play This Game Straight? Almost everything you hear and read in the media about the current IRS “scandal” is based on deliberate falsification of basic facts.  Some might call it lying.   Here’s a reasonably typical media-framing of the IRS lie, from the usually careful and accurate Economist, posted May 23:  “Even before this month’s revelation that conservative political groups applying for 501(c)(4) status were being singled out for special scrutiny….”  You see this false framing of the IRS story across the media spectrum, from Info wars to ABC News and NBC News to the Economist to DemocracyNOW! (The latter on May 24:  “the scandal over the targeted vetting of right-wing groups…).    Even the usually reliable Wonkblog at the Washington Post doesn’t get the story right, apparently because it hasn’t read the relevant law.      An exception to this remarkable mental stampede in the wrong direction was Jeffrey Toobin (New Yorker, May 14) who wondered, “Did the I.R.S. actually do anything wrong?”  His answer started to put the story in reasonable perspective, with a focus on tax law and political money:  “…the scandal isn’t what’s illegal—it’s what’s legal. It’s what society chooses not to punish that tells us most about the prevailing ethical standards of the time.”  Anatomy of a False Narrative – Lying, Laziness, Partisanship, What?  How is it that the conventional framing is dishonest?  Here are some of the ways:   1.     It wasn’t a revelation.  All kinds of people were aware of the underlying problem, that 501(c)(4) tax status abuse had been going on since 1959, and that it took a quantum leap after 2011, when the Supreme Court’s Citizens United Decision opened the democratic process to money flooding that would be facilitated by the secrecy offered by the 501(c )(4) status.   2.     There were bi-partisan public hearings on the problem scheduled by the Senate well before the “scandal” broke.   Anyone could look it up.   3.     As soon as the story broke, Lawrence O’Donnell (MSNBC The Last Word) was reporting accurately on the issue, rooted in the difference between a law that says 501(c)(4) organizations should be “exclusively” for social welfare and a 1959 IRS regulation that says, with Orwellian authority, that “exclusively” is to be interpreted to mean “primarily.”   Too many reporters and others still do not get this, even though responsible research begins with these primary sources.   4.    No one was singled out.   That’s right, no one was singled out.  The problem with 501(c)(4) applications is that the IRS mustreview every one to see if the applicant qualifies for tax-exempt status.  Given the flood of applications from political groups of all sorts post-Citizens United, the IRS needed some way to make sure those applications were “primarily” for social welfare, even though political insiders knew that had been a joke for years (Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and MoveOn.org are both IRS-approved 501(c)(4) organizations, of which there are thousands – reportedly 97,382 in 2011).      5.     There is no reason within the law that any political organization should get a tax subsidy from American taxpayers.  That is allowable only under the IRS regulations put in place in 1959 under the Eisenhower administration.  And the Congress could fix this virtually overnight by restoring “primarily” to its original meaning in the law, “exclusively.”  Perhaps, the real scandal, and a bi-partisan one at that, is that that’s not what’s happening.  6.     No one was singled out.  The IRS at some level (that eventually included Lois Lerner) made a remarkably stupid, tone deaf, inept effort to identify applications that were more likely than others to be primarily political.   Looking for applications tagged “tea party” may have reflected the reality of an inordinate number of such applications, but it was really dumb.  Using the tag “party” not only would have done the job, but would have been wholly defensible, since no political party is eligible for public tax subsidy and secrecy for its donors.   7.     No one was singled out.  The IRS net for possibly political organizations caught some 300 applications.  Of these, no more than a third were “conservative” or “tea party” or “right-wing.”  The rest were something else, including “liberal” and “left-wing.”  None of the so-called conservative group applications were denied.  Some were delayed, deservedly so, but a group can function as a 501(c)(4) with an application pending, so it’s hard to see how much damage a delay would do, if any.    8.     At least some of the groups on the right were clearly partisan and perhaps broke the law.   The New York Times of May 26 reports in a story wrongly headlined “Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics” describes several tax exempt groups that spent money on partisan activities.    9.     One of the groups, Emerge America, was granted 501(c)(4) status in 2006 in order to train women to run for elected office.  In 2012, when an IRS review showed that Emerge America was training only Democratic candidates, the IRS revoked the group’s tax-exempt status.     10. Another group calling itself “CVFC 501(c)(4)” on its application in 2010 gave its address as the same as “Combat Veterans for Congress PAC” (political action committee).   Perhaps PAC triggered a closer look.  While awaiting an IRS decision, CVFC spent almost $8,000 on radio ads for a Republican candidate.  CVFC omitted this expenditure from its 2010 tax return.  On a questionnaire asking if it had engaged directly or indirectly in political activity on behalf of a candidate, CVFC checked “NO.”  NBC News Reporting Achieves Incompetence and Partisanship  In a report on May 29, “Open Channel Investigative reporting from NBC News” (bylined Lisa Myers, Rich Gardella, Talesha Reynolds) starts with a flat-out false headline: “IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show.”   The story begins:  “Additional scrutiny of conservative organizations’ activities by the IRS did not solely originate in the agency’s Cincinnati office, with requests for information coming from other offices and often bearing the signatures of higher-ups at the agency….”    The letters don’t show that.  NBC provides two letters, and both come from and direct responses to the IRS Cincinnati office, although one letter also has an apparently hand-stamp signature for “Lois Lerner, Director, Exempt Organizations” and no address other than Cincinnati.  The letters comprise nine pages, of which five pages are form letters.  Each of the applicants also received a personal, two-page request for additional information to justify tax-exempt status.   The IRS asked Ohio Liberty Council Group in March 2012 to update a two year old filing, and to describe its planned activities, public events, membership recruitment, political activity, and lobbying – if any.     The IRS asked Linchpins of Liberty if they had adopted bylaws or chosen a board of directors. The IRS also wanted to know, among other things, about the organizations income and expenses, its loan agreements and other contracts, and whether its activities wound go beyond selling a book (“Linchpins of Liberty”) written by its president.   NBC fails to note that this isn’t a response to a relevant 501(c)(4) application, but the IRS answer on May 6 to an application for the more stringent 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.   If You Hate Government, Do You Hate It More When It Does Due Diligence?    Nothing in these two letters suggests anything more than due diligence by the IRS in protecting public policy and assets.   The information in the story came to NBC mostly from attorneys representing the complaining groups.   NBC provides no reliable, independent support for the opinions of its biased sources, even though it reports those opinions as more or less fact.   The IRS story went off the tracks of fact the moment Lois Lerner planted a question with a reporter at an American Bar Association conference on May 10.  In answer to the reporter’s posing of Lerner’s question, Lerner answered this way, as reported by Associated Press (no transcript appears to be available):  “The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was ‘inappropriate’ targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.   “IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words ‘tea party’ or ‘patriot’ in their exemption applications, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.”   For whatever reason, the AP makes the IRS apology institutional even though it comes from a mid-level IRS manager ratting out people she was supposed to be managing.  The news catches her superiors in the IRS, as well as the White House, completely off guard.    It also sets off a right-wing feeding frenzy, which the AP reports at length in the same story.  Somebody Needs to Give This Story a Little Perspective and Proportion  Only near the end of the story, in a clumsily written paragraph, does the AP reporter touch on the factual context for the news Lerner was breaking and in which she had been a central player:   “In all, about 300 groups were singled out for additional review, Lerner said. Of those, about a quarter were singled out because they had ‘tea party’ or ‘patriot’ somewhere in their applications.”   In other words, about 225 applications were not “political conservative groups, as AP had reported at the top of the story, and for which it has yet to issue a correction or an apology.    Given her unusual behavior over the past few years, it doesn’t seem all that strange that Lois Lerner has refused to answer questions in Congress, pleading the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, while refusing to resign from her $180,000-a-year job (she’s now on administrative leave).   What seems much stranger, but not as surprising as it should, is that so much of the media goes on reporting as fact the partisan political version of a story that never happened.    Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

The outrage against the (fake) IRS Scandal should have a focus directly on the parties who are espousing the perpetration of flack against the Obama Administration Vs. proper and necessary attention to meaning legislation.  If we want a good look at issues that warrant outrage, think of the time,. energy and waste funds associated with the House voted to defund ACORN. The community services organization has been defunct since it was attacked by Fox News, Breitbart Dot Com and every conservative in Congress. I believe ACORN shutdown operations three years ago. 

Let’s close this piece out with a basic syllogism regarding the “fake’ IRS issue.

Citizens United has provided opportunity for unlimited secret contributions to political campaigns. 

A.) The Koch Brothers are major contributors to Citizens United (The organization). 

B.) The Koch Brothers were (and are) Major contributors to the tea party, Freedom Works and others conservative political groups focused solely on strategy, planning and operations to  unseat the Obama Administration and fund future campaigns (2014 and 2016).

C.) Internal Revenue Service Tax Code 501 (c)(4) as shown in the table above allows secret contributions to certified organizations without taxation! 

D.) The number of request for 501 (c)(4) certification increased exponentially after Citizens United (2010). 

Major premise A:  The Koch Brothers are major contributors to Citizens United (The organization).

Major premise B:   The Koch Brothers were (and are) major contributors to the tea party, Freedom Works and others conservative political groups focused solely on strategy, planning and operations to  unseat the Obama Administration (e.g., winning elections).

Minor premise: The Koch Brothers are supporters of ultra conservative causes and contribute millions to conservative campaigns (state and national elections). The millions they contribute are subject to taxation unless hidden in a 501 (c)(4) organization. 

Conclusion: Conservative causes can be advanced via Koch Brothers’ contributions and billions from other secret contributors (especially if untaxed) if the contributions go through the 501 (c)(4) organization.

I posit the IRS was doing its job via deep questioning of organization (Both conservative and liberal) who appeared as seeking certification beyond the scope of the 1959 law, and organization buoyed by the secret contribution freedom of Citizens United.  Thus, the IRS looked to preserve the Union and integrity of our elections from organizations that were and are working to win the Oval Office and state elections.

Occupy Wall Street Morphs For Humanity

The Occupy Movement is not only NOT dead, it has morphed into a viable delivery system for help to people. But, know Occupy is not about handing out silver spoons to any and all who seek help. The movement very appropriately recommends people seek help via ‘assistance’ agencies.
Nov 13 2012

However you feel about Occupy Wall Street, you can’t deny the good-hearted mensch-ness of this idea. Some of those nice protesters have created the Rolling Jubilee, a program that will buy distressed debt (medical bills, student loans, etc.) and FORGIVE it. This. Just. Rocks.

Mischa NachtigalMore from Mischa »

Note: If you have a lot of debt, you shouldn’t just default and expect this to save you. They are choosing people at random for this program. If you have a real problem with debt, you should talk to a professional counselor. Here are some resources at the Department of Justice and the National Foundation for Credit Counseling.

ORIGINAL: By the Rolling Jubilee. Found on How To Sharpen Pencils. If you want to know more about this and how it works, read this article on Slate. If you think this is a good idea and have a few bucks to spare, consider donating to the cause.

Much more on How To Sharpen Pencils Dot Tumblir Dot Com

12 Ways to Tell Occupy Wall St from the Tea Party (Doug’s Dozen VIDEO)

by: DOUGMOLITOR

NOVEMBER 23, 2011 10:41 PM

Fox News’s Megyn Kelly thinks cops pepper-spraying unresisting prisoners isn’t so bad, because after all, it’s “a food product, essentially.”

My advice to Megyn would be first, to spell her name with a normal vowel.  Megyn Price gets a pass because she’s funny, humane, and sexy.  Megyn Kelly is no funnier than she is humane, which is to say not at all.  

My second bit of advice would be not to eat out for a while.  Definitely not at any restaurant where the waiters aren’t her fellow one-percenters.  Look, personally I love the snotty cheerleader act, but I can see where it might wear thin with less-masochistic personalities, even in ordinary circumstances.

And these are exceptionally emotional times.  As might be expected in a country whose populace is just becoming aware that their local peace officers can be turned into corporate goons who cheerfully gas grandmas and pregant women.  

Even if her favorite eatery does not give Megan (see? I’m helping her get over herself) a painful lesson in just how bad that nasty tongue of hers can burn, she may find herself ingesting any number of unsavory “food products” without knowing it.

And then there’s her partner in crimes against humanity, Bill O’Wrongly (I’m pretty sure I have that name right…anyway, who bothers to fact-check anymore?)  Bill, taking time off from his usual job of making viewers less informed than they were before they turned on his show, was the soul of fairness:

“I don’t think we have the right to Monday-morning quarterback the police.”

Well, you didn’t exactly need slo-mo to analyze that play. Office Pike (there’s a Dickensian name for a thug cop, isn’t it?) waddled down the line of unresisting students and carefully sprayed an agonizing, blistering bio-weapon all over them.

Exactly what extenuating circumstance does Bill imagine might excuse this calm, deliberate sadism?

The only conceivable explanation is, that it was the end of a long Laurel-and-Hardy style confrontation, where the protesters kicked him in the shin, ripped his tie, then set fire to his car, while he stood patiently absorbing the indignities, then cocked his hat forward and proceeded to take his turn.  Until that tape shows up, we’ll just have to imagine the hilarity that preceded, and justified, the chemical torture.

Of course, had the police looked cross-eyed at a Tea Party protest, we might have heard a different tune coming out of Billo.  But that’s because there are BIG DIFFERENCES between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.  I can think of a Dozen right off.

.

See more Doug’s Dozen lists at www.dougsdozen.com.

And watch Doug’s Dozen videos on FunnyOrDie.  

60 Minutes Reveals Congressional Privilege But ‘Missed The Mark’

Cross Posted from http://www.Addictinginfo.org

’60 Minutes’ Hit On Boehner, Pelosi Falls Short

As city officials all across the nation embark on dismantling Occupy Wall Street protest encampments,  a central grievance of the OWS was broadcast last evening ’60 Minutes’.

The main issue is the potential ‘privilege’ by members of Congress.  While the 60 minutes segment focused on House Speaker Boehner and Nancy Pelosi, HUFFINGTON POST POLITICS, Ryan Grim writes that ’60 Minutes’ was off-the-mark.

A “60 Minutes” investigation of stock trading by members of Congress singled out House Speaker John Boehner and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi as having personally profited from investments into companies whose interests were before Congress. The investigation makes a strong case that members of Congress have the ability to profit in the market from non-public information, but in the cases of Boehner and Pelosi the claims made by “60 Minutes” fall short under scrutiny.

The Grim article states how 60 Minutes portrayed the possibility that both members of Congress benefited from “non-public” information.  If Grim is correct, 60 Minutes producers may have uncovered a serious problem about ‘insider trading’ and how the information privilege may benefit members of Congress.  Grim may have also uncovered serious flaws in the 60 Minutes segment.

Grim writes…. (summaries from 60 Minutes and responses from Boehner and Pelosi spokespeople):

Boehner

The CBS News program flagged Boehner (R-Ohio) for buying health insurance stocks shortly before the public health insurance option was killed as part of health care reform….

A Boehner spokesperson issued the following response to Huffingtion Post.

“The idea that the Republican Leader in the House opposed the ‘public option’ — policy favored by the left of the left — for personal profit is, frankly, stupid,” a GOP aide, who didn’t want to be quoted criticizing CBS, said

Pelosi

“60 Minutes” charges Pelosi with purchasing 5,000 shares of Visa stock as part of an exclusive initial public offering and implies that her financial connection to the credit card industry had something to do with the halting of credit card industry reform……

A Pelosi spokesperson issued the following response to Huffingtion Post.

“Tonight’s report failed to note that the legislation in question in this story was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on October 3, 2008 — the day the House was consumed in passing TARP and also the last day the House was in session before the November election,” Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said. “It failed to note than in September 2008, the House passed the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights. In the next Congress, the House and Senate passed and President Obama signed the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights and the Dodd-Frank legislation, which included a stronger, more direct approach to addressing swipe fees.”

Spokespeople have to do their jobs even when required to mislead.  I remember many times as a nervous Bush Administration spokesperson went before camera to refute the 2007 Recession. We know that result (admission of the recession in December 2008, after the 2008 Election), but in the case of Boehner and Pelosi their spokespeople may have accurately explained away the 60 Minutes segment ’targets.’

The revelations about the prospect of insider information, and how Congress have exemption for scrutiny is a topic of concern. It is of special interest during a period of social unrest and factual reporting related to the growing income gap and the refusals by Congress to consider taxing the ‘rich’ at a slightly higher than current rate. These are the sorts of inequities which are driving divides between the privileged and those of us who are in the middle class.

The 60 Minutes broadcast may have been flawed in its direct focus on Congressional House leaders.  Do all members of Congress via the course of their work have access to information that provides opportunity for financial again in the equities markets?  One would think so.

The article ends as follows…..

Operatives on both sides of the aisle, meanwhile, pointed out to The Huffington Post that Majority Leader Cantor (R-Va.) had dodged the “60 Minutes” bullet. The segment did not mention Cantor, who made several trades in 2005 that have come under scrutiny.

In March 2005, he bought stock in Merck and Encore Medical Corporation. In July, the GOP House passed medical liability reform, which Democrats at the time charged was a gift to Merck, which was under fire for its drug Vioxx, as well as other device makers.

CBS may have pulled its punch because producers worried about access: “60 Minutes” is working on a profile of the Virginia Republican and was with him over the past weekend, and Lesley Stahl will visit him Monday on the Hill, according to a source familiar with the arrangements.

CBS did not respond to requests for comment.

If 60 Minutes has ‘the scoop’ on information that Cantor may have benefited from his position in Congress, how did he draw a ‘pass’ from the broadcast? Is the renowned investigative broadcast team doing itself and the public a disservice?

Who are we to question the veracity and thoroughness of 60 Minutes?  Well, we are citizens who want to see it done right. We want information as accurately and thoroughly as possible. If Boehner and Pelosi are not guilty of benefiting from ‘insider information, 60 Minutes should run a corrective comment related to November 13, broadcast.  If there is a factual prospect that congressional representative have opportunities to advance themselves regarding equities investments, the public should know of the privilege; and it should be stopped.

Grim wrote a statement early in his article that is absolutely cogent to the topic.

But by swinging and missing at Boehner and Pelosi, “60 Minutes” undermined its case.

Despite the prospect of an ‘undermine’ by 60 Minutes, producers said the investigation  should continue.

Wonder if 60 Minutes producers and management will tell the public why they avoided comment about Cantor.   If for sake of an future news story, their is something hypocritical about their  decision to furlough mention of the House Majority Leader.

These are the sorts of greedy failings in people that has parks in the U.S. full of people under the auspices of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Occupy Wall Street Gets a Grassroots Boost..DEMS WAKE-up!

I am extremely pleased to see that a Director and a small team of OWS supporters   have taken a major step in sharing the OWS message.

Tea Party vs Occupy Wall Street Who derives benefit?

A little something off  FaceBook.

No accompanying words necessary.

Tea Party vs Occupy Wall Street Who derives benefit?

A little something off  FaceBook.

No accompanying words necessary.

Occupy Wall Street: Growing to Order?

A group of activists hold a strategy meeting

I wrote earlier about Occupy Wall Street and potential donors.

MSNBC.com is reporting $300,000 in donations and food stuffs housed in a storage space in Manhattan. Verena Dobnik, MSNBC Correspondent, asks a relevant question.

Could this be the peak for loosely organized protesters, united less by a common cause than by revulsion to what they consider unbridled corporate greed? Or are they just getting started?

May I opine? OWS is not at its peak. It has room for growth and it factually has not spread as far as it will spread worldwide. Dobnik asks the question based on the following.

There are signs of confidence, but also signs of tension among the demonstrators at Zuccotti Park, the epicenter of the movement that began a month ago Monday. They have trouble agreeing on things like whether someone can bring in a sleeping bag, and show little sign of uniting on any policy issues. Some protesters eventually want the movement to rally around a goal, while others insist that isn’t the point.

An astute observation for sure, but an observation that is endemic in just about any movement that has ‘grassroots.’ Unlike the Tea Party with adroit organization ’men’ like Dick Armey, the OWS has no ordained or anointed leader or leadership team. It also does not seem to have coordinated ’uber’ wealthy donation ’clubs’ to fund their movement. Dobnik’s question is relevant because OWS will have to, if for no other reason size alone, develop some form of organization. Large movements of very intelligent, independent thinking and professional (career) deprived young people will shatter solidarity if the organization cannot issue ‘attainable’ goals and measure results towards those goals. The need for organization and clearly stated goals can be debated all winter, but fact is, group dynamics will start to manifest in any group of 4 or more people.

All groups go through stages of development. Yes, I know you already know about the stages of development , but for sake of opining, I must list them here. 1.) Forming, 2.) Storming, 3.) Norming and 4.) Performing.

The sooner OWS moves through some of the early stages the more effective it will become.

Forming: The OWS is barley into Forming as it isn’t widespread internationally.  If some degree of Forming does not give way to ‘Storming’ with an ‘eye’ on ‘Norming’ and ‘Performing’, the movement will suffer.

Dobnik, if the writer is correct on their examples is reflecting early ‘Storming.’ In a way, that is good because that stage needs to pass before the group stars to ‘Norm’ into a complete viable social movement. The example from Dobnik is very basic interaction among protesters. can you imagine the ‘Forming’ and ‘Storming’ among those who sit in Assembly Meetings as pictured above.\

Want another example from Dobnik’s article….

“We’re moving fast, without a hierarchical structure and lots of gears turning,” said Justin Strekal, a college student and political organizer who traveled from Cleveland to New York to help. “… Egos are clashing, but this is participatory democracy in a little park.”

There is real danger in not moving through the stages effectively. Some form of organization is a must to get to the Performing Stage.

Women’ Suffrage, the Anti-Viet Nam War Movement and the Civil Rights Movement benefited from organization.

If you read the article you will see signs of complete brilliance by unnamed coalition group leaders (who are not leaders)….

The United Federation of Teachers Uni0n has donated the storage space for OWS and they use a bank that is 100% union owned.

Order is coming to OWS, and it is necessary. They have yet to see the full measure of resistance and counter-measures from the Right. Order brought-on via organization will help to build barriers against a seasoned and ‘moneyed’ Right-wing. One last point.

A key victory for OWS would help with support from those who are ‘on the fence’ and just watching the movement.

What do you want?

“We know your grievances but what do you want that can be fixed, now.”

That is the mindset of some who are just sitting back. How about whether OWS wants to support a political candidate as a potential third political party? (Probably not a good idea, but none-the-less a point that might help some understand what they are doing. Or, better yet. let the administration know how it can best align with the movement.)

As stated above, give someone an idea of a measurable  accomplishment or focus on where you are heading  and ‘people will follow’.

Occupy Wall Street Hits Major International Capitals…and Moves Into Time Square (LIVE STREAM)

THIS PAST SATURDAY…..

NYC Times Square, Police at Ready!!!!!

OWS Live Stream…activity in Time Square…..

Gothamist.com is reporting

Thousands of Occupy Wall Street protesters have now begun filing into Times Square for a massiveOccupation Party, in part to celebrate the spreading of OWS across the globe today. The police have begun setting up barricades to keep the protesters within certain areas, and portions of the sidewalks have become almost impassable.

Despite what looms as potential for violence or brutality, Gothamist is reporting that the mod among the protesters is joyous.  The OWS is celebrating a day when OWS saw simultaneous  groups protest in major international capitals .

While he protesters march and chant, apparently tourists are watching  from behind police barricades.

OWS

According to James Thilman, our reporter at the scene, there are sporatic eruptions of extended cheering between chants: the usuals, such as “banks got bailed out, we got sold out. Whose street our streets,” and, “we are unstoppable, another world is possible.” Police are keeping people-particularly bewildered tourists—on the sidewalks moving, while protesters are confined to large areas in the center of the square, with limited entrances to barricaded area. There are lots of people with tambourines and other instruments, and the crowd continues to grow ever larger.

NYC Police use Horse against proteseters. Did some of Mubarak’s thugs do same?

Time Square Updates:

Update 6:35 p.m.: Reports are coming in that police have started arresting rowdy protesters. There have been reports of mounted policemen pushing back and forth with boxed in protesters—and it seems at least one man ascended a traffic light to flash the peace sign (and now is doing a “mic check”).

Update 6:45 p.m.: NewYorkist tweets that he’s seen, “At least two large NYPD trucks moved into Bway, coming north of 46th full if barticafes. Currently placing them in pedestrian plaza.” With the square packed in as it is already, and more and more people joining in on the occupation, it’s hard to imagine the police barricades, which are keeping people on the sidewalks and in designated areas, lasting through the whole evening. However, it seems to be working thus far: police have just started letting traffic come through 7th Avenue.

In addition, it was announced on the microphone that horse cops and riot police have lined up, and the NYPD are “asking everyone to exit east on 46th. Including those on the sidewalk.” According to The Nation publisher Peter Rothberg, “WNBC reporting 10,000-20,000 in Times Sq.”

Update 7:02 p.m.: NYCLU clarifies a bit on how the police are trying to control the square: “lots of riot police, everyone’s barricaded, people are allowed out of area, but not into the area.” Some protesters believe the police are preparing to make mass arrests now that protesters have been completely barricaded in.

Update 7:15 p.m.: The city has now officially decided to close southbound 7th Avenue between West 57th and West 46th streets because of the protesters: “Expect traffic delays and changing traffic patterns in the area.” Police are not letting anyone back into Times Square, while making more room for vehicles. Michael Moore is still inside the barricades though. Tonight’s General Assembly is scheduled for 10 p.m. at Washington Square Park.

@Jopauca tweets, “A fuckload of police in riot gear just arrived with helmets, batons, and zipties.” Newyorkist estimates there are at least 40 of them lined up now. Things seem to be getting more aggressive and tense by the minute.

Hundreds of people have sat down in front of the ABC building chanting, “Whose Square? OUR Square!”

Update 7:30 p.m.: @Jopauca tweets, “Cop just told me to beat it if i wanna get home safe.” The infamous orange nets have been taken out.

Cops are doing whatever they can to move people out of the square—46th street has now been locked down. People are only being allowed to exit as cops take over the street.

And according to Nation published Peter Rothberg, police have given protesters their last chance to leave peaceably: “According to multiple sources, all #OWS protesters in Times Square now face arrest if they don’t immediately proceed out of the area.”

Update 7:45 p.m.: While most people are slowly streaming out, the remaining protesters who are not walking toward Washington Square Park are standing their ground, reciting the 1st amendment while cops push in around them. The Daily News reports, “NYPD saying someone is going to get hurt if 46th St. isn’t cleared.”

And like clockwork, it seems to have begun, according to @Jopauca: “Cops are shoving the fuck out of the crowd now. Everyone is filming and photographing.”

Update 7:50 p.m.: According to @HyunINC, “They just announced that there’s an afterparty with food and @TalibKweli at Washington Sq Park.”

Police have started arresting protesters. According to GottaLaff, “Older man dragged across street, put in paddy wagon. Others put in wagon too.”

Update 8:00 p.m.: Below (LINKED), check out some video taken from above earlier this evening when protesters first started packing into Times Square.

Update 8:10 p.m.: According to James at the scene, things are getting worse between the few remaining protesters (approximately 150-300) and riot police: “Getting super confrontational. Police say “step back!” protesters chant “you step back!! You step back!!””

Update 8:20 p.m.: According to the NYCLU, the arrests of protesters continues, although there are no exact figures yet how many so far: “lots of arrests, wagon full of folk…another wagon showed up, preparing for more arrests? yep, more arrests.” However, there is also a report that two NYPD officers transported to hospitals with minor injuries.’

According to our reporter on the scene Nicole Woszczyna, protesters are pleading with cops to join them, and not to make them disperse: “crowds chanting to nypd ‘were doing this for you’ and ‘love us back.'”

MORE UPDATES to follow during the evening…..

Occupy Wall Street, Class Warfare, and Russell Simmons

October 15, 2011

By  The Pardu

I find the recent flaps about class warfare typically convenient. Warfare in this context is nothing more that Right-Wing word-smithing for effect.  The very people (in congress and Right-Wing paid pundits) who preach that mantra are using it for purpose of induction. Induction into beliefs that help the Right indoctrinate people via ‘catchy slogans”. ‘Socialism’, death-panels, Momma grizzley’ moral majority, welfare (to denote poor black people), mainstream media, Obamacare, …just to give a few examples.

Class Warfare.  ”It is only class warfare when the rich are challenged”.  Anyone who grew up in a humble middle to lower economic class households know, class divides. We knew where we were from and our place as that place relates to the ‘well-off’ (the HAVES).  We knew that those were neighborhoods (regardless of race) in which we were not welcome. We knew the kids who carried themselves as if they were from another planet.  We knew that those kids who were from Planet X that dared try to hang out with us would be seriously reprimanded by their parents or friends.

Class Warfare meant nothing and it means nothing, more than a ploy. Class Divides (or as I call class-ism) is at the root of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS)movement.  The Divide is so extreme that it is too late to stop the OWS. In fact, as we all see the movement grows and it grows on a daily basis.  That grwoth is contributing to another phenomena.

The New ‘rich’ who have gained celebrity via talent or special circumstance via their appeal to audiences are responding differently than their ‘old money,’ wealthy brethren.  A prime example is a New Yorker who benefited form recognizing the growth of a new musical genre, Russell Simmons, who has visited Zuccotti Park fifteen (15) times.  

Simmons is not visiting the park for purpose of advancing his mogul status or to sell any of his numerous corparate products or services. Simmons of the ‘new rich,’ was not raised such that class divides were part of his psyche.  His celebrity forces him out of mainstream interaction simply because of people who worship fame. Yet, he keeps coming to the park.

Simmons could have visited once and moved on.  Au contrar! Mr. Simmons has helped with OWS more than many realize.  Not only does the movement spread to more people via Simmon’s notoriety, he is actively involved in the movement via his spirit and his tangible  assets.

Spirit?  Warren Buffet, Starbucks CEO-Howard Schultz, and Simmons were people who spoke out about unfair tax codes well before OWS.  Those individuals will lay no claim to the early growth of the movement but I posit that their speaking out may have given hope to the those who conceived OWS. Hope that not all of the nations ‘uber rich’ were distant figures riding tsunami like waves of class division.   Simmons spoke specifically about the fact the he queried his office staff; and found that the majority of those employees literally paid more taxes than did he.  He spoke out!

Tangible assets?  I have posted below a couple of tweets from Simmons.

On Thursday night Simmons posted from his page, “Dear @MikeBloomberg pls do not throw out protesters at Zuccotti Park. I will pay for clean-up to avoid confrontation #OWS.” He followed up with another tweet to New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, “Dear mike I have long supported u and u have been good mayor, don’t take me to jail tomorrow I’m not 22 I don’t wanna go  but I will.”

Another…..

Simmons Tweet

Simmons Tweet 

I heard Simmons on a cable news network say to an interviewer, I am a 100% (er).  He is a 1 per center who will not become part of an establishment that is dramatically growing away from the 99 per cent who live normal lives. Yes, he owns a Simmons credit card operation which means he is in someway involved in banking/lending of something in between. He has made himself part of the 99 percent by his refusal to become part of the stratospheric 1 per cent who hold the nations wealth.

Instead of putting signs in windows to mock the protesters or blaring contempt for the protesters,he joins them.

Of course there are other well known people who have joined the protests.  Micheal Moore, Susan Sarandon, Danny Glover (In Los Angeles), Kanye West, Matt Damon, Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, Cornel West to name a few.  But no to date as visible and supportive (Intangibly ad tangibly) as Simmons.

I have never been and am still not fond of the hip-hop genre. Thus, my affinity for Simmons was at the level of nil.  A funny thing happened this afternoon.  A cap that I was wearing blew off my head, As I picked up the cap and looked at the protruding label (brand label), I saw the name Russell Simmons on the label…and I smiled.