Karl Rove glittered by the gay at anti-gay conference

Here's a photo, full video over at AMERICAblog Gay.

Read the rest of this post...

British PM supports gay marriage in the UK

In his speech to the Conservative Party conference, British Prime Minister David Cameron said:

"I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative"

And the reaction from his audience? Cheers. The UK has had civil partnerships since 2004, and now all three mainstream parties have the introduction of gay marriage as a policy. How would the equivalent speech be received at a Republican convention? Read the rest of this post...

Finally, a national campaign to label GMO foods

UPDATE: The comments are filled with interesting links. Please check them out.
______

It's food week here at AMERICAblog it seems; see John's good post about lettuce below.

I've written before about GMO (genetically modified) foods. It's a serious and world-wide issue. Now there's a national campaign to get the stuff labeled, at the very least.

As HuffPost writer Jennifer Grayson points out at her own site:

[E]very other developed nation in the world has either banned genetically modified foods or mandated their labeling, [but] there are currently no labeling laws for GM products in the US.

This is insane. The federal government has no problem slapping graphic warning labels on a pack of cigarettes; so why, when it comes to something that affects all of us — the food we eat every day — are we left dining in the dark?

The new campaign is called Just Label It, from the Environmental Working Group. To help convince you, they've produced this clever ad:



If you care, click to sign the petition. Thanks!

GP Read the rest of this post...

Cantor worried about #OccupyWallStreet protesters. He should be.

They're finally standing up against the corruption that keeps people like Eric Cantor in power. So he should be afraid, very afraid.  From First Read:

"Some in Washington have actually condoned the pitting of Americans against Americans," Cantor said of the protests after accusing the Obama administration's policies of being an "assault on many of our nation's bedrock principles."

Other political leaders have been more coy in their approach toward the demonstrations; President Obama nodded toward the protests as a sign of broader frustration over the state of the economy.

As for Republicans, Mitt Romney accused the protesters of engaging in "class warfare," but has otherwise stayed silent about the demonstrations. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called them the "Obama demonstrations," while Texas Rep. Ron Paul encouraged the protests.

Wow, I can hear Cantor's hissy fit all the way across town.  Down, girl.  But seriously, some in Washington have actually condoned pitting Americans against Americans?  Yeah, it's called the Republican party under the tutelage of the Teabaggers, but really the Gingrichistas started it all two decades ago.  Never a more hateful, extremist, bigoted, America-dividing crowd than the boys running the House of Representatives at the moment.

It is interesting to note, however, that Cantor is, yet again, only worried about doing Wall Street's bidding, rather than focusing on the rest of America that isn't getting recorded raises this year. Read the rest of this post...

Zandi of Moody’s: GOP econ proposal won’t do squat for economy over near 18 months

Economist Mark Zandi on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown said GOP economic plans are “not going to help us quickly in the very near term.”

ZANDI: Well, republican proposals -- and there are a number -- trade bill, patent bill, deregulation, some ideas around energy. You know, they're not bad as long-term economic policy. I don't think they mean much for the economy, though, in the near term, not certainly for the next 6, 12, 18 months. And I think that's where I'm most concerned and focused. You know, the risks of recession, despite today's jobs numbers, is still very, very high, given what's going on in Europe, given the decline in stock prices here, given the foreclosure crisis and the decline in housing values. We have to work really hard to avoid going back into recession, because if we go back into recession now in the next 6, 12 months, our budget deficit's going to balloon out, it's going to undermine tax revenue, government spending's going to increase just automatically, you know, through all the automatic stabilizers in the budget. So, we've got to avoid that. And so, I think I would agree with the president that we need to take some steps, most notably extending and expanding the payroll tax holiday for employees, as proposed, to make sure we don't go back into recession as an insurance policy. Now, the republican proposals are fine. I think, you know, they're good policy longer run. We need to focus on things like on trade and patent protection and deregulation, but that's not going to help us quickly in the very near term.

Read the rest of this post...

Trumka: AFL-CIO will support Occupy Wall Street "in every way" it can

Finally, mainstream support. This is the benefit if a rolling protest, as opposed to a start-and-stop affair.

In a start-and-stop demonstration, the media decides if you're news. In a rolling ongoing protest, you make yourself news by persisting.

In These Times (a great place to visit regularly):

Trumka also endorsed the Occupy Wall Street protests, as the federation’s executive council did on a Wednesday conference call. Many local unions in New York had already joined the protests or offered support, but more national unions have issued statements of enthusiastic support, including the Service Employees (which has long had a campaign focused on the financial sector), the Teamsters, the Bakery Workers and others.

“We will support them in every way we can,” Trumka says, noting that unions had mobilized 15,000 marchers on Wall Street a year and a half ago. “We believe as they do that the economy is shutting out 99 percent of the people. It works for the top 1 percent marvelously…But the rest of us with stagnant wages, lost jobs, home foreclosures, kids that can’t go to school, lost health care, pensions taken away and retirement security destroyed, we think there’s a different and better way….We aren’t going to try to usurp them in any way but support them. And we certainly hope they support us on our America Wants to Work campaign.”

The article notes many common interest of labor and the protesters (my emphasis):

Organized labor has three demands that are shared by most Wall Street occupiers, Trumka says. First, corporations and banks should invest their cash in America, creating good jobs. Second, banks and other holders of the 14 million foreclosed or “under water” mortgages and then ten million more expected to go sour should be forced to write down the mortgages to reflect the real, post-bubble value. Finally, the government should impose a “speculation tax,” or financial transactions tax, of one-tenth of one percent. Researchers in Europe figure a similar tax would generate $78 billion a year, and with its larger financial markets, the U.S. could gain as much or more.

Excellent on many counts. Trumpka offers a list of great demands that will be backed by labor muscle. This gives focus to the protesters without that pesky hyper-leaderly problem (or endless discussions).

And second, it reunites today's dirty hippies (post-Reagan edition) with labor. These groups had a nasty divorce in the 1960s (caused entirely by labor, I might add — watch the end of Easy Rider or All In the Family).

For today's protests to have an effect absent a real depression, uniting with labor is key — for both groups. This is great news on all fronts.

GP Read the rest of this post...

The media asks: Why oh why won’t Obama compromise with the Republicans?

Are they high?

Steve Benen was watching yesterday morning's Obama presser along with the rest of us, and he noticed the same thing I did. The very first question to the President was a reporter lamenting the supposed fact that Obama simply refuses to compromise with Republicans.

As Steve goes on to point out, when exactly has this President NOT compromised with Republicans? In fact, a large part of the reason President Obama is in the electoral pickle he's in is because he tried to compromise too much with the GOP.

Where did the appearance of weakness come from? From not standing up to the Republicans during the stimulus, during health care reform, and during the various budget showdowns. And why is the public nonplussed over the stimulus and health care reform, and whether either did anything to make life better? Because the President, for the most part, refused to get in the GOP's face and call them on their lies, lest standing up to the GOP on any one issue poison the President's elusive question for over-arching compromise with the GOP.

Let's talk about the stimulus. It's too small, as we've noted before, and thus is a large part of the reason that the economy isn't doing nearly as well as we'd hoped. Why is it too small? In part because the President was being advised by economic lightweights. But the other reason is because the White House didn't want to upset the GOP by asking for too big a stimulus. So, they low-balled it, and then cut another $100bn to make Olympia Snowe happy, and then gave away 35% of the remaining amount to the GOP in the form of near useless tax cuts. The stimulus was too small, and our economy is only limping along, in large part because the President compromised with the GOP.

And how about health care reform. Boy, don't you all remember how the President got in the GOP's face and refused to compromise, demanding they pass a public option? No, in fact the President passed health care reform off to a 6 member gang on Senators, 3 GOP and 3 Dem, that dawdled for months, because of GOP (and some Dem) intransigence, making the way for the Teabaggers to act up and scare all the Dems into submission. And then, after health care reform passed, the Republicans relentlessly attacked it, day in and day out, while the President back off and basically let them, rather than fighting back and risking future compromise.

And who can forget Joe "You Lie!" Wilson?  What did President Obama have the Democrats do when Wilson obscenely yelled at the President during a joint session of Congress?  Rather than call the fire-breathing Republican out, and use his outburst as an opportunity to show how extremist the GOP had become, the President had the Democrats take another look at the health care bill to make sure Wilson's concerns were addressed.

If a Democrat had yelled at President Bush during a joint session of Congress the GOP noise machine, in coordination with the media, would have forced said Democrat to resign.

The reason so many on the left have lost faith in Barack Obama is because of his ongoing efforts to compromise with the devil. I've been more than willing to criticize President Obama when I thought he deserved it, but accusing the man of being unwilling to compromise is laughable when his biggest mistake of the past 3 years has been an over-eagerness to compromise. Read the rest of this post...

Stop asking #OccupyWallStreet to do things they way you’re used to seeing them done

Matt Stoller at Naked Capitalism has a post on #OccupyWallStreet that's largely about the anti-politics of this movement. I found this passage particularly interesting:

This dynamic is why it’s so hard for the traditional political operators to understand #OccupyWallStreet. It must be an angry group of hippies. Or slackers. Or it’s a revolution. It’s a left-wing tea party. The ignorance is embedded in the questions. One of the most constant complaints one hears in DC about #OccupyWallStreet is that the group has no demands. Its message isn’t tight. It has no leaders. It has no policy agenda. Just what does “it” want, anyway? On the other side of the aisle, one hears a sort of sneering “get a job” line, an angry reaction to a phenomenon no one in power really understands. The gnashing of teeth veers quickly from condescension to irritation and back. Many liberal groups want to “help” by offering a more mainstream version, by explaining it to the press, by cheering how great the occupation is while carefully ensuring that wiser and more experienced hands eventually take over. These impulses are guiding by the received assumptions about how power works in modern America. Power must flow through narrow media channels, it must be packaged and financed by corporations, unions, or foundations, it must be turned into revenue flows that can then be securitized. It must scale so leaders can channel it efficiently into the preset creek bed of modern capitalism. True public spaces like this one are complete mysteries to these people; left, right, center in America are used to shopping mall politics.

I've been frustrated by the push by many liberals - mostly professional organizers, political operatives or bloggers - for there to be specific, enumerated policy demands, accompanied by a clear, concise message. First, the message is pretty damn clear: they're occupying Wall Street. Only complete ignorance of what Wall Street is the home to and a symbol of could suggest that they don't have a message in this action, let alone a crystal clear one. The banks are a problem, so they're objecting.

Beyond that, on September 30th, the New York General Assembly posted their Declaration of the Occupation of New York City. This lays out a clear list of objections that the occupiers have. It's a wide-ranging list, but a common thread is the complete capture of political power by wealthy elites and corporations and a system that only benefits the top 1%.

The critics say: But #OccupyWallStreet doesn't have a specific policy solution to their complaints? Where are their white papers? What legislation do they support?

On Twitter this morning, Clay Shirky had a series of tweets that perfectly capture the response to these critics.

People complaining that #OWS don't have coherent demands haven't noticed that US response to the crisis isn't coherent either. (link)

Groups of voters have incompatible goals, so working democracy doesn't produce coherent policies, but livable compromises. (link)

The message of #OWS is not "Here's is our 9-point plan." The message of #OWS is "This is not a livable compromise." (link)

#OWS doesn't win by proposing a better compromise. They win by subjecting the current one to disintegrating pressure. (link)

This is exactly right. I don't know if #OccupyWallStreet will ever put forward a specific prescription that they want to see realized for all the ills documented in the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City. But I would hope that they just keep the occupation going and keep making clear that "this is not a livable compromise." Stoller's analysis quoted above exposes the ways in which current professional organizing and political party structures fail to recognize that we aren't getting a "livable compromise." While it's incredibly encouraging that so many labor unions, progressive organizations and community groups have stood with the #OccupyWallStreet movement, there's still a fundamental, underlying tension here. It may not be a relevant one as long as all groups do is stand alongside #OccupyWallStreet, but it could become a bigger problem down the road.

In the meantime, I strongly encourage people to embrace the logic of Shirky's argument and stop asking for the #OccupyWallStreet movement to do things they way you are used to seeing them done. Let this movement be, and see how much power pure and articulate complaint has as a force for creating the conditions needed for change. Read the rest of this post...

Krugman: Occupy Wall Street is a "real political opportunity" that gives Democrats a "second chance"

The Occupy Wall Street story is everywhere — thanks to police that think this is 1968, or 1886, and don't know their foxes from their rabbits.

And the protest is spreading.

It's said to be leaderless (Cairo was essentially leaderless), and early reports were that labor wasn't involved — despite the paranoia of mainstream commenters. (That has recently changed — Trumpka's now a supporter.)

We're used to thinking of protests as more formal, organized, start-and-stop events, with police permits, speakers and dueling attendance-counts. This is something clearly different. But what?

Paul Krugman has one answer. From his precious column inches, he writes:

There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear, but we may, at long last, be seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people.

When the Occupy Wall Street protests began three weeks ago, most news organizations were derisive if they deigned to mention the events at all. For example, nine days into the protests, National Public Radio had provided no coverage whatsoever ... [but] Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

Et tu, NPR? Wouldn't be the first time.

Krugman has nothing but praise for the people putting the focus for the current economic misery where it belongs — on the rapacious, ungrateful, ever-bailed-out, always-self-entitled Wall Street billionaires and their millionaire minions. Given these facts, Krugman asks, "how can you not applaud the protesters for finally taking a stand?"

He then takes on the various criticisms, and lays them low. I'll let you read that part for yourselves; he makes perfect sense on all counts.

As to the question, What is Occupy Wall Street?, Krugman has one excellent answer — a wonderful political opportunity:

[T]here are real political opportunities here. Not, of course, for today’s Republicans ... [b]ut Democrats are being given what amounts to a second chance. The Obama administration squandered a lot of potential good will early on by adopting banker-friendly policies that failed to deliver economic recovery even as bankers repaid the favor by turning on the president. Now, however, Mr. Obama’s party has a chance for a do-over. All it has to do is take these protests as seriously as they deserve to be taken.

Seen as an opening for our so-called "leaders" is one good way to look at these protests. Kudos to Krugman for pointing that out. And kudos to the administration — and labor — for their toe-in-the-water support.

My own note — Krugman's analysis defines the protest in terms of something else, administration response. In a later post, I'll attempt to define Occupy Wall Street more intrinsically, in terms of itself. (Hint: It's not yet Tahrir Square, but it could be.)

GP Read the rest of this post...

Politico’s Roger Simon: Obama is the favorite

From yesterday, but worth a read.

Not only can Obama be reelected, but he is the favorite right now.

Why? Because Obama has one huge plus going for him. It’s called the Republican field.

And Republican voters agree with me. Because if Obama were really so weak a candidate, why would Republicans keep looking for a messiah to save them?

One day it is Michele Bachmann. Then she poops out, and it is Rick Perry. Then he disappoints, and the party turns, in desperation, to Mitt Romney. Then the party decides it is not that desperate and turns to — I kid thee not — Herman Cain.

A CBS poll released Tuesday shows that Cain has moved into a tie with Romney for first place in the Republican field. (After the poll was released, ugly rumors circulated that Warren G. Harding had come in third, even though he has been dead for 88 years.)

So what do I make of Cain’s (meaningless) rise in the (meaningless) polls?

It is meaningless. And a sign of how badly Republicans are still floundering in their search for a candidate.

Read the rest of this post...

Federal panel says healthy men should no longer have PSA test for prostate cancer

It's hard to argue with their conclusions, but still, yikes.

The P.S.A. test, routinely given to men 50 and older, measures a protein — prostate-specific antigen — that is released by prostate cells, and there is little doubt that it helps identify the presence of cancerous cells in the prostate. But a vast majority of men with such cells never suffer ill effects because their cancer is usually slow-growing. Even for men who do have fast-growing cancer, the P.S.A. test may not save them since there is no proven benefit to earlier treatment of such invasive disease.

As the P.S.A. test has grown in popularity, the devastating consequences of the biopsies and treatments that often flow from the test have become increasingly apparent. From 1986 through 2005, one million men received surgery, radiation therapy or both who would not have been treated without a P.S.A. test, according to the task force. Among them, at least 5,000 died soon after surgery and 10,000 to 70,000 suffered serious complications. Half had persistent blood in their semen, and 200,000 to 300,000 suffered impotence, incontinence or both. As a result of these complications, the man who developed the test, Dr. Richard J. Ablin, has called its widespread use a “public health disaster.”

Read the rest of this post...

Friday morning open thread

Well, after nearly 3 years in the new condo, I have officially moved the AMERICAblog world headquarters from my dining room table to an actual, real work desk, courtesy of CB2 (well, not really courtesy of, I did pay for it).  Another of the rippling benefits of the mom visit.  I finally have an office nook.  And it's nice.  It was mom's idea to buy a big (and cheap, but nice looking) mirror (God bless Home Goods) to open up the area and not make me feel like I'm looking at a wall all day.  And it has the added benefit of me enjoying two of my Paris photos that I had in the corner and never really noticed.  Now I do.

Well, and there's one more slight bonus - no more physical therapy (knock on wood) from the tendinitis I developed from the last 35 years of typing.  It was like the warranty ran out on my arms last January.  From the shoulders to my biceps, elbows, wrists and fingers, everything started going haywire.  After many doctor visits, and a few blood tests, they settled on the cover-all excuse, "tendinitis" caused by typing, and typing with poor form.  And I have to say, as I moved around this summer from DC to Chicago to Paris and back, I did notice a difference in my pain and inflammation depending where I was working.  Changing the work station mattered.

So, hopefully, now with the cool new see-through (but not terribly expensive) desk, the old (but good) work chair, and the relatively new split keyboard, my arms can start going back to normal.  Ah the joys of aging.

PS Who knew an optical mouse wouldn't work on a glass desk?  Time to find the archaic mousepads buried in the closet. Read the rest of this post...

Fmr. GE Chairman Jack Welch continues his class warfare against middle class

This guy keeps rambling on but it's the same old garbage.  CNBC:

Start with cutting 25 percent of current discretionary spending and 5 percent of military spending, which would save about $1.3 trillion over 10 years, Welch said. Then, freeze regulations until the current 9.1 percent unemployment level gets below 6 percent.

He also wants changes in entitlements, starting with means testing benefits. "I shouldn’t be getting Social Security. I shouldn’t be getting Medicare benefits at the level I’m getting," Welch said.

Obama's support for a millionaire's tax is "a transfer payment. You take if from one pan, put it in the other. It doesn’t work," he said. "They are spenders. They believe government should do more. They don’t believe jobs come from the private sector. They believe government creates jobs," he said.

He loved corporate entitlements when it was all about Jack, but when it's for the middle class, it's a different story. People like him have to stop this constant attack on everyone who works for a living. It's all about the 0.5% keeping everything for themselves, no one else matters. Read the rest of this post...

The parable of Paris Hilton and the visit to India

Paris Hilton visits Mumbai to promote a range of handbags to the affluent, but has her motorcade pull over so that she can perform an act of kindness. According to NDTV.com, Ms Hilton gave a beggar named Ishika a $100 note. A photographer was on hand (quite by chance one presumes) to record the undoubtedly generous act. Ishika returned to her family to face demands from relatives for a share of her windfall. Those demands were backed by violence. "Full of rage" at the turn of events and ignorant of the value of the note, Ishika's brother-in-law tore it to pieces. There is clearly a moral to be drawn from this story. The moral would be something to do with poverty, or indiscriminate aid, or greed, or globalisation or handbags, or ... er... I give up. Any suggestions? Read the rest of this post...