The Bullet: Women's March on Washington

Socialist Project - January 21, 2017 - 2:00am
January 21 is set to be the day of one of the largest protests in recent U.S. history, the Women's March on Washington. The widely-publicized protest is expected to dwarf the numbers at Trump's inauguration, as three times more busses are registered for the Women's March than for the inauguration.
Categories: Netted News

Newt Gingrich Wants to Fire Federal Employees Who Voted for Clinton

AlterNet.org - January 20, 2017 - 9:34pm
Click here for reuse options! "There won’t be any real cooperation until we change federal law so we can fire them.”

As I write this, President-elect Donald Trump is set to assume control of the White House in a manner of hours, and his longtime adviser Newt Gingrich is giddy about reported plans to cut $10.5 trillion out of the federal government over 10 years by gutting federal agency budgets by as much as 10 percent while slashing 20 percent from the federal workforce.

The Trump transition team has reportedly met for months with career officials in the White House to outline a plan for massive cuts to the federal workforce. The plan, modeled after a budget championed by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, essentially calls for cutting nearly all of the government’s discretionary spending.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is so excited by the prospects that Trump will finally be able to deliver the extremely right-wing restructuring of the federal government he’s championed for decades.

“I would say by one week after the inaugural, it will be very interesting to look at how many things have changed,” Gingrich recently said at a Heritage Foundation event. Gingrich predicted that “Trumpism produces a balanced budget largely as a consequence of its policies rather than by focusing on the balance itself.”

The only risk, Gingrich later noted to the New York Times, is that entering the White House and instantly slashing a federal agency’s permanent staff will likely lead employees “to find ways to sabotage each new cabinet secretary as soon as they walk through the door.”

Offering perhaps the most nakedly political argument for firing federal employees, Gingrich said, “all those bureaucrats overwhelmingly voted for Clinton. There won’t be any real cooperation until we change federal law so we can fire them.”

African-Americans account for nearly 20 percent of the overall federal workforce — a proportion larger than their population size of 13 percent. Gingrich’s cynical political play is likely very cognizant of this fact. After all, only two (and a half, when counting the Maine split) states out of the 20 most dependent on federal funding did not vote for Trump.

Gingrich’s vengeful suggestion comes days after he released an open letter calling for the abolishment of the Congressional Budget Office.

“The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is simply incompatible with the Trump era,” Gingrich wrote, arguing that “it is a left-wing, corrupt, bureaucratic defender of big government and liberalism.”

The CBO is incompatible w/ the entrepreneurial, common sense Trump way of doing things & should be replaced https://t.co/MsBZJvCaDZ pic.twitter.com/2EKrfGc5J2

— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) January 13, 2017

Gingrich complained that the only independent scorekeeper of congressional and executive budgets “is the opposite of [Trump’s] commitments” to Make America Great Again.

Since the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act created it in 1974, CBO has been the most legitimate and successful part of the federal budget process.

Led by Speaker Gingrich, Republicans in Congress applauded the CBO and its then Democratic director during the Clinton administration when its analysis determined that the president’s proposed health care plan would balloon the deficit.

On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office revealed that a 2015 bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act would increase the number of uninsured Americans by 18 million in the first year. It also estimated that premiums in the nongroup market would increase by 20 to 25 percent within the first year.

Now, Gingrich says the CBO’s “scoring of Obamacare was not just wrong, it was clearly corrupt”:

CBO literally brought in the architect of Obamacare to be the adviser on scoring the very Obamacare legislation that he helped write. The score was a lie. It was so wrong it was totally indefensible. A year later the CBO produced a new score that was so much more expensive that it was clear Obamacare would have been defeated if it had been the original score.”

Click here for reuse options!  Related Stories
Categories: Netted News

Tapper Taken Aback by Trump's Address: 'One of the Most Radical Inaugural Speeches We've Ever Heard'

AlterNet.org - January 20, 2017 - 9:17pm
Click here for reuse options! "There was nothing particularly conservative about this Republican president’s speech," said Tapper.

Thousands poured into Washington, D.C. for the inauguration of Donald Trump on Jan. 20, 2017 as he kicked off his administration with a memorable inaugural address. CNN’s Jake Tapper discussed the address with Wolf Blitzer during their ‘Newsroom’ coverage.

“It was very consistent to the Trump brand absolutely,” Tapper said, calling the address “one of the most radical inaugural speeches we’ve ever heard. It was purely populist.”

He continued, “It attacked Washington while standing inside the center of Washington, D.C. while surrounded by Washington insiders. There was nothing particularly conservative about this Republican president’s speech. It was purely populism.”

“It looked at the United States and the role of the United States in a way that departures greatly from what we’ve heard from all his predecessors,” Tapper said, calling it “consistent with his brand.”

Journalist Dan Rather also commented on the speech in a Facebook post on Friday, noting that Trump “painted a very dark picture of the current state of our nation.”

See Tapper’ full remarks below.

.@jaketapper: "I think it's fair to say, this is one of the most radical inaugural speeches we've ever heard" https://t.co/bGrMcGDeOR

— CNN Newsroom (@CNNnewsroom) January 20, 2017

 

Click here for reuse options!  Related Stories
Categories: Netted News

President Donald Trump Is About to Victimize His Own Voters

AlterNet.org - January 20, 2017 - 9:16pm
Click here for reuse options! Our new president's supporters are likely to suffer from his regressive policies. I have no compassion for them.

In the weeks between Election Day and Donald Trump’s inauguration, I have found a new hobby. On a daily basis I read various newspapers, magazines and websites in search of stories about Trump voters and how they are surprised by their hero’s broken promises, scared that he may take away their health care or worried about his troubling connections to Vladimir Putin and the Russian government. I then bookmark these news items in my Internet browser for later use. As Nero fiddles and his public dances I can at least try to find small joys and pleasures in the music.

This is my version of liberal Schadenfreude — with slightly more hostile intent. I doubt that I am alone in adopting this new distraction and source of pleasure.

The butcher’s bill is due.

There are many examples of Trump’s voters and their increasing pain and anxiety.

I am particularly fond of this explanation from a Trump voter who benefited from President Barack Obama’s health care reforms:

I’m not really a fan of [Obama’s] policies, but I like the fact that he gave me health insurance. And I have been worried about the fact that, you know, is it going to go away because, like I said, we’re in a situation now where I can’t afford to pay $1,200 a month. And I can’t go without insurance because [a family member] has to have it in order, you know . . . a transplant could be a million dollars. . . .  Well . . . we liked [Trump] because he just seemed to be a businessman.

The Instagram site Trumpgrets is also a source of great entertainment.

Many Kentucky coal miners supported Donald Trump even though he will likely take away their health care.

This Vox interview with a Trump supporter is priceless:

In the end, I voted for Trump because he promised to repeal and replace Obamacare, and that was the most important issue to my own life. Looking back, I realize what a mistake it was. I ignored the pundits who repeated over and over again that he would not follow through on his promises, thinking they were spewing hysterics for better ratings. Sitting on my couch, my mouth agape at the words coming out his mouth on the TV before me, I realized just how wrong I was.

There are many explanations for why a voter would might choose a candidate who is likely to do that person harm. The American electorate, to put it kindly, is not particularly sophisticated. The country’s schools are broken: A high percentage of graduates of either high school and college lack critical thinking and reading skills. Many graduates also cannot read and properly evaluate a newspaper editorial, or discern if a story is from a reputable source or is “fake news.” Voters also privilege different issues in their calculations. For committed conservatives, winning the “culture war” may be more important than basic pocketbook or bread-and-butter issues.

Social scientists have repeatedly shown the ways that American voters reason backward from their conclusions and ignore inconvenient information. The vast majority of Trump voters received their information from Fox News: Disinformation and lies are taken as truth; the phenomenon of circular and self-limiting knowledge that social scientists call “epistemic closure” creates right-wing political zombies. Racism, authoritarianism, bigotry and ethnocentrism are a toxic (and politically intoxicating) mix.

And perhaps the most basic truth is that Trump’s voters simply wanted to elect a human grenade as president. They pulled the pin and then forgot to run away from the explosion, likely because they were fascinated by the spectacle and eager to witness the harm that they believed Trump would do to their enemies.

The butcher’s bill is due.

Donald Trump’s proposed policies will not make America great again.

Rural Americans will suffer because of Trump’s environment, trade and agricultural policies. Wealth and income inequality will become more extreme, thus punishing and constricting the life opportunities of the vast majority of Americans of all races and backgrounds. Efforts to roll back and destroy Obamacare will deprive millions of health insurance and may lead to the hundreds of thousands of deaths. Potential deportations of undocumented immigrants will further damage the economy by raising the cost of food and services while also requiring large expenditures of federal money. The expansion of the “stop and frisk” Terrordome against black and brown communities will likely increase the number of people killed and brutalized by police while also draining public coffers to pay for the prison-industrial complex as well as to settle innumerable lawsuits against police.

As philosopher Henry Girioux has repeatedly warned, the “dead zone of capitalism” will only be expanded by Donald Trump and the Republican Party’s obsessive advancement of predatory capitalism and austerity. Red state America is already economically unproductive and parasitic, largely dependent on the taxes and economic activity generated in blue state America. As such, Trump’s policies will disproportionately punish his greatest supporters.

Well-intentioned liberals and progressives insist that we should empathize with Trump’s semi-mythical “white working-class” voters. These progressive and liberal dreamers reference examples of interracial alliances that struggled to advance shared class interests. Of course such alliances across the color line have occurred in the United States. The United Mine Workers union offers an important example of interracial, if uneven, collaboration and cooperation. At times, white and black sharecroppers across the South and elsewhere worked together against the planter-class plutocrats of the 19th and 20th centuries. In Texas, the “white scourge” of cotton was indeed king, but laborers — whites and people of color — found ways to work together to advance their shared economic interests.

Unfortunately, such interracial alliances are not common in American history. Poor and working-class white Americans have all too often chosen the psychological and material “wages of whiteness” instead of allying with people of color in the same economic class, even when the latter option would have lifted all boats. These white Americans were not tricked or hoodwinked or conned or bamboozled. They made a decision that loyalty to whiteness took precedence to  a shared sense of humanity and the common good. This is a persistent feature of American history from long before the founding of the republic through the era of Donald Trump.

When Trump’s administration fails to fulfill his promises and leaves the country worse off than before he became president, his voters will be faced with a choice. Will they continue to support him? Will they turn on their champion? Can the Great Leader successfully spin and obfuscate his failures?

M.T. Anderson, in a recent essay comparing Joseph Stalin and Donald Trump, offered the following prediction:

As Trump fumbles that economic transition, we can assume that his opponents, both in Washington and on Main Street, will be cast as “elites” who are, supposedly, causing the problem in the first place.

Trump’s voters will follow along in lockstep. They will blame Obama, focus their anger on “illegal immigrants” or simply default to blaming “lazy blacks” and “inner-city residents” for the country’s problems. This is a product of the deeply ingrained right-wing ideology and white identity politics that Trump leveraged to win the White House.

Author William S. Burroughs offered the wisdom, “Hustlers of the world, there is one mark you cannot beat: the mark inside.” Showman P.T. Barnum supposedly said there was a sucker born every minute. Both observations are appropriate for explaining how Trump’s apparatchiks and supporters are likely to react to his imminent crisis and failure.

The butcher’s bill is due.

American conservatives love to preach the gospel of “personal responsibility.” Perhaps Trump’s voters will have the opportunity to reflect on their personal responsibility for what is to come, in the very near future, from their president and his administration.

January 20 was Inauguration Day. The butcher’s bill has come due. America, how will you pay it?

Click here for reuse options!  Related Stories
Categories: Netted News

The 'Most Ominous' Inauguration in American History

AlterNet.org - January 20, 2017 - 6:54pm
Click here for reuse options! With Trump's arrival, American global exceptionalism is dead.

The sort of foreboding that pervades Washington on the day of Donald Trump’s inauguration is not unprecedented, but it hasn't been felt so strongly in a long time.

Indignation about the usurping of democracy erupted when President George Bush was inaugurated in 2001. But the protest at the swearing-in of a lightweight dynast appointed by Supreme Court decision was not fearful. At the time, Bush was seen as a pretender, not the incompetent menace he proved to be. His inauguration was not boycotted like Trump’s has been.

Richard Nixon was inaugurated in January 1969 when the country was riven by rioting, assassination and a deeply unpopular war, but no one could doubt Nixon was the man most Americans wanted in the office. He was known as Tricky Dick, but he was more trusted than Trump.

In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated at a moment when the country’s economy had collapsed and the ruling class was in in disarray. But FDR was both popular and had the confidence of the economic elite of which he was a scion. Even his enemies extended FDR goodwill as he came to office. Trump gets little goodwill from his defeated rivals because he extends none.

Today's fears are not nearly so ominous as they were in March 1861. Faced with the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln, an anti-slavery Republican, the southern state prepared to secede. Lincoln felt obliged to say, “there will be no bloodshed unless it is forced upon the Government,” a caveat some doubted he would enforce.

Historically speaking, the fear and loathing that accompanies Trump’s ascendancy in 2017 most resembles the mood of Washington in 1829. Then as now, the capital’s political recoiled at the inauguration of a brash outsider contemptuous of the educated and financial elites. As the inauguration of Andrew Jackson approached, the political class in the nation’s capital—lawyers, lobbyists, clerks (now called bureaucrats), and newspapermen (the media)—feared and mistrusted the incoming president. Like Trump, Jackson was seen by many in Washington as an aberration and as incipient tyrant. Jackson, a war hero and slave owner, lauded common (white) men as the key to American greatness and excoriated the East Coast elite as their nemesis, thus coining two enduring themes of American politics that Trump tapped with demagogic skill. 

Of course, the parallels are not exact. Jackson was genuinely popular, while Trump is genuinely unpopular. Jackson gained the presidency by winning the popular vote handily. Trump lost the popular vote and was only elected by the archaic mechanism of the Electoral College. The Jacksonian insurgency had a popular legitimacy; a democratic character, at least in the white male electorate, that Trump does not have in multiracial America.

So while Trump’s inauguration is not prelude to civil war, it likely portends an epic struggle over the nature of the American government. Like the Jacksonian insurgency, the Trump ascendancy is a threat to the country’s ruling elite. Like secessionist south, the Trump ascendancy is a threat to democratic and constitutional government.

The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne calls it the "most ominous" inauguration in modern history, citing Trump’s hostility to democratic norms. Yahoo News’ Matt Bai sees the "end of the American century," citing Trump’s repudiation of the structures of American power since World War II such as NATO, the United Nations, and the global regime of free trade.

But Trump’s capture of the White House was made possible by the very weakness of those norms (which didn’t quite extend to the Bernie Sanders campaign or voters disenfranchised by the Supreme Court’s gutting of the Voting Rights Act) and the evident failure of those power structures (which in recent decades have delivered growing inequality and unsuccessful wars, not economic security, to most Americans).

Exceptionally Exhausted

Behind the democratic deficit and economic dysfunction—and Trump’s triumph—is the exhaustion of American exceptionalism, that enduring civic creed that holds the United States is, or should aspire to be, a light unto the world, a "shining city on a hill.” In American politics, the term American exceptionalism (let’s call it AE) often has conservative connotations. But the notion that America is destined and entitled to extend its dominion over the world has deep roots in American history.

In 1942, Time magazine publisher Henry Luce coined the term the "American Century” in retailing the idea that only America deserved to be the world’s pre-eminent power. After World War II, liberal intellectuals played a leading role in building the national and international institutions that enforced American domination. Since the election of Bill Clinton, the Democratic Party has mostly deferred to this corporate order rather than reform or restructure it.

A conservative version of AE was popularized by President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Reagan never tired of invoking the “shining city on a hill” even as his administration funded CIA dirty wars in Central America and subverted Congress with the Iran-Contra scheme. A neoconservative version of AE helped propel President George W. Bush into Iraq, believing that U.S. military force would remove Saddam Hussein and the grateful Iraqi people would adopt our politics and emulate our institutions. The neoconservative version of AE proved to be the gift wrapping on a package of folly, war crimes and defeat.

Barack Obama was denounced by John Bolton and other right-wing critics for not believing in AE. Obama’s heresy was to note that other peoples and countries think of themselves as exceptional—and so they do. But Obama avowed he believed in AE "with every fiber of my being." He just had a different version of AE.

While Reagan and Bush’s AE tended to be nationalist, militaristic and implicitly Christian, Obama offered a more internationalist, diplomatic and multicultural variation. It was America’s evolution as a multiracial democracy (culminating in his own rise to power) and liberal post-war leadership (ditto) that made the USA a light unto the world, he said.

Obama’s AE was relatively attractive, at least to the college-educated. His personal story offered hope that the country had transcended its racial heritage and in some ways it had. But while Obama orchestrated stabilized and regulated the U.S. and global economy, he relied on the national and international economic elites to lead the country out of the Great Recession. He did not attempt any restructuring of the institutions that embodied and powered America’s exceptionally ambitious role in the world since 1945. He advocated progressive tax and health care policies, but he left job creation to the corporations who had every incentive to outsource. 

Obama was successful, especially in comparison to his successor. But his economics results were, at best, unevenly distributed. The free-trade deals that Obama touted offered little and delivered less for American workers without college degrees. Poverty didn’t begin to decline until his last year in office, and even that is disputed. To a lot of voters, Obama’s multicultural AE looked like the gift-wrapping on economic abandonment.

Trump’s call to “Make America Great Again” may sound like an AE slogan, but it isn’t. Trump does not want to be America to be an example to the world any more than he aspires to be an example to your teenage son. He doesn’t trust the globalized economic regime because it has abandoned the working-class white voters who admire him most. Trump doesn’t want America to be exceptional—as in unique, just and inspiring. He wants America to be great, as in powerful, pre-eminent and independent.

So the opposition gathering in Washington to protest Trump’s inauguration has a double challenge: to resist Trump’s government of generals and billionaires while offering a vision of American government that doesn’t rely on the idea that America and its institutions are exceptional. Not with Donald Trump in command.

It won’t be easy. Trump’s opponents are united in opposition to the man, but still divided on tactics. While the battle cry "Not My President" voices a visceral feeling, it is hardly inspiring to tens millions of Trump supporters who want a president who puts American workers first every day. During the campaign, Hillary Clinton campaigned on the certainty that Trump’s sexual misbehavior would discredit his anti-elitist message. She assumed cosmopolitican AE would trump provinical #MAGA. She was wrong and here we are, filled with foreboding.

Click here for reuse options!  Related Stories
Categories: Netted News

Reich: 7 Hard Truths for Democrats—The Future Is Bleak Without Radical Reforms

AlterNet.org - January 20, 2017 - 5:33pm
Click here for reuse options! Democrats have to stop squabbling and understand the dire future ahead of us.

The ongoing contest between the Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders wings of the Democratic Party continues to divide Democrats. It’s urgent Democrats stop squabbling and recognize seven basic truths:

1. The Party is on life support. Democrats are in the minority in both the House and Senate, with no end in sight. Since the start of the Obama Administration they’ve lost 1,034 state and federal seats. They hold only governorships, and face 32 state legislatures fully under GOP control. No one speaks for the party as a whole. The Party’s top leaders are aging, and the back bench is thin.

The future is bleak unless the Party radically reforms itself. If Republicans do well in the 2018 midterms, they’ll control Congress and the Supreme Court for years. If they continue to hold most statehouses, they could entrench themselves for a generation.

2. We are now in a populist era. The strongest and most powerful force in American politics is a rejection of the status quo, a repudiation of politics as usual, and a deep and profound distrust of elites, including the current power structure of America.

That force propelled Donald Trump into the White House. He represents the authoritarian side of populism. Bernie Sanders’s primary campaign represented the progressive side.

The question hovering over America’s future is which form of populism will ultimately prevail. At some point, hopefully, Trump voters will discover they’ve been hoodwinked. Even in its purist form, authoritarian populism doesn’t work because it destroys democracy. Democrats must offer the alternative.

3. The economy is not working for most Americans. The economic data show lower unemployment and higher wages than eight years ago, but the typical family is still poorer today than it was in 2000, adjusted for inflation; median weekly earning are no higher than in 2000; a large number of working-age people—mostly men—have dropped out of the labor force altogether; and job insecurity is endemic.

Inequality is wider and its consequences more savage in America than in any other advanced nation.

4. The Party’s moneyed establishment—big donors, major lobbyists, retired members of Congress who have become bundlers and lobbyists—are part of the problem. Even though many consider themselves “liberal” and don’t recoil from an active government, their preferred remedies spare corporations and the wealthiest from making any sacrifices.

The moneyed interests in the Party allowed the deregulation of Wall Street and then encouraged the bailout of the Street. They’re barely concerned about the growth of tax havens, inside trading, increasing market power in major industries (pharmaceuticals, telecom, airlines, private health insurers, food processors, finance, even high tech), and widening inequality.

Meanwhile, they’ve allowed labor unions to shrink to near irrelevance. Unionized workers used to be the ground troops of the Democratic Party. In the 1950s, more than a third of all private-sector workers were unionized; today, fewer than 7 percent are.

5. It’s not enough for Democrats to be “against Trump,” and defend the status quo. Democrats have to fight like hell against regressive policies Trump wants to put in place, but Democrats also need to fight for a bold vision of what the nation must achieve—like expanding Social Security, and financing the expansion by raising the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes; Medicare for all; and world-class free public education for all.

And Democrats must diligently seek to establish countervailing power—stronger trade unions, community banks, more incentives for employee ownership and small businesses, and electoral reforms that get big money out of politics and expand the right to vote.

6. The life of the Party—its enthusiasm, passion, youth, principles, and ideals—was elicited by Bernie Sanders’s campaign. This isn’t to denigrate what Hillary Clinton accomplished—she did, after all, win the popular vote in the presidential election by almost 3 million people. It’s only to recognize what all of us witnessed: the huge outpouring of excitement that Bernie’s campaign inspired, especially from the young. This is the future of the Democratic Party.

7. The Party must change from being a giant fundraising machine to a movement.It needs to unite the poor, working class, and middle class, black and white—who haven’t had a raise in 30 years, and who feel angry, powerless, and disenfranchised.

If the Party doesn’t understand these seven truths and fails to do what’s needed, a third party will emerge to fill the void.

Third parties usually fail because they tend to draw votes away from the dominant party closest to them, ideologically. But if the Democratic Party creates a large enough void, a third party won’t draw away votes. It will pull people into politics.

And drawing more people into politics is the only hope going forward.

Click here for reuse options!  Related Stories
Categories: Netted News

5 Best Art World Protests Against Trump

AlterNet.org - January 20, 2017 - 5:18pm
Click here for reuse options! The revolution will be painted, drawn, photographed and sung.

Aside from the $10,000 self-portrait Donald Trump spent his charity’s money on, our president-elect is no fan of art. His disdain reached Jesse Helms levels Thursday morning when the Hill reported that among other draconian budget cuts, the new administration plans to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Is he unhappy with the ending of "Downton Abbey"? Does Barron think "Sesame Street" is passe? Does Trump miss the 1980s so much that instead of bringing back shoulder pads, he thought he’d revive the debates over government funding for Karen Finley’s chocolate-covered naked performance art or Robert Mapplethorpe’s erotic photos? Unless he tweets about it, we may never know, so fortunately the art world has been organizing its resistance.

Inauguration weekend, the organizers promise, is only the beginning of the creative resistance. Read on for five ways to get started. 

1. J20 Art Strike.

Art world luminaries such as Richard Serra, Cindy Sherman and Marilyn Minter are some of the 400-plus signees of a letter endorsing the J20 Art Strike, a request that museums and cultural institutions of all kinds close their doors on January 20. Among their demands:

"An Act of Noncompliance on Inauguration Day. No Work, No School, No Business. Museums. Galleries. Theaters. Concert Halls. Studios. Nonprofits. Art Schools. Close For The Day. Hit The Streets. Bring Your Friends. Fight Back."

Museums responded in a variety of ways, as Quartz reports. Some are closing altogether. Others, like the Whitney in New York City, the Museum of Contemporary Art in LA and the Walker Center in Minneapolis offered pay-what-you-wish admission. The Brooklyn Museum hosted a marathon reading of Langston Hughes’s 1935 poem “Let America Be America Again."

Art website Hyperallergic has a running list of participating institutions.

2. Nasty Women art shows.

Artist Roxanne Jackson’s Facebook post was casual: “Hello female artists/curators! Lets organize a nasty women group show! Who's interested?” Little did she know she’d have 300-plus responses within an hour. What was initially conceived as a short, small group exhibition, blossomed, with the help of her co-organizers into a four-day Planned Parenthood fundraiser at New York City’s Knockdown Center, with nearly 700 participants who submitted their work to an open call.

It was the most egalitarian of group shows, with no one turned away as long as they submitted on time and adhered to size requirements, plus no piece was priced over $100, even for artists whose work regularly fetches into the tens of thousands. There were sculptures, paint and glitter, and gold. There are also now, according to the exhibition’s website, 23 confirmed sister exhibitions across the world running through February.

Even more importantly, $50,000 was raised, $42,000 for Planned Parenthood, and through an additional fundraiser, $8,000 for additional women’s charities. There was anger, yes, but as co-organizer Jasmine Fiore told New York Magazine, “Art creates resistance because it creates empathy. It exposes you to new ideas and connects you to new people and new communities. That’s always going to be its power.”

3. Artists Shepard Fairey, Jessica Sabogal and Ernesto Yeren raise $1.3 million on Kickstarter for protest art.

Ernesto Yeren, We The Resilient 

Shepard Fairey designed the iconic Hope images for the 2008 Obama campaign, featuring the president’s face bathed in red, white and blue light. Instead of spending inauguration day staring at posters as frayed as our feelings, Fairey joined fellow artists Jessica Sabogal and Ernesto Yeren and the Amplifier Foundation (an "art machine for social change") to design new art in time for inauguration weekend. The aim, according to the Kickstarter page, is to “flood” Washington with hopeful images.

As the campaign states, "On January 20, if this campaign succeeds, we're going to take out full-page ads in the Washington Post with these images, so that people across the capitol and across the country will be able to carry them into the streets, hang them in windows, or paste them on walls.”

Shephard Fairey, Greater Than Fear

At $1.3 million, they’re miles ahead of the initial $60,000 goal. Aside from being free, the best part is, none of the three images features the face of the 45th president.

Jessica Sabogal, Women are Perfect 

4. What a Joke Comedy Festival.

Comedians may have enjoyed eviscerating Trump during the campaign, but many of the jokes were topped with a giant scoop of "this can't happen here." Well, it can and it did, and now, all weekend long, residents of 20 cities across America can go to the What a Joke Comedy Fest and ask themselves the ever important question: Do jokes still work? All ticket proceeds go to the ACLU.

The shows feature bigger names like Janeane Garofalo, Laurie Kilmartin and Nikki Glaser, as well as up-andecomers like Josh Gondelman and Jo Firestone. Visit the What a Joke website for the full list of cities and shows and watch the trailer below. Don't have a show in your city? You can still buy one of their red and white What a Joke hats, which also benefit the ACLU and bear a striking resemblence to a certain orange menace's preferred headgear. 

Watch the trailer below: 

5. Banner Drop Against Hate.

On the morning of January 20, dozens of buildings in Atlanta and Philadelphia were adorned with artist-made banners or signs of solidarity, displaying, as the group's Facebook page describes, "messages of love and inclusivity to stand in opposition to hate and in protest of any and all that embolden divisiveness."

The idea started with Philadelphia artists and curators who wanted to display anti-racism banners on private homes. It eventually snowballed into a citywide movement, with business owners and residents alike agreeing to drop their banners Friday morning. A group of arts organizations heard about the project and decided to create a sister campaign. As the Philadelphia organizers put it, "We refuse to accept the normalization of divisiveness and the hate it breeds. Philadelphia is not only the birthplace of American democracy, but the City of Brotherly Love and Sisterly Affection." 

Click here for reuse options!  Related Stories
Categories: Netted News

When the NY Times Helped Trump by Putting the Brakes on the Russian Hacking Story

AlterNet.org - January 20, 2017 - 4:16pm
Click here for reuse options! The Times fixed the FBI's PR problem; they also undermined national security.

Talk about strange bedfellows joining forces to produce an unlikely media alliance.

That’s what happened when The New York Times reported on October 31, 2016, that FBI officials had not been able to uncover any evidence that Russian operatives, through allegedly hacking Democratic emails, were trying to help elect Donald Trump.

“Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia,” read the October 31 Times headline which relied on unnamed “law enforcement officials.”

Acting as an almost unofficial time-out, and one that came with the Times’ seal of approval, the article helped put the media brakes on the unfolding Russian hacking story; the same Russian hacking story that has now morphed into a full-scale Trump scandal.

The message on October 31 from the Times’ sources was unmistakable: There’s no conclusive connection between Trump and the Russians, and the Russians’ efforts were “aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.” (Question: How do you not pick sides in a two-person election if you only undermine one of the candidates, the way Russian hackers only undermined the Democrat?)

The Times piece set off audible cheers within the conservative media, which usually holds the Times in contempt for its supposed “liberal media bias.”

In fact, pointing to the newspaper’s alleged Democratic leanings, conservative claimed that if even the liberal New York Times determined there was no Trump-Russia story, then it definitely must be true.

“And as far as liberals are concerned, the Democrats are concerned, when the New York Times clears you, you are cleared,” Rush Limbaugh told his listeners on November 1. “The New York Times carries as much weight as the FBI, and if the New York Times says there’s nothing to see between Trump and Russia and Putin, then there’s nothing to see.”

All across the conservative media landscape, the Times report was held up as putting the Trump-Russia story to bed.

However, to suggest the Times’ influential October 31 report “hasn’t aged well,” as MSNBC’s Chris Hayes recently put it, may be an understatement, as the unfolding hacking scandal continues to gain momentum and more evidence tumbles out regarding claims that Russians were trying to help Trump. (Hayes also correctly recalled that "At the same time the FBI was leaking like a sieve about Clinton, people around it went out of their way to dampen the Putin talk.")

The problems with the Times article are many. First off, Sen. Harry Reid’s spokesman claimed that Reid had been interviewed for the Times’ article, pushed back against its timid premise about there being no connection, and that Reid’s comments were omitted from the story.

More recently, we’ve seen all kinds of information revealed that contradicts the Times’ often-quoted October 31 report. For instance, FBI Director James Comey testified in December that Russia had “hacked into Republican state political campaigns and old email domains of the Republican National Committee,” but did not release information from those hacks. As Reuters pointed out, that allegation “may buttress the U.S. intelligence view that Moscow tried to help Trump against Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign.”

More recently, the BBC reported that “a joint taskforce, which includes the CIA and the FBI, has been investigating allegations that the Russians may have sent money to Mr Trump's organisation or his election campaign.” Also last week, the Guardian reported that FBI investigators were so concerned with a possible Trump-Russia connection that they asked for a foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) warrant to monitor Trump aides during the campaign. (The warrant request was reportedly denied.)

Meanwhile, Britain’s The Independent reported that the former intelligence officer who wrote the recently revealed Trump dossier was frustrated that the FBI had “for months” ignored the information he passed along to the bureau about a possible Trump-Russian connection.

Note that just four weeks after the election, the Times itself reported, “Both intelligence and law enforcement officials agree that there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence suggesting that the Russian hacking was primarily aimed at helping Mr. Trump and damaging his opponent.” (Emphasis added.)

And from NPR: “FBI, CIA Agree That Russia Was Trying To Help Trump Win The Election.”

Here’s the larger context for the Times report and why it was seen as such a game-changer at the time.

On October 31, the FBI was dealing with two breaking news stories that were spinning out of its control and reflecting poorly on Comey.

The bureau was under withering criticism from legal experts, journalists, Democrats, and even some Republicans after Comey inserted insert himself into the final days of the campaign by informing Congress that the FBI was reigniting its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email while secretary of state. That last weekend in October the bureau was also battling damaging news stories that suggested its leadership had been slow to respond to the Russian hacking controversy as it pertained to Donald Trump.

Comey’s letter to Congress about the emails was dispatched October 28. In the days that followed, a steady stream of revelations undercut his actions. On October 30, CNN reported that the FBI had known about the new emails for “weeks” before Comey decided to go public with the information just days before the election.

The following day, news outlets reported that Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) had sent Comey a blistering letter , insisting the FBI director was sitting on “‘explosive’ information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers, and the Russian government.”

That same day, Mother Jones, foreshadowing the news last week about a dossier collected on Trump, reported that, “a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country” had provided to the FBI with “memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump—and that the FBI requested more information from him.”

And that same day, CNBC reported, “FBI Director James Comey argued privately that it was too close to Election Day for the United States government to name Russia as meddling in the U.S. election.”

The contrast was startling: Comey had publicly reinvigorated the Clinton email investigation based on emails the FBI hadn’t even read (the emails turned out to be irrelevant), yet at the same time Comey allegedly sat on new information regarding claims that Trump had ongoing ties with Russia because Comey thought the optics would look bad.

Given all this, the FBI needed a way to stop the public relations bleeding. And late in the day on October 31, the Times provided the respite.

Specifically, the article helped push back on reports Comey didn’t want to go public with any Russian information close to Election Day.

“The reason Comey didn’t announce the existence of this investigation wasn’t because it was it was ‘explosive’ and could impact the election,” announced the conservative site, Hot Air, pointing to the Times article. “It was because the FBI had already figured out it was a dud.”

In other words, FBI PR problem solved. The problems with the Times report, however, were just beginning.

 

Click here for reuse options!  Related Stories
Categories: Netted News

Trump Snubs Ethical Norms Because We've Forgotten Why They Matter

AlterNet.org - January 20, 2017 - 4:15pm
Click here for reuse options! Make ethics great again.

Let’s be honest. Conflicts of interest are boring.

The president-elect knows this. In fact, he’s banking on it.

Instead of addressing his conflicts in a meaningful way at his press conference last week, Trump pointed to a stack of folders behind him. He then turned the press conference over to a lawyer, who talked about Trump’s plans for long enough for viewers to lose interest. It sounded official and complicated, even though it’s an embellished version of his November announcement to turn the business over to his children.

Many condemned Trump’s plan to handle his myriad conflicts of interest as president as wholly inadequate, including the director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics.

But most likely, Trump will get away with it – for now – and continue to ignore the warnings of government ethics officials, tasked with preventing things from going terribly wrong.

For decades, they’ve been so successful at preventing a major government ethics scandal, Trump’s conflicts of interest now seem academic and even soporific to the average voter. Unfortunately for Trump, his unwillingness to listen makes a disaster much more likely. On the upside, a scandal would at least remind Americans why ethics-based precautions matter.

Owning is knowing

Trump’s plan consists of handing management of the family business to his sons, Don and Eric, and a current Trump executive. Trump pledges not to discuss business with his sons.

Trump will not be divesting his golf clubs, commercial properties, resorts, hotels or royalty rights. The plan also provides for no “new” foreign deals, though new domestic deals will be permitted subject to a “vetting process.” Existing foreign and domestic deals will presumably continue.

Walter Shaub, who directs the Office of Government Ethics, condemned Trump’s plan as “meaningless.” Turning over management of the business to others – especially his own children – is not a “blind trust” because Trump “knows what he owns.” Trump’s own attorney used this fact as an argument that nothing could be done about the conflict.

Shaub disagreed. If Trump divests his assets and places them in a blind trust – meant to prevent an elected official from making decisions that would benefit his or her own business interests – he won’t know what he owns. The independent trustee would make decision about selling assets and which assets to buy in their place. Under the government’s standard blind trust agreement, the trustee wouldn’t tell the president which assets are in the trust.

Much ado about nothing?

Nevertheless, Republican Representative Jason Chaffetz called Shaub “highly unethical” for publicly criticizing Trump’s plan.

It’s certainly unusual, but, as with all things Trump, we’re in uncharted waters.

For some Trump supporters, all of this ethics criticism feels alarmist and exaggerated. One explained to me that these conflicts of interests are all hypothetical and abstract. Nothing terrible has happened yet. He argued that Trump’s potentially problematic behavior thus far – like his business-related inquiries of the Argentinian president or complaints to Brexit leaders about wind farms near his golf course – is small potatoes compared to other national priorities.

This reaction is understandable. It’s hard to imagine a giant presidential ethics scandal because there hasn’t been one since the Nixon administration. Why worry?

Anyone in the business of prevention understands this challenge. In “The Black Swan,” Wharton scholar Nicholas Nassim Taleb described the most “mistreated heroes” as those “we do not know were heroes, who saved our lives, who helped us [by] avoid[ing] disasters.”

Taleb presents the thought experiment of a hypothetical legislator who passed a law requiring that cockpit doors be locked as of Sept. 10, 2001. Yes, the legislator would have succeeded in preventing a terrorist attack. But he would also erase the proof that his legislation was valuable.

In the business of prevention, the benefits are hypothetical and the costs are real. The diseases prevented by vaccines have become so rare that they have reached the status of a hypothetical threat. Some parents now decline vaccines based on ephemeral fears because the benefits have become even more ephemeral.

William Ruckelshaus, a Republican and the first Environmental Protection Agency administrator, summed up the problem nicely:

“During the late ‘60s, the early ‘70s … [y]ou could see the air pollution on your way to work in the morning. When I first moved to Washington, the air was brown, mostly associated with automobile emissions. We had rivers that caught on fire like the (Cuyahoga) going through Cleveland, Ohio. …today it doesn’t galvanize as much public demand that something be done as was true back in the 1960s. EPA is a victim of its own success. A lot of the changes in the air and the water have been a result of a pretty vigorous agency going after polluters.”

Make ethics great again

Conflicts of ethics rules serve as preventative measures, as Shaub pointed out.

Blind trusts make conflicts of interest impossible because government officials both no longer have control of the assets and don’t know what they are. It is impossible to be influenced by ownership of an unknown asset.

All of the presidents since the Watergate scandal have acted as though the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 applied to them, even though technically it doesn’t.

In a sense, the entire Executive Branch has been vaccinated against conflicts of interest for the last 40 years. That is until now, with an incoming president who stated repeatedly during his press conference that conflict of interest rules don’t apply. So maybe we’re due for a scandal?

Sometimes, retrenchment can be helpful to the cause of prevention. In 2015, a measles outbreak at Disneyland led to an increase in vaccination rates. Trump’s unprecedented conflicts of interest could do the same for Washington, spurring a renewed push to bind the president to higher ethical standards.

At it stands, Trump’s failure to address his conflicts means that he remains exposed to the possibility of a full-blown conflicts-of-interest scandal. All it would take is for President Trump to have another conversation with British politicians about those pesky wind farms near his golf course in Scotland, this time from the Oval Office.

Yes, it would be a blow to the office of the presidency. But on the upside, it would – to borrow the president-elect’s favored phrase – make ethics great again.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Click here for reuse options!  Related Stories
Categories: Netted News

Scahill: Blackwater Founder Erik Prince, the Brother of Betsy DeVos, Is Secretly Advising Donald Trump

AlterNet.org - January 20, 2017 - 3:45pm
Click here for reuse options! Democracy Now! spoke with Jeremy Scahill, co-founder of The Intercept, about his latest piece, "Notorious Mercenary Erik Prince Is Advising Trump from the Shadows."

The Intercept’s Jeremy Scahill has revealed Betsy DeVos’s brother, Erik Prince, the founder of the mercenary firm Blackwater, has been quietly advising Trump’s transition team, including helping vet Cabinet picks. On election night, Prince’s wife, Stacy DeLuke, even posted pictures from inside Trump’s campaign headquarters. 

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you about Betsy DeVos’s brother, Erik Prince, who you’ve been talking about, the founder of Blackwater. In July, he spoke to Steve Bannon, who at the time was the head of Breitbart News, the white supremacist, white nationalist news site; Steve Bannon, who’s now Trump’s senior adviser. Prince said Trump should recreate a version of the Phoenix Program, the CIA assassination ring that operated during the Vietnam War, to fight ISIS.

ERIK PRINCE: It was a vicious, but very effective, kill/capture program in Vietnam that destroyed the Viet Cong as a military force. That’s what needs to be done to the funders of Islamic terror. And that would be even the—the wealthy radical Islamist billionaires funding it from the Middle East and any of the other illicit activities they’re in.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Erik Prince. The significance of what he’s saying here, Jeremy?

JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, you know, remember, Erik Prince views himself as the rightful heir to the legacy of "Wild Bill" Donovan, who was the head of the agency that was the precursor to the CIA. And, you know, immediately after 9/11, Erik Prince became very, very close to a number of people within the CIA and also Dick Cheney and Dick Cheney’s office. And they jointly came up with this idea that Erik Prince could run a kind of off-the-books hit squad that could roam the world conducting assassinations for the United States, and there would be no effective paper trail and no ability for Congress to engage in any oversight. Now, Leon Panetta, who was Obama’s CIA director early on in Obama’s term, said, "Oh, we shut down that program, and no one was ever killed." I don’t believe that for one moment. That was—that was part of the legacy of the Phoenix Program, that was a murderous death squad operation in Vietnam, that also included enhanced interrogation. What Erik Prince being around Trump indicates to me is that—

AMY GOODMAN: And talk about what you found out about election night and what his role is. We just have 50 seconds.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Right, well, Robert Mercer, the billionaire hedge funder, his daughter Rebekah ran one of the most important super PACs to Trump, Make America Number 1 super PAC. And Trump—and Erik Prince and his mother, Elsa, were two of the largest contributors to one of the most significant super PACs that supported Donald Trump. Erik Prince is very close to Robert Mercer. Prince was also at the "Heroes and Villains" party that Mercer threw in Long Island after the election. And, in fact, there’s a picture that Peter Thiel, the right-wing billionaire who destroyed Gawker—a picture of Peter Thiel, Donald Trump and Erik Prince, that Peter Thiel says is not safe for the internet. But it’s clear that Erik Prince, through Betsy DeVos, through Robert Mercer and through his very right-wing paramilitary crowd, has the ear of President-elect Donald Trump. And our understanding, from a very well-placed source, is that Prince has even been advising Trump on his selections for the staffing of the Defense Department and the State Department.

Click here for reuse options!  Related Stories
Categories: Netted News

Nurse Leader DeMoro: Access to Buying Insurance Is Not Health Coverage

AlterNet.org - January 20, 2017 - 3:43pm
Click here for reuse options! With the rush to repeal the ACA, things are in danger of getting very ugly fast.

A signature exchange early in the first Senate hearing Wednesday for Rep. Tom Price in his nomination to be the next Health and Human Services Secretary illustrates a lot about our still damaged health care system, and how it could get much worse.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose call to expand coverage through an improved Medicare-for-all was a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, forcefully challenged Price to commit to guaranteed health care for every American.

Sanders: The United States of America is the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right. Do you believe that health care is a right of all Americans, whether they are rich or they’re poor? Should people, because they are Americans, be able to go to the doctor, be able to go into a hospital because they are Americans? In Canada, in other countries, all people have the right to get health care. Do you believe we should move in that direction?

Price: I believe that every single American has access to the highest quality care and coverage that is possible.

Sanders. ‘Has access to’ does not mean that they are guaranteed health care. I have access to buying a $10 million home; I don’t have the money to do that.

Unpack the evasions and you have the Ayn Rand Tea Party philosophy in a nutshell. You only deserve the health care you can buy, from private insurance companies that have a history of price-gouging with multiple restrictions on the care you can receive even after paying your premiums.

"Access to care" in the mouths of those devoted to shredding every vestige of our health care safety net only serves as a pointed reminder of the elevation of double-speak for an incoming administration whose press secretary, Sean Spicer, can praise the "totality of diversity" that is "second to none" for a cabinet where 13 of 16 nominees are white men. Or perhaps Spicer just meant the "diversity" of both millionaires and billionaires.

Any notion that the private health care market, which has long prioritized its profiteering above any guarantees of access, cost or quality, will somehow do a better job of assuring “every person the financial feasibility to purchase the coverage they want” requires a suspension of disbelief that is truly Orwellian.

Probably the best evidence of the failure of the market-driven system—which saw the U.S. fall to 37th in the world according to a World Health Organization ranking early in this century—is the decades-long push for major health care reform. The Affordable Care Act was a step forward, especially in access, through the expansion of Medicaid for many low- and moderate-income adults, and a ban on some of the worst insurance abuses that permitted more people to buy insurance plans through the ACA market exchanges.

Significant holes in the ACA, especially the failure to adequately control out-of-pocket costs for millions of people, opened the door to many of the attacks, as hypocritical as the ideological resistance has been from those in Congress to a plan that was evolved from conservative think tanks and designed to meet the desires of the health care industry.

Now, with the rush to repeal the ACA, things are in danger of getting very ugly fast.

Incoming President Trump did throw a wrench into the feeding frenzy in a series of statements insisting that the Republican majorities in the Senate and House adopt a concurrent replacement plan with repeal of the ACA. Further he set conditions, that no one lose coverage they’ve gained under the ACA, and that premiums and deductibles be lowered.

That has made it sticky for the repeal-and-replace crowd. Not one scheme they have talked about the past eight years comes close to meeting those parameters.

Not health savings accounts or tax credits to buy insurance without any controls on the predatory pricing practices of the industry.

Not “selling insurance across state lines” which is merely a race to the bottom, letting insurance giants decamp in the least regulated states so that other states, with stronger public protections, must accept those same lowered standards.

And not converting Medicaid to block grants, which Price, and now Trump, are proposing as a “solution” for expanded coverage.

The Medicaid block grant proposal is intended to sharply reduce federal funding for Medicaid, and then leave it to states, more than half now controlled by conservative budget hawks, to reduce their commitment to health coverage for low-and moderate-income people by restricting eligibility and cutting covered benefits.

Sanders also pressed Price on whether he would adhere to another Trump promise not to cut Medicare and Medicaid.

And then there was this exchange, in which Sanders pointed out another Trump call for increased negotiations to reduce prescription drug prices, which would be a sharp U-turn for congressional conservatives who have repeatedly blocked the ability of Medicare to negotiate discounts as most other countries do.

Sanders: Will you work with us so that Medicare negotiates prices with the pharmaceutical industry?

Price: You have my commitment to work with you and others to make certain that the drug pricing is reasonable and that individuals have access to the medications that they need.

There he goes again. “Access” to medications may mean you can stand in a pharmacy and admire the drugs on the shelves, but it still does not mean you can afford the massive price-gouging to get them.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

 

Click here for reuse options!  Related Stories
Categories: Netted News

Pushback Against DeVos: Public Schools Are Our Best Future

AlterNet.org - January 20, 2017 - 3:24pm
Click here for reuse options! Teachers and parents rally to fight Trump privatizers and anti-immigrant agenda.

On a rainy Thursday morning at Edna Brewer Middle School in Oakland, Calif., parents dropping off their kids on the last day of Barack Obama’s presidency were greeted by an unusual sight.

An energized mix of teachers, Glen View neighborhood residents and an Oakland Unified School Board member, Roseann Torres, who co-sponsored a resolution last month making OUSD one of the state’s first “sanctuary” districts, were holding protest signs praising public schools and rejecting Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to deport millions, target Muslim-Americans and strip LGBT and reproductive rights.

“We’re passing out flyers, telling parents we are out here because we believe in public schools,” Ismael F. Armendariz Jr., a special education teacher and “walk-in” protest organizer said. “We believe in fully funding public schools and we also want to remind parents that our school is a safe school for students.”

Despite the wet day, a small crowd grew amid what’s normally a rush to lockers and classrooms. The Oakland protest was among 1,000 actions in 200 cities across the country Thursday led by the 3 million-member National Education Association, with NEA president Lily García showcasing schools in Los Angeles and Las Cruces, New Mexico.

In Oakland, Rich Johnson, 72, stood amid red, white and blue posters from the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools and NEA saying, “The schools all our children deserve," and a handmade one saying, “Todos Pueden Estudiar Aqui”—all can study here.

“I’m just a neighbor, not a PTA member. I think the schools are important,” he said, saying he was inspired by what he saw—a core group of 100-to-200 parents in an 800-pupil school that actively supported their kids and the neighborhood middle school. He liked their values and what he saw its teachers doing.

“When I saw a leaflet with a walk-in, I said I’m going,” Johnson said, adding he quickly emailed others. “Walk-in day, not walkout day, where you go on strike. This is a very positive response that bunches of kids or their friend might be picked up by ICE [federal immigration police] because their paperwork is not in order. I like the name of that, walk-in… We don’t want ICE picking up parents either.”

The National Walk In marked the start of a new NEA push to engage and stand with communities by showcasing the successes and values of traditional public schools as they have come under escalating attacks. The threats began with ongoing efforts by super-wealthy entrepreneurs to privatize school operations, narrow curriculum to emphasize test preparation and retain teachers based on test scores. That was all before Trump’s attacks on minorities, which could reach into public schools and snare students.

While traditional public school advocates in Washington, D.C., spent this week showing how astoundingly unprepared Betsy DeVos, the Secretary of Education designate, is for that cabinet post, actions like Edna Brewer’s walk-in were a deliberate counterpoint, said Trish Gorham, Oakland Education Association president.

“In Oakland, our theme is SAFE: public schools are for everyone,” she said. “It is coming off of the sanctuary resolution that certainly is uppermost in our minds, but immigration is not only where our students need to be protected. They need to be protected with immigration status, gender status, religion, ethnicity. All of these are possibly being targeted and that’s where we are going to protect our students in all of those areas.”

Standing with students and their families was the priority on the eve of Trump’s inauguration, Gorham said, not bashing DeVos, a billionaire who never attended public schools or sent her children to any, nor served on a locally elected school board, and whose family foundation has given multi-millions to K-12 privatization entrepreneurs.

“We decided that we would not create this external target, but we would try and strengthen our community," Gorham said. "Because it is in strengthening our community and bringing our community together around our schools that ultimately will save our public school system.”

The strengths of traditional public schools, including how many are deepening ties with other local public agencies to help address health, housing and services that support poor families and their students, is the “untold story” in K-12 education, said NEA president Lily García.

“It’s not uncommon. It’s the untold story,” García said. “Privateers need a narrative that public schools are bad schools and privatized schools are good schools. Research belies that. Some of the best public schools in the world are American public schools. Those are usually the ones that are well resourced and that have programs and staff built to develop the whole student's diversity, talents and interests and needs. Our best public schools should serve as our model of where to go. They're our North Star.”

The 'Anti-Privatized School'

García, who decades ago began her career in eduction as a school lunch lady and then a grade school teacher in Utah, was en route Thursday to Las Cruces, New Mexico, for an afternoon ribbon-cutting ceremony and student-led discussion in a district that the NEA sees as modeling the best of traditional public schools. The district was expanding programs at a “community school” in coordination with local businesses and social agencies, and it has a new superintendent who told teachers to teach kids where they are and stop worrying about test prep and their career prospects based on test scores.

“Las Cruces looks more and more like America—suburban with a mix of rural kids bused in, a large immigrant population, income disparity,” García said. “What makes this school unique is that they're not waiting for some politician to give them permission to innovate. They don't want privatized charters. They want to hold these kids in the arms of the whole community.”     

Earlier this week on Tuesday night, the board meeting of Las Cruces Public Schools began in the humdrum way most locally elected school boards do across America, gaveling the meeting to order, amending the agenda and preparing the evening’s business. But then board chairwoman Maria Flores turned the podium over to several members of the audience who privately sponsored and ran an ongoing student essay and poetry contest, who in turn, introduced their latest winners to read what they wrote.

First was Andrew Angel, a Centennial High School junior who said in his essay that his grandparents had been beaten by whites for speaking Spanish when they attended Las Cruces schools, yet his grandmother became the school district’s first Hispanic nurse. He said Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in solidarity with Cesar Chavez, inspired a vision of racial justice and nonviolent protest that has helped his family and inspired him.

“We were allowed to come to something from nothing, as equals to any other Americans,” Angel read. “Dr. King helped me not only as a Hispanic but a member of a more tolerant generation, both on acceptance and non-violent expression… I intend to live my life this way and give my country in my thoughts and my actions the only thing that was ever needed: love. Love drives us all toward progress and love is the only truth that transcends race, religion and gender.”

Then came Mireya Sanchez-Maes, a freshman at Mayfield High School. Her essay described what the Mahatma Gandhi quote—“Be the change that you wish to see in the world”—meant to her, which was finding her voice, including challenging “overtesting” and urging more music and technology classes.

“So what’s my voice?” she read. “It is knowledge in the face of ignorance. Light in the face of darkness. My voice is standing up for someone who can’t stand up for themselves… My voice is fighting for what’s right, even when the battle is one fought uphill. Martin Luther King Jr. said our lives begin to end when we become silent about the things that matter. I have never felt more alive.”   

Gregory Ewing, the new superintendent, beamed and responded, echoing what many of the walk-in protesters at Oakland’s Edna Brewer Middle School were telling the students and community—that he would use all of his legal authority to protect students from the worst threats posed by the incoming Trump’ administration.     

“I would just like to say how proud I am to see these students come up and speak,” Ewing said, noting he was a member of ALAS, Association of Latino Administrators and Superintendents and MALDEF, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund. “As the superintendent, I say to the students in the school system, as long as I am your el hefe, I pledge to you you will always be protected, not only under my leadership but the leadership of my entire team. We are here for you. We believe in you.”

This small but stirring scene wasn’t the only dramatic pronouncement from Ewing on Tuesday. He addressed the concerns of students and teachers that recent state and federal laws are excessively and harmfully focused on standardized tests, to the detriment of helping students more holistically and giving teachers leeway to address individual student difficulties.

“I am in the first 90 days of the look, listen and learn tour. And here’s what I am hearing,” he said. “There’s a lot of anxiety with students about all the testing that’s taking place in schools and in classrooms. There’s also anxiety with teachers. So I would like to say to you as your superintendent, with the powers invested in me by the state, I say to all teachers in the district, you have my permission to take charge of your classrooms… I want you to stop worrying about all these national and standardized tests. I want to say to our teachers and I want to say to our students, return to teaching, return to learning.”

The lines drawn by Ewing and heartily endorsed by his superiors, Las Cruces’ elected school board, are indicative of the fault lines facing traditional public schools across America. The fight against privatization is not new but takes different forms. In Las Cruces, it is seen in testing regimes imposed by appointees of a former Republican governor with deep ties to a nationwide testing regime that was underwritten by Microsoft founder Bill Gates. Like many wealthy social entrepreneurs, he wants K-12 schools to be more like metric-driven corporate America. In Oakland, many wealthy entrepreneurs—and not just in tech—have been underwriting charter schools, which has led to multimillions in funds diverted from traditional schools, and to increasingly segregated schools in a proud, mixed-race community.   

“I began the morning in one of America’s largest public school systems and will end it in a small one,” NEA’s García said Thursday. “It doesn’t matter—urban, suburban or rural. American public schools have the answers. We’re not waiting for permission. We will proceed until apprehended to design the schools our children deserve… We’re creative about pulling communities together to make sure kids have what they need, whether that’s a meal or an Advanced Placement math class.”

Emphasizing those solutions was why García went to Las Cruces and why the NEA organized nationwide walk-in protests at 1,000 schools across the country in 200 cities, she said.

“They are cutting a ribbon at the Lynn Community Middle School [in Las Cruces]. The superintendent is calling for a moratorium on testing! The parents want this and are part of designing this,” she said. “It’s the anti-privatized school. It’s the community standing up and saying our school belongs to all of us and is not a commodity on the market. It’s a public trust—and we’re the public.”     
 
'People Were Crying on November 9'

Meanwhile in Oakland, where dozens of neighbors turned out for the Thursday walk-in, special ed teacher Ismael Armendariz pointed to a school board member, Roseanne Torres, who showed up with a hand-lettered sign, “Todos Pueden Estudiar Aqui”—all can study here.

Torres, a lawyer who works with many Latino families, not only drafted and co-sponsored the sanctuary district resolution passed by the OUSD in December, but won re-election in November despite more than $160,000 in negative ads from some of the nation's richest and best-known pro-charter school advocates. That list includes former New York City mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg, California's charter trade association and a new group, Go Public Schools, underwritten by the family that once owned Dreyer’s Ice Cream, a local chain that is now a subsidiary of Nestlé.

The fight over preserving, funding and improving Oakland’s traditional K-12 schools was already very heated, Armendariz said, and that was before Trump campaigned on pledges to target undocumented immigrants, which strikes deep fears in this community.

“We’ve done a few walk-ins at our schools and it’s been mostly centered around public school funding and supporting public schools,” he said, recounting the recent activism. “In Oakland this school year, what’s happening is a lot of people are more on edge or more hyper-aware because during the school board elections, late in the election there was a lot of investigation into the funding of our school board candidates… And then Trump got elected, and he ran on the same message that the Go Public Schools people run on, ‘We need options.’ ‘We need school choice.’ That’s where it all ties together.”

“It all translates. People were crying on November 9th,” Torres said, saying she quickly drew on language under review at the Latino School Board Association to create OUSD’s sanctuary district resolution. “By law, our children have every right to be in school. We had to act fast. I know how immigrant communities think. They don’t know the law. They don’t know the language.”

But while Trump’s threats may be a tipping point that will ignite activism and resistance unlike anything seen in America in decades, Torres said there was a wider set of challenges from privatizers that were ongoing and accelerating—especially with the Trump administration’s pro-privatization crusaders.

“That kind of [campaign attack ad] money doesn’t get spent” for no reason, she said. “That is all connected to the Trump-type people. DeVos, Bloomberg, the billionaires… Go [Public Schools] is DeVos and DeVos is Go. For people to think anything else is because they are being misled by their very slick marketing.”

“It’s not that all charters are bad,” Torres continued, “but they disrupt district programs, lead to cuts in music, arts, teacher layoffs, and are especially disruptive with special education. The biggest challenge there is rising costs. You need classes with six-to-one student-teacher ratios, or 12-to-one classes, and nurses. Charters don’t offer support at that level… We need to talk about what is really happening in public education.”

“It is a direct attack on public schools,” said Trish Gorham, Oakland Education Association president. “Some have misaligned or misdirected priorities. Some are purely out for plunder. That’s kind of the problem. There are people calling for school reform out of a deep concern and out of good intentions. But their solutions are wrong. And they’ve been proven to be wrong. And have they been proven to divide our cities and segregate and schools more than in the last 40 years… Creating these unique boutiques does a disservice to what our schools are about, which is the foundation of a democracy.”

And that is the divide the NEA is seeking to underscore at the local and national level, where on their side are local communities, locally elected boards and traditional public schools that embody democratic values and resist commercialization and a broken—and possibly worsening—federal justice system.

“While so much changes... with the change of administration, nothing changes for educators and parents and advocates for public education,” García said. “Our students will need us more than ever before to protect them and fight for them. Today, we put on the battle gear. We will not permit billionaires and profiteers to hurt our students. We will stand in the gap. To hurt them, you'll have to go through us first. And there are millions of us.”

Click here for reuse options!  Related Stories
Categories: Netted News

The Trump Administration Quietly Purges All Mention of Civil Rights and Climate Change from White House Website

AlterNet.org - January 20, 2017 - 2:36pm
Click here for reuse options! The new WhiteHouse.gov offers a harrowing glimpse of American life under our new president.

Donald Trump has been president for less than 24 hours, but he's already begun his assault on America's democratic values and the natural world. Since the inauguration Friday afternoon, WhiteHouse.gov, the official website for the White House, has purged all reference to civil rights, LGBT rights, health care and climate change. In their stead are a list of top "issues" for the Trump administration whose language is vague, contradictory and frequently vindictive—much like Trump himself.

Under the heading "America First Energy Policy," the Trump administration vows to eliminate "harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule." After promising to reignite the country's clean coal industry, which does not exist, it claims the EPA will honor its "essential mission of protecting our air and water."

Under "Making Our Military Strong Again," the White House pledges to get our soldiers the care they need by "firing the corrupt and incompetent VA executives who let our veterans down." Trump is considering privatizing large swaths of the VA office.

A page devoted to civil rights has been replaced by a screed labeled "Standing Up For Our Law Enforcement Community." WhiteHouse.gov notes that the homicide rate in Washington, D.C., is up 50 percent, which is demonstrably false. It also promises to increase the country's police presence and provide security for Americans who have "not known safe neighborhoods for a very long time." The words "African American" do not appear in any portion of the text.

Meanwhile, the "America First Foreign Policy" page promises to destroy Islamic fundamentalism, guaranteeing "peace through strength."

Welcome to Donald Trump's America. This is your country now.

Update: Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks tells The Huffington Post that more content will be added to WhiteHouse.Gov in the coming weeks and months as the site is in a state of "transition." She makes no mention of whether future iterations will contain pages devoted to the aforementioned subjects.

Click here for reuse options!  Related Stories
Categories: Netted News

The Threat Embedded in Trump's Angry Address

AlterNet.org - January 20, 2017 - 1:22pm
Click here for reuse options! Friday's inauguration saw promises of jobs and war—and hints of intimidation to come.

Amid the pomp and circumstance that belied an extraordinary reality, the U.S. government transferred the power of the presidency to Donald Trump, a swindler, reality TV star and serial liar whose living predecessors in attendance are all on record saying he is unfit for the office he now holds.

The ritual invocations of the peaceful transfer of power were moving, not the least because the recipient is beloved by many, and seen as dangerous by many others. A celebration of American democracy that buoyed Trump's supporters was laced with fear for its future, and with good reason. Before the ceremony Trump received a briefing on how he can launch a nuclear attack in 30 minutes. 

The crowd of hundreds of thousands gathered on the National Mall was smaller and more racially homogenous than the throng that greeted Barack Obama eight years ago, though no less excited about witnessing history. Security and crowd control measures were tighter than 2008, with National Guard troops stationed on street corners a mile away from the site where Chief Justice John Paul Roberts administered the oath of office.

As protesters clashed with police outside the security perimeter, Trump began his presidency with a variation on his campaign stump speech. He was vehement to the point of angry as he depicted the United States as a country ravaged, cheated and impoverished.

"For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost," he declared.

With the exception of a couple of tacked-on grace notes—a thank you to the Obamas and an aside about the common dreams of children born in Chicago and Nebraska—Trump’s oration was most notable for its focus on jobs and war, along with a characteristic hint of intimidation. If the speech indicates anything about Trump's policy priorities, the president wants a big public infrastructure program, and a war of annihilation on Islamic radicals.  

Trump used the word “rebuild” in the second sentence of the speech. Later, he did what presidents Obama and Bush, as well as most the U.S. military commanders, have chosen not to do: cast the fight against terrorists as a war on “radical Islamic terrorism.” He said nothing of traditional Republican priorities such as smaller government, tax cuts or fiscal restraint. Without mentioning Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump hinted that a U.S.-Russia alliance may be in the offing.

"We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones, and unite the civilized world against radical islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the earth," he said.

The conflict between Trump’s visceral desire to wage a war of annihilation on Islamic radicals and the futiilty of waging war on a tactic and a religion is likely to define U.S. foreign policy for as long as the Trump era lasts.

Trump’s vision for rebuilding America was the most attractive part of the speech, playing to his reputation as a builder and expressing his sympathy for the common man.

"We will build new roads and highways and bridges and airports and tunnels and railways all across our wonderful nation,” he declared. “We will get our people off of welfare and back to work—rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor. We will follow two simple rules: Buy American and hire American."

Trump’s ambition to launch a public works jobs program, guided by protectionist rules, harkens back to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. It also puts him at odds with all of the Republican Party leaders who sat on the dais with him, and generations of GOP doctrine. The conflict between Trump’s domestic ambitions and Republican fiscal policy is likely to be central to the future of his administration.

But the most revealing—and disturbing—part of Trump’s speech came in his appeal for unity in a nation where he is remarkably unpopular. The rhetorical strategy is classicly authoritarian; as he was invested with power, he invested that power not in the people generally, but in his supporters.

“We are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another,” he said at the outset, “but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American people.”

Thus the "people" are distinguished from the political parties and from the people who disagree with him, and even the institutions of government. The will of the democracy is claimed by the chief of state. At the Republican convention last summer, Trump said of the American condition, “I alone can fix it.” Now he takes his second-place finish in the national vote as a mandate to rule in the name of his supporters.

Mostly chillingly, he went on to invoke the traditions of democracy with language that throbs with the double meanings favored by autocrats.

“At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other," he said.

The suggestion that Americans should aspire to unity—a defensible proposition—carries with it the implication that those who do not share Trump’s conception of patriotism are disloyal, not only to their country, but to their fellow citizens. Those who dissent betray their neighors.

“When you open your heart to patriotism,” he went on, “there is no room for prejudice."

True patriots, he suggested, are not prejudiced, again a worthy sentiment containing a retracted blade: if you are not patriotic, you are prejudiced. Those who see racism are unpatriotic racists.

“The Bible tells us," he went on, "‘how good and pleasant it is when god’s people live together in unity.”

So those who do not choose to unify behind Trump are cast as bad and unpleasant people. Those who do not unite with Trump are ungodly.

And finally this: “We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity."

Fifty-six years before, on this same ground, President John F. Kennedy offered an utterly different vision of American citizenship: "Ask not what your country can do for you," JFK said, "Ask what you can do for your country."

Instead of JFK's open call to public service, Trump asks us to close ranks behind his crusade to "make American great again." He insists that a nation, divided in no small part by the lies and hateful rhetoric of his campaign, must now pursue solidarity. Those who speak too openly or disagree too long are somehow disrupting the work of the nation.

“The time for empty talk is over,” he said. “Now arrives the hour of action.”

For an inaugural address some hoped would be forgettable, it was actually kind of frightening.

Click here for reuse options!  Related Stories
Categories: Netted News

Protesters Attempt to Disrupt Inaugural Events in Washington

AlterNet.org - January 20, 2017 - 12:52pm
Click here for reuse options! Some demonstrators clashed with police and tried to shut down security points as hundreds mobilized in the nation’s capital against the next president.

As Donald Trump’s election victory was cemented during celebratory inauguration events in the nation’s capital, the dissent and divisive discord his campaign produced was evident on the streets of Washington DC as throngs of protesters arrived to disrupt proceedings.

A large group of activists from the anarchist group known as the black bloc smashed storefront windows and cars as they clashed with police shortly before the swearing-in ceremony was due to begin. Officers in riot gear responded with pepper spray and stun grenades as the breakaway protesters were overwhelmed with force less than two miles from the US Capitol.

The group of around 200 people, many wearing black hoodies and masks, were eventually contained by officers as they chanted: “This is what a police state looks like” and “You’re protecting fascists.” Eyewitnesses reported only a handful of arrests.

Most of the protesters declined to be interviewed or named, but one said their purpose was to reject “a system of economic exploitation called capitalism.”

“It’s not just about no order,” he said. “It’s about human freedom and an economy that’s run by the people.”

Another group of activists attempted to shut down a number of the security points allowing access to the public viewing area of the inauguration on the National Mall on Friday morning.

The small groups at these checkpoints, organised by a group named Disrupt J20, linked arms as some members were led away by police wearing body armor. The organization claimed on social media that they had temporarily shut down a number of the dozen checkpoints around the Mall, with a group of Black Lives Matter protesters reportedly closing access at one location for over an hour.

Hundreds of protesters appeared to have gained access to the public viewing areas on the Mall, many chanting “not my president” and holding signs with slogans including “Can we impeach him today?” and “Fascist.”

As the chief justice, John Roberts, rose to administer the oath of office for the incoming president, six protesters, seated on the lawn just in front of the steps to the Capitol, tore off their coats, jumped on to their chairs and began chanting.

“A nation united can never be divided,” they said. Together the letters on their shirts spelled: “Resist!”

Around them, supporters shouted and called for them to leave. A man shook their chairs until one of the protesters fell. Eventually, security arrived and they were removed from the event.

The focal point for many was likely to be an organized rally being held at the US Navy Memorial, which is situated along the inaugural parade route. Dozens of speakers from activist groups around the country were addressing a crowd of a few hundred people on Friday morning, as some complained that “thousands more” were waiting to get into the rally but had been prevented from entering by the secret service.

James Ebersole, a protester who had come to Washington from Virginia, said he had decided to come to DC in order to “voice dissent, to say that this is not OK.”

“I think it’s unifying people,” he said of Trump’s election, while brandishing a sign that read “Misogyny is a danger to society.”

“It’s a call to action, a wakeup call, and it unites us against this threat.”

Barbara McQueeney had never attended an inauguration before, but she felt compelled to fly out from St Augustine, Florida, to protest outside the barricades lining the National Mall.

“I live in an area where there’s a lot of Trump supporters and I’m crushed,” she said. “We need hope.”

McQueeney, who is retired, did not engage in much shouting. She instead stood quietly at the center of a protest lifting a homemade poster with the letters USSR spelling out “United States Satellite of Russia.”

“Everyone knows they were involved,” she said of Vladimir Putin’s government, “but everyone is just going forward like it’s business as usual.”

“This day is about celebrating a peaceful transfer of power, but it’s the first time we transferred from a free country to a country that’s influenced by a foreign power.”

Hundreds of thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Washington for a Women’s March that is scheduled for Saturday, with similar events organized in cities around the country.

On Thursday night police used pepper spray to disperse protesters as chaos erupted outside an event, named the DeploraBall, attended by a number of figures associated with the so-called “alt-right,” a far-right movement that endorsed Trump during the campaign.

“Nazi scum!” a masked man yelled through a police barricade at a woman in a sequined gown as she defiantly waved her ticket for the event. A woman held a sign that read “Look, Ma. It’s a racist misogynist” with an arrow pointed toward the guest line. In response a man flipped open his suit jacket to show her his shirt, which read: “Deplorable lives matter.”

Click here for reuse options!  Related Stories
Categories: Netted News

Scenes From Deplorable America: Some Trump Supporters Are Putting Their Bigotry on Full Display

AlterNet.org - January 20, 2017 - 12:32pm
Click here for reuse options! Donald Trump's supporters are letting their bigotry show for all the world to see.

If you want to know why Hillary Clinton referred to Donald Trump supporters as “a basket of deplorables,” you need look no further than the deplorable behavior being displayed among them in Washington during the inauguration.

Courtesy of Jared Yates Sexton, who writes for the New York Times and the New Republic:

Small skirmishes between people wearing Trump hats and scarves, groups yelling at them, calling them racist.

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

Everywhere you go people in Trump and Clinton gear are segregated, staring daggers. Not a comfortable scene by any measure.

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

Man in Deplorable Me shirt, pointing at protestors and National Guard: Itd serve these idiots right if these fellas opened fire

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

Man in Trump gear with family, walking by protestors: "Got to make sure I don't drop my wallet so a bunch of faggots don't bump up on me"

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

You can't walk a few feet without hearing a racial or homophobic slur

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

I'm staring at the Capitol, waiting on a president to be sworn in, listening to a guy complain about "the gays." It's 2017.

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

Sign I just saw confiscated: Obama's lucky he's leaving before WE MADE him leave.

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

White people. Most celebrating Obama leaving, vocalizing Trump as revenge. They're reveling in sending him as punishment, not governance

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

This isn't about government. This is about winning.

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

People are saying, in so many words, that this is about spitting liberals and multiculturalism. They're celebrating it openly.

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

Two men walk by holding hands, someone yells "it's not your country anymore"

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

Somebody talking loudly about how Russia didn't hack election, that Obama was installed by China.

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

Guys catcalling female police officer: Hey sexy, over here

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

"Hope the illegals get their fun in cause they got three hours before they're shipped back to Mejico."

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

High schoolers walking by, guy near me to his buddy: "I don't care if she's fifteen, she's got the twins out"

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

This isn't about left and right, Democrat or Republican, this is about two very different strains of Americans. It's about prideful hate.

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

Guy yelling Thank Allah Obama's gone! Cheers, laughter, high-fives.

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

Man screaming that Obama's not welcome here. Says go back to Chicago, someone yelled Kenya, another Arabia. Someone yells "fuck him"

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

Never ceases to amaze me how much pleasure Trump supporters always show in calling Obama racial slurs. It's pure, unadulterated joy.

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

Guy wearing a Confederate flag bandanna pointed to it as protestors with LGBTQ signs walked by and said, "This means you're not welcome"

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

Somebody walked by with a sign calling Trump a racist, supporter tried to start something, another supporter stepped in and stopped it.

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

Such a weird divide. Trump supporters are just jubilant. So many downtrodden protestors. Couldn't be a better metaphor for 2017 America.

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

Someone watching video of Obama: You don't have to go back home to Africa but you can't stay here.

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

It's so cold and miserable.

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 20, 2017

Courtesy of Daniel Dale, Washington correspondent for the Toronto Star:

Spotted in Washington this morning. pic.twitter.com/fnp9bQXHOf

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) January 20, 2017

There is a security checkpoint beside the Canadian embassy and the woman behind in line me just said "Canadian flags. What's up with that."

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) January 20, 2017

Now the man beside me in line says investors are holding off on pushing the Dow above 20,000 because they don't like Obama.

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) January 20, 2017

Kirk Barber of Maryland. A common sentiment here today. pic.twitter.com/w54V7jUFEy

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) January 20, 2017

Vincent Bevan, a Bronx doorman, disliked Bush and Obama. Now, he says, "We actually have a man in the White House," someone with "balls." pic.twitter.com/4l6U220KPH

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) January 20, 2017

Trump's inauguration crowd appears 90-plus-percent white, a stark contrast with Obama's.

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) January 20, 2017

Jeff Sobolowski of Michigan explains that "the Muslims" now own the major media. He likes Trump because he'll fight against Muslims. pic.twitter.com/xP2Lfhovjz

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) January 20, 2017

Just like old rally times: protesters shouting about white supremacy, Trump supporters calling them terrorists.

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) January 20, 2017

Trump supporter angrily asked me why media didn't cover the assassination attempt on Trump. I told him it didn't happen. He said "Oh! Okay."

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) January 20, 2017 Click here for reuse options!  Related Stories
Categories: Netted News

Lone Democratic Speaker at Trump's Inauguration, Chuck Schumer, Makes a Gutsy Statement

AlterNet.org - January 20, 2017 - 12:28pm
Click here for reuse options! "We're all exceptional in our commonly held yet fierce devotion to our country."

Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer set the tone for Democrats when he threw some unexpected shade at Donald Trump during his inaugural speech on Friday.

"My fellow Americans, we live in a challenging and tumultuous time," Schumer told the crowd gathered to see Trump sworn into office.

The lone Democratic speaker in the ceremony then warned of "a rapidly changing economy... a fractured media... and threats, foreign and domestic."

"In such times, faith in our government, our institutions, and even our country can erode," Schumer stated. But, he expressed confidence in the American people nonetheless, garnering applause.

"We Americans have always been a forward-looking, problem-solving, optimistic, patriotic, and decent people," he explained.

Then, drawing on Trump's campaign rhetoric, Schumer said this:

"Whatever our race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, whether we're immigrant or native-born, whether we live with disabilities or do not, in wealth or in poverty, we're all exceptional in our commonly held yet fierce devotion to our country and our willingness to sacrifice our time, energy and even our lives to making it a more perfect union." 

Schumer finished by speaking of a time America was even more divided than today; during the Civil War “when the North and South were lining up for their first battle." The Senate minority leader then read a letter from Maj. Sullivan Ballou, a Union officer in the Civil War who sacrificed his life for his country at the war's start.

"My love of country comes over me like a strong wind and bears me irresistibly on with all these chains to the battlefield," Ballou had written to his wife just one week before he died. 

Watch:

Click here for reuse options!  Related Stories
Categories: Netted News

Watch: Alec Baldwin Hilariously Reprises Trump Spoof at NYC Protest

AlterNet.org - January 20, 2017 - 10:52am
Click here for reuse options! There was no shortage of A-listers at an anti-Trump protest in New York on the eve of the ceremony.

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has struggled to land big name performers for his inauguration on Friday. But there was no shortage of A-listers at an anti-Trump protest in New York on the eve of the ceremony. Robert De Niro, Alec Baldwin—who has famously spoofed Trump on Saturday Night Live—Mark Ruffalo, Sally Field, Michael Moore, Shailene Woodley,…

/* >

To watch the video, scroll to the end of this article.

Watch:

Click here for reuse options!  Related Stories
Categories: Netted News

Hightower: We Can Beat Back the Reign of Trump

AlterNet.org - January 20, 2017 - 10:45am
Click here for reuse options! Shake off those immobilizing emotions ASAP—progressives have essential work to do.

Buckle up, friends. Most Americans are about to be detoured onto a rough and rocky back road called "Trump Way." The autocratic tycoon was unabashed on the campaign trail in promising his victory would ensure millions of people a dire future, including mass deportations of immigrants, refugee bans and frontal assaults on women. But they're not the only ominous prospects. It will surprise many of the working stiffs who voted for the blustery billionaire to learn something he didn't communicate in his hectoring, "truth-telling" speeches: His little-discussed economic agenda is filled with provisions that would permit 1-percenters to travel more luxuriously than ever in the smooth, fast lanes of life, while the middle class and the poor are flagged onto Trump Way for a hairy, four-year ride of even more downward mobility. The proposed package includes:

  • Immediately seizing control of the National Labor Relations Board, turning it into a corporate bulldozer to destroy workers' rights, particularly the right to organize unions
  • "Yuuuuge" new tax cuts for corporations and the super rich, busting the budget for addressing human needs
  • Privatization of such basics as public education, Medicare and Social Security
  • Deregulation of corporate profiteers—from Wall Street banksters to Big Oil polluters
  • Eliminating the federal minimum wage
  • Freeing corporations from rules that prohibit discrimination in hiring, paying, promoting and firing workers

Why were voters not aware of Trump's little secret agenda? Not only because he wasn't about to boast about such unpopular policies, but also because the mass media were so dazzled by the bawdy spectacle of Trump's tweets, spats and onstage tirades that they ignored fundamentally important aspects of his presidential intentions. In fact, his entire career as a luxury property developer and brand-name marketer of himself has been built on broken promises to workers, routine scamming of suppliers and partners, blatant self-dealing, crony capitalism and lies. That con game alone tells us who our new president really is: an incorrigible swindler.

At 70 years old, his nuclear-level of narcissism and gluttonous sense of entitlement are ingrained. Throughout his presidential run, we saw his pleasure in singling out and demeaning people as "losers," including: "nasty" women, black protestors, disabled people, unionists, Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, Muslims, the poor, environmental activists and anyone who criticized him. How he treats us commoners won't change because he's President Trump. [Gosh, it's gonna take a long time before I can say that with a straight face.]

So, yes, buckle up. But more importantly, buck up!

Naturally, a triumphant Trump has left many of us baffled, disgusted and terrified. But, please, we have to shake off these immobilizing emotions ASAP—because progressives everywhere have important work to do. The forces of oligarchy and repression are hoping we'll surrender to despair, withdraw in fear or even flee to Canada. But come on, the fiery democratic spirit of grassroots Americans has sustained and advanced our nation's fundamental ideals of fairness and justice in even darker times.

It's time for us to double down on what can be seen as the progressive community's shared campaign for populist justice. Essentially, it's the integrative struggle for human dignity, combining our many separate fights for justice into a powerful and righteous whole, an all-for-one/one-for-all effort against the economic and political elites who are determined to subjugate us.

We can beat back the brutishness the Reign of Trump promises—if we seriously unite. That means acting on the reality that our various groups really are in this together. When the Muslim community is attacked, for example, all of us non-Muslims need to recognize that's an attack on all of us, from union members to climate change activists.

We need to recognize that racial and economic injustice are inseparable. Making this connection is especially important now, for the corporate media are simplistically declaring that Trump won because white working-class men rebelled against the rising swirl of multiculturalism.

Of course, the corporate powers (and those who prosper by serving them) have long divided working people by pitting the less powerful groups against each other. So it's up to us to stop playing along. We now have an urgent need to organize and harmonize as one progressive family that can and will mobilize as a whole to defend and advance the interests of each and every part, rallying around respect for human dignity and the common good.

Click here for reuse options!  Related Stories
Categories: Netted News

Rising up and Shutting It Down: The Trump Inauguration Protests in Images and Quotes

AlterNet.org - January 20, 2017 - 10:43am
Click here for reuse options! Activists and concerned members of the public put their bodies on the line Friday to resist the 45th president.

Early Friday morning, social movements from across the country converged in numerous locations across Washington, D.C., including 14 different "security" checkpoints, to shut down, slow and disrupt the presidential inauguration of Donald Trump. From Standing Rock Indigenous water protectors to Movement for Black Lives organizers, activists locked down and staged blockades to delegitimize a ceremony for a figure who rose to power on a tide of white nationalism and neo-fascism.

The large numbers took action in step with people across the United States and world.

“We must take to the streets and protest, blockade, disrupt, intervene, sit in, walk out, rise up, and make more noise and good trouble than the establishment can bear,” declared the Washington, D.C.-based Disrupt J20 Collective in a call-to-action released ahead of Thursday. “The parade must be stopped. We must delegitimize Trump and all he represents. It’s time to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and the world that sustains us as if our lives depend on it—because they do.”

(Photo Credit: It Takes Roots to Grow the Resistance / Grassroots Global Justice Alliance)

AlterNet asked activists why they decided to put their bodies on the line. "My message is, don't be afraid," said Kandi Mossett, an organizer with the Indigenous Environmental Network who traveled from Standing Rock to Washington, D.C. to protest Donald Trump's inauguration. "Any time we make our voices heard, we're not guaranteed to win our fight, but we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, if we don't try we are guaranteed to fail. We are not afraid. We can all stand together and have unity.”

“On this inauguration day, we are making sure that we are visible and are being heard, as we understand the impacts of climate change on the frontlines,” continued Mossett, who is participating in the It Takes Roots delegation of the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance. “It is hard to describe being in a frontline community—the social impacts, the destruction that comes with the fossil fuel industry, all the violence. The abuses that go hand-in-hand with mother earth. We experience them firsthand. The Donald Trumps of the world don’t ever have to experience the pain and violence of the fossil fuels industry.”

“They need to hear from grassroots people,” Mossett told AlterNet. “If we have to travel all the way here to meet them where they are more comfortable, we will do that.”

Department of Energy disruption with Indigenous women leaders, veterans, climate and housing activists coming together. (Photo Credit: It Takes Roots to Grow the Resistance / Grassroots Global Justice Alliance)

"I am in tears. I am so honored to have co-organized the ‘Communities Under Attack Fight Back’ block to uplift Muslim resistance, immigrant resistance, Jewish resistance," said Darakshan Raja, founder of the Muslim American Women’s Policy Forum and co-director of the Washington Peace Center.

“For now, a day that I was afraid of is giving me more power than ever,” said Raja.

Groups centering immigrant, Muslim and Jewish resistance came together under the banner of ‘Communities Under Attack Fight Back’ to blockade a checkpoint to the inauguration in the early morning. (Photo credit: Mijente)

“The threats of mass deportation, the dismantling of Obamacare, the registration of Muslims and the criminalization of women’s health, are loud and clear,” said Black Lives Matter DC, Baltimore BLOC, and the Movement for Black Lives in a statement. “Black people and other people of color are being targeted by vigilantes, our places of worship are being burned, our children are being attacked at school and the promise of more 'law and order' policing leaves us even more vulnerable to police terror.”

Black Lives Matter DC, Baltimore BLOC, and the Movement for Black Lives shut down a checkpoint. (Photo credit: Disrupt J20)

BREAKING: #BlackLivesMatter block checkpoint at 300 C NW-#bikersForTrump confront them.#McPherson #DisruptJ20 pic.twitter.com/51skWK14WX

— DCMediaGroup (@DCMediaGroup) January 20, 2017

  “Trump stands for tyranny, greed, and misogyny,” said the Disrupt J20 Collective. “He is the champion of neo-nazis and white Nationalists, of the police who kill the Black, Brown and poor on a daily basis, of racist border agents and sadistic prison guards, of the FBI and NSA who tap your phone and read your email.”  

"If there is going to be a positive change in this society," the colletive continued, "we have to make it ourselves, together, through direct action."

(Photo credit: Disrupt J20)

Protests will continue to sweep Washington, DC and the United States throughout the weekend. Melissa Miles from It Takes Roots told AlterNet that she will be among those preparing to continue to mobilize in the days and years ahead. “I’m a grassroots feminist because I see the innate dignity in all life,” she said. “Because those who have suffered the most deserve the most to live happy healthy lives, because as long as I live I will fight for justice for those who have been denied it.”  

Thuy Nguyen, a member of Iraq Veteran Against the War, told AlterNet that she took part in the disruptions "to stand in solidarity with my fellow brothers and sisters in the growing resistance, to get the conversation started that change needs to happen."

Click here for reuse options!
Categories: Netted News
Syndicate content