Today is a huge day for the Occupy movement, marking the anniversary of the start of the occupation which began in the Wall Street vicinity on September 17, 2011, and which has lived on as an ideology that has spread around the globe long after the physical encampment at Zuccotti Park was evicted by the NYPD in the middle of November last year. OWS has actions planned in New York’s financial district throughout the day, however, since plans are likely to change as events unfold, text @S17NYC to 23559 to get text message updates.

Monday’s anniversary follows a hectic weekend of events for occupiers in New York City. Click HERE to view a photo gallery of Saturday’s #S15 March to End The Suppression of OWS, and HERE and HERE for images of Sunday’s #S16 Occupy Wall Street Anniversary Concert at Foley Square, which featured Tom Morello, Jello Biafra, Michelle Shocked, Rebel Diaz, The Chapin Sisters, and SG’s own Lee Camp, among others.

[..]

by M. J. Johnson

“Look at that fat, lazy bitch!”
“Eat a sandwich!”
“Why don’t you go to the gym?”
“You’re too skinny to be a good role model.”
“Lard-ass!”
“Skinny Skank!”
“Lose some weight!”
“Put some meat on your bones!”
“No fatties!”
“Look out, wide load coming through!”
“Bean-pole!”
“Why don’t you do something about your weight?”

When someone is trying to prove how open minded they are about people, they will often say something along the lines of “I don’t care if they’re black, white, yellow, red, gay, straight, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or Buddhist.” This is supposed to prove that all people are equal in their mind.

But what about a person’s body size?

We live in a sizeist society. Long past the time when it was acceptable to judge someone’s worth based on sex, gender, race, culture, religion, body mods, or ethnicity (though such judgments DO still occur), it is common and largely acceptable to judge someone based on their body type. Comedians commonly joke about Chris Christie’s weight, as if that has something to do with his terrible politics. Articles are written about Keira Knightley’s body type in which self-proclaimed beauty experts call her “dangerously thin” and encourage parents to keep their daughters from seeing her movies, lest the young girls think they need to look like her.

I am a fat man. I’m 6’2” tall and weigh somewhere around 335 lbs. I have a ring of fat around my middle, and climbing 6 flights of stairs makes me breath heavy. Based on that physical description, many people would write me off as an individual, not worth their time and effort. Any opinion of mine could be dismissed because it came from my body.

And I can hear the criticisms: “You’re smart, why don’t you exercise? Why don’t you eat right?” Well, it just so happens that I do. Until I moved to a different state, I was going to the gym 4-5 times per week, 1-2 hours at a time, where I did a cross between aerobic and weight training. My blood pressure is well within the normal range for my age, and my resting pulse is below 80.

But I am still fat. I don’t overeat any more often than a normal sized person; I average about 2500 calories per day, which is just enough to keep someone my size going. I rarely use salt, eat lots of fruit and little red meat, drink water almost exclusively (with an exception for a daily coffee, no sugar, no flavors). I avoid sodas like the plague, and cook almost all my own meals.

Maybe I’m atypical. Maybe I’m genetically predisposed to obesity. Maybe nothing I can do will ever result in me being thin. Or, maybe I just haven’t hit that perfect relation of exercise to food that will turn me into an Adonis.

The point is, nobody can tell that by looking at me. Nobody can tell whether I exercise or sit around playing video games all day. (I don’t. Can’t stand the things.) All anyone can see is that I’m a fat man, and far too many people will dismiss me as such.

This is far from a new idea. For over a century, obesity has been used as a symbol of greed, corruption, and downright evil. There is a reason Dashiell Hammett made the principle villain in his book The Maltese Falcon obese, known for the first half only as “The Fat Man.” This was the Great Depression; anyone with more than enough to eat must have been crooked. The film version came out in the 1940s, at a time when the only roles black actors could get were as servants. Funny how one type of prejudice is not acceptable today, but the other is.

“But people have no control over their race like they do their weight.”

That would be a valid argument, if it were anywhere close to reality. But the truth is, the reasons behind obesity, and why one person gets fat while another does not, are myriad. And, while an inactive lifestyle is, if not the main factor, often a large reason, it is not the only one. Medications, medical conditions, genetics, depression, sleeping habits, limited access to healthy foods or safe free exercise areas (parks, walking trails), even the weather can be factors to obesity.

Of course, us fat folks aren’t the only ones being attacked by sizeism; thin people are often stereotyped as bulimic or anorexic. Yes, those are terrible diseases, but they are not the only reason people are thin. Where an obese person can have an underactive thyroid, a thin person’s can be overactive. This can result in a metabolism that burns away huge amounts of food, faster than the person can eat. And before anyone gets their “Oh, I wish I had that problem” hat on, think about it: always being hungry, needing to eat huge amounts to keep from feeling ill or passing out, spending larger and larger amounts of money just on food.

Why does this happen? Why is sizeism an acceptable prejudice? Maybe it has some connection to the “Cult of the Perfect,” the subconscious worship of beauty. Angelina Jolie wrote a book a few years ago, about her work among the poor children of Third World countries. The message of this book is good, but the writing is pretty pedestrian, and it is far from the only book on the topic. But, because of her celebrity, built largely on her looks, the book was a best seller. It is great, or would be if people actually read the book. I fear many people just bought the book because it was by her than for actual social/cause awareness. Sally Struthers has been doing much the same work for decades, but the most common reaction to her is to make a fat joke.

The point of all this is, you simply cannot tell what is going on by looking at the outside. The basis for all prejudice is ignorance, and that applies to sizeism as well. Unless you are that person’s doctor, with a complete medical history in front of you, it is impossible for you to make any judgment about a person based on their body. And even if you do have that information, passing judgments about someone as a person based on their body-type is no different than passing judgment based on race, ethnicity, gender, sex, or any other physical attribute.

This isn’t about attractiveness; everyone has, and is allowed to have, their type. If someone is not your cup of tea, so be it. This is about making assumptions about a person, stereotyping them, based on their physical form.

And that is always wrong.

by Aaron Colter

Wild Children by Ales Kot and Riley Rossmo is one of the bolder comic releases of late. With an industry still stuck in rehashing old characters and making blockbuster movies, Image Comics has given two independent creators the opportunity to publish a graphic novella that is equal parts teenage rebellion and conceptual reality.

SuicideGirls reached out to the creators to talk about the inspiration behind the book, since any review of it would contain spoilers. If you’ve already read Wild Children, this should give you some insight into the creative process behind the title. If you haven’t, don’t worry. This interview should give you enough reason to check it out soon at your local comics shop.

Aaron Colter: Ales, what made you want to write a book like this?

Ales Kot: About twenty different things, really. As with almost everything, the origin of Wild Children can be traced to my childhood. My parents led me to question authority and desire to understand things as they truly are, and not just as they are presented. I took it a bit further than my parents expected. I loved school in the beginning, but the overall atmosphere of it quickly unfolded itself as a prison-like structure created to build docile citizens that would perpetuate the already dead dream of capitalism and infinite growth. Pair that up with the messy divorce my parents went through when I was about ten, and I quickly realized things were much more complex than the teachers were saying. So I began questioning them, first with an honest interest, and then eventually just to piss them off, because being nice never got me anywhere with them – except for the few that were at least partially aware of the absurdity of the system they were both facing and keeping alive.

AC: Riley, what made you want to draw this story?

Riley Rossmo: Young people get often painted poorly in the media – either as violent geek shut-ins about to snap, or nymphomaniac cheerleaders. But the range is so much greater. Young people can be brilliant, well-intentioned individuals. Wild Children addresses some of that, it doesn’t fall back on typical teen archetypes.

AC: Following the tragedies in Colorado and Wisconsin, are you worried that Wild Children will be seen as insensitive or promoting violence?

AK: Not at all. Wild Children is not a cheap army propaganda-style FPS like Call of Duty. Ultimately, it will be whatever people decide to see it as, but that’s beyond my reach. The intent is not there, and we don’t care about cheap sensationalism, although the comic kind of invites it.

Anyone who uses fiction as a crux when explaining their own stupid decisions — “The Devil in the Comic/Game/Movie/Music Made Me Do It” is a person that needs therapy, and lots of love and patience. Anyone who supports that logic will likely require the same.

AC: Were you both rebellious kids? Did you get in trouble in school a lot?

RR: Yup. I couldn’t handle people telling what to do without giving me a reason. I loved reading, so I’d read all the assigned books, but thought it was a huge waste of time to regurgitate my thoughts in essay form. I was pretty angry – mostly I would skip class, go to the arcade and play video games or paint, draw or silk screen. I had a couple great art teachers that would let me do art in their classes, even though I was skipping other classes to be there. I liked girls – they were probably the biggest draw. And it was the best place to go to when you wanted to acquire anything illegal. Very little learning happened in the class.

AK: Yeah, once I hit a certain age, I definitely did my best to get in as much trouble as possible. It’s not that I wanted the trouble – I just wanted to show that I didn’t care for the fake rules and spineless non-authorities, and that they wouldn’t put me down. A history teacher once gave me a verbal test in front of the entire class because she suspected I was off my tits, and I got B+, although I should have gotten an A. Nearly everyone in the class knew about my state, so it’s still one of my fondest memories. Apart from that, I skipped school a lot, first because I simply hated it and was bullied, later because I just wanted to hang out with girls or read somewhere quiet on my own. I remember a school where some schoolmates used to do speed off the toilet boards, sex in class, things on fire…the first time I had a gun pointed at me was in front of the first school I went to. So I guess there was some trouble, yes.

AC: Are either of you familiar with the concept of brain-hacks? Essentially tricks to shape your reality. A new book called D.I.Y. Magic by Anthony Alvarado touches on some of these notions. I ask because Wild Children talks of magic. Are either of you interested in magic on any sort of level?

RR: I love magic. I like street magic, metaphysics, performers that use misdirection in new ways. I think there’s a lot more out there than I can conceive of. There’s so much in the world that can’t quite be coincidence, or chance.

AK: Oh, absolutely. I hack my brain – more accurately, my entire being – and Wild Children is definitely a brain hack, or at least an honest attempt at one. I meditate, explore reality, observe how my mind shapes it, do my best to learn as much as I can and then implement all the new tricks into my daily life. I haven’t heard of D.I.Y. Magic, but I’m going to read it now. I’m currently reading Colin Wilson’s The Occult for the first time and it’s a crucial experience. I don’t think there’s any difference between what we call magic and what we call science. It’s just about seeing the hidden strings and learning how to operate them. Words and pictures are some of the strongest magical/scientific properties in our daily arsenal, because they shape the reality we live in to an uncanny extent. And, as Harvey Pekar said, you can do anything with words and pictures…Magic. It’s fun. Take it seriously. Like it’s science. Because it is. Just work to see the hidden threads.

AC: The notion of comics being a separate reality or a meta-world within a world that we create is something that’s very Grant Morrison in ways that resemble his work The Filth and even concepts in The Invisibles. What other comics inspired this project?

AK: Kill Your Boyfriend by Grant Morrison and Philip Bond – a great story about teenage revolt that I loved as a kid. It’s very similar to Badlands and Natural Born Killers, it’s angry, it’s fresh, it’s short, and it packs a punch. I loved that comic, and it came out in the same format as Wild Children – a short graphic novella. I also thought about Shoot, the long-unreleased Hellblazer story about school shootings that DC Entertainment shelved back in the day because it was about to be released just as Columbine shootings happened. I disagreed with that decision – the comic wasn’t sensationalist at all, and it had some important things to say. When I conceived of Wild Children, I wanted to combine these two comic books into a new one, into a graphic novella that would feel truly 2012 while paying its respects to the stories that influenced its birth. Casanova and the brave way it approaches itself and the medium. Asterios Polyp for some of the more theoretical stuff in the middle. John Smith’s writing influenced the ending. Graphic novellas by Alan Moore, Warren Ellis and their collaborators. There are some nods to Frank Miller’s early work in the beginning. Dash Shaw’s work. Matt Seneca’s webcomix – I love Affected – and his comics theory as well.

The inspiration related to Wild Children hit from many different sources. Filmmakers like Cronenberg, Lynch, Godard, Kubrick and Tarkovsky were instrumental in forming my approach early on, and they still influence me a lot. Music by Flying Lotus, Fuck Buttons, Pictureplane, Aphex Twin, DJ Rupture, Kode 9, Burial, Coil, early Marilyn Manson. Al Columbia’s art, anything Brandon Graham does. Books by Hakim Bey, Robert Anton Wilson, Kenji Siratori, Jorge Luis Borges, P.K. Dick, Douglas Rushkoff and others. Some of the ideas in Rushkoff’s Life, Inc. influenced Wild Children quite directly.

AC: Something else that comes across in the book is that all of the adults seem threatened by teenagers, who are, for the most part, harmless on a large scale. Do you think society is afraid of teenagers in real life? If so, why?

AK: It’s quite clear that some parts of our society are afraid of teenagers in real life, yes. People who are shriveled inside, whether they’re physically young or old, forget to question things, and live in their temporary sand castles, often doing everything they can to keep them standing, regardless of how much harm that imposes on everyone and everything else. The teenagers inevitably belong to our society, and it’s often quite impossible to destroy their idealistic energy right away.

It’s not exactly correct to say that only young people push things forward – it’s people with a young attitude, wanting to learn, to discover the world, be in awe of the universe, that make the world a better place to live, and help us all evolve. But we’re often taught to expect the worst – 31% of Americans are likely to suffer from an anxiety problem at some point during their lifetimes – and when we’re worried or downright scared, rules make us feel safer, however temporary that illusory safety is. And rules are, by and large, something the new generations seems to have less and less use for. “Chaos is evil, rules are good.” is an excruciatingly stale narrative. The world is much more complex. Question everything.

AC: As bad as our generation may have it, there may be less opportunities for those just now starting to grow up. Why do you think more students in America don’t demand access to education in the same way students in other countries have?

AK: Because they don’t believe in the system, perhaps? I’m genuinely not sure if I can answer this question well enough, but I’ll do my best. I imagine that a huge part of it is the fact that we’re observing the collapse of capitalism, and whether we want to acknowledge it or not, we know that’s what’s happening. We’re offered a choice between a guy that believes that corporations are people, supports penalties for doctors who perform abortions, won’t release his tax returns and most likely would perform fellatio on a pig for a nickel, or a guy that supports extraordinary rendition, secret kill lists and illegal spying on the people he swore to serve and protect.

AC: If you could give you teenage self one piece of advice, what would it be?

RR: Make more art, and let your anger go.

AK: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Wink, wink, wank.

For more information visit:
aleskot.com/
rileyrossmo.com/
imagecomics.com/

[..]

by Lee Camp

Every pundit, wonk, and thick-headed pig-headed dick-headed talking head in the entire nation has been postulating, extrapolating, and bloviating about who will win the presidential election this November. They don’t know the answer. They’ll tell you that they do, and then the following day, they’ll tell you they have a new answer. But I do know. Check out the video to find out. If the guy I talk about in this video doesn’t win, then I will dance naked onstage at the Apollo. And unlike the Suicide Girls, very few people want to see me dance naked.

Also, if you’re within 1000 miles of NYC this weekend, come to the big Occupy pre-#S17 concert that will feature me, Tom Morello, Jello Biafra, Rebel Diaz and others. It’s at Foley Square on Sunday Sept 16th, starting at 1 PM.

[..]

by Steven Whitney

An alarming crusade that threatens not only the democratic ideal but our very democracy itself is currently sweeping the country. Falsely posing as stern protectors of electoral integrity, the GOP has started yet another costly and totally unnecessary war – The War on Voter Fraud.

It might be a just war…if it were true. But like so many GOP grand proclamations, it’s a sham, merely another false charge Republicans are criminally deploying to their advantage.

A new study released this past August 12th and financed by the non-partisan Carnegie and Knight Foundations examined thousands of court documents, official reports, and media reports involving voter fraud since 2000 and found conclusively that voter fraud is “virtually non-existent.” Of roughly 600 million votes cast since 2000, there were only 10 cases of alleged in-person voter fraud. 10…and those were just alleged. There were no convictions of in-person voter fraud during that time frame. Not anywhere in the US. Not one. In fact, you are sixty times more likely to get hit by lightning in any given year than the US is going to suffer from voter fraud.

But what the hell, there weren’t any WMDs in Iraq either…and they got away with that one (at a cost of more than a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives). And this is clearly in the same realm, a Machiavellian twist of a tactic Naomi Klein labeled “The Shock Doctrine,” manipulating real or made-up disasters (or threats to your “freedoms”) to urgently push an extreme political or economic agenda that no one in their right mind would otherwise consider – in this case, limiting the number of votes cast in elections.

For the GOP controlling votes is, indeed, an urgent matter. As US demographics tilt rapidly toward fuller minority share – a long-standing goal of true democracies – the party of “old white guys” is losing its dominance. They could, of course, try to appeal to minorities, but Republicans really don’t want to include in their party millions of people who were probably born in Kenya. So the only other option is to prevent them from voting.

How do they do it? The two most effective methods are to pass laws in GOP-held state legislatures requiring obstructive Voter ID standards or to restrict voting hours and days to an absolute minimum. Usually it’s one or the other and sometimes both. In addition to the financial implications associated with existing IDs laws, the potential cost estimate for ID requirements advanced by the GOP in 2011 in 35 states runs as high as $838 million for the first four years alone – certainly an unreasonable burden to taxpayers at a time when state treasuries are suffering severe budget crises.

But even more destructive is how these requirements negatively affect individual voters. Almost all of the proposed or enacted photo ID laws involve some monetary cost – passport books cost $140 and a driver’s license additionally requires both a written and a road test. Not only does that place an “unreasonable burden” on potential voters, it flies in the face of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

What voting blocs are most affected by these restrictions? Roughly 25% of African-Americans, 20% Asian-Americans, 19% Hispanics, 18% of those between the ages of 18-24, and 15% of Americans making less than $35,000 per year. And, of course, seniors of all stripes who no longer drive or travel out of the country but who still want to vote to keep Medicare.

Not coincidentally, those are the very groups who generally vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. It should also be noted that every single state undergoing a “voter purge” has Republican election officials. It’s also no fluke that that the GOP claims that voting fraud in these demographics is most flagrant in precisely the same states that polls indicate are still undecided, the so-called “swing states” that will end up deciding the election.

In Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen petitioned the state Supreme Court just a few weeks ago to reinstate before the November elections a Voter ID law passed by the Republican-controlled legislature, hopefully at a date so late as to make any legal appeal impossible.

In Florida (29 electoral votes), GOP Governor Rick Scott fired one Secretary of State who refused to implement his plan to suppress votes and appointed one who will.

Jon Husted, GOP Secretary of State of Ohio (18 electoral votes), singled out two large Democratic districts for fewer voting days and no evening or weekend voting hours, privileges all Republican precincts retained. A Federal Court intervened, ordering Husted to cease and desist all efforts to limit voting access. Instead, Husted defied the order, continuing his path of suppression. Husted is due in court this week to ask for a stay of the order until the appeal process has been exhausted, which would occur only after the election. Husted is also running a 3-card monte ruse with polling places, switching them to one suburb after another. At this late date, voters in Toledo don’t even know where to vote!

And that’s just the tip of the figurative iceberg – confusion and suppression reign in nearly every state controlled at some level by GOP leaders masquerading as crusaders for honesty and transparency in the election process when just the opposite is true. Ohio Republicans on the Board of Elections even admitted that the ID requirements specifically targeted black voters. Despite the hue and cry, Republicans will not be moved – they know suppressing up to 5 million votes nationwide is the only way they can win the election. Of course, all of this is criminal…but if the GOP has its way, it’ll be too late to stop them and if they win the election, their Republican brethren will hardly seek prosecution.

But there are some prescriptive actions that could minimize the negative effect of these illegal purges, both now and in the future.

First, no fair-minded citizen in a participatory democracy wants anyone’s vote to be stolen or unduly suppressed. Whatever one’s party affiliation, everyone in a democracy must strive for transparency in, and the legitimacy of, the election process. More than anything else, free elections are what keep us free. Otherwise we’re just another, albeit bigger, banana republic, where those on top steal whatever they can – money, votes, and your country. So whether you’re liberal or conservative, if someone – Republican or Democrat – tries to deny citizens their right to vote, you must vote against them. The reason goes to the heart of American values – stealing votes is the grossest betrayal of the democratic ideals our nation was founded upon and for which millions of Americans have died over the last 240 years.

Secondly, federal judges and prosecutors need to adopt a zero-tolerance policy toward those who would suppress the most fundamental of American rights. If election officials ignore court directives to restore order, our courts are honor bound to issue bench warrants and throw them into the hardest and most unforgiving lock-ups imaginable – Alcatraz factored by ten – until they fully comply with the law. Just because they have a government title in front of their name does not mean they are above the law, especially as they have sworn to uphold it.

Lastly, it would be sweet irony – and a GOP nightmare – to use Citizens United to help get out the vote. With the influx of undisclosed money flowing into the coffers of SuperPACs on both sides of the aisle, the price tag of this November’s election is in the vicinity of $5.8 billion (including approximately $2.5 billion for the Presidential election alone).

Now, one or more SuperPACs needs to put aside one-half of 1% of that total – $29 million – and spend it on getting minorities and seniors state IDs acceptable for voter verification. And, like the GOP, it needs to focus on large swing states. For instance, the basic cost of an Ohio-issued photo ID is $8.50, or $5.1 million to purchase IDs for 600,000 voters. Florida’s photo ID can be had for $25.00, or $15 million to secure voting rights for another 600,000 citizens. Allow $8.9 million for administration costs and voter outreach and 1,200,000 otherwise disenfranchised voters can pass any challenge at their polling places. Those two states alone are enough to make a real difference.

Alternatively, federally-issued passport cards cost only $30. And they’re good for ten years, or five elections – 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020 – six bucks per cycle. So 700,000 passport cards would cost $21 Million, plus $8 million for admin and outreach, equals $29 million. Implemented every two years, this expense would sign up three and a half million minority and senior voters over ten years. In emergencies, the Passport Office promises to have your document ready in 3 working days – and if an important business meeting in London meets that criteria, your right to vote should be given equal weight.

When you figure that over $4 billion will be spent on media advertising alone this year, spending $29 million to actually insure the voting rights of 1.2 million minority and senior voters is comparably little money well spent – and money certainly spent in the cause of true democratic principles.

Besides, the SuperPAC(s) should get all of their money back. If states demand payment for an ID that is required to vote, that is a “poll tax,” and against the law. So if the SuperPAC(s) putting up the money sues both the state and the individuals involved for full reimbursement, and then recycles that money every two years until Republicans no longer think stealing your vote is a good investment, it’s a net gain for everyone involved (except those rigging the vote). If Jon Husted was personally on the hook for, say, $10 million, he might change his mind about letting you cast your ballot.

These are options to correct just the false In-Person Voter Fraud touted by Republicans. In an upcoming column, I’ll be talking with Greg Palast – arguably our country’s leading expert on this issue – about everything you need to know about real voter fraud.

It may well be the most important issue facing America’s survival. If the illegal GOP purges succeed in suppressing large demographics from voting, our nation relinquishes both the moral high ground and democratic principle to every other country capable of running clean elections.

And, too, we don’t want to awaken on November 7th only to discover that yet another election has been stolen.

Related Posts:
Character. . . And The RNC
The Do-Damage Congress: Who’s Responsible?
Worse Than A Do Nothing Congress
Forget The Barbeque On Labor Day – It’s Time To Take Care Of Business
Chicken Shits: The Slippery Slopes of Chick-fil-A
The Vagina Solution
Fighting Back Part 4: The Big Liar, Intimidation And Revenge
Fighting Back Part 3: Fighting Fire With Fire
When The Past Is Prologue
Fighting Back Part 2: Defining Rovian Politics
Fighting Back
The Electoral Scam
Being Fair
Occupy Reality
Giving. . . And Taking Back
A Tale Of Two Grovers
A Last Pitch For Truth
America: Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.
Gotcha!

by Greg Palast

This is a true story.

CHICAGO. In a school with some of the poorest kids in Chicago, one English teacher–I won’t use her name–who’d been cemented into the school system for over a decade, wouldn’t do a damn thing to lift test scores, yet had an annual salary level of close to $70,000 a year. Under Chicago’s new rules holding teachers accountable and allowing charter schools to compete, this seniority-bloated teacher was finally fired by the principal.

In a nearby neighborhood, a charter school, part of the city system, had complete freedom to hire. No teachers’ union interference. The charter school was able to bring in an innovative English teacher with advanced degrees and a national reputation in her field – for $29,000 a year less than was paid to the fired teacher.

You’ve guessed it by now: It’s the same teacher.

It’s Back to School Time! Time for the editorialists and the Tea Party, the GOP and Barack Obama’s Education Secretary Arne Duncan to rip into the people who dare teach in public schools.

And in Arne’s old stomping grounds, Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel is stomping on the teachers, pushing them into the street.

Let’s stop kidding ourselves. This is what Mitt Romney and Obama and Arne Duncan and Paul Ryan have in mind when they promote charter schools and the right to fire teachers with tenure: slash teachers salaries and bust their unions.

They’ve almost stopped pretending, too. Both the Right Wing-nuts and the Obama Administration laud the “progress” of New Orleans’ schools–a deeply sick joke. The poorest students, that struggle most with standardized tests, were drowned or washed away.

One thing Democrat Emanuel and Republican Romney both demand of Chicago teachers is that their pay, their jobs, depend on “standardized tests.” Yes, but whose standard?

Here are an actual questions from the standardized test that were given third graders here in NYC by the nation’s biggest test-for-profit company:

“…Most young tennis stars learn the game from coaches at private clubs. In this sentence a private club is….” Then you have some choices in which the right answer is “Country Club – place where people meet.”

Now not many of the “people [who] meet” at country clubs are from the South Side of Chicago–unless their parents are caddies. A teacher on the South Side whose students are puzzled by the question will lose their pay or job. Students on the lakefront Gold Coast all know that mommy plays tennis at the Country Club with Raul on Wednesdays. So their teacher gets a raise and their school has high marks.

And while Mayor Rahm promises kids in “bad” schools new teachers (the same ones at lower pay) at high-score schools, in fact, they are never actually allowed in.

But Rahm, after all, is just imposing Bush education law which should be called, No Child’s Behind Left.

You want to know what’s wrong with our schools? Benno Schmidt, CEO of the big Edison Schools teach-for-profit business is a creepy, greedy privateer. But he told me straight: that before Hurricane Katrina, his company would never go into New Orleans because Louisiana spent peanuts per child on education. He made it clear: You get what you pay for. Not what you test for.

So the charter carpetbaggers slither in, cherry-pick the easy students, declare success. The tough cases and special ed kids are left in the public system so they can claim the public system fails.

Here’s what the teacher who was terrible at $70,000 but brilliant at $41,000 told me:

“They’re not doing this in white neighborhoods. And they want to get rid of the older, experienced teachers with seniority who cost more. Get rid of the teachers and, ultimately get rid of the kids. And the charter school gets to pick the kids who get in.”

It’s simple. When you look at the drop-out rates in New York (41%) and Chicago (44%), the solution offered is to pay teachers less. They punish those who dare to work in poor schools where kids struggle and you can bet that “washing away” half the kids in our schools is, in fact, exactly what they’ve planned.

It’s notable that, when he lived in Chicago, Barack Obama played basketball with city school chief Arne Duncan, but Obama sure as hell didn’t send his kids to Arne’s crap public schools. Those are for po’ folk.

His kids went to the tony “Lab” School in Hyde Park. Obama knows what Duncan knows and what Romney knows: there’s no money and no need for universal education. Yes, they like to say that “children are our future.” But they mean the children of China are our future, the Chinese kids who will make the stuff we want and the children of India who will program it all for us.

After all, how much education does some obese kid from Texas need to stack boxes from China in a Wal-Mart warehouse?

Education is no longer about information and learning skills. It’s now about “triage.” A few selected by standardized tests or privileged birth will be anointed and permitted into better and “gifted” schools.

The chosen elite are still very much needed: to invest in India and Vietnam, to design new derivatives to circumvent the laughable new banking laws, and to maintain order among the restless hundred-million drop-outs squeezed out of the colon of our educational system.

Democrats’ Bantustans, Republicans’ Value-less Vouchers.

The Obama/Duncan/Emanuel plan is to create Bantustans of un-chartered, cheaply-run dumpster schools within a government system. But Romney and the GOP would give every child a “choice” even outside government schools with “vouchers.”

Of course, the “vouchers” don’t vouch for much. Romney’s old alma mater, Cranbrook Academy, runs at $34,025 a year, not counting the polo sticks and horse. The most generous voucher program is Washington DC’s, beloved of the GOP, which pays about $7,500, or if the student’s “choice” is Cranbrook, about 2 months of school. Hyde Park Day School Chicago is $35,900. To give each kid a real choice, not just a coupon, means a massive increase in spending per pupil. I didn’t see that in the Republican platform, did you?

The experienced teacher in Chicago who took the pay cut was offered one consolation. She was told she could make up some of the pay loss by quitting the union and saving on union dues.

So that’s the program. An educational Katrina: squeeze the teachers until they strike, demolish their unions and drown the students.

Chicago’s classroom war is class war by another name.

Class dismissed.

A version of this story originally appeared in the Occupied Chicago Tribune.

You can pre-order Billionaires & Ballot Bandits from Barnes & Noble, Amazon or Indie Bound. Author’s proceeds from the book go to the not-for-profit Palast Investigative Fund for reporting on voter protection issues.

Related Posts
BP Deepwater Horizon Settlement Sells Out Gulf Victims: Deal Buries Evidence Of Oil Company’s Willful Negligence
SG Interview: Greg Palast – Vultures’ Picnic
Vultures’ Picnic: We Figured Out Who Murdered Jake
Uber-Vultures: The Billionaires Who Would Pick Our President
Tokyo Electric To Build US Nuclear Plants: The No-BS Info On Japan’s Disastrous Nuclear Operators
Stick Your Damn Hand In It: 20th Birthday of the Exxon Valdez Lie
Obama is a two-faced liar. Aw-RIGHT!
Why An Asshole Is Always In Charge
The Steal You Won’t See
SG Interview: Greg Palast – Steal Back Your Vote
SuicideGirls Steal Back Your Vote

by ChrisSick

In which we analyze exactly how many blowjobs Bill Clinton deserves to be given, the death and resurrection of the post-convention poll bounce, and the alternative universes of the GOP.

Got-damn, Bill, you lookin’ mighty fine.

If you haven’t seen former President Clinton’s speech at the DNC yet, I would suggest that you:

A. Consider moving out from underneath that rock you’re living under.

AND

B. Pucker up your best blowjob lips, ’cause after watching that speech, you’re gonna wanna properly congratulate the man what gave it.

And — goddamn — he deserves it! Bill Clinton didn’t just make a persuasive statement for Barack Obama’s reelection, he made a powerful argument for liberalism as the solution to our current economic malaise, as well as the pathway to future prosperity in a technocratic global economy. And, in doing so, he slid a rhetorical ice pick straight into the lungs of every Republican attack raised this election cycle.

“In Tampa, the Republican argument against the President’s re-election was pretty simple: we left him a total mess, he hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in.”

Close your eyes. Repeat that line while doing your best Clinton imitation. Punctuate the pauses with a subtle point of your thumbnail. Turn out the lights. Take it slow. Point that thumb. And then, you try and tell me you aren’t hot in the bathing-suit area. I defy you to.

Maybe it’s just me. Maybe it’s yet another symptom of my degeneracy into Werewolf Disease. The doctors tell me it’s the most severe case they’ve seen since Glenn Beck was fired from Fox News for finding new sides of his mouth to lie out of. And, worse, they tell me that there’s no cure – but for the reelection of Barack Hussein Obama.

But there’s good news on that front. Friends, countrymen, election junkies — I give you the death and resurrection of the post-convention bounce:

“The death of the convention bounce?

“The convention bounce may not be extinct. But it’s definitely on vacation…”

— Headline and lead quote from Aaron Blake’s The Washington Times’ Fix post, 4th Sept, 2012

“An 8-point convention bounce for Obama?

“Buried in New York Times polling guru Nate Silver’s latest blog post is a chart that should have Mitt Romney ordering out for some Xanax…”

— Headline and lead quote from Robert Wright’s Atlantic story, 9th Sept, 2012

The Nate Silver post Wright refers to makes for predictably fascinating reading, but let’s cut to the back of the page, here:

That is what a post-convention bounce ought to look like. The Real Clear Politics’ average of polls that I typical cite shows a disappointing average of +1.6 for the President. But when you start to tease out the numbers, you see why that’s misleading – namely that the majority of the polls being averaged are from the middle of last week. The two best indicators — Rasmussen and Gallup’s daily tracking polls — both show a much greater amount of heat for the President, weighing in as of today (9 Sept, 2012) at +4 for the President from Rasmussen and +5 from Gallup, despite the variations of voter models and house effects for each.

Meanwhile, Silver’s indicators show a 6.7% increase in the odds of the President winning reelection, a 0.6% increase in the popular vote to his favor, and an increase of 11.4 votes in the Electoral College (for a total of 316.9). Intrade — my other handy predictor — shows a 3.5% increase in the odds of Obama winning compared to the post-RNC numbers, that settled into a +2.5% increase for a current 58.3% chance of reelection for Obama.

Now, as much fun as I’m having seeing how many times I can work the words “Bill Clinton” and “blowjob” into the same sentence, obviously, the former President wasn’t solely responsible for the success of the convention. Other highlights included:

• Julian Castro’s keynote, which reminded some of Obama’s 2004 speech that broke the then-Junior Senator onto the national scene.
• The First Lady’s speech, which made voters (the ones who aren’t racist jackasses, at least) fall in love with her all over again.
• Joe Biden, who proved that he can be at least as classy as the dude from the Dos Equis ads.
• And the President, who was, well, the President, and there.

Okay, so the President either underperformed or purposefully decided to leave his A-game at home. And we could dissect, at length, the myriad reasons why this may be true.

But, really, there’s no need to. Because it’s irrelevant.

If Romney had gotten a meager +1.5 bounce out of his convention and Obama performed roughly the same, examining why his speech was so muted in comparison to previous examples of his rhetorical abilities would be a worthwhile exercise. But it simply does not matter. The Democrats clearly had a more successful convention than the Republicans, even by completely meaningless measures.

Except in the alternative universe that so many Republicans seem to enjoy residing in.

One of the advantages to being an occasional blogger for a well-known alt-pinup site as opposed to being, say, Dick Morris, is that I don’t have to make sudden, off-the-cuff predictions that can easily be refuted within days. Also, it means I don’t have to wake up every day being Dick Morris.

“Overall, tonight left America with the impression that Obama saved GM, killed Bin Laden, and passed ObamaCare (which most of us don’t like). What a thin, thin record on which to base a plea for reelection.

“The result of these two conventions is a decided advantage for Romney.”

– Dick Morris, FoxNews.com, 7th Sept, 2012

Presumably, after writing that, Dick swallowed another pint of LSD and decided the rest of the universe simply does not exist.

The rest of the GOP decided, even before the convention, that the strongest line of attack against Obama would be to recycle the Reagan question of Carter, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

“The president can say a lot of things and he will…

“But he can’t tell you that you’re better off. Simply put, the Jimmy Carter years look like the good old days compared to where we are right now.”

_ Paul Ryan, East Carolina University, 3rd Sept, 2012
[Source: Washington Post]

For those under the didn’t-hear-about-Clinton’s-speech rock who revel in being ignorant of all salient facts, two things to be aware of:

1. While overall unemployment was less under Carter (about 7% compared to 8% under Obama), other economic indicators, such as inflation and interest rates were much, much, much higher. So high, in fact, the Misery Index became a popular reference point to better understand the pain caused by economic conditions of life during the Carter administration. Obama’s highest score on the Misery Index is still below Carter’s lowest.

2. Another relevant detail to keep in mind when considering this argument is that we’re not losing nearly one million jobs a month, like we were in early 2009.

See that giant fucking dip in the middle of January, 2009? Yeah, over that shit.

But the Republican alternate universe isn’t simply home to bizarre economic statistics or surreal interpretations of events. It’s also home to a completely different definition of “facts” than here in the regular ol’ universe:

“So here we go: If the Democrats are going to call Paul Ryan a liar for lying about running marathons (among other things!), Breitbart’s ‘Big Government’ will FACT CHECK Michelle Obama’s speech about how she loves her husband and so forth.”

– Alex Pareene, Salon, 5th Sept, 2012

There seems to be a sense among many Republicans that the lack of lies told at the DNC — as compared to the RNC — reflected by the lack of the media’s debunking and citing said lies, proves media bias. James Fallows (who, I believe, first used the phrase “post-truth” that so frighteningly describes our current discourse) sums it up nicely:

“How ‘false equivalence’ works. My mailbox is swamped with messages from Republicans asking when ‘the media’ will get on Joe Biden’s speech tonight with the same list of factual errors they/we produced after Paul Ryan’s ‘post-truth’ convention speech last week. Also, when Biden will be attacked the way Ryan has been about his marathon claims.

(…)

“The answer to the first question is: If someone comes up with illustrations of Biden mis-stating facts as grossly as Ryan did in his speech, then he will deserve and get comparable grief for them. But the expectation in most of these notes, interestingly, is that it shouldn’t matter whether there is any objective difference in who is bending the truth at any given time. If you point out problems ‘on one side,’ then you’d better find some equal and offsetting problem on the other, or else the game is rigged. Whether or not the problem is there.”

Oh, Republicans. Please, never change. Never cease to be so amazingly, mind-blowingly insane.

Except, wait.

Actually do change, since you’re killing our Democracy.

There’s 57 days, 12 hours, 35 minutes, and 12 seconds left before election day and no cure yet in sight.

Related Posts
Tactical Animal: Politics In The Post-Truth Era
Tactical Animal: Now We’ve Got Ourselves A Race