How the 99% Won in the Fight for Worker Rights

by Andy Kroll (via TomDispatch)

Twelve hours after Mayor Bloomberg’s cops evicted the Occupy Wall Street encampment from Zuccotti Park, the space had been scrubbed down and repopulated with police and private-security types, up to 150 of them. In essence, since September there had been two occupations in the Wall Street area and the second of them, the massive one the police were running, had now quite literally replaced the first. Odder yet, by mid-afternoon the police, barricaded in the park, were ringed by the returning protesters, awaiting a judge’s decision on whether they could again set up camp. It was as if in a single night the situation had somehow been turned inside out.

As Occupy Wall Street’s website wryly put it: “NYPD Occupying Liberty Square; Demands Unclear.” That caught the strangely high-spirited post-eviction moment. But something else caught my eye that afternoon. The “park” itself, demonstrator-less, filled with bored cops, had morphed into a bare and pitiful space. It wasn’t a park at all, but a thumbnail slab of concrete with lights embedded in it, trees with yellowed leaves, and scattered, plinth-like stone benches, cold as death.

What more reminder did anyone need that the zeitgeist-inspired Occupy Wall Street protesters had brought a mythic quality to a postage-stamp-sized bit of privatized public property? They had made it, tents and all, larger than life, bigger than anything specific that happened there. They had somehow put it on a world stage. If they head elsewhere, that mythic quality goes with them. The police have now, as is their wont, turned the park into something like an open-air prison. It’s the only thing they evidently know how to do, just as they tried to imprison in metal barricades the giant march from Manhattan’s Foley Square across the Brooklyn Bridge on Thursday night — with far less success than expected thanks to the effervescent, surging power of the crowd.

As a crew, the OWS protesters are no slouches. By the afternoon of their park eviction, some were already carrying around signs that said: “You cannot evict an idea whose time has come.” It’s a rousing instant slogan, and who can deny that there are ideas aplenty swirling around in the OWS ether? As for myself, though, I don’t think Occupy Wall Street is an idea. To me, it seems more like an embodied feeling, as hard to pin down, yet powerful and all embracing, as that 99% label.

Along with its hope and high-spiritedness, OWS has, I suspect, caught and crystalized an American feeling of loss, of a world going down (which always has the possibility of the new somewhere inside it). The outrage that it has transformed into activity is over those who are still living high and profiting off that world’s demise — the privateers, looters, subprime hucksters, corporate grifters, Wall Street gamblers, and all those willing to take a buck to shill for them, to make sure in every way that they thrive as other Americans crash and burn.

All of this, by the way, was available for anyone to see in clear, even cartoonish, form in the crony-capitalist version of the occupation of Iraq with its urge to privatize everything, make money off Iraqi suffering while the going was good, and stick the Iraqis with a subprime “reconstruction” program so shoddy that nothing would work and no services would ever be delivered, while the companies hired to reconstruct took home the cash.

As it happened, while few Americans cared what befell the Iraqis, a subprime crook’s version of the occupation of Iraq was heading home. So here’s the truth of it: before anyone decided to “occupy” any park, we wuz occupied! And the truth of now is perhaps this: a feeling embodied is even harder to suppress than an idea, no matter how often you play whack-a-mole with its encampments. A feeling embodied, as TomDispatch associate editor and Mother Jones reporter Andy Kroll makes clear, can have genuine on-the-ground political power. It can deliver the goods. (To catch Timothy MacBain’s latest Tomcast audio interview in which Kroll discusses Occupy Wall Street’s unlikely first political victory click here, or download it to your iPod here.) Tom

How the 99% Won in the Fight for Worker Rights
The Unsung Victors in the Hottest Election of 2011

By Andy Kroll – Posted  at 5:50pm, November 20, 2011.

No headlines announced it. No TV pundits called it. But on the evening of November 8th, Occupy Wall Street, the populist uprising built on economic justice and corruption-free politics that’s spread like a lit match hitting a trail of gasoline, notched its first major political victory, and in the unlikeliest of places: Ohio.

You might have missed OWS’s win amid the recent wave of Occupy crackdowns. Police raided Occupy Denver, Occupy Salt Lake City, Occupy Oakland, Occupy Portland, and Occupy Seattle in a five-day span. Hundreds were arrested. And then, in the early morning hours on Tuesday, New York City police descended on Occupy Wall Street itself, fists flying and riot shields at the ready, with orders from Mayor Michael Bloomberg to evict the protesters. Later that day, a judge ruled that they couldn’t rebuild their young community, dealing a blow to the Occupy protest that inspired them all.

Instead of simply condemning the eviction, many pundits and columnists praised it or highlighted what they considered its bright side. The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein wrote that Bloomberg had done Occupy Wall Street a favor. After all, he argued, something dangerous or deadly was bound to happen at OWS sooner or later, especially with winter soon to arrive. Zuccotti Park, Klein added, “was cleared… in a way that will temporarily reinvigorate the protesters and give Occupy Wall Street the best possible chance to become whatever it will become next.”

The New York Times’ Paul Krugman wrote that OWS “should be grateful” for Bloomberg’s eviction decree: “By acting so badly, Bloomberg has made it easy to see who won’t be truthful and can’t handle open discourse. He’s also saved OWS from what was probably its greatest problem, the prospect that it would just fade away as time went on and the days grew colder.”

Read between the lines and what Klein, Krugman, and others are really saying is: you had your occupation; now, get real. Start organizing, meaningfully connect your many Occupy protests, build a real movement. As these columnists see it, that movement — whether you call it OccupyUSA, We Are the 99%, or the New Progressive Movement — should now turn its attention to policy changes like a millionaire’s tax, a financial transaction fee, or a constitutional amendment to nullify the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that loosed a torrent of cash into American elections. It should think about supporting political candidates. It should start making a nuts-and-bolts difference in American politics.

But such assessments miss an important truth: Occupy Wall Street has already won its first victory its own way — in Ohio, when voters repealed Republican governor John Kasich’s law to slash bargaining rights for 350,000 public workers and gut what remained of organized labor’s political power.

Commandeering the Conversation

Don’t believe me? Then think back to this spring and summer, when Occupy Wall Street was just a glimmer in the imagination of a few activists, artists, and students. In Washington, the conversation, such as it was, concerned debt, deficit, and austerity. The discussion wasn’t about whether to slash spending, only about how much and how soon. The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent called it the “Beltway Deficit Feedback Loop” — and boy was he right.

A National Journal analysis in May found that the number of news articles in major newspapers mentioning “deficit” was climbing, while mentions of “unemployment” had plummeted. In the last week of July, the liberal blog ThinkProgress tallied 7,583 mentions of the word “debt” on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News alone. “Unemployment”? A measly 427.

This all-deficit, all-the-time debate shaped the final debt-ceiling deal, in which House Speaker John Boehner and his “cut-and-grow”-loving GOP allies got just about everything they wanted. So lopsided was the debate in Washington that President Obama himself hailed the deal’s bone-deep cuts to health research, public education, environmental protection, childcare, and infrastructure.

These cuts, the president explained, would bring the country to “the lowest level of annual domestic spending since Dwight Eisenhower was president.” After studying the deal, Ethan Pollock of the Economic Policy Institute told me, “There’s no way to square this plan with the president’s ‘Winning the Future’ agenda. That agenda ends.” Yet Obama said this as if it were a good thing.

Six weeks after Obama’s speech, protesters heard the call of Adbusters, the Canadian anti-capitalist magazine, and followed the lead of a small crew of activists, writers, and students to “occupy Wall Street.” A few hundred of them set up camp in Zuccotti Park, a small patch of concrete next door to Ground Zero. No one knew how long the occupation would last, or what its impact would be.

What a game-changing few months it’s been. Occupy Wall Street has inspired 750 events around the world, and hundreds of (semi-)permanent encampments around the United States. In so doing, the protests have wrestled the national discussion on the economy away from austerity and toward gaping income inequality (the 99% versus 1% theme), outsized executive compensation, and the plain buying and selling of American politicians by lobbyists and campaign donors.

Mentions of the phrase “income inequality” in print publications, web stories, and broadcast transcripts spiked from 91 times a week in early September to nearly 500 in late October, according to the website Politico — an increase of nearly 450%. In the second week of October, according to ThinkProgress, the words most uttered on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News were “jobs” (2,738), “Wall Street” (2,387), and “Occupy” (1,278). (References to “debt” tumbled to 398.)

And here’s another sign of the way Occupy Wall Street has forced what it considers the most pressing economic issues for the country into the spotlight: conservatives have lately gone on the defensive by attacking the very existence of income inequality, even if to little effect. As AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka put it, “Give credit to the Occupy Wall Street movement (and historic inequality) for redefining the political narrative.”

Wall Street in Ohio

The way Occupy Wall Street, with next to no direct access to the mainstream media, commandeered the national political narrative represents something of a stunning triumph. It also laid the groundwork for OWS’s first political win.

Just as OWS was grabbing that narrative, labor unions and Democrats headed into the final stretch of one of their biggest fights of 2011: an up-or-down referendum on the fate of Ohio governor John Kasich’s anti-union law, also known as SB 5. Passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature in March, it sought to curb the collective bargaining rights of 350,000 police, firefighters, teachers, snowplow drivers, and other public workers. It also gutted the political clout of unions by making it harder for them to collect dues and fund their political action committees. After failing to overturn similar laws in Wisconsin and Michigan, the SB 5 fight was labor’s last stand of 2011.

I spent a week in Ohio in early November interviewing dozens of people and reporting on the run-up to the SB 5 referendum. I visited heavily Democratic and Republican parts of the state, talking to liberals and conservatives, union leaders and activists. What struck me was how dramatically the debate had shifted in Ohio thanks in large part to the energy generated by Occupy Wall Street.

It was as if a great tide had lifted the pro-repeal forces in a way you only fully grasped if you were there. Organizers and volunteers had a spring in their step that hadn’t been evident in Wisconsin this summer during the recall elections of nine state senators targeted for their actions during the fight over Governor Scott Walker’s own anti-union law. Nearly everywhere I went in Ohio, people could be counted on to mention two things: the 99% — that is, the gap between the rich and poor — and the importance of protecting the rights of the cops and firefighters targeted by Kasich’s law.

And not just voters or local activists either. I heard it from union leaders as well. Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, told me that her union had recruited volunteers from 15 different states for the final get-out-the-vote effort in Ohio. That, she assured me, wouldn’t have happened without the energy generated by OWS. And when Henry herself went door-to-door in Ohio to drum up support for repealing SB 5, she said that she could feel its influence in home after home. “Every conversation was in the context of the 99% and the 1%, this discussion sparked by Occupy Wall Street.”

This isn’t to take anything away from labor’s own accomplishments in Ohio. We Are Ohio, the labor-funded coalition that led the effort, collected nearly 1.3 million signatures this summer to put the repeal of SB 5 on the November ballot. (They needed just 230,000.) The group outspent its opponents $30 million to $8 million, a nearly four-to-one margin. And in the final days before the November 8th victory, We Are Ohio volunteers knocked on a million doors and made nearly a million phone calls. In the end, a stunning 2.14 million Ohioans voted to repeal SB 5 and only 1.35 million to keep it, a 61% to 39% margin. There were repeal majorities in 82 of Ohio’s 88 counties, support that cut across age, class, race, and political ideologies.

Nonetheless, it’s undeniable that a mood change had hit Ohio — and in a major way. Pro-worker organizers and volunteers benefited from something their peers in Wisconsin lacked: the wind of public opinion at their backs. Polls conducted in the run-up to Ohio’s November 8th vote showed large majorities of Ohioans agreeing that income inequality was a problem. What’s more, 60% of respondents in a Washington Post-ABC poll said the federal government should act to close that gap. Behind those changing numbers was the influence of Occupy Wall Street and other Occupy protests.

So, as the debate rages over what will happen to Occupy Wall Street after its eviction from Zuccotti Park, and some “experts” sneer at OWS and tell it to get real, just direct their attention to Ohio. Kasich’s anti-union law might still be on the books if not for the force of OWS. And if the Occupy movement survives Mayor Bloomberg’s eviction order and the winter season, if it regroups and adapts to life beyond Zuccotti Park, you can bet it will notch more political victories in 2012.

Andy Kroll is a staff reporter in the D.C. bureau of Mother Jones magazine and an associate editor at TomDispatch. He has appeared on MSNBC, Al Jazeera English, Democracy Now, and Current TV’s “Countdown” with Keith Olbermann. His email is akroll (at) motherjones (dot) com. To catch Timothy MacBain’s latest Tomcast audio interview in which Kroll discusses Occupy Wall Street’s unlikely first political victory click here, or download it to your iPod here.

Copyright 2011 Andy Kroll

Ed.’s Note:  Once again we thank Tom Engelhardt for his permission to republish from his blog, our doing so a testament to his skill in choosing the best of the best in commentary, and an appreciation of the remarks that he adds to the items he selects.

LA Free Press, 1964 Narcotics Agents Listed

PLEASE  READ the FIRST TWO paragraphs of the above.  Ardently, we STILL believe this:  Communication leads to understanding, understanding leads not only to peaceful co-existence, but is the most productive path to a society that respects and serves the needs of all of its members to its own greatest good.

Now, please, go to our Facebook Page to discuss this further.

http://www.facebook.com/groups/173751580168

This is NOT a statement  on our ‘philosophy’ on WHY and HOW culture changes, WHY it did back then, WHY it is now – but THAT statement IS coming.  Stay tuned… the revolution has a reason, the process has begun, it’s history is here; use it to take your next step.  And CLICK our rss button NOW so that you, first, will know what that might be.

LA Free Press, 1964 Why We Appear (1 of 4)

LA Free Press, 1964 Why We Appear (2 of 4)

LA Free Press, 1964 Why We Appear (3 of 4)

LA Free Press, 1964 Why We Appear (4 of 4)

So the mainstream media has you convinced that the Occupy Wall Street movement is nothing more than a bunch of neo-hippies, clowns, anarchists, socialists and fascists with nothing to say, no agenda and no plan for how to make things better. The media tells you this movement blames corporations for all the ills of the world when really it is government that has failed. The media claims that the movement is dominated by anti-capitalist sentiments which will rob Americans of their freedom. The very same mainstream media then provides stills and video taken out of context to prove their point.

Well, as Malcolm X once said, “If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” He was right when he said it, and the comment applies even more appropriately today. Let’s just extend it to television, too.

The people of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the extensions of that which spring up in new cities across the country seemingly every day, believe in the power of their voice and the power of the collected will of humanity. They know that history supports them in their beliefs and aims. The people of India stood up to the English Empire and used non-violence in concert with the force of their will to throw off the yoke of English colonial dominion and win home rule. The people of Eastern Europe stood up as a unified, non-violent mass against the repression of the Soviet Union and tore down the Berlin Wall as they liberated themselves from dictatorship. The people of the Soviet Union followed that lead and used the same force of will along with non-violent, civil disobedience to end 74 years of communist autocracy in Russia and the other SSRs. Most recently, the people of Egypt stood up to privilege, power, repression and military might with non-violent masses demanding self-determination and a government that reflected their will and desire. They are now in the process of working out their future together.

The people of the Occupy Wall Street movement represent another example of people who are not afraid to empower themselves, people who believe in right over wrong, hope over dismay, fairness over greed, and humanity over bank accounts. They have spontaneously arisen like a force of nature. Their numbers continue to swell like the ocean’s rising tide. They are not afraid to stand up to nefarious corporate greed. They believe in the power of the people, and know that, truly, there is no greater force in the world than masses of people gathering together in their own interest, non-violently, expressing a loving message of inclusion, hope, peace, equality, economic fairness and equal justice under the law.

So, you ask, “What do they want? What is their coherent message?”

Let me provide you with a video of Keith Olbermann delivering the statement of grievances of the people in the Occupy Wall Street movement which was agreed upon by 90% of them. The link to the video is followed by a link to a document containing the language read by Keith.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/occupy-tucson/statement-of-concerns-approved-by-ny-general-assembly-by-consensus/185878491488210

Now, let me give you a link to a list of 8 specific demands for actions Congress should undertake to improve conditions in the United States.

http://coupmedia.org/occupywallstreet/occupy-wall-street-official-demands-2009

These are coherent statements with real insight into what is wrong and how things went wrong. These statements include specific means by which the wrongs can be rectified. Their hope, like mine, is for a better America that will be more responsive to the needs of the people. These links explain their vision better than a brief summary by me, since nothing is lost in the translation. Their dream, like mine, is for a return to the idea that this nation shall become what Abraham Lincoln once defined it as, “A nation of the people, by the people and for the people.”
The United States is not a corporation. It is not a private commodity. It is not a product or service. This nation is a collection of people who seek to be treated with respect and courtesy, and who believe that, because this is supposed to be a representative government, the politicians elected to perform the sacred duty of representing the wishes of the people must understand the nature of that role. The people of this country want their representatives to stop talking at us, stop telling us they know better than we what the right course of action is. The 99%, as the members of the movement call themselves, want politicians to stop being run by corporate interests, occurring because of exorbitant campaign contributions and the perks that come from lobbyists. Politicians, take your balls out of the corporate wallets who buy you, and act in accordance with the Constitution! Remember, real authority and true legitimacy for any government flows from the people, and only the people.

This, my friends, is what the Occupy Wall Street movement stands for and what the people in that movement want.

Protest Failed Drug War, Prosecution of Patients as a Waste of Federal Resources

LOS ANGELES – October 11, 2011 – When medical cannabis patients and supporters finished their rally at the federal building on Friday, October 7, 2011, the same day U.S. Attorneys announced their escalated attack on medical cannabis collectives and cooperatives, the protesters made their way to Los Angeles City Hall to see how the ‘occupation’ was going.

“When Occupy LA activists saw our signs, they cheered,” states Degé Coutee, Executive Director of Patient Advocacy Network, an LA-based non-profit organization advocating for patients’ rights. One sign read ‘Cannabis Is Medicine Not Criminal’ while others read ‘Patient, Not Criminal.’

“We chanted ‘No More Drug War’ and they got it,” continues Coutee. “Twenty years ago is was much more difficult to get anti-war activists to acknowledge Drug War atrocities. Now everyone knows someone whose been effected by the Drug War. Everyone knows someone whose used cannabis therapeutically.”

So, Patient Advocacy Network launched Occupy 4:20, a nationwide movement of cannabis supporters protesting the failed Drug War and the federal attack on states with medical cannabis laws while calling for cannabis legalization.

*********************

The Patient Advocacy Network is an LA-based charitable 501 (c) (3) organization founded by patient-activists in 2006.  Since then PAN has provided several hundred workshops to medical cannabis patients and their providers throughout California on compliance issues, law enforcement encounters and how to effectively engage the democratic process.  PAN works with numerous elected officials to educate the legislature on cannabis issues: scientific, social and legal.  PAN advocates for patients’ rights and the end of marijuana prohibition.

Events:  To be held in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Philadelphia. Details will be announced here.

Contact Points:

Degé Coutee, Executive Director -Patient Advocacy Network at (323) 334-5282

patientadvocates@riseup.net.

Information:  www.CannabisSavesLives.org,  http://panorg.blogspot.com/

Twitter:  @Occupy420 @PAN4Compassion.

Day 3 of 3

Commentary will be posted at 5 pm (PST)

Est. 1964 Re-Incarnated by Public Demand

This is the original, 60’s, counter culture, LA Free Press. Today’s Best Alternative View & Our Old Hippie Headlines, Too! A Head Trip for Smart Minds.

This article refers directly to the contents of the Los Angeles Free Press. Specifically, to the Series mentioned above to which there is an Intro below.

HERE is a link to the first postings of this Series.

After any day’s reading, come here again to find discussion on the thoughts generated and the conclusions that can be drawn. And please don’t hesitate to add whatever you have in mind!

by Steven M. Finger

Come visit at 5pm (PST)

The following are my personal recom­mendations for the important Califor­nia elections to be held on November 2, 2010.

Frankly, I have some reservations in supporting Democratic Party candidates as I am now doing here. Previously, I have chosen to mainly support third party candidates simply to help keep their alternative parties on the ballot.

Even in this critical mid-term election of 2010, when I believe it necessary to vote for Democrats because they are the lesser evil when contrasted to the Republicans, I am still tempted to support candidates of the minor independent progressive parties on the ballot: Peace and Freedom Party or Greens.

I did not consider then or now that voting for third party candidates who have no chance of election was throwing away my vote.  My reason for supporting minority party candidates was and is that, like many independent voters, I do not trust either Republican or Democratic politicians.  My knowledge of the American political system is that members of the two establishment parties vote primarily in support of the corporations who supply their finances, not necessarily in consideration of the principles of the American Constitution or in response to the popular will of the voters.  That is why I have developed the opinion that they cannot be trusted.

That is why I have been an independent voter for third party candidates in previous elections. I simply wanted to keep third parties on the ballot, hoping that eventually a progressive and responsible third party could eventually elect our representatives.

STATEWIDE OFFICES

In this 2010 election, I support Jerry Brown for Governor.  For reasons explained above, I have not supported Democrat Jerry Brown in the past although he has been a personal friend of mine for many years.  In fact, I knew Jerry before he even successfully sought his first political office in 1969, Trustee for the Los Angeles Community College Board, when he placed first in a field of 124. Before he became LACC Board Trustee, there was a period of perhaps six months where we saw each other socially many nights of each week at Barney’s Beanery in Los Angeles.

In 2010, I no longer have a rigid opposition to supporting any Democratic Party candidate.  I have changed my mind because I realize that his Republican opponent, Meg Whitman, is a right-wing extremist who will destroy what is left of our public services and our prosperity if elected.  Her goal is to massively cut taxes on the wealthy, this tax reduction to be paid for by privatizing core public services such as schools.

I choose Brown over Whitman because I personally know that Jerry Brown is at heart a very good man who will provide progressive leadership despite the affiliation he has with other, less scrupulous leaders of the Democratic Party.  For example, he strongly supports the creation of green jobs and high-speed rail.  He also strongly opposes the efforts of Meg Whitman to scapegoat and attack Latinos and immigrants.  He has stood up for labor unions as being relevant and a valued part of the political process, even when he pledges to cut their pensions.  I don’t agree with those cuts but at least Brown treats this as a policy issue and not as a “unions are necessarily villains” issue.

US Senator:  Barbara Boxer The choice here is simple:  a progressive champion who fought against the war in Iraq and led the effort to pass a strong climate bill (among many other accomplishments) or a right-wing extremist, Carly Fiorina, who praises the Tea Party and defends her record of shipping tens of thousands of jobs overseas.

Lt. Governor:  Gavin Newsom Since Brown is in his 70’s, it is important that a Democrat hold this successor office if Brown cannot fulfill his function as Governor.

Attorney General:  Kamala Harris There are a lot of reasons to vote for the current San Francisco District Attorney over her opponent, LA’s right-wing District Attorney Steve Cooley. Above all, it is her support of Proposition 8 whereas Steve Cooley, an opponent of rights for lesbians and gays, has vowed to defend Prop.8 in court.

Secretary of State:  Debra Bowen In her first term she has cleaned up California’s elections and positioned herself as a leader in the effort to make government more accessible to the people through the use of innovative new technologies and through greater citizen involvement.

Treasurer: Bill Lockyer Lockyer has been a good treasurer overall, managing California through some very difficult fiscal straits.  I have also known Lockyer personally and have had friendly political conversations with Lockyer on several occasions.  I personally know him to be a very principled person.

Controller:  John Chiang Mr. Chiang is probably the only bona fide hero produced by the recent budget wars in Sacramento.  He refused to go along with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ridiculous scheme to reduce the wages of hundreds of thousands of workers to minimum wage.  He has managed the state’s cash flow in a way that has generally avoided debt, not an easy feat.

Insurance Commissioner:  Dave Jones Dave Jones has been a champion of consumers during his time in the Assembly.

Superintendent of Public Instruction:  Tom Torlakson If you believe that teachers deserve more support, then Tom Torlakson deserves your support.

State Supreme Court retention: Tani Cantil-Sakauye  No Recommendation

State Supreme Court retention:  Ming Chin NO. Chin was in the minority on the 4-3 In re: Marriage Cases decision in 2008, meaning he voted to uphold the state’s ban on marriage equality.

State Supreme Court retention:  Carlos Moreno YES. In contrast to Chin, Justice Carlos Moreno has been a strong advocate for judicial recognition of equal rights.  In addition to his vote to overturn the marriage ban in In re: Marriage Cases, he was the only justice to vote to overturn Prop.8 at the State Supreme Court, passionately arguing against enshrining discrimination in the state Constitution.

STATEWIDE BALLOT PROPOSITIONS

Prop 19 to legalize the use of marijuana under California law (but not Federal law).  This Proposition opens up the possibility of balancing the state budget by taxing sales of a substance that is probably less harmful than legalized cigarettes:  Vote YES. The war on drugs has failed. Some may quibble with the wording of Prop. 19 but any possible problems can be fixed by the state legislature after the election.

Prop 20:  NO. This Proposition modifies the State Constitution provisions for redistricting Congressional districts from an elected to an appointed commission.

Prop 21:  YES. This increases the vehicle license fee by a mere $18/year and, in return, Californians get to protect and improve their state parks, ensuring they remain open to all free of charge.  Further, Prop 21 actually helps the general fund by freeing up hundreds of millions of dollars each year to fund other programs since the state parks would now have their own funding source.

Prop 22:  NO RECOMMENDATION. This Proposition modifies the State Constitution to prohibit California from borrowing or taking funds used for transportation, redevelopment or local government projects and services.  This is a confusing Proposition with many conflicting aspects.  The environmental Sierra Club urges a NO vote on this while other compelling voices urge NO RECOMMENDATION.

Prop 23:  NO.  Texas oil companies and the notorious Koch Brothers are funding this proposition, which would effectively repeal AB 32, the state’s global warming law.  It would destroy our green jobs economy in order to give more money to oil companies, and it would stop us from being able to do anything about climate change.

Prop 24:  YES. During the 2008 and 2009 budget deals, Republicans leveraged the 2/3rds rule to demand and win the creation of huge new tax loopholes for large corporations that will total about $2 billion a year.  If you believe that schools and health care services matter more than letting the rich get richer, vote yes on Prop 24.

Prop 25:  YES. The most important reform to the government of California is eliminating the 2/3rds rule for budget and taxes.  Prop 25 gets us part of the way there by restoring majority rule on the budget, and leaving the 2/3rds rule in place for taxes.

Prop 26:  NO. This is one of the sneakiest propositions on the ballot. Prop 26 would create a new 2/3rds rule, taking us in the wrong direction by requiring a 2/3rds vote to increase any fee.  This is sneaky because it’s an attack on AB 32, which depends on these fees to fund state efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Prop 26 would retroactively eliminate any fee enacted after January 1, 2010, including the AB 32 implementation fees on polluters.

Prop 27:  YES. The liberal Sierra club, however, urges a No vote on this proposition because of confusing elements in this measure. Prop 27 would amend the State Constitution to eliminate the appointed redistricting commission created by Prop 11 two years ago to redraw state legislative district boundaries.

Art Kunkin is the journalist who founded The Los Angeles Free Press.

Signature line from Art Kunkin:  I can teach YOU how you MIGHT be able to stay alive, healthy and happy for 200 years or more. Seriously! A new insight into ancient science!  Please see a free download of a cover story magazine interview with me at www.immortality-is-possible.com.  (The Last Alchemist: Has The King Of The Hippies Discovered The Secret Of Everlasting Life?” )  My eBook “Life Extension Alchemy: The Secret Of Immortality Finally Revealed” is being sold at a sale price of $9 at www.alchemyrevealed. com.

Est. 1964 Re-Incarnated by Public Demand

This is the original, 60’s, counter culture, LA Free Press. Today’s Best Alternative View & Our Old Hippie Headlines, Too! A Head Trip for Smart Minds.

This article refers directly to the contents of the Los Angeles Free Press.  Specifically, to the Series mentioned above to which there is an Intro below.  After any day’s reading, come here again to find discussion on the thoughts generated and the conclusions that can be drawn.  And please don’t hesitate to add whatever you have in mind!

by Steven M. Finger

If you, like many of those who read us daily, remember, rather than nowadays practice, active community political persuasion (fancy for sit-ins, stand-ups, and shout-outs), then its time you read SOUL OF A CITIZEN:  Living With Conviction in Challenging Times by Paul Rogat Loeb.  And be re-freshed, re-invigorated, and re-tooled – for what may be the greatest opportunity for change since the 60’s.

Simply put, its words will lift you up and educate you.  They will enable you to actually make the political impact that you were once certain that you could.  And so said enough people of merit to convince even the most cynical.  (If you doubt that, take a peek here – but come right back so we can move on to

Now, as strongly as I might want you to purchase this handbook to be best prepared to make the changes we all need, my comments here are only meant as a background -

.

The first day’s postings of the Series begin HERE.

Today’s Commentary @ 3 pm (PST)

Here are the keywords to our thinking today: Changing Society, Self-Improvement, Social Change, Society & Culture

Here are links to today’s items:

[1] Don’t Let the Russ Feingolds Go Down For the Sins of the Blanche Lincolns

[2] Campaign $ – Feingold vs Johnson

[3] Feingold vs Johnson – who’s who, and who’s winning

[4] Lagging Youth Enthusiasm Could Hurt Democrats in 2010

[5] Does Voting Make a Difference?  Los Angeles Free Press Archives, 1968

Est. 1964 Re-Incarnated by Public Demand

This is the original, 60’s, counter culture, LA Free Press. Today’s Best Alternative View & Our Old Hippie Headlines, Too! A Head Trip for Smart Minds.

(This article refers directly to today’s issue of the Los Angeles Free Press. If you have not yet seen today’s issue, click HERE.

Yesterday, it was the Counter Culture. Today it’s…

All About: The Cultural War… is it Risen and Rising, or Exposed and Dying?

by Steven M. Finger

Is this Rally of Liberals really a Challenge to the Tea Party? Or is it, instead, a lost battle of the Cultural War?

More to come @ 5 pm (PST)