Published: Saturday 24 November 2012
What a refreshing change from a campaign season heavy with creationists condemning subscribers to the theory of evolution for not accepting the strict Biblical interpretation of humanity’s origins.

 

Forgive me, Bobo, but I do not believe in Bigfoot. Nevertheless, it was a delight spending a Saturday afternoon with you — the sasquatch hunter from Animal Planet's "Finding Bigfoot" — in, of all places, a midtown Manhattan bar. Most pleasant was your welcoming embrace of one rejecting the existence of the apelike hominid you say inhabits the forests of North America.

What a refreshing change from a campaign season heavy with creationists condemning subscribers to the theory of evolution for not accepting the strict Biblical interpretation of humanity's origins. What relief from the pseudo-scientists denying the existence of global warming — or humankind's role in it — and accusing climatologists of making up stuff to get more funding for their labs.

In Bobo's good-natured world, Bigfoot skeptics are a necessary presence. An essential member of the "Finding Bigfoot" team is Ranae Holland, a field biologist and Bigfoot doubter. She adds gravitas by demanding evidence.

Bobo plays another role. A hulking 6 feet, 7 inches with long uncombed hair and a voice that could wake the Amazon, Bobo would seem the most — how shall we put this? — "simpatico" with Bigfoot, should the hominid stroll before the camera in broad daylight.

"Bigfoot," I ask Bobo over a bloody mary, "isn't he supposed to be somewhere in the Pacific Northwest?" Bobo immediately corrects me. It's not "he," it's "they."

"There are a lot of them there," he confirms.

"Manhattan?" I ask.

No, not in Manhattan. But he notes, "There are woods outside the city."

I first met James "Bobo" Fay about 10 years ago through his uncle, a friend. Bobo was living in ...

Published: Saturday 6 October 2012
“There are two disturbing problems with Axelrod’s statements.”

 

Many centuries ago, the Jewish scholar Hillel posed a question that is as prescient as any Nostradamus prophecy: "If not now," he asked, "when?" It's a rhetorical query many of us contemplate during the high holy days, which concluded last month. And after a revealing comment by President Obama's top political aide, it's a question that now haunts Social Security.

The remark in question came during last week's debate about fiscal issues on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." In an otherwise forgettable conversation, things became newsworthy when the conversation turned to Obama's position on Social Security reforms. At that point, the president's consigliere, David Axelrod, responded not with a clear position, but instead by trying to halt the conversation.

"I'll tell you what, when you get elected to the United States Senate and sit at that table, we'll have that discussion," he told the panel.

When pressed, Axelrod insisted that the election season meant no debate should proceed. "This is not the time, he said. "We're not going to have that discussion right now."

There are two disturbing problems with Axelrod's statements. First and foremost is his suggestion that a Social Security policy debate should only be conducted between White House officials and U.S. senators — not between all government officials and the general public. It's a fundamentally elitist idea that evokes notions of smoky back rooms and secret deals. Not only that, it both contradicts basic notions of civic engagement and confirms Americans' fears about a government that wholly disregards the citizenry.

Along the same lines is Axelrod's insistence that even if we were to have a public debate about Social Security, we somehow shouldn't "have that discussion right ...

Published: Sunday 16 September 2012
“It took President Obama, against the advice of many, to give that order and finally rid this earth of Osama bin Laden.”

Jingoistic platitudes were all the rage at the recently-completed Democratic National Convention in Charlotte.

Foreign Policy Magazine’s Uri Friedman reported that Democratic Party apparatchiks used Osama Bin Laden’s name, in bragging about slaughtering him, some 21 times during the DNC. By way of contrast, according to Friedman’s count, there was only one mention of Bin Laden at the Republican National Convention, which took place the week before in Tampa.

One of the more memorable lines, in making the case for another four years in office for the 2009 Nobel Prize Peace Prize winning Laureate-in-Chief, came from U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). He stated (emphasis mine),

And after more than — after more than 10 years without justice for thousands of Americans murdered on 9/11, after Mitt Romney said it would be naive to go into Pakistan to pursue the terrorists, it took President Obama, against the advice of many, to give that order and finally rid this earth of Osama bin Laden.

Ask Osama bin Laden is he is better off now than he was four years ago.

Vice President Joe Biden went so far to boast triumphantly, “Osama Bin Laden is ...

Published: Monday 16 July 2012
Published: Tuesday 26 June 2012
“Recent polls conducted by MSNBC and Thompson Reuters found that between 93 and 96 percent of the American public believe genetically engineered foods should be labeled as such.”

 

As the 2012 Farm Bill continues to take shape in the halls of the United States Congress, the immense influence of corporate interests is on display.

On Jun. 21 the United States’ Senate voted overwhelmingly against the Sanders Amendment that would have allowed states to pass legislation that required food and beverage products to label whether or not they contain genetically engineered ingredients.

The amendment, proposed by Independent Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, is particularly relevant as many states prepare to vote on a ballot initiatives that would require such labelling of genetically modified (GM) foods.

Lobbyists from the biotech industry have ardently opposed GMO labelling. These opponents argue that because food labelling has historically been handled by the Food and Drug Association (FDA), it is a federal issue and, therefore, individual states do not have the right to implement such legislation. Indeed, in the case of Vermont, Sander’s home state, ...

Published: Friday 22 June 2012
The Virginia-based 501c(4) with a network of 34 state affiliates is known for drawing support from the conservative billionaire Koch brothers and for “incubating” the tea party movement.

 

Type of organization: 501(c)(4)

Supports: Conservative candidates

Opposes: Barack Obama, Democrats

Founded: 2004

Location: Arlington, VA.

Websitehttp://americansforprosperity.org/

Social media:

On Twitter:

June 11: “Proud to help! RT @FelineBengal @AFPhq Congrats on the great job you did in Wisconsin. Your hard work paid off. Thanks from all of us.”

June 11 “Looking forward to hearing from @SarahPalinUSA this week at @afphqRightOnline conference #RO12

On Facebook

Finances (calendar year 2010):

Total revenue: $22 million

Total expenses: $24 million

Net assets: $43,000

990

Published: Tuesday 19 June 2012
“The Occupy movement is not finally about occupying. It is, as Zeese points out, about shifting power from the 1 percent to the 99 percent.”

 

In every conflict, insurgency, uprising and revolution I have covered as a foreign correspondent, the power elite used periods of dormancy, lulls and setbacks to write off the opposition. This is why obituaries for the Occupy movement are in vogue. And this is why the next groundswell of popular protest—and there will be one—will be labeled as “unexpected,” a “shock” and a “surprise.” The television pundits and talking heads, the columnists and academics who declare the movement dead are as out of touch with reality now as they were on Sept. 17 when New York City’s Zuccotti Park was occupied. Nothing this movement does will ever be seen by them as a success. Nothing it does will ever be good enough. Nothing, short of its dissolution and the funneling of its energy back into the political system, will be considered beneficial.

Those who have the largest megaphones in our corporate state serve the very systems of power we are seeking to topple. They encourage us, whether on Fox or MSNBC, to debate inanities, trivia, gossip or the personal narratives of candidates. They seek to channel legitimate outrage and direct it into the black hole of corporate politics. They spin these silly, useless stories from the “left” or the “right” while ignoring the egregious assault by corporate power on the citizenry, an assault enabled by the Democrats and the Republicans. Don’t waste time watching or listening. They exist to confuse and demoralize you.

READ FULL POST 8 COMMENTS

Published: Thursday 31 May 2012
“African-American churches, historically at the forefront of the nation's civil and voting rights efforts, are grappling this election year with how to navigate through the wave of new voting-access laws approved in many Republican-controlled states, laws that many African-Americans believe were implemented to suppress the votes of minorities and others.”

Attorney General Eric Holder spoke to attendees at a summit of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Conference of National Black Churches about the importance of voting as well as the significance of new voter ID laws, which disproportionately affect minorities. The summit was designed, in part, to help black leaders learn about the new laws -- yet Rush Limbaugh and a Fox News contributor attacked Holder's appearance as “reprehensible” and “unseemly.”

C-SPAN: “Attorney General Eric Holder Delivers The Keynote Address At A Meeting Of The Congressional Black Caucus And The Conference Of National Black Churches.” From C-SPAN.org:

Attorney General Eric Holder delivered the keynote address at a meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Conference of National Black Churches.

The day also features panels on the state of voting rights, protecting a church's non-profit status, and energizing constituents and congregants to vote.

The Attorney General has announced that he will vigorously defend the Voting Rights Act of 1965, including the Section 5 provision that Southern states or those that have historically disenfranchised black voters must clear any changes to voting law or electoral systems with the Justice Department. [C-SPAN.org, 5/30/12]

McClatchy: Summit Was Planned To “Discuss The New Laws, Their Potential Impact On African-American Voters And How Churches Can Educate Parishioners.” From McClatchy:

African-American churches, historically at the forefront of the nation's civil and voting rights efforts, are grappling this election year with how to navigate through the wave of new voting-access laws approved in ...

Published: Saturday 31 March 2012
“It goes almost without saying that the claims against me implied in Current's statement are untrue and will be proved so in the legal actions I will be filing against them presently.”

After months of rumors,  Current announced abruptly this afternoon that it had replaced Keith Olbermann with Eliot Spitzer in the 8 p.m. weeknight time slot.  Read their statement here.  A source told Politico that Current was claiming that the former MSNBC host had "sabotaged" the network, and was absent from the show far too often,  and so was in breach of contract.  An update at The New York Times here.

UPDATE at 9 p.m.: David Letterman's Twitter feed for his "Late Show" reveals that Olbermann "will join Dave on the @Late_Show on Tuesday, April 3rd to talk about his departure from Current TV."  Also, Olberamann on Twitter tonight is tweeting baseball.

Olbermann, who left MSNBC just 14 months ago,  responded with a note to viewers, promising a lawsuit, blasting his bosses (including Al Gore), apologizing to viewers and admitting he had made a "foolish" mistake in taking on this challenge with the little-seen network to start with.  He had an equity stake in the network but long complained about technical problems on the set, including lights going out on several occasions.  Last fall he provided some of the strongest, and most frequent, coverage of the early weeks of Occupy Wall Street.

Here is his note (which he sent out in a series of tweets) in its entirety:

* I'd like to apologize to my viewers and my staff for the failure of Current TV.

Editorially, Countdown had never been better. But for more than a year ...

Published: Tuesday 24 January 2012
“The real debate, the debate raised by the Occupy movement about inequality, corporate malfeasance, the destruction of the ecosystem, and the security and surveillance state, is the only debate that matters.”

I spent Friday morning sitting on a wooden bench in a fourth-floor courtroom in the New York Criminal Court in Manhattan. I was waiting to be sentenced for “disturbing the peace” and “refusing to obey a lawful order” during an Occupy demonstration in front of Goldman Sachs in November.

Those sentenced before me constituted the usual fare of the court. They were poor people of color accused of mostly petty crimes—drug possession, thefts, shoplifting, trespassing because they were homeless and needed a place to sleep, inappropriate touching, grand larceny and violation of probation. They were escorted out of a backroom by a police officer, stood meekly before the judge with their hands cuffed behind them, were hastily defended by a lawyer clutching a few folders, and were sentenced. Ten days in jail. Sixty days in jail. Six months in jail. A steady stream of convictions.  My sentence, by comparison, was slight. I was given an ACD, or “adjournment in contemplation of dismissal,” which means that if I am not arrested in the next six months my case is dismissed. If I am arrested during this period of informal probation the old charge will be added to the new one before I am sentenced.

The country’s most egregious criminals, the ones who had stripped some of those being sentenced of their homes, their right to a decent education and health care, their jobs, their dignity and their hope, those wallowing in tens and hundreds of millions of dollars, those who had gamed the system to enrich themselves at our expense, were doing the dirty business of speculation in the tall office towers a few blocks away. They were making money. A few of these wealthy plutocrats were with the president, who was in New York that day to attend four fundraisers that took in an estimated $3 million. For $15,000 you could have joined Barack Obama at ...

Published: Friday 28 October 2011
“The program's host is creating a space for more expansive discussions with voices typically deemed too unconventional, provocative or dangerous to be allowed anywhere near a television set.”

Waking up at 4 a.m. is rarely enjoyable, and arising at that unspeakable hour to appear on a cable news show is particularly painful. In such situations, you feel as if you're dragging yourself out of bed only to be treated like a canine in a dogfight, with the typical show pitting you in a contrived death match against another guest who is your equally angry, equally mangy opposite. That, or you're simply asked to play the yes-man — the Ed McMahon to the host's Johnny Carson.

Needless to say, I'm not a fan of most cable news because I find this format mind-numbing, uninformative and tedious (and cable news' declining ratings over the last year prove I'm not alone). So when I was asked to appear on MSNBC last Saturday morning, my initial thought was, "Thanks, but no thanks."

But then I realized it was a new show hosted by Chris Hayes, a journalist whose work I've long admired. So I said yes. And crack-of-dawn fatigue aside, I'm glad I did, because to my surprise, I ended up getting the chance to participate in one of the best television programs on the air.

"Up With Chris Hayes," which broadcasts Saturday and Sunday mornings, purposely rejects the manufactured red-versus-blue mallet that bludgeons every issue into partisan terms. Instead, the program's host is creating a space for more expansive discussions with voices typically deemed too unconventional, provocative or dangerous to be allowed anywhere near a television set.

The panel I appeared on exemplified Hayes' effort. Out of five in-studio guests appearing to discuss the death of Moammar Gadhafi, the Iraq War and the Arab Spring, one was Iraqi author Zainab Salbi, one was Libyan author Hisham Matar and one was Palestinian-American comedian Dean Obeidallah. (Arabs being asked for their opinion on events in the Arab world — what a concept!) Amazingly (and refreshingly), in a cable world dominated by crotchety ...

Syndicate content
Make your voice heard.
Write for NationofChange
On May 8, 2013, Natalie Prescott, a well-known personal injury attorney based in California, was...
The relevant life policy can be regarded as one of the best things that has happened to the...
PART I - Richard Falk Tells the Truth Shortly after the 15 April 2013 Boston Marathon bombings...
[Note: This paper was presented to the World Future Society General Assembly in Washington D.C. in...
Boston Marathon, this thing called terrorism, and the United States What is it that makes young...
Alternative finance options like payday cash, same day cash advance, fast loans are becoming...
Last night, from Abu Dhabi, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel revealed certain intelligence...
I had an opportunity to interview WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in...
On the night of December 2-3, 1984, Union Carbide’s plant in Bhopal India exploded. Approximately...
This week is Earth Week, and while many are saying “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle,” we think key topics...
Part I - High Anxiety Americans may assume that public insecurity is a condition you find under...
Can this country do what it takes to reduce gun violence? Let's talk about the issues involved....
This morning I watched on television, the exceptional interfaith service at the Cathedral of the...
On Thursday April 11, 2013, The Nation of Change published my blog, “The Banality of Evil...