The Republican Tax Hypocrisy

By Josh Sager

The recent payroll tax extension fight in Washington has demonstrated a truly astounding hypocrisy in the right wing tax ideology. The right wing of this country, through ideology and legislative proposals, holds itself to be universally anti-tax; or so they would like everybody to think. Republicans and Tea Party politicians say that they are opposed to all tax increases but, as shown by the payroll tax cut extension fight, this is not always the case.

Obama as well as the Democrats in the House and Senate have been pushing for an extension on the payroll tax holiday; pushing against the efforts of the House and Senate Republicans. It is an unbelievably ironic situation that the Republicans have finally found a tax cut that they oppose, yet it turns out to be one that actually does what they say all tax cuts do: Create jobs and help the middle class. The right wing rhetorically supports decreasing taxes upon “job creators” (Read: the rich) but apparently they are opposed to cutting the taxes of the bottom 99% of the country.

I think that it is time that the country sees the right wing for what it has become: A small group of very rich people who use deception, voter disenfranchisement and religion to get the ignorant to vote in the mental midgets and hucksters who obey the orders of the rich. The Republican Party has been corrupted to the point where it is no longer even a political party but rather an extension of the lobbyists.

It is a legitimate policy position that tax cuts, even those just for the rich, improve the economy; I disagree with it totally, but everybody is entitled for their own opinion. The real issue here is that the republicans are willing to contradict their own ideology at the drop of a hat. If you truly believe in something, it is unlikely that you are willing to take the exact opposite stance if your adversary starts agreeing with you. The right wing says that all tax cuts are good, but they are unwilling to give cuts to the poor unless the rich get far larger cuts. I only see two possible explanations to this policy stance:

1.      1)  The Republicans don’t care about tax cuts to the middle class, only to the rich. If this is the reason for their actions, they should be ashamed of themselves and voted out of office for sacrificing the good of the many for the good of the few.

2.     2) The Republicans are so against Obama that they are intentionally sabotaging the country in order to gain a political advantage; this is bordering on treasonous. Politicians exist to serve the common good, not to enrich themselves, make the rich richer, or serve their own pride.

In recent years, the level of vitriolic partisanship has reached a point where compromise is virtually impossible and there is a reflexive refusal of all legislation of the “other” party but I would hope (possibly futilely) that half of our political actors are not willing to destroy the country for their benefit. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, I would like you to simply think about the two sides of this situation:

Democrats: Continue the payroll tax holiday without raiding the social security fund; the extension would be fully paid for by taxing the rich more by several percent annually.

Republicans: Would rather the holiday end but are willing to give on this issue if the Democrats agree to one of two things; reducing the federal workforce by 200,000 jobs or cut taxes on the rich (and not pay for it, this raising the deficit)

Which side I looking out for you?

The Boston Occupier - Issue #2

The Boston Occupier - Issue 2

The Boston Occupier - Issue #1

The Boston Occupier - Issue 1

The Danger of the NDAA

By Josh Sager

The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act is a perennial bill which appropriates money for military spending and research every fiscal year. Over the past 48 years, this bill has been reauthorized and our military has been funded, virtually without a hitch. This year, the NDAA reauthorization has an amendment, crafted by Mark Levin and John McCain, which gives the US military and executive branch vast new powers to detain Americans.

The amended NDAA would change the jurisdiction of all terrorism related suspects to the military, while at the same time removing a vast majority of the protection given to suspects. Anybody suspected of terrorism or providing “material support” to terrorist groups would be subject to detention without trial for an indeterminate amount of time; these suspects would have no rights to a lawyer, open trial, or to confront their accuser. Everybody suspected of terrorism would essentially be classified as an “enemy combatant”, regardless of citizenship, and lose their 5^th 6^th and 8^th amendment rights. Currently, the classification of “enemy combatant” only applies to non-American citizens but if the amended NDAA passes the legislature and is not vetoed, this classification will be extended to Americans.

5^th Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The NDAA would essentially exclude terrorism suspects from being protected by the Fifth Amendment. Suspects would be detained without a grand jury indictment, based upon the suspicion of military or intelligence officials. Once the suspect was detained, the suspect would be held without due process of law and would have no right not to incriminate themselves. Those detained would be held and interrogated for indeterminate amounts of time in an undisclosed location.

6^th Amendment: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for 

his defence.”

As enemy combatants, detained Americans would have none of the rights guaranteed under the 5^th Amendment. Detainees would not be accorded the right to a trial, never mind a “speedy and public” one. As there is no trial, there is no way for an accused “combatant” to confront their accuser, call witnesses to their defense, or use the services of a lawyer. For all intents and purposes, the accused is held as a prisoner of war, where there is no defined enemy; with POWs, the soldiers are repatriated upon a treaty or victory, but without a defined enemy there can be no cessation of hostilities.

8^th Amendment: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

The NDAA amendment would completely disregard the 8^th amendment as it regards to bail, and could bring about the use of abusive interrogation techniques on detained Americans. Under the “enemy combatant” status, a detainee is not entitled to bail at any amount and is automatically remanded into custody (not trial); what could possibly be more excessive than a blanket ban on bail for an entire class of suspect. While the judiciary has the right to remand dangerous individuals, the NDAA goes far beyond this in that regardless of evidence or history, all people suspected of a type of crime are automatically remanded.

As shown by recent scandals, those classified as “enemy combatants” often have their human rights abused while in detention. During the Bush administration there was a pattern of abuse and torture directed at military detainees, all of which were not American citizens. If the NDAA were to pass in its current form, American citizens will be exposed to the same abuses as was seen perpetrated against past “enemy combatants”: Water boarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, loud noises, extreme temperatures and beatings.

Most Americans can agree that terrorism is a grave threat to our way of life and safety as a country. When fighting terrorism, we must balance our safety as a country against preserving our values as a free society. The amended NDAA poses a threat against every American in that anybody, regardless of where they are or whether they are actually guilty, can be detained without any of the rights that we are guaranteed as citizens. It doesn’t matter if you are innocent because under these new regulations, you would never be able to prove it; your only hope is that the government decides that it is wrong about you and releases you, however long that may take.

Our founders decided that the government should not have the right to simply declare you guilty and punish you accordingly, instead, giving the final decision on guilt to a jury of your peers. The amended NDAA gives the government the powers of judge, jury, and executioner over anybody SUSPECTED of terrorism or providing help to terrorists; the massive expansion in the power of the military over civilian matters is a large and dangerous step towards a police state.     

Occupy Boston Winterization: An update

By Josh Sager

If the occupations are to survive the harsh winters of the northern United States they must find ways to not only deal with the weather, but develop strategies to keep people safe and facilitate the transition. At Occupy Boston, a working group of occupiers as well as several faculty members of local universities have been working to winterize the Occupy camp. The winterization process can be broken down into several distinct and important categories: Winterized structures, Camper safety, and Legal.

The Occupy Boston camp is currently composed of a large number of three-season tents and several larger, military grade tents. As the smaller tents are not structurally able to support large loads of snow, nor are they properly insulated or waterproofed, they must be replaced before winter sets in. In addition to the problems with the tents themselves, they are spaced far too closely to comply with fire regulations. At this point, the winterization committee has proposed a consolidation and reorganization of the tent structures which will solve the structural and spacing issues that face the occupation site.

Several military grade, arctic rated, tents will be bought using donated money and set up to replace the current tents. These tents are far stronger, more insulated and waterproof then the current tents, making them a safer and more comfortable way to weather the winter. In addition to purchasing the high grade tents, the occupiers will be using a structure designed by volunteers from MIT and Harvard; this structure will be lightweight, strong and designed to protect the occupiers through anything that a New England winter can throw at the. Not only will the new structures hold up to the weather but they will allow many more people to live together, making it possible to ensure that nobody freezes in their sleep. As shown by numerous cold weather deaths in people living without shelter, the most dangerous times in the winter are the nights, when people without insulation freeze in their sleep.

In coordination with the Safety and Medical working groups, the Winterization group is organizing a winter safety system. On cold winter nights, the Safety and Medical groups will be running periodic checks inside of the living tents to ensure that everybody is safe; in the event of somebody becoming hypothermic, they will be brought to the medical tent to be given insulating layers and warm drinks. In a worst case scenario, the medical team will call for an ambulance to transport the hypothermic occupier to the hospital. Through a combination of preparation, vigilance, and medical assistance, the occupiers will prepare for the winter so that everybody can remain safe, healthy, and comfortable.

One potential stumbling block in the winterization plan is the actions of the police. Currently there is an injunction against the city from removing the occupations except under extreme circumstances (fire, health, or violence). Unfortunately, the BPD has been enforcing a blockade of winterization materials into the camp. 

The BPD abides by the court order in that they don’t remove the protestors, but they won’t allow any new materials into camp; this makes little sense to the occupiers as they are planning on staying, but need to be safe while they do. If the occupiers are dedicated to stay through the winter, doesn’t it make sense for the police to allow them to be as safe as they can make themselves? Ultimately, the occupiers hope that the judge hearing the case will not only allow the occupiers to stay in Dewey Square, but will also rule that the occupiers are allowed to winterize their camp in order to stay safe.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The police officers stationed at Dewey Square have conducted their jobs without violence and are only following orders to blockade the occupiers’ site. Ultimately, any responsibility for this policy rests up the chain of command, not with the officers themselves. 

New blogger starting up: Needs readers

Spending much of my time at Occupy Boston, I meet a large number of interesting and intelligent people; one such person is Nat (Nathaniel) Lathrop. 

Nat is starting up his own blog at http://ourtimesjournal.blogspot.com/ and while he has yet to populate his blog with numerous articles, you should check up on his blog periodically to read his articles. Starting a blog is difficult, particularly in the field of politics, where everybody has an opinion, thus I would like to encourage anybody reading this to help a new voice out.

Josh Sager -- The Sarcastic Liberal

Occupy Contraband: Everything Including the Kitchen Sink

By Josh Sager

Have you ever heard the story where three dozen police officers gathered on one cold, fall night with the noble goal of removing a dangerous sink from a public park; thus protecting society from the terrible dangers of dishwashing and, gasp, wrinkled hands? If you have, you should know that this story is neither an urban legend, nor the beginning of a Keystone Cops episode but rather a true story.

On the night of the second of December, over thirty police officers extracted an industrial grade sink from the Occupy Boston camp located in Dewey Square; it is currently unknown what law or regulation was used to justify the removal of the sink as the police have yet to release their statement. The removal of a sink from the occupation is somewhat incongruous with the city’s stances that fire safety and health concerns are the major problems with the occupations.

Unfortunately, the incident with the sink is not an isolated incident, even in the face of a court order enjoining the police from evicting the occupiers except under extreme circumstances. The court order, issued by Judge Frances A. McIntyre, does not directly forbid the police from preventing goods from being brought into the camp, but rather stops the police from clearing the camp. The restraining order is in place pending final decision by the judge on whether safety and fire concerns outweigh the rights to assemble, and by extension, occupy. Despite the order, police have taken shipments of pallets from people delivering them, and removed them in prisoner transport wagons; in one case the police even searched a van that they suspected contained “contraband”.

In a catch 22, the police are arguing that the occupations are too dirty and unsafe to allow the occupations to continue, regardless of the rights to assemble and speak, while at the same time preventing any material to be brought in that can improve the camp. Winterized tents, insulation, structural support, and apparently sinks are all considered “contraband” by the police. All contraband is confiscated on sight and thus the materials that can improve the cleanliness and fire safety of the camps are effectively blockaded from the camp; since the blockade started, only materials that can be snuck past the police have been used to update the camp.

Blockaded material would have large and obvious benefits in reducing the very issues that are being used to justify the shutdown of occupations. Winterized tents could reduce the number of tarps and insulation, thus reducing fire hazards, which would reduce the fire danger in the camp. Pallets are used to create a stable and safe walkway, thus reducing the likelihood of people falling and injuring themselves. A sink, operated by using water jugs, could be used to increase the ability of the occupiers to supply the campers with clean water. When you take the benefits of the items into consideration with the “concerns” of the police, doesn’t it seem that the authorities would laud the efforts of the occupiers to conform to safety regulations?