sabrina 1's Journal
Member since: Sun Mar 30, 2008, 05:51 AM
Number of posts: 45,932
Number of posts: 45,932
According to this article, Ferguson can recall their elected officials. It describes how that right makes it possible to fire the police.
The People of Ferguson Have the Power To FIRE the ENTIRE POLICE FORCE
Although Missouri does not have statewide recall provisions under the law, there are provisions for doing so at the local level.
Missourians do not have the right of statewide recall. However, the right of local recall is available in:
Cities defined as Class 3 cities. A Class 3 City is defined as a city with a population between 3,000 and 29,999.
The recall process that applies to Class 3 cities in Missouri is governed by MRS §77.650 and 78.260.
Recall may not commence during first 6 months in office
That seems possible, to get enough signatures over the next three months to begin the process.
The issue of the nearly all white police force is not one without an ability to correct. This is not some issue where the people have no power. In fact, this is a completely political issue and as DailyKos has aptly demonstrated for more than a decade, any political problem has a political solution.
Given the demographics of Ferguson, the people have the power to fire the entire city council, the mayor, the city manager, the chief of police, and to replace them with officers more capable who will fire the entire police force and replace them with individuals interested in serving and protecting the citizenry of Ferguson.
This process can be accomplished entirely within a period of just over six months.
With a population of about 21,135, Ferguson is a Class 3 city. We must now turn to the Ferguson charter for more information.
First, let's examine the governing body of Ferguson:
It's worth reading the entire article to see the process whereby the people of Ferguson can replace those officials and their appointees, such as the Police Chief, legally.
It's a long process and would require a lot of legal expertise, but I imagine that would not be hard to find at this particular time.
Just starting the process should scare them enough to start acting like they represent the people they are supposed to represent.
If ever there was a time to begin turning the tables, now seems to be that time.
More details at the link.
'There is a tide in the affairs of men, which, taken at the flood leads on to greatness ~ William Shakespeare
This may be that tide for Ferguson ....
Posted by sabrina 1 | Wed Aug 20, 2014, 05:36 PM (67 replies)
Glenn Greenwald eviscerated David Gregory in that MTP interview.
And DUers as usual had no problem with the question 'who is the real journalist here':
After the backlash Gregory received from all over the political spectrum, MTP decided not to match up the actual jouralist with the fake journalist a second time. Something which disappointed Greenwald, something he says, 'I was looking forward to'. I wonder was it Gregory himself who asked that he not be put through another session with a real journalist, or MTP's fear of another such embarrassing eviceration of their MTP Host:
Glenn Greenwald Was 'Looking Forward' To Another David Gregory Interview
The Guardian columnist is scheduled to be on "Meet the Press" Sunday to discuss his new book, the first time he will return to the program since his controversial interview last June, in which David Gregory wondered if he should be "charged with a crime" for working with NSA leaker Edward Snowden.
Greenwald responded to Gregory during the interview that it was "pretty extraordinary that anybody who would call themselves a journalist would publicly muse about whether or not other journalists should be charged with felonies."
But Greenwald recently found out that Sunday's interview will not be with David Gregory, but with Pete Williams instead.
"That was really disappointing," Greenwald said on HuffPost Live Friday. "I was really looking forward to part 2 of my interview by David Gregory and to see what his approach was."
Gregory may be gone, but his replacement won't be much better. I remember him from the Bush days and his mocking of Dems like Rep. Conyers.
Maybe he too will try to take on Greenwald? Or maybe not ..
Posted by sabrina 1 | Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:50 PM (44 replies)
I just wanted to point that out. Because I have listened to our elected officials and I may be wrong, I could have missed it, but I hear them say, correctly, that Israelis have a right to defend themselves.
Then I wait to hear them say that Palestinians also have a right to defend themselves but I never hear that.
So I wanted to say it because I believe everyone has a right to defend themselves.
If any of our elected officials have said it and I missed it, then someone can correct me and I will be happy to hear it.
Posted by sabrina 1 | Wed Aug 6, 2014, 01:42 PM (307 replies)
I remember Judith Miller and the New York Times.
I remember Curveball.
I remember MSNBC firing Donohue the day his show covered the evidence from the UN Inspectors that Iraq had no WMDS. The most highly rated show on MSNBC.
Judith Miller was convincing. She was respected as a Journalist AND she worked for the NYT.
I also remember the Rendon Group.
I remember too what they did to Ashley Banfield.
And I stopped watching them and turned to International News.
I discovered Al Jazeera and was impressed with their courageous coverage of the Iraq War.
I remember that two foreign reporters were killed in the Bethlehem Hotel at the very beginning of the Iraq War.
And I remember Al Jazeera's headquarters in Iraq and Afghanistan were bombed.
I also remember being called a Saddam Lover for watching 'that Terrorist Government owned foreign news media'.
The Government of Qatar owned Al Jazeera.
Of course they have been vindicated now while the Corporate Media, so much of it owned by Murdoch, was exposed as pushing the lies through people like Judith Miller, who was funneled information from the Rendon Group.
And I remember the Valerie Plame Affair, Libby, Miller, who went to jail to protect Libby and of course the arch criminal Cheney.
Thankfully now we have so many other sources from all over the world.
I also remember what happened at the BBC when a reporter published a story from an anonymous source regarding Iraq.
The UK Govt, Tony Blair, forced the BBC into revealing the identity of the Whistle Blower, That Whistle Blower ended up dead, suicide they claimed, but few believed it. The BBC, state sponsored btw, has never been the same.
If you don't recall any of this, then this OP isn't for you as I don't have time to document it all again. But for those who do, perhaps you remember how we could not even watch the Corporate Media anymore, as we could not tolerate the lockstep propaganda they were pushing.
Posted by sabrina 1 | Fri Jul 18, 2014, 08:00 PM (379 replies)
For appointing the panel to look into the Snowden leaks in the first place, and for listening to their findings.
I and many others have been very critical of the Obama Administration on the NSA leaks, mainly of the meta data collection and storage of the people's personal communications.
So it's only fair to thank the President now for his proposal to end this egregious violation of the 4th Amendment, apparently agreeing with Civil Rights Advocates and other citizens who have expressed serious concerns about this invasion of the privacy of all Americans.
While not perfect it is a big step in the right direction
First it is an acknowledgement that this was never necessary in the first place and a positive response to the Snowden leaks which was absolutely necessary if the rights of the people are to be protected. It signifies that the administration has taken those leaks seriously, as they should.
This proposal doesn't address the CIA's role in data collecting however, but if this proposal passes it should make the next steps a little easier:
Obama to Call for End to N.S.A.’s Bulk Data Collection
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is preparing to unveil a legislative proposal for a far-reaching overhaul of the National Security Agency’s once-secret bulk phone records program in a way that — if approved by Congress — would end the aspect that has most alarmed privacy advocates since its existence was leaked last year, according to senior administration officials.
Turning this gigantic, Bush/Cheney disaster around probably won't be easy, which is why I believe people need to show their support for every step taken to begin the process.
Commenting on the proposal privacy advocates are generally pleased to see the beginning of real reforms long overdue:
Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, called the administration’s proposal a “sensible outcome, given that the 215 program likely exceeded current legal authority and has not proved to be effective.” While he said that he would like to see more overhauls to other surveillance authorities, he said the proposal was “significant” and addressed the major concerns with the N.S.A.’s bulk records program.
Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union said, “We have many questions about the details, but we agree with the administration that the N.S.A.’s bulk collection of call records should end.” He added, “As we’ve argued since the program was disclosed, the government can track suspected terrorists without placing millions of people under permanent surveillance.”
No doubt the findings of the President's Panel that these Constitutional Violations have never stopped one terrorist, had a lot to do with this proposal.
To those who called the Snowden revelations 'old news' and 'irrelevant' it appears the administration doesn't agree.
So a BIG THANK YOU to Edward Snowden also.
As the article points out:
The existence of the N.S.A. program was disclosed and then declassified last year following leaks by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor. The disclosure set off a controversy that scrambled the usual partisan lines in Congress.
The Constitutional Rights of the American people should never be a Partisan issue.
Posted by sabrina 1 | Tue Mar 25, 2014, 02:16 PM (33 replies)
I remember that day when Pete Seeger came to support the Occupiers in NY. It was wonderful to see him there, still protesting at age 92! He was an inspiration to everyone.
Remembering Pete Seeger, From Woody Guthrie to Occupy Wall Street
Seeger, Guthrie join Occupy Wall Street rally
NEW YORK -- Folk music legend Pete Seeger and '60s folk singer Arlo Guthrie joined Occupy Wall Street demonstrators in their campaign against corporate greed while residents near the protest park encampment pushed to regain some peace and quiet in their neighborhood.
Seeger joined in the Occupy Wall Street protest Friday night, replacing his banjo with two canes as he marched with throngs of people in New York City's tony Upper West Side past banks and shiny department stores.
The 92-year-old Seeger, accompanied by musician-grandson Tao Rodriguez Seeger, composer David Amram and bluesman Guy Davis, shouted out the verses of protest anthems as the crowd of about 1,000 people sang and chanted.
They marched peacefully over more than 30 blocks from Symphony Space, where the Seegers and other musicians performed, to Columbus Circle. Police watched from the sidelines.
A few more photos
All the best people showed up at Occupy Wall Street!
RIP to a great American hero!
Posted by sabrina 1 | Wed Jan 29, 2014, 03:58 PM (7 replies)
Social Security is still one of the most popular and successful fiscal programs among Americans across political lines.
A recent poll shows that:
Americans Will Pay to Shore Up Social Security: Poll
Most Americans think it's important to preserve adequate Social Security benefits for younger generations — and they may even be willing to pay more taxes to get that assurance, a new survey finds.
The survey, released Thursday by the nonprofit National Academy of Social Insurance, found that about eight in 10 Americans think it is critical to support Social Security even if it means that working Americans have to pay more in taxes. A slightly higher percentage of the 2,000 people surveyed said they think it's critical to save Social Security even if wealthy people have to pay more.
Social Security had nothing to do with the Deficit, it didn't create or contribute to it. Yet we still hear the words 'SS and the Deficit' linked together each time politicians talk about the DEFICIT. The effort to create the impression that SS had something to do with the Deficit is obvious. And false.
The CPI is a cut in benefits to SS and is being used to sell the lie that SS had something to do with the Deficit.
None of this makes sense because SS has its OWN fund paid for by the people for their retirement.
The SS Fund has a two trillion dollar surplus.
People who are dependent on the benefits THEY PAID FOR are spending those benefits, putting their money into the Economy.
Increasing benefits means more money goes into the economy and doesn't have to come from the General Fund.
It also means that Republicans cannot claim that we 'cannot afford a Stimulus Package'. Maybe the Federal Budget can't, but the SS Fund can.
Elizabeth Warren: Don't Cut Social Security Benefits Expand Them
“Over the past generation, working families have been hacked at, chipped, and hammered. If we want a real middle class — a middle class that continues to serve as the backbone of our country — then we must take the retirement crisis seriously. Seniors have worked their entire lives and have paid into the system, but right now, more people than ever are on the edge of financial disaster once they retire — and the numbers continue to get worse.
As Noam Scheiber detailed in his big cover story on why Warren is a threat to Hillary Clinton in 2016, many of the issues that Warren has been championing for years now — Wall Street accountability and oversight of the big banks; stagnating middle class wages; the need for financial reforms designed to address the ways the economy is rigged in favor of the financial sector and against working Americans — are emerging as central to a larger argument over what the Democratic Party should stand for and who it really represents.
By planting a flag on the need to expand Social Security, Warren may have just added this issue to the pantheon of preoccupations that are driving those who want to see the party embrace a more economically populist posture going forward. Liberal bloggers such as Atrios and liberal groups like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, have been pushing for a Social Security expansion, arguing that Democratic priorities should be centered on the idea that declining pensions and wages (and savings) are undermining retirement security, and that the party should above all stand against undermining the social insurance system.
So why is this not happening?
We KNOW that when there is a surplus in the SS Fund, the Govt can't keep their hands off it. They spend it on Wars and Tax Cuts for the Wealthy who hoard it in offshore accounts depriving the US economy of money it badly needs.
Congress should EXPAND Social Security benefits, not cut them
In 2013, we made "expand Social Security -- don't cut it" a mainstream opinion in American politics.
Polls show that expanding Social Security is even popular by 2 to 1 in Kentucky and 3 to 1 in Texas! In 2014, we'll make this a campaign issue.
Join over 650,000 Americans who are going on offense on Social Security. Sign on the right.
SIGN THE PETITION TO CONGRESS: With corporations cutting worker pensions, Americans rely on Social Security more than ever. Congress should expand Social Security -- not cut it.
There is a good video of Rachel and Warren at the link also.
There is NO reason not to raise SS benefits. There is every reason why they should.
AND once again: Social Security had Zero to do with the Deficit!
Posted by sabrina 1 | Mon Jan 27, 2014, 02:22 PM (14 replies)
I know I've been told on DU that our Govt would not charge protesters under the 'terror' laws. So just in case anyone is still interested, our Govt most definitely would and has charged protesters under those atrocious laws.
The trial of those protesters has already begun with the Govt, using undercover cops as witnesses, claiming these three protesters were out to commit terrorist acts, several of them in fact.
The defense says that it was the undercover cops who were instigating people to try to get them to plot these acts. I have followed it a little over the past few days and can only hope that the Defense prevails, which in a sane society, would be a foregone conclusion.
But, as we all know, 'everything changed after 9/11' and even a few tough talking college students who in the past, would have grown up by now, since their arrest I mean, and moved on with their lives, especially if they are 'left leaning' or 'socialist' in their views, are a dangerous threat to our 'security'.
Apparently the cops believed that Rock Concerts were a good place to find 'terrorists' so they pretended to be 'fans' and spent a good deal of time at Rock Concerts. They also posed as OWS protesters. Peaceful protesters are also on the 'terrorist' list as we now know.
In this article from the Chicago Sun Times, the author, Mark Brown, shares his opinion of what he has so far witnessed at the trial.
Nato 3 Trials Most Alarming Revelations Are Not About The Defendants
For all these years, I just thought the Heartland Café was a place to find old hippies, but thanks to the NATO 3 trial, we now know that the Chicago police also consider it a hotbed of anarchists.
It turns out the Heartland is one of untold locations Chicago police deployed members of a 17-person undercover unit over a several month period in the spring of 2012 while trolling for anarchists planning to cause trouble at the NATO summit.
The next day, Chikko went to another undercover assignment at Permanent Records, 1914 W. Division, where another suspicious band was going to be playing, then on to another punk rock concert that night at 2966 S. Archer, where more license plate numbers were collected.
Two weeks later, Chikko’s assignment took her to Occupy Chicago headquarters, where a woman was giving a speech about tactics used by police against demonstrators during the 1968 Democratic National Convention. There was no mention of whether the speaker talked about police spying.
One of Chikko’s fellow undercover officers made a big find that day: a Ford conversion van parked outside with a flyer on which he could make out the word “anarchy.”
Sadly I agree with the author when he says:
But in all honesty, I think defense attorneys for the NATO 3 are kidding themselves if they think First Amendment concerns are going to sway a jury in a terrorism trial in a post-9/11 environment, even after the uproar over the NSA eavesdropping excesses.
What a waste of lives and resources for nothing. Well, other than protecting the top 1%. Still, hoping at least one juror will put an end to this travest.
Below, tweet of excerpts from Brown's article, from Occupy Chicago:
Occupy Chicago @OccupyChicago 1h
"@plussone: Chicago Sun-Times: #NATO3 trial’s most alarming revelations aren’t about the defendants | @suntimes | pic.twitter.com/hwnQzIW6Ff"
Posted by sabrina 1 | Sat Jan 25, 2014, 06:13 PM (2 replies)
When Republican Rep. Mike Rogers made the claim that Snowden might be a Russian spy without offering a shred of evidence, it didn't go over quite the way he expected.
Anderson Cooper did something that has become very unusual for US Journalists today, he announced that CNN wanted to make it clear that, other than the Republican's statements, CNN could find no evidence that Snowden was a spy.
He also stated that CNN had tried to get a statement from Rep Rogers today but were unable to do so.
Anderson Cooper explained the unusual public questioning of a US Senator by a US Journalist by stating that the news media has been lied to before BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS.
He then played footage of Sen. Ron Wyden's questioning of Clapper during which, we now know, Clapper lied!
Senator Diane Feinstein (D) and Rep Mike Rogers (R)
Diane Feinstein was with Rogers when he attempted to smear Snowden on National TV. She made no attempt to correct him.
CNN also stated that they did not know why Rogers made the claim, 'perhaps he received some information' from, well SOMEWHERE!
Well, we do know where these smear campaigns come from now.
We saw, in HB Gary's exposed emails, how a smear campaign is born.
Apparently creating smear campaigns is big business. Even a relatively obscure blogger, as Glenn Greenwald was at the time a bid on a contract to smear him was being presented to BOA, can become the target of an expensive contract for a smear campaign.
Cooper did not go into how Snowden came to be in Russia in the first place, YET.
Snowden did not flee to Russia! Snowden was on his way to South America, stopping over in Russia which he would have left in a couple of hours, when he found himself without a passport, making it impossible for him to leave that country.
I hope if the Republican, Rogers ever comes out of hiding, that Anderson Cooper will ask him WHY the US Government forced Snowden to stay in a country which they thought might want to have access to him. Of course it makes no logical sense, but I would love to hear Roger's response.
I have to admit I am more surprised to see a prominent CNN Reporter actually dispute an unsubstantiated statement about a well known controversial figure, from a powerful Senator than I am that the Republican tried to create a false impression without having to prove it about a Whistle Blower. That would be old news.
We became so used to Cheney, Bush, Condie and so many others, lying blatantly and with impunity while the 'press' became nothing more than, (thank you Steven Colbert) 'stenographers', that seeing this tiny bit of evidence that maybe the Press have finally been shamed into doing the job they are obligated to do was exciting.
We got a faint glimpse of real journalism from Anderson Cooper today and that is really the story here imo. Unsubstantiated statements or outright lies from politicians, is old news.
But imagine if this were to become a trend? Real journalism where public officials don't just get to use our airwaves for their own agendas without questioning from a compliant press. Imagine if they actually have to fear lying to the public again because of a free and Independent media they KNOW will question them!
“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” Thomas Jefferson
I'm not going to get my hopes up, but it's a nice dream ....
Edited to correct Rogers' title, thanks to DUer Liberal Dog for the correction.
Posted by sabrina 1 | Thu Jan 23, 2014, 01:26 AM (109 replies)
The direct quote ""I do not overall agree with the President on that issue" at 4:14.
Thanks DUers Autumn and Eomer ..
he was referring to the storage of people's data in response to a question regarding the President's statement that he would have to find some other entity to 'store all that data. Sanders stated, 'the question is not WHO will store it, but SHOULD it be stored at all.'
In the same CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer, Sen. Sanders was asked what he thought about the NSA reforms as described by President Obama in his speech.
Sen Sanders on NSA Reforms
Video at link.
Bernie was excellent as always as he continues to defend our Constitutional Rights.
'It's a start' he stated but 'the Devil will be in the Details'.
He expressed serious concerns about the statement by the President regarding 'who will store the data'. He was very clear that this was a violation of Constitution and believes that the data should not be stored at all. He went into detail about the chilling effect of these violations on people, including young people, students etc regarding 'going to a library and fearing to ask for a book, in case they might be viewed as a 'terrorist'. Very good responses from him on this.
He was asked by Wolf Blitzer if he had a received an answer to his question, 'Is the NSA spying Congress'. Blitzer stated that he had heard the Senator had received some responses. Sen. Sanders pointed out the enormous danger of such a practice, the potential for bribery etc and when asked what he had meant regarding Nixon (apparently referring to earlier statements) he responded: 'If Nixon had had this technology, can you imagine what he would have done with it'.
Worth listening to the whole interview. He was excellent as always.
Thank YOU Bernie. Never sells out the interests of the American People. Never prevaricates when it comes to our Constitutional Rights, while always given credit where it is due.
He expects a lot more reforms before this issue is resolved.
Note: I paraphrased his comments from the interview, they are not direct quotes ...
Posted by sabrina 1 | Sat Jan 18, 2014, 03:39 PM (253 replies)