Sunday, August 4, 2013

The Unexpected Return of Soundpolitc

I have two points to make with this first post in a long time.

The first point is that there will be a return to more frequent and regular posting here on Soundpolitic.  I am hearing the sound of politics again, and I am making the sound of politics again, and it is a sound kind of politics that I perceive and produce.

The second point is that I'm on the YouTubes with my friend and Republican candidate for Mayor of Albany, Jesse Calhoun.  Check out our half-dozen man press conference (slash) protest, Rage Against the Media:

Now I do apologize for the poor audio, for this was our "insurance" footage that we needed to get out there because we knew the "professional" media wouldn't air everything we had to say.  Which is the main point of what we both had to say.

So I'll make the final key points brief and elaborate further in the future.

First, I am indeed a longtime Democratic activist and blogger in Democratic politics.  That's what I do here at Soundpolitc on Blogspot. I tend support insurgent Democratic candidates and I've always blogged about their campaigns and how the media doesn't cover them properly.  Because that's the truth of how the media works and I support the person, not the party.

So it is not and inconsistency that I, a registered Democrat who considers himself a socialist, should be criticizing the media for their lack of reporting on a campaign for the best person for the office regardless of party.

Second, part of the story should be the fact that Jesse Calhoun, a self-describded libertarian running on the Republican line, has the support of a self-described socialist who has always ever supported Democrats only.

I explained all that in the video, but I'll reiterate: it's because he and I value the truth.  We enjoy the discourse between each other that leads us both closer to it regardless of of our ideology and background.  We listen to each other and respect each other, and we will both be listening to the voters and paying them respect when we go out to talk up the Calhoun for Mayor campaign to as many voters as possible between now and November.

Let me repeat that: between NOW and NOVEMBER.

See, the media has only been reporting on the Democratic Primary and failing to mention Jesse's candidacy on the Republican line until we made a bunch of noise about it.  They've been telling the voters that the winner of the General Election WILL be the winner of the Democratic Primary.

That is not a fact.  It is a prediction. And I'll be the first to admit, it's probably a very good one.

But the news isn't supposed to present predictions, which are just a form of opinions.  No.  The news is supposed to report the facts.

And the fact of the matter is that the winner of the Democratic Primary isn't automatically the next mayor of Albany.  They'll have to get through Jesse Calhoun first.

And they'll have to get through me and you first, too.

With that, I pledge to support Jesse Calhoun's campaign for mayor publicly - again - and encourage you to consider doing the same.  And I'll keep my readers here updated as to what's going on in the whole world of the Albany mayors race to the best of my ability, always placing a higher value on the truth than even our chances of victory.

It should be a good campaign.  And it feels good, as Soundpolitc, to be back on the beat.

Stay tuned for more information on the whole of the Albany Mayor's Race and 2013 Albany city politics, for opportunities to volunteer for Jesse Calhoun's campaign for Mayor, and for my report back to you on what it's like to be one.  Thanks for reading.  Peace,

- Colin (aka, Soundpolitic)

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Do Not Hire Soundpolitic!

What I write and post here stays here for all the world to seek.

The same goes for my constant blabbering on my Facebook page, where I consistently use "foul" language and posting "obscene" images.  Many of my friends do this as well, never thinking twice about it.  We understand that it's all about context - that what we are posting on social networks are basically the same as what we  say in person or over the phone.

In other words, we are in character.  Here's a one-act play to illustrate the former form of communication:

Colin David Abele

{In a van smelling of stale smoke and fast food, packed to the brim with musical instruments and amplifiers, and littered with various crumpled ephemera.  SOUNDPOLITIC has just been picked up by his ANONYMOUS BUDDY after waiting in a parking lot outside an apartment building in a small Upstate New York city.}


Yo man, I was tryin to call you...


Fuckin pissed, bro!  My job made me wait two fuckin hours for my check, and I hadda go to the bank to cash it in to pay my phone and now my phones off!  I got no fuckin phone till MONDAY!


Two hours? What the fuck is that?  I TOLD you, man, its all the capitalists just figuring out ways to fuck you with three cocks at the same time ... {An improvised anti-capitalist rant making sure to use the words socialism, bourgeoisie, and revolution ensues for the remainder of the show except its final lines.}


Dude, that's fucked up.  Your fucked up!


No, we're both fucked.  We're here.  Thanks for the ride, man.  Peace!

{The Curtain Falls}

I hope you enjoyed the play.  I hope you understood that it's just a play, and not how I would speak at work. 

If I had a job, that is.  I'm still happily unemployed (though a job would be nice...) and perhaps I am in no small part due to my previous blog post about how I was mistreated by my last "real job" employer.  This allusion makes the following previous post your Soundpolitic Rewind of the Month.

Soundpolitic Sundays: Ready Aim Fired Edition

Read it if you want the full background story.  I recommend skipping it over since this blog was crap before I recently revitalized it.  The key point in putting it there is that it's still here, still view-able, and still search-able for anyone who takes such an interest in my person.

Including prospective employers.  Which brings me to the inspirational source of this update: a local news story about how employers are looking under your online skirts when considering your application to please, please, please purchase your labor.

When I saw this report, I was naturally incensed because this hiring practice is completely unnatural.

As you've just seen, WNYT has a Facebook page as well.  Theirs probably gets far more views than mine since, well, they can broadcast themselves; if you want to broadcast yourself, try YouTube.  They even entice viewers of their television show and/or website to head there and opine on the story.

Letters to the editor, I hardly knew you. ;-P   In all seriousness, I navigated my browser there with the speed of the lightning bolt to share my thoughts:

  • Colin Abele If my potential employer is going to disregard my professional qualifications because something as trivial as socially acceptable language, strongly held political views, or photos of myself having fun outside the workplace, then I win! I wouldn't want to work for somebody who wants me to be anybody other than who I am. If these employers continue these practices, they will soon find themselves with no prospective employees and quite possibly more competitors - workers who have become fed up with these anti-free speech hiring practices with the exact type of strong personalities that are required of a successful entrepreneurs.
    about an hour ago ·  ·  1

I used to have a nasty habit of posting blog-sized comments of a political persuasion on Facebook.  This, I feel, is an improvement.  Except for the hidden/glaring typo. But I was not alone in making one, just as I was able to find comrades with similar sentiments.  The conversation continued and nearly everyone agreed.  Those who disagreed found themselves at the mercy of Soundpolitic:

  • Katie Freisatz I don't think employers should use Facebook as a factor in the final hiring decision. Many people can balance a social life (that may look bad online) and work very well. Just because someone enjoys the bar scene does not mean they aren't a team player who puts in 110% from 8-5. Actually, if someone has a very limited social life, it may be an indicator of anti-social behavior and other issues. It's just all too subjective. However, I can totally see why employers would want to check out Facebook to get an overall idea of the applicant, and why they would not hire someone if they see illegal behavior posted.
    about an hour ago ·  ·  1
  • Tara Jordan Sayward They say " leave your work at work".....lets just admit it ..our work is a big part of our lives..when it should be family..and friends.....good or bad. FB lets us be us, outside of work.... Working 9-5
    about an hour ago ·  ·  1
  • Tracy Gardner I think it is bigotry are these potential employers going to open their Facebook profile in front of their potential employee's? We should have the same look into our bosses personal info as they claim they should have into our life's and info. These kind of practices are unhealthy and will lead to less and less qualified professionals being employed due online reputations.
    about an hour ago ·  ·  1
  • Howard Barrett I so agree with is work and personal life should be just that a personal life...what I do at home or arond friends has never defined how I do and perform my job.
  • Gale Ottaviano I could see how a potential employer would want to weed out bullies, antisocial behavior, or illegal activity. If they allow a person to explain certain postings, I understand. As long as it pertains to the companies business or if it could hurt the company. Certainly certain jobs that could impact public safety would want to know these private postings. I'm concerned with rights of the individual; we could be setting the stage for law suits from people who may feel they were denied a job or fired without due process. In this economic climate, on line postings may be used against us. I'm afraid the laws may not have kept up with the technology. I'm sure that the lawyers are fine tuning arguments now. Word of caution: be careful what you post.
  • Colin Abele ‎@Gale: "In this economic climate..." is you referring to the recession, I know. But that's merely the current SEASON. The economic CLIMATE is capitalism. None of this would be going on under a socialist economic system where all the people, not just a few, have ownership of employment determination. Oops...I just outed myself as a having a communist philosophy. There goes my chances :-) But do I care? No. I'd rather be a truly free man than pretend I live in a free country.
    12 minutes ago · 

Now did those comments endanger any of our employment prospects?  Or rather, do they, so long as we don't hit the little "x" in the corner and self-censor ourselves for the sake of the capitalist system?

I certainly hope so.  And in the interest of not being vain, I'll let the lady who was speaking out before me get the second-to-last word:

Well said, Marianne!  You are as worthy as being quoted on Soundpolitic as any capitalist news reporter or politician.  If I may borrow your phraseology for my closing:

That's my blog and I'm letting it stick!

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

This Blog Is Crap

It's going to change.  Astronomically.

Just a few stream-of-consciousness rules before I call it a night.  It's past my bedtime, but I'm celebrating my freedom to stay up late and use the internet and live in a house where I can enter and exit unlocked doors as I please since, well, you appreciate those things quite a bit on the day you are released from jail.

Rule #1: No more cliffhangers in the second paragraph.

Rule #2: No more blogging after midnight.

Rule #3: No more submitting prior to proofreading, especially for run-on sentences.

Rule #4: No more blogs about Democratic politics, or Democratic versus Republican politics, or electoral politics written in a way that sounds like I'm auditioning for my own television show on MSNBC or still making a vain attempt to make it to the top of the DailyKOS rec list or make annoying splashes on The Albany Project.

There was a purpose written for this thing when I first began it, and that is the purpose I shall be returning to.  I believe it's still here at present...

Who is Soundpolitic? No, no, no. I'm nobody. We all are. The correct question: What is Soundpolitic? How can we use what "I" have discovered for music, politics, writing, the tenements of human interaction on this vast new Internet? I hope to answer that. In a roundabout way. Someday. Here, my work begins. I have the best intentioned of ends, on, sit down, shut up, and keep up the good work!
 ...and even that is pretentious and horribly out-dated.

In the coming days, I'll be getting things up to date.

"22. Place the emphatic words of a sentence at the end. "

Friday, August 26, 2011

Rolling Stone: Schneiderman vs. Obanker

Has Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi been keeping tabs on our very own Phillip Anderson's continuing TAP coverage of Attorney General Scheiderman's refusal to cave in to Obama's bank cartel settlement deal?

I would assume both citizen journalists came to it themselves, but the new RS blog by Taibbi is a welcome addition to the voices bringing this issue up. I recieved it from former State Senate candidate David Weiss in an e-mail, and I hope this gets more attention. Fat chance it will break through Very Important Nonstop Hurricane Updates, but I implore you, check out Taibbi's full article if these choice quotes mean anything to you:

Obama Goes All Out For Dirty Banker Deal


The idea behind this federally-guided “settlement” is to concentrate and centralize all the legal exposure accrued by this generation of grotesque banker corruption in one place, put one single price tag on it that everyone can live with, and then stuff the details into a titanium canister before shooting it into deep space.

This is all about protecting the banks from future enforcement actions on both the civil and criminal sides. The plan is to provide year-after-year, repeat-offending banks like Bank of America with cost certainty, so that they know exactly how much they’ll have to pay in fines (trust me, it will end up being a tiny fraction of what they made off the fraudulent practices) and will also get to know for sure that there are no more criminal investigations in the pipeline.


So this deal being cooked up is the ultimate Papal indulgence. By the time that $20 billion (if it even ends up being that high) gets divvied up between all the major players, the broadest and most destructive fraud scheme in American history, one that makes the S&L crisis look like a cheap liquor store holdup, will be safely reduced to a single painful but eminently survivable one-time line item for all the major perpetrators.


Why? My theory is that the Obama administration is trying to secure its 2012 campaign war chest with this settlement deal. If Barry can make this foreclosure thing go away for the banks, you can bet he’ll win the contributions battle against the Republicans next summer.

Which is good for him, I guess. But it seems to me that it might be time to wonder if is this the most disappointing president we’ve ever had.

Emphasis mine - SP

The same fellow who e-mailed this to me began calling him Obummer a couple years back. Now, with this, it's worth it to add "Obanker" to the list of worthy aliases attributable to this mockery of a president.

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Why I Stand With Senator Sanders

It's currently being suggested that the "compromise" between President Obama and the GOP is a good deal.  The mainstream media, which of course is owned by incredibly monied interests with a huge stake in this deal, has all weekend been trumpeting a brief appearance by former President Clinton in support of this "compromise."  This is the same mainstream media which ignored a much longer appearance by a much more heroic figure which captured the hearts and minds of this nation via internet streaming and social networking sites.

By now, you must have heard of The Bernie Sanders Filibuster.  Yes, I know, it wasn't a real filibuster because it wasn't actually blocking a vote.  But what it was was a super-human, super-progressive display of endurance and speaking truth to power.  At over eight and a half hours, it was not only the truth, but it was the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  Senator Sanders stood on the floor on the Senate and kept going, explaining why this "compromise" is a very bad deal.

He explained why the tax cut extensions were bad, why the free trade deals are bad, why the reduction in estate taxes are bad, why everything that you and I know are bad are bad.  Essentially, it was the progressive platform that any progressive should be in agreement with 100% and should be getting behind 100%.

Because Senator Sanders said it so well, I'm compelled to simply let Bernie speak for himself.  Up here, you may view the beginning of the speech in video form.  Below the fold, I'll simply snip the best of the best from the transcript as it was entered into the Congressional Record, all 124 pages of it.  But before that, let me tell you how I heard this was happening and how I experienced the speech myself.

It was Friday, and I did not get a call to work that day as a driver helper for UPS.  I was just finishing my first week back to work in nearly two years.  So around noon-time I picked up my first paycheck in two, proud to see that I was finally contributing state and federal payroll taxes again, and decided to hop over to my father's to get my laundry done in preparation for another week of work.  Naturally, I was trolling about the internet, checking my Facebook page and the news sites.  Suddenly, I was altered that Senator Sanders, who I heard speak on a conference call with Democracy for America earlier in the week, had been filibustering the tax "compromise" deal for the past four hours.  I found the feed on C-SPAN2 and was instantly captivated.  Any progressive should have been.  I then headed over to my fathers, and had him and his fiancee (a Vermont constituent of Sen. Sanders) turn the feed on as well. 

I tell you now: sharing that event with my struggling family meant far more to any of us than when we watched the Democratic convention in 2008, or the inauguration of Barack Obama in 2009.  We were finally seeing a representative doing their job the way it was meant to be done, not just speaking in political platitudes to win an election or rise his standings in the polls.  We saw a Senator just telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  By the time Senator Sanders got to the point of reading letters from his constituents telling how they are freezing because heat oil is too high and having to choose between groceries for their children and gasoline to drive to and from work, there were tears in our eyes.  The same tears that nearly well up in a strange concoction of anger and sadness now that I hear some of my progressive friends proclaiming that, somehow, this is a "good deal."

Here's the beginnig of the speech from YouTube.  Below the fold, excerpts from the speech's transcript as it appears in the Congressional Record.  Watch it; read it; then ask yourself if you stand with the GOP and Obama...or with Senator Bernie Sanders.

(Cross-posted on The Albany Project)

All emphasis added is my own.  The excerpts are in chronological order.  All I ask if you wish to comment is that you don't address my own words in the introduction; do you best to argue with Senator Sanders' words, and see if you can do better.

But here we are today with a $13.8 trillion national debt, a $1.4 trillion deficit, and almost all Americans are in agreement that this is a very serious issue. So the first point I would make is that it seems to me to be unconscionable--unconscionable--for my conservative friends and for everybody else in this country to be driving up this already too high national debt by giving tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires who don't need it, and in a number of cases they don't even want it.

We have been told not to worry too much because the extension of these tax breaks for the wealthy will only last 2 years--not to worry. Maybe that is the case. But given the political reality I have seen in Washington, my guess is that 2 years from now these tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country will be extended again. What happens around here is that the argument will be made that if you end these tax breaks you are raising taxes. That is what we are hearing right now. I see no reason why, in the middle of a Presidential election, those arguments will not be made again and I see no reason not to believe that those tax breaks will be extended again.

This agreement between the President and the Republican leadership also calls for a continuation of the Bush era 15-percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends, meaning that those people who make their living off their investments will continue to pay a substantially lower tax rate than firemen, teachers, nurses, carpenters, and virtually all the other working people of this country. I do not think that is fair. That is wrong.

Here is the important point I think many people do not know. I have to confess my Republican friends and their pollsters and their language people have done a very good job. This is the so-called death tax. I think all over America people say this is terrible. I have $50,000 in the bank and I want to leave that to my kids and the Government is going to take 55 percent of that, 35 percent of that. What an outrage.

Let us be very clear: This tax applies only--only--to the top three-tenths of 1 percent of American families; 99.7 percent of American families will not pay one nickel in an estate tax. This is not a tax on the rich, this is a tax on the very, very, very rich.

The above quotations are all available in the YouTube video above the fold, in case any of you are unable to access it.  From here on out, it's part of the 8 hours and twenty minutes that Senator Sanders continued speaking, continued fighting, continued to tell the truth.

On the Social Security payroll tax "holiday:"

What the President and others are saying is not to worry because that money will be covered by the general fund. That is a very bad and dangerous precedent. Up until now, what Social Security has been about is 100 percent funding from payroll contributions, not from the general tax base. Once again, this is a 1-year program. The loss of revenue going into Social Security can be covered by the general fund. But we have a $13 trillion national debt. How much longer will the general fund put money into Social Security? Is it a good idea for the general fund to be doing that?

I would argue this is not a good idea.

Even though Social Security contributed nothing to the current economic crisis, it has been bartered in a deal that provides deficit-busting tax cuts for the wealthy. Diverting $120 billion in Social Security contributions for a so-called ``tax holiday'' may sound like a good deal for workers now, but it's bad business for the program that a majority of middle-class seniors will rely upon in the future.

On better things to spend the money on:

Economists on both ends of the political spectrum believe that if we are serious about addressing the horrendous economic crisis we are in now, 9.8 percent unemployment, there are far more effective ways of creating the jobs we have to create than those tax proposals. With corporate America already sitting on close to $2 trillion cash on hand, it is not that our friends in corporate America don't have any money, we have to help them. They have $2 trillion cash on hand. The problem is not in my view that corporate taxes are too high; it is that the middle class simply doesn't have the money to purchase the goods and products that make our economy go and create jobs.
I think if our goal is to create the millions and millions of jobs we need, and if our goal is to make our country stronger internationally in a very tough global economy, I would much prefer, and I think most economists would agree with me that a better way to do that, to create the millions of jobs we have to create, is to invest heavily in our infrastructure.

On the myth of this being a compromise:

But here is the point I want to make. Some people say this is a compromise. Well, the Republicans gave on unemployment; the President gave on extending tax breaks for the rich, et cetera. But here is the point. I do not believe, honestly, that the Republican support now for extending unemployment benefits constitutes much of a compromise because the truth is, for the past 40 years, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, under the leadership in the Senate and the House of Democrats or Republicans, it has been bipartisan policy that whenever the unemployment rate has been above 7.2 percent, unemployment insurance has always been extended. So what we have had is longstanding, bipartisan policy. That is what we have always done. That is what we should be doing in the future. I do not regard Republicans now supporting what their party has always supported, extending unemployment benefits when unemployment becomes very high--I do not see that as a compromise. I see that as what has been going on in this country and in the Senate for four decades.

On why the precendent this "compromise" sets is terrible:

I think what we will be seeing is--if this proposal negotiated between the President and the Republicans is passed, what you will be seeing within a few months are folks coming on the floor of the Senate, and this is what they will say: You know what. The deficit is high. The national debt is too high. And, yes--oh, yes--we drove the national debt up by giving tax breaks to millionaires. That is the way it goes. But we are going to have to deal with our national debt.

The Republicans will tell you: Oh, we have a great plan to deal with it. We are giving tax breaks to millionaires. But now what we are going to have to do is start making deep cuts in Social Security, and that deficit reduction commission started paving the way for that, very substantial cuts in Social Security.
:: I would suggest their argument is that we have a high deficit and a high national debt; that if we pass this agreement and the national debt goes higher, it only gives them more impetus to go forward to cut programs that benefit working families and the middle class.

Let me also say there is no doubt in my mind what many--not all but many--of my Republican colleagues want to do; that is, they want to move this country back into the 1920s when essentially we had an economic and political system which was controlled by big money interests; where working people and the middle class had no programs to sustain them when things got bad, when they got old, and when they got sick; when labor unions were very hard to come by because of antiworker legislation. That is what they want. They do not believe in things like the Environmental Protection Agency. They do not believe in things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal aid to education. That is the fight we will be waging.
I think to surrender on this issue is to simply say we are going to be waging fight after fight, starting within a couple of months.

On why we, the people, shouldn't be calling this "a good deal":

This fight is not going to be won inside the beltway in a Senate debate. It is going to be won when the American people stand and say: Wait a second. We cannot continue to give tax breaks to people who are doing phenomenally well right now. We cannot give tax breaks to the rich when we already have the most unequal distribution of income of any major country on Earth. The top 1 percent earns 23 percent of all income in America, more than the bottom 50 percent. They don't need more tax breaks to be paid for by our kids and grandchildren.

The vast majority of people are behind us on this issue.

On what's really going in America and what kind of nation we have become if this deal goes forward:

We have to look at it within the context of what is going on in the country today, both economically and politically. I think I speak for millions of Americans. There is a war going on in this country. I am not referring to the war in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan. I am talking about a war being waged by some of the wealthiest and most powerful people against working families, against the disappearing and shrinking middle class of our country. The billionaires of America are on the warpath. They want more and more and more. That has everything to do with this agreement reached between Republicans and the President.

While people are working harder and harder, in many cases their income is going down. The fact is, 80 percent of all new income earned from 1980 to 2005 has gone to the top 1 percent. Let me repeat that because that is an important fact. It explains why the American people are feeling as angry as they are. They are working hard, but they are not going anyplace. In some cases, in many cases, their standard of living is actually going down. Eighty percent of all income in recent years has gone to the top 1 percent. The richer people become much richer, the middle class shrinks. Millions of Americans fall out of the middle class and into poverty.

That is not apparently enough for our friends at the top who have a religious ferocity in terms of greed. They need more, more. It is similar to an addiction. Fifty million is not enough. They need $100 million. One hundred million is not enough; they need 1 billion. One billion is not enough. I am not quite sure how much they need. When will it stop?

Today, in terms of wealth as opposed to income, the top 1 percent now owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. When we went to school, we used to read in the textbooks about Latin America, and they used to refer to some of the countries there as ``banana republics,'' countries in which a handful of families controlled the economic and political life of the nation. I don't wish to upset the American people, but we are not all that far away from that reality today.

On where the money from this tax cut is going to go:

What happened last year, as I think most Americans know, is the Supreme Court made a very strange decision. The Supreme Court decided that corporations are people and they have the right of free speech and the right without disclosure--all of this is through the Citizens United Supreme Court decision--to put as much money as they want into campaigns all over the country. In this last campaign, that is what we saw: Billionaires, in secret, pouring money into campaigns all over the country. Does that sound like democracy to anybody in America; that we have a handful of billionaires probably dividing up the country?

One of the manifestations of that is, in fact, the agreement reached between the President and the Republican leadership. The wealthy contribute huge sums of money into campaigns. The wealthy have all kinds of lobbyists around here through corporate America. What they are going to get out of this agreement are huge tax breaks that benefit themselves. That is not what we should be supporting.

And now I see that it is quite and impossible task to do what I'm trying to do.  So I will make one final highlight while only halfway down the first of twelve pages of Senator Sanders' speech in the Congressional Record.  Conveniently, it's the only point you could possibly take away from reading any portion of his speech or looking at this deal:

We should understand this agreement is just the beginning of an assault on legislation and programs that have benefited the American people for 70 or 80 years

It's just the beginning.  So I say we kill it before it sees the light of day.

Monday, October 25, 2010

NY-20: RepubliCorp to Endorse Gibson!


Massive Mutant Combination of Right-Wing Pols and Greedy CEOs to Drop Huge Checks at Dinner, Continues Eating Working American's Finances for Breakfast

There's a lot of creative progressive activists in the Capital Region, concentrated in the Saratoga MoveOn chapter, and these good folks have been instrumental in getting Scott Murphy to Congress. To help keep him there, they've devised an ingenious mock press conference where they will endorse Republican Chris Gibson in the spirit of the approaching holiday: by dressing up as corporate fat cats and highlighting how corporate interests and the Republian party have become indistinguishable.

Here's the official announcement, complete with clickable social network links for you to rsvp:

Please join us at a Press Conference where RepubliCorp will officially endorse Chris Gibson - Please sign up to attend: on also Facebook

Join Protesters posing as representatives of fictitious new merged entity—RepubliCorp—outside the Saratoga Republican Dinner, Tues. 5:30pm, at the Holiday Inn, Broadway and Circular St, Saratoga Springs.

We will stage a mock press conference and present Chris Gibson with the official RepubliCorp endorsement, to highlight how he stands for the interests of the largest multi-national corporations, and against the interests of middle-class families in New York.

The RepubliCorp theme emphasizes the close allegiance between corporate interests and their Republican allies who together plan to spend at least $400 million this election cycle to try to take back control of Congress. We will present also Gibson an -sized checks from RepubliCorp intended to reward service to corporate interests/pay for future votes. Come dressed as a CEO or Lobbyist, or dress casual & come to take photos & video.

Any questions – please call (518)583-4326.
Please pass this on to your friends & lists.

Emphasis mine - SP

Sad to say I won't be able to attend. It's going to be my first day back to work in nearly two years, so I doubt I'll be asking the boss for any time off. But I absolutley love the concept because laughter is, after, the best medicine, and the Republican/Corporate alliance is worth taking seriously enough to make a public mockery of it. This also reminds me of what Stephen Colbert and John Stewart will be doing down in Washington later this week, and tomorrow you can get even more into the spirit of Halloween.

Because at the end of the day, the thought of Chris Gibson serving in Congress is very, very scary.

Oh, and did I forget to point out that they will be doing all of this just outside the Republican's real-life fat cat dinner? MoveOn's totally punking these freeloading lobbyists and executives tomorrow! Here's hoping you can make it if you're in the area. Go show your support for Scott Murphy while having a guaranteed blast doing so.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

SD-46: Breslin Debates Republican, Independent Challengers on Gay Rights

After Close Call in Primary, Breslin Will Cruise to Victory Against Lackluster Conservatives

After fending off the toughest inner-party challenge of his 14 years in the legislature, Sen. Neil Breslin faced off against his two general election challengers in what will likely be the campaign's only debate. The Republicans have nominated an army guy who is, of course, a small business man by the name of Bob Domenici. Michael Carey, a mental health reform advocate has started his own party to seek the seat after he discovered he wasn't a Republican after all.

I had meant to attend the debate, but determined that not much that was said there could affect the outcome of the race. It might have had humorous value, as have other recent major debates in New York state politics. The Times Union's headline and lead in to the story confirmed this:

Candidates talk morality

Thursday, October 21, 2010

COLONIE -- In a state in which the rising property tax burden is supposedly prodding voters toward revolt, the three candidates vying for Albany County's state Senate seat spent a lot of time Wednesday talking about morality.

Breslin will of course win the debate now that his third party opponent has proven to be an ultra-religious nut despite his good intentions. And Albany County's Democratic registration advantage is 2-1 over the Republicans, so he's had the general in the bag since winning the primary challenge mounted by Luke Martland last month.

But by surprise, this usually stomach-turning issue of religion and morality in politics lead this anti-Breslin partisan to actual decide to do the unthinkable and -pull the level- fill in the oval for Breslin this year. The candidates' discussion on the issue of same-sex marriage detailed below the fold leaves me no choice...

(Cross-Posted on The Albany Project)

The Tu Local Politics live debate tweets summarized the race as well. The debate wasn't carried live and I don't understand why. The Rent Too Damn High Show did pretty well with viewers earlier this week...

But getting back to the point. Here's the exchange from the debate that finally made me determine that I'd support Breslin for re-election in the general:

While Domenici, a South Colonie school board member and businessman, tried to keep the exchange focused on the economy and the state's fiscal woes, Carey repeatedly steered the discussion back to religion and faith -- at one point appearing to question how Breslin, as a Catholic, could be pro-choice and support same-sex marriage.

"You don't teach young children ... that it's OK to have sex with whoever you want," said Carey, 48, of Bethlehem. "It goes against the holy Scriptures and the written word of God."


All the chatter about faith prompted Breslin to remark that he "didn't expect to come to a debate on religion."

"I'm not elected to serve Catholics," said Breslin, 68, of Bethlehem, who is seeking an eighth term in the 46th state Senate District. "I'm elected to make judgments for the entire population."

Domenici, also a Catholic, said he opposed same-sex marriage on religious grounds. But the retired Army lieutenant colonel called the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prevents gays from serving openly the "dumbest policy."

Empahsis added - SP

I like that quote, a lot. And of all the complains one could make against Neil Breslin, lack of support on the issue of gay rights is not one of them. He's voted for civil rights for homosexuals before without any question for his entire career, and it's the one of the only truly important social issues of our time.

Too bad the independent candidate's reasoning is so out of line with American values. He might have won an election in Salem in the late 1600s, but not Albany in the early 2000s. And the Domenici is even more confusing. Let me get this straight: if you wouldn't ask your soldiers to lie about the fact that they are gay, why would you want two gay people who've made a lifelong commitment to each other to lie and say they are in a "civil union" when they are just as married to each other as you are to your wife?

My guess is that Domenici is a good guy, but he just can't say what he believes because he has to try and get Republicans to vote for him. Talk about a rock and a hard place. Carey problem is simple: he's gone to too much church. That's what I have to say about morality and politics.

So I'm going to suck it up and support the party this year. I'm a notorious ticket splitter who would otherwise never vote for somebody who've I've spent hours canvassing against. But the thought of two ignorant "morals" politicians representing me at a time when gay marriage has to be enacted (and when the Democratic majority of the Senate is in question) I have to put myself above my own convictions and do my part to make sure the Senate stays blue.

See you at the polls on November 2nd.