In the lobby of WYNC’s offices on Varick Street, Michael Ian Black is chatting with Meghan McCain. It seems as though they are old friends catching up between sips of iced coffee. They’re not. Actually, they only met in person less than a year ago, but in this short time they have toured the nation together and learned valuable lessons from one another, though they are of very different political thinking. Black, a Democrat, and McCain, a Republican, prove that friendship and admiration can cross party lines.

Clutching the book they have penned together, America, You Sexy Bitch, I go over to greet them after their interview with Brian Lehrer. Black and I walk to the nearest Starbucks, where we speak about his book, Washington Square Park, and the first trip he took across the United States—dressed as a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle.

In the beginning of your book, you said that Ambien and Twitter were instrumental in getting Meghan to sign on to this project. Is that really true?

Yes, I was on Twitter. I had taken Ambien. And the next morning, I woke up and went, “Did I just propose writing a book to Meghan McCain? I think so and I think she said yes. I think that’s what happened last night.” I had only met her once before, via satellite. I had been a fan of hers for years. I liked the way she spoke about the Republican party, and that that she wasn’t afraid to go against party orthodoxy. She seemed like someone who spoke her mind, which I respond to.

Did she meet your expectations?

She exceeded them in a lot of ways. She’s a lot braver than I would have given her credit for. In politics, it’s very hard to forge your own path, because the way the political system works, you’re either in one camp or the other. Meghan is a Republican, but the Republican establishment that exists rejects her because she does not toe the party line. As a result, she doesn’t have a home politically. It’s a shame, because for that party to succeed, it needs to have more Meghan McCains.

You said that her mother, Cindy, was the first person who made you start to think you may have had the wrong impression of some Republicans. How so?

I had an impression of Cindy McCain based on what I knew from the media: She was rich, cold and aloof. None of that was true—except for the part about her being rich. She is really rich. [Laughs] But she was warm and hospitable and open with me in a way that surprised me because they’re a guarded family—as anybody would be in that position. To welcome a stranger into your home whose motivations probably seemed very unclear, I think, was really generous.

In the book, you explain your worry that your two children will not get to experience the American Dream as you did. What do you mean by that?

Every parent worries about the opportunities their children are going to have. My fear for them is that they won’t even see the opportunities that my generation and all previous generations saw. The American Dream is a promise that one generation gives to the other and right now, it’s hard to give my kids that promise. It’s a scary time. That being said, my children are in a much better position than 80-90 percent of other kids in this country because I make a good living. They have a lot of advantages that others don’t, and yet I’m still frightened for my socioeconomically blessed children. I can’t even imagine what it’s like for people living from paycheck to paycheck.

You studied acting at NYU. What is your favorite place in the city?

I will always have a very soft spot in my heart for Washington Square Park. It’s where I came when I was a kid on my first trip to NY. We saw street performers there. NYU is there; I spent innumerable mornings walking across that park and really feeling like a part of the city for the first time.

Do people recognize you here?

I’m not out there going, “Look at me—I was on cable.” People recognize me and are usually really nice and respectful.

The first time you traveled around the country you were 19 and dressed as Raphael, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle. What was that for?

The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were doing a live tour—like Disney on Ice, but with turtles and no ice. They needed people to travel ahead and promote the show. So that’s what I did; I dropped out of college to go be a turtle. It was an opportunity to see the country and make good money. It was so weird and crazy that I thought, “I should do this.”

Do you keep in touch with your fellow castmates from Wet Hot American Summer?

That movie was populated almost entirely with friends or people who became friends. There are very few people I don’t see from that movie. The only one I don’t really see is Bradley Cooper, but that’s just because he’s in L.A. and is an A-list movie star. I’m actually shooting a movie in July called They Came Together with a lot of the same Wet Hot American Summer people.

How have your political views changed since touring the country with America, You Sexy Bitch?

My own political philosophy hasn’t changed—in a lot of ways, it was reinforced. I think my mind is a little more open than it was before about the conservative philosophy and lifestyle. I’m a liberal—will probably always be a liberal—but I feel like I at least caught a glimpse of what American conservatism is supposed to be about. And that there’s a lot to admire about it.

Are you going to work on this year’s presidential campaign? They’re going to want you to now, since you wrote this political book.

Oh no, I’m not going to do anything for the campaign. I’m not posting yard signs anywhere. I’m not stuffing envelopes.

Those are all the questions I had. But if you want to add anything…

Just that New York City is the greatest city in the world. Is that pandering enough?

Yeah—that’s fine.

OK, good.

By Alan S. Chartock

There is a new bill floating around the Legislature that would bar prosecutors and the police from confiscating condoms from “sex workers,” also known as prostitutes.

Prosecutors use the seized condoms as evidence against the prostitutes. Obviously, if sex workers use condoms, both they and their clients are protected from disease. The idea that the police are confiscating the condoms and/or using them as evidence for convicting prostitutes seems ludicrous when we know that the condoms are protecting people. Prostitution in any form is the world’s oldest profession; it will be around long after we are gone. You don’t have to be in the Secret Service to understand this truth.

Naturally, many law enforcement professionals are against changing the law. If they are convicting prostitutes, they don’t want anything standing in their way, even the public’s health.

There is a political subtext to all of this, which comes down to control of the New York State Senate by the Republicans or Democrats. Right now, just a few measly votes are needed for the Democrats to take control of the Senate. The Democrats did such a bad job running their house after they took control a few years back that lots of people were left thinking that the state was better off without them. Maybe that’s why they were kicked out—they ignored the secret of New York politics, which is that if you don’t have the middle class (they vote big time), you can’t win.

In fact, one could surmise that one of the reasons so many of us, based on the evidence, think Gov. Andrew Cuomo prefers to work with the Republicans rather than the Democrats in the Senate is that the Senate Democrats are far more progressive than Cuomo. This is a governor who goes where the votes are. He doesn’t deviate from that. His father was known for doing the opposite, and in the end, it probably cost him his last re-election effort. Just Google “Mario Cuomo death penalty.”

The middle class doesn’t appear to think or care that much about sex workers. That’s why, when State Sen. Velmanette Montgomery stood up to defend the utterly defensible condom bill, she made a point to say, “We are not endorsing prostitution.”

She went on to say, “It is simply the fact that over 100,000 people right now are infected with HIV and AIDS in New York City.”

Sometimes, doing the right thing flies in the face of good electoral politics. My bet is that the Senate Republicans see Democratic Sen. Montgomery’s bill as an early Christmas present. In fact, one has to look no further than to Montgomery’s insistence that she and her conference were not “endorsing prostitution.” When you suggest that you are not doing something, you lead the reader, viewer or listener to the conclusion that you are doing something. In other words, rather than denying something, you are probably better off keeping your mouth shut.

Let posterity record that in this case, I believe the senator is correct. Forbidding the seizure of condoms from sex workers is courageous because it is the right thing to do, even if it isn’t the politically expedient thing to do. In fact, instead of moving to the middle to get more middle-class votes, this bill risks alienating a crucial voting bloc.

If just one life can be saved by encouraging the use of condoms, this bill will be worth it. Sometimes, you just have to do what is right and not what is political. I am waiting to hear Cuomo’s position on this. Just remember, though, that I am not endorsing prostitution.

Alan S. Chartock is president and CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio and an executive publisher at The Legislative Gazette.

With Joe Carvin’s departure from the race for the GOP U.S. Senate nomination, top consultant Bill O’Reilly’s strange couple of days are over.

O’Reilly confirmed that with Carvin out of the race, he is now back doing press for Rep. Bob Turner, whose campaign for Congress was helped enormously by O’Reilly’s press work. But when Turner announced for Senate this week,with O’Reilly already committed, another member of O’Reilly’s firm, Jessica Proud, handled press for Turner’s campaign, while O’Reilly continued to do Carvin. Both offered to quit both campaigns because of the conflicts, O’Reilly said.

E. O’Brien Murray, who managed Turner’s 2011 congressional campaign and had been considered the mastermind behind the upset, also had been with Carvin.

Here’s the statement that went out this morning:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

JOE CARVIN: ‘REPUBLICANS WILL BE WELL REPRESENTED IN RACE AGAINST GILLIBRAND’

Withdraws Candidacy; Remains Neutral

Rochester, NY – March 16…Westchester businessman and Rye Town Supervisor Joe Carvin (R) withdrew his candidacy today for the Republican nomination for the United States Senate.

When Carvin made the decision to get into this race, the Republican Party had only one declared candidate for the office. Carvin entered the race because he wanted to ensure that the Republican Party faithful had a choice of candidates and to ensure that voters understood the depth and urgency of the financial crisis confronting the nation and threatening our long-term jobs prospects.

“I was pleased with the positive feedback I received from Party members and leaders around the state when I talked about the need to fundamentally restructure our entitlement systems, our tax code and health care,” Carvin said.

Carvin made it clear that this kind of fundamental reform could not go forward without shared sacrifice among the people of New York and the United States. “Far too often politicians are afraid to tell voters the truth about the severity of the fiscal and jobs crisis we are facing. I was pleased that the New York Republicans are prepared roll up their sleeves and take on today’s daunting challenges.”

Since Carvin’s decision to enter the race, two new candidates have decided to run for US Senate joining George Maragos in the competition, Wendy Long and Congressman Bob Turner.

“My number one goal in entering the race was to ensure that the Republican Party had a nominee capable of defeating Ms. Gillibrand in November,” Mr. Carvin said. “But in the last several days – after Ms. Gillibrand was ranked the most left-wing senator in America by National Journal and after she voted for higher gas prices by opposing the Keystone XL Pipeline – I believe any of the candidates in this race can beat her. I am one hundred percent confident that I would have received the 25% of the Republican delegate vote necessary to get on the ballot, but I am now comfortable that my party is well represented.”

The New York State Republican Convention, at which a Party nominee will be chosen, is being held today in Rochester, NY.

“This has been a tremendously uplifting experience and I am extraordinarily grateful to all those around the state who have supported me in ways large and small over the past few weeks. I am particularly grateful to my own county chairman Doug Colety and his committee for giving me such strong support.”

To see more from City & State click here.

A participant’s critique of Occupy Wall Street on Day 2

By Fritz Tucker

New York City’s Financial District, notorious for devious deals that crash economies, has witnessed a more harmonious set of transactions since Sept. 17. Thousands of people have come together here to share in a more democratic, dialogic and egalitarian cultural exchange than is ordinarily experienced in our society.

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) represents humanity’s potential for sudden radical change. The movement, however, suffers from severe limitations that, if not dealt with, will be the movement’s demise. OWS is structurally incapable of organizing multitudes of people with myriad political agendas and has therefore struggled to articulate a basic set of principles, failed to come up with a single demand and has no way of putting into action anything more complex than basic human functions: sleeping, eating, talking and walking through the streets of Manhattan.

On Day 2, I attended the movement’s General Assembly, a meeting advertised as a leaderless, democratic forum where everybody present could participate in discussion and decide upon a plan of action. OWS however, is not the leaderless utopia it pretends to be. A core group of occupiers established the General Assembly’s process, elected themselves “facilitators” and used this power to define the terms of debate.

The main debate that night was whether to march on Wall Street in the morning. I, another young man from New York City and an older Arab professor made speeches about the need to clearly define our movement and build it in Zuccotti Park. The three of us stressed Wall Street’s insignificance to the world financial system, a fact unknown by the out-of-towners who were set on occupying that famous block. Our speeches caused people to clap and cheer, an unusual deviation from the General Assembly’s rule of expressing agreement by raising one’s hands and wiggling one’s fingers.

Whenever a plan of action didn’t conform to the facilitators’ wishes, they simply refused to put the proposal to a vote. When somebody made a particularly popular speech that the facilitators didn’t like, they reminded the crowd that each member was an autonomous individual and should act accordingly. When the leaders gave speeches, however, they stressed the importance of unity. Upon failing to rile up the crowd with rational, well-articulated arguments, the facilitators led group chants.

In spite of this manipulation, the majority of those present clearly were not in favor of marching on Wall Street. The night ended in a facilitator-led vote that undermined any sense of unity in the group, even though the need for unity was the only thing practically everyone agreed upon. Those who wanted to occupy Wall Street the next morning could march, while those who wanted to remain in Zuccotti Park could stay.

The next morning, a few hundred people marched on Wall Street. When the marchers returned to Zuccotti Park, they vacillated between anger at the injustice of the police, who had arrested six of their comrades, and elation that these arrests had brought them media attention. The thing they were most proud of, however, was the rumor that the bell of the New York Stock Exchange had rung at 9:31. One marcher bellowed that nobody could tell him his friends had been arrested for nothing—together they had disrupted the financial system, if only for a minute.

With the current state of the people’s movement, America is in for a long winter.

Fritz Tucker is a writer, activist, theorist and political organizer. A Brooklyn native and resident, he has participated in and written about people’s movements in the U.S. and Nepal. He blogs at fritztucker.blogspot.com. (Disclaimer: He is not speaking for the Occupy Wall St. movement as an official spokesperson but is offering a personal perspective.)

American Autumn Part 2: Full Length 

American Autumn Pt. 2

Occupy Wall Street: Organizing the Movement

By Fritz Tucker

Spectacle and Structure

The people’s movement grows every week, the number of participants peaking on the weekends. At the same time, the movement’s largest organization weakens, rendering the movement vulnerable to being co-opted by those who are better organized.

As of October 8, the New York City General Assembly, the purportedly democratic body of Occupy Wall Street, barely functions as a decision-making mechanism. The NYC-GA has been reduced to a “people’s microphone” for public announcements of the decisions made by “working groups,” decisions which are also posted on public bulletin boards and on the internet. So why go through all the verbal strain? The NYC-GA is one of the main attractions of the Occupy Wall Street spectacle.

And what a spectacle it is! Hourly marches; slogan chanting; free food; celebrity cameos; literature tables; the people’s microphone; the people’s library; signs and banners trumpeting everything from the end of racism to the second coming of Christ; all to the ceaseless beating of a hundred drums.  A tourist unable to read the signs or understand the chants might think that the Occupiers’ main concern is a lack of public festivals, not that our society subjugates the needs of the many to the whims of the few.

As I pointed out in “American Autumn Part One,” the New York City General Assembly is structurally incapable of dealing with multitudes of people with myriad political agendas. The consensus method used by Occupy Wall Street circumvents this diversity by atomizing the movement into tiny groups and friendship circles that ostensibly agree on everything—or at least agree to comply with the desires of the most charismatic, well-connected group members.  There are few well-known historical examples of an influential organization utilizing the consensus method.  Even a relatively small, unified group of people wields more power, in the long run, than a massive, unorganized movement.

A democratic General Assembly would be the most just way to accommodate diversity while maintaining unity.  In the absence of this, the competing organizations set to dictate the avowedly leaderless movement’s policies and goals are as follows:

The Working Groups

Because it is virtually impossible for the General Assembly—which consists of hundreds, sometimes thousands of people—to reach a consensus, everything has been delegated from day one to smaller “working groups.” Most of the hardcore occupiers—those who have spent multiple days and nights in the park—belong to one or more working group.

Unfortunately, these working groups also use the consensus model.  On Saturday, October 8, I spoke with a member of the Press Working Group.  He said that, with twenty to thirty people, the working groups were becoming too big and were finding it difficult to forge consensus.  A group that has trouble coordinating the actions of thirty people is unlikely to provide the model for an alternative society, or even influence highly structured institutions like Bank of America—which has over a quarter million employees—and the US government. .  The operations of these establishments, however, might be temporarily disrupted by the mobilization of millions of unorganized people performing simple acts in unison, like marching.

This appears to be the dominant rationale of the Direct Action Committee.

The Direct Action Committee

The Direct Action Committee is the major player of Occupy Wall Street.  The leaders of the Direct Action Committee are, for the most part, the original organizers of Occupy Wall Street: members of Anonymous, Adbusters and other full-time activists.  These people originally led the General Assembly, and used it to mobilize hundreds of people on marches during the movement’s initial weeks. Now that thousands of New Yorkers gather in downtown Manhattan to march daily, the Direct Action Committee no longer spends countless hours in the General Assembly convincing everyone to consent to these daily marches. 

The marches are completely symbolic, calculated to garner the most attention possible for the least amount of work and thought afforded.  The clearest example of the Direct Action Committee’s modus operandi is the fiasco at the Brooklyn Bridge.  On October 1, The Direct Action Committee led seven-hundred marchers onto the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge.  Shortly after reaching the roadway, the marchers were stopped by the NYPD.  A police officer with a megaphone shouted to the leaders of the march that, “if you refuse to leave, you will be placed under arrest.”  His voice was easily audible to the march’s leaders, even over the chants of “Take the bridge!  Take the bridge!”

According to a witness who saw the events from the bridge’s walkway—and confirmed by this police video: http://www.youtube.com/nypd#p/a/u/1/BYfti1PeDmA—the leaders of the march did not solicit a group decision on whether or not to continue the march in the face of this threat.  In fact, the march’s leaders did not even exercise their human microphone to inform the marchers that their arrest was imminent.  Instead, the leaders changed the chant to, “Show me what democracy looks like!  This is what democracy looks like!” and led the march onto the bridge’s roadway, allowing the police to carry out what looked like—judging from the dozens of buses from Riker’s Island—a preplanned mass arrest, one of the largest in American history.

This was a poor decision for several reasons.  First, this action exposed the marchers to potentially serious physical danger.  Although the NYPD exercised uncharacteristic restraint, the safety of the marchers was left to the discretion and caprice of the individual officers—not to mention the additional risks that go with occupying a bridge.  Second, it subjected everyone involved, including those who did not self-identify as “arrestable,” to the criminal justice system.  Third, it sent a message that Occupy Wall Street’s leaders—predominantly middle-class white men—are not sensitive to the challenges that involuntary arrest poses to a significant portion of the 99%: those with young children, unsympathetic employers, questionable immigration status, arrest warrants, or a reasonable fear of the police.  Finally, the strategic occupation of the oppressive forces represented by the Brooklyn Bridge proved mostly to annoy middle-class inter-borough commuters. 

This action did result in generating more attention and greater interest in the movement.  For all its faults, the Direct Action Committee’s mobilization of the populous is more participatory than the progressive movement that elected Obama.  In 2008, most progressives seemed to believe that America’s representational democracy could be reformed from the inside, through the election of the right people.  Now these same progressives are thoroughly disillusioned by our nation’s politics and strive to control their collective destiny through united action.  Every day the Occupy Wall Street movement continues, more people dream of a radically different world and make the social networks necessary—if not sufficient—to create it.

If the Occupy Wall Street movement fails to transform these networks into participatory democratic structures that can challenge the hierarchal institutions that led us into financial crises and endless wars, people will likely settle with voting for the “lesser of two evils” every couple of years, an act that bears a greater resemblance to democracy than much of what goes on at Occupy Wall Street.

Organized Labor

Many people only began to take Occupy Wall Street seriously when the labor unions joined the movement.  Labor unions control the machines and tools that are modern society’s vital organs.  Every day, labor unions make the City run smoothly; and on any day, they can choose to stop. This power—kinetic and potential—makes labor organized in its current form capable of raising the standard of living for “the 99%.

Similar to the working groups at Occupy Wall Street, however, the current organization of labor unions is incapable of shifting the paradigm to one in which there is no capital and no class differences. The hierarchal structure of labor unions provides the unity that Occupy Wall Street’s working groups lack.

American labor unions are organized similarly to bourgeois parties and corporations. Laborers elect union officials, who monopolize the organization’s administrative life. Part of this administrative work entails giving orders to the laborers, who do the work that gives the raw material its social value.  At the end of the day, the laborers have the fruits of their labor taken from them and divided primarily among the company’s owners, secondly among the union leadership, and lastly back among themselves. 

Unions keep in check owners who try to disrupt this division of profits.  Union leaders who disrupt this dialectic are kept in check by company owners, or are recalled by union members.  Union members who disrupt this dialectic can be fired either by their union leaders or their company’s owners.  In short, the hierarchy is entrenched.

If Occupy Wall Street is ever to create a world free from oppression—instead of merely mitigating the pain of the oppressed—radical elements within the labor unions must cooperate with radical elements within Occupy Wall Street and form the democratic organizations that are necessary to bring about an ever more participatory, dialogic, democratic, egalitarian society.

The Democratic Party

The power of the Democratic Party to co-opt the Occupy Wall Street movement should not be underestimated. The Democrats hold the nation’s executive branch, as well as roughly half the legislative branch. Despite epitomizing the status quo, to millions of Americans the Democratic Party represents progressivism—particularly when compared to the Republicans. Until a viable alternative emerges, the Democratic Party will be the organization most capable of benefiting from the progressive outcry of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Since the Democratic Party is allowing the Occupy Wall Street movement to continue, one might conclude that the Democratic Party does not feel threatened by Occupy Wall Street.  It may even bank on the movement’s power to mobilize the masses to counter the Tea Party, gain control of the House of Representatives, and maintain the Presidency.

This theory is bolstered by Mayor Bloomberg’s tacit support of Occupy Wall Street, and President Obama’s recent acknowledgement of the “broad-based frustration about how our financial system works.” Rather than proposing a plan to end capitalism, Obama proposed “getting back to old-fashioned American values,” like “put(ting) in place financial rules that protect the American people.” During his speech he offered no criticisms of Occupy Wall Street, but did lambaste the Republicans for halting the progress of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Whatever their rationale, the Democrats will most likely wait to see how winter deals with the American Autumn.  If Occupy Wall Street can resolve its structural shortcomings and last through the winter without its core members succumbing to frostbite, the Democrats may realize they’ve been playing with fire.

Clearly the author is either not familiar with or biased against Republican candidates (“Open State Senate Seat Draws Crowd of Candidates,” July 22). The article should have been titled “September Democratic Primaries.”

Susan Kone is opposing Nadler in November for the 8th Congressional district. A viable candidate with the intelligence, integrity and intensity to give Nadler a run for his money, Kone, an attorney, lives on Riverside Blvd. and managed to collect 2,000 signatures—not an easy feat for a republican on the Upper West Side.

Joe Mendola challenges Tom Duane for the 29th senatorial district. An attorney with experience in the financial sector is opposing Duane—who has shown a lack of consideration for the west side.

Joe Maffia
Co-district leader 67th AD, Republican Party

There are all kinds of indications that this will be a Republican year. The unthinkable happened in Massachusetts when the seat once held by John and then Teddy Kennedy went to a young “who-he?” Republican. All the Republicans have to do is find some people who are known to the public who will run for office.

It turns out that this may be easier said than done. As usual, they turned out the usual suspects. First there was Rudy Giuliani. They always raise Rudy from the political dead. You name the office, the Republicans were going to run Rudy. I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. Rudy wasn’t going to run. You see, there’s this guy, Bernie Kerik, Rudy’s former wunderkind. It turns out the man is a crook and that he was crooking on Giuliani’s watch.

It doesn’t stop there. Giuliani thought he would be president and went down to Florida with the mistaken belief that the Floridians would elect him. As they say in gin rummy, he got “schmeared.”

Finally, Rudy ain’t running because he’s making too much money, the kind of money that you are not allowed to make in public office. His firm has represented a lot of people, some of whom might not pass the smell test. Interestingly, the one situation in which he might actually win at this point would be if he were to run against Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. She’s not doing well in the polls. But Giuliani hasn’t got the guts.

Another name that the Republicans seem to perpetually rely on is George Pataki. He is a Republican super-star and if the Republican constellation were aligned just right, he might win. But he, too, is making big money in his law firm. And polls show that he wouldn’t reach first base against Andrew Cuomo in a run for governor, and Pataki doesn’t want to be greeting constituents at the U.S. Capitol.

After those two, the Republicans have folks like John Faso, who they may just run for comptroller. There seems to be a bit of a food fight between Andrew Cuomo and Tom DiNapoli, the incumbent comptroller, but DiNapoli has a lot of friends who will be out there helping him.

The Republican wannabes who are attempting to run are a pathetic lot who have been self-destructing before our very eyes. Like I said, no bench at all. But unlike the Yankees, they can’t even buy talent.n

Alan S. Chartock is president and CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio and an executive publisher at The Legislative Gazette.