Wednesday, October 3, 2012
REPAIR OUR DEMOCRACY
As the country endures yet another ‘most expensive election ever’, we would do well to remember that no matter what political ideology any candidate claims, nearly all who enter office will owe their job and their fealty to special interests. It is these big-money interests which our government now serves and will continue to serve regardless of which party wins in November. Certainly the election’s outcome might determine how much relative power specific types of special interests wield in Washington (i.e. unions, corporations, lawyers, Wall St, etc.), but that distinction will matter little to constituents languishing under a system still heavily rigged against them.
The good news is that an increasing number of voters are not only aware of this problem, but also care deeply about it. A recent Gallup poll revealed that the only issue voters care about more than corruption is creating jobs. However, the poll also noted that while corruption is a major concern, it is unlikely to be much of a determinant in the way people vote. No reason is given, but most likely voters recognize that any remedy probably won’t come from the same special interest-funded candidates (in both parties) who created this problem in the first place. Lacking a way to impact the issue come election time, voters simply begrudgingly ignore it.
In many ways, both the Tea Party and Occupy movements sprang from the frustration people across the political spectrum feel from this inability to affect real change via their vote. Both groups, with little else in common, have each attempted to bypass a system rigged against candidates whose campaigns are not heavily funded by special interest money. In the current election however, media attention is primarily devoted to the presidential horse race, and so both movements struggle to recapture earlier successes. A perfect illustration of this came with the one-year anniversary of the occupation of Wall Street. After barely registering on the radar of most major media outlets, it was almost immediately overshadowed by Mitt Romney’s “47%” comments.
There is one way built into our system for the people to circumvent the government should it become corrupted: A constitutional amendment. Following the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, an amendment has become the favored solution of most reformers outside the political establishment, as well as numerous Democratic officeholders & luminaries within. The appeal lies primarily in an amendment’s ability to circumvent the courts’ proclivity to make free speech rights for special interests paramount over a constituent’s right to be genuinely & honestly represented by his or her government.
But while an amendment makes sense on one hand, and it is certainly possible one might ultimately be necessary to circumvent the courts, virtually all of the language currently being proposed would fail to meet the desired objective. Most versions being bandied about would either leave the problem of systemic corruption largely unsolved, or would have virtually no chance of gaining the broad support necessary to be adopted. Some of the most popular versions unfortunately manage the dubious distinction of accomplishing both.
Amendments merely overturning Citizens United would simply return campaign finance to the 1990’s. Things weren’t really any less corrupt then; they just were more tightly controlled and easily hidden from public scrutiny. Incumbents actually aren’t all that crazy about how decentralized campaigns have become, so bringing the money back into the fold would likely suit them just fine. In the end, overturning Citizens United alone would do little to encourage competitive elections or reduce systemic corruption.
Amendments attempting to go further and actually end corporate personhood and/or allow political spending to be regulated would be relentlessly attacked by conservative-leaning special interests in such a way as to likely crater support among conservative voters. Despite amendment proponents’ claims to understand the need for solutions agreeable to people across the political spectrum, a good deal of the language currently offered would be vulnerable to attacks depicting an unscrupulous Congress rigging elections in their own favor. Thus, any amendment plausibly seen as giving Congress the power to regulate political speech would likely be un-passable due to lack of conservative support.
Of course these attacks won’t come so long as reformers continue to spend countless hours just trying to get a doomed effort off the ground. Why attack when so many current proposals make the job of undermining potential conservative support for ending systemic corruption that much easier? The more reformers persist in partisan solutions and/or aligning themselves solely with Democratic politicians, the more likely conservatives are to be convinced this issue is simply a liberal ploy to consolidate power.
Corruption is abhorred by all sides, so this is about as nonpartisan an issue as you’ll likely ever find, yet all sides continue to talk past one another and offer solutions the other side is unlikely to support. Widespread disgust with corruption is too often conflated with widespread support for remedies favored by partisans on one side or the other.
In the end, nothing improves until we set aside our knives and shelve all other disagreements long enough to cooperate on this one issue. Given how it underpins virtually every other single issue of importance, finding motivation to fix the broken system which stymies us all at every turn shouldn’t be as difficult a task as it has been up to this point.
We needn’t resolve any other issue right now, but we must un-rig the system so the contest actually means something again.
Pro sports leagues crack down on gambling and allegations of game-fixing with a ferocity they reserve for no other single issue. They know that if fans believe the contests to be fixed, it is no longer a sport, but rather entertainment alone. Our government could be like the NFL, the gold standard to which others aspire. Instead, it is more like pro wrestling, where only the most gullible believe things aren’t completely rigged. If we un-rig the system, we restore trust in the process and the belief that our votes actually count for something.
Elections do still matter – a little – and we should all get out and vote on November 6th. However, no matter which party takes control in January, special interests will still be calling the shots. This is not a partisan problem, and it won’t be fixed by a partisan solution. The time must come when all sides realize that only by working cooperatively can we end the systemic corruption dragging us all down together. How much more evidence is needed?
By Jeremy Peters a part-time writer, sometimes activist and full-time participant who believes a worthy cause is never hopeless. He often goes by the pseudonym CommonSenseMan
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Friday, August 24, 2012
Friday, August 10, 2012
Monday, August 6, 2012
Thursday, July 26, 2012
How Wells Fargo Profits on Communities of Color
Social geographer, David Harvey, is famous for having noted that economic crises often “reveal the rationality of fundamentally irrational systems.” For Harvey, a crisis discloses the “irrational rationalizers” of our contradictory capitalist arrangement. Philanthro-capitalism, or the popular practice of applying business strategies to social challenges, represents the very core of this contradiction. Firms participating in philanthro-capitalist (ad)ventures privately support the very oppressive systems—white supremacy, capitalism, patriarchy, to name a few —that they publicly denounce.
Enter Wells Fargo, the nation’s fourth largest bank and the principal mortgage originator in the United States. Earlier this summer Wells Fargo announced its historic $3.395 million grant in support of the Hispanic Scholarship Fund (HSF). The grant represents the single largest corporate contribution to HSF, “the nation’s premier not-for-profit organization supporting Hispanic higher education.” Founded in 1975, “HSF provides American families with the financial and educational resources they need to achieve a college education.” To date, HSF has awarded over $360 million in scholarships and has supported a broad range of outreach and education programs to assist students and their families navigate collegiate life, from gaining admission and securing financial aid to finding employment after graduation. HSF’s strategic vision includes “build[ing] a coalition of corporate and philanthropic partners committed to increasing Hispanic degree attainment.” But Wells Fargo’s largess is as generous as it is ironic. Generous because $3.395 million is a large chunk of change, but ironic because of Wells Fargo’s simultaneously antagonistic relationship with the “Latin community.”
According to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)—the federal agency responsible for protecting investors and maintaining fair markets—Wells Fargo currently holds somewhere between 4,400,000-4,700,000 shares in the GEO Group, the nation’s largest private detention owner and operator. With over 4 million shares of the GEO Group valued at close to $90 million, Wells Fargo owns nearly 8 percent of the company. The GEO Group owns and/or operates eighteen immigrant detention centers around the country and houses close to 50 percent of all detained immigrants, the preponderance of whom are Latin. Since 2006 the GEO group has been awarded over $1.3 billion in contracts from Immigrations and Custom Enforcement (ICE) through the Department of Homeland Security. The company, which posted 1.6 billion in revenues last year, relies on ICE for 14% of its total business operations. If this tale isn’t serpentine enough, a second irony emerged last week when Wells Fargo “agreed to pay at least $175 million to settle accusations that its independent brokers discriminated against black and Hispanic borrowers during the housing boom.” According to the New York Times, an investigation by the Justice Department’s civil rights division found that “mortgage brokers working with Wells Fargo had charged higher fees and rates to more than 30,000 minority borrowers across the country than they had to white borrowers who posed the same credit risk.”
l Furthermore, the Justice Department discovered that Wells Fargo brokers “steered more than 4,000 minority borrowers into costlier subprime mortgages when white borrowers with similar credit risk profiles had received regular loans.” The contradictory nature of philanthro-capitalism is as lucid as it is lurid. We must demand that Wells Fargo immediately end all business practices that profit from community depletion and disinvestment. We must demand that Wells Fargo divest from the GEO Group and cease its well-publicized predatory machinations that disproportionately affect communities of color. This must be done, and it must be done now. If Wells Fargo refuses to divest from the GEO Group, then we’ll have to do it for them. For more information on how to close your Wells Fargo bank account please see the National Prison Divestment Campaign’s website.
Enter Wells Fargo, the nation’s fourth largest bank and the principal mortgage originator in the United States. Earlier this summer Wells Fargo announced its historic $3.395 million grant in support of the Hispanic Scholarship Fund (HSF). The grant represents the single largest corporate contribution to HSF, “the nation’s premier not-for-profit organization supporting Hispanic higher education.” Founded in 1975, “HSF provides American families with the financial and educational resources they need to achieve a college education.” To date, HSF has awarded over $360 million in scholarships and has supported a broad range of outreach and education programs to assist students and their families navigate collegiate life, from gaining admission and securing financial aid to finding employment after graduation. HSF’s strategic vision includes “build[ing] a coalition of corporate and philanthropic partners committed to increasing Hispanic degree attainment.” But Wells Fargo’s largess is as generous as it is ironic. Generous because $3.395 million is a large chunk of change, but ironic because of Wells Fargo’s simultaneously antagonistic relationship with the “Latin community.”
According to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)—the federal agency responsible for protecting investors and maintaining fair markets—Wells Fargo currently holds somewhere between 4,400,000-4,700,000 shares in the GEO Group, the nation’s largest private detention owner and operator. With over 4 million shares of the GEO Group valued at close to $90 million, Wells Fargo owns nearly 8 percent of the company. The GEO Group owns and/or operates eighteen immigrant detention centers around the country and houses close to 50 percent of all detained immigrants, the preponderance of whom are Latin. Since 2006 the GEO group has been awarded over $1.3 billion in contracts from Immigrations and Custom Enforcement (ICE) through the Department of Homeland Security. The company, which posted 1.6 billion in revenues last year, relies on ICE for 14% of its total business operations. If this tale isn’t serpentine enough, a second irony emerged last week when Wells Fargo “agreed to pay at least $175 million to settle accusations that its independent brokers discriminated against black and Hispanic borrowers during the housing boom.” According to the New York Times, an investigation by the Justice Department’s civil rights division found that “mortgage brokers working with Wells Fargo had charged higher fees and rates to more than 30,000 minority borrowers across the country than they had to white borrowers who posed the same credit risk.”
l Furthermore, the Justice Department discovered that Wells Fargo brokers “steered more than 4,000 minority borrowers into costlier subprime mortgages when white borrowers with similar credit risk profiles had received regular loans.” The contradictory nature of philanthro-capitalism is as lucid as it is lurid. We must demand that Wells Fargo immediately end all business practices that profit from community depletion and disinvestment. We must demand that Wells Fargo divest from the GEO Group and cease its well-publicized predatory machinations that disproportionately affect communities of color. This must be done, and it must be done now. If Wells Fargo refuses to divest from the GEO Group, then we’ll have to do it for them. For more information on how to close your Wells Fargo bank account please see the National Prison Divestment Campaign’s website.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
The Big Money In Political Campaigns
The Big Money In Political Campaigns
To win elections, politicians need to raise money. To get votes, they need to raise big money – a lot of money. In the 2010 Senate elections, the average winning candidate received 1.8 million votes and raised $9.8 million. Candidates who raised 33 percent less money received 33 percent fewer votes, and lost
If a candidate called up voters himself, he’d need to convince 144 people every hour to vote for him (on average over his six-year term). That means he could spare just 25 seconds talking to each voter. (And this assumes he never spends time governing; he’d actually have far less.)
But modern political campaigns speak to voters less directly, with TV ads and billboards. To afford their campaigns, senators need to raise $782 an hour. That sounds like a lot, but a single big donor gives $1,837 on average. Most Americans can’t afford that, but politicians ask lobbyists and the wealthy. Because each big donor gives so much, he or she is worth 2.4 hours of a candidate’s time – over 300 times more than a voter.
Would a busy senator rather talk with 300 voters or one big donor? When it comes time to do his job, and pass legislation, whose interests will he represent?
America has become a country of the rich,for the rich, by the rich !!! The 1 percent rule everything.
The rich (the one percent) own the media, TV networks, radio, news papers, mailing houses,printing company operations, Social internet networks, Cable networks.
The rich give money to politicians, Presidential candidates, Senatorial candidates, Congressional candidates, Govenors, Mayors, State and local represenatives.
Then the politicians give the money back when they buy adds on and in the media. the money stays in the circle of the RICH.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Bush EPA Chief Urges Action On Chemical Hazards
Bush EPA Chief Urges Action On Chemical Hazards
By Alice Su
Christine Todd Whitman, Environmental Protection Agency chief under George W. Bush, urged the EPA Tuesday to use its authority under the Clean Air Act to impose stricter safety standards on American chemical facilities vulnerable to accidents or terrorist attacks.
“I cannot understand why we have not seen some action when the consequences of something happening are so potentially devastating,” Whitman said in a teleconference that included representatives of labor and environmental groups.
As Bush’s EPA administrator, Whitman was prepared to unveil a proposal requiring chemical plants to use safer processes in the months after 9/11. Under the Clean Air Act’s general duty clause, Whitman said, the EPA had the authority to require hazard reduction at facilities at risk of catastrophic chemical releases.
But the plan was scuttled by the White House, which maintained that chemical hazards could be better addressed by legislation, Whitman said. Congress had moved quickly to pass bills on water safety and bioterrorism, and the EPA thought it was “on the right track” to pass a bill on chemical security as well.
Bob Bostock, Whitman’s homeland security adviser at the time, said EPA officials expected litigation from the chemical industry if it used the general duty clause. “It wasn’t so much that we were afraid we’d lose the litigation,” Bostock said. “We didn’t want to be tied up in litigation for years and years, leaving this unaddressed.”
Legislation never came. Now, Whitman and others are pressing the EPA to act on its own. In March, the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council wrote a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, asking her to use the general duty clause to address the “catastrophic risks” associated with current regulations. Whitman wrote her own letter to Jackson in April, also urging EPA action.
A few weeks ago, more than 100 labor, environmental and public health organizations signed a letter asking President Obama to “take executive action to ensure that high-risk chemical facilities fulfill their obligation under the Clean Air Act … ” The letter quotes then-Sen. Obama’s own 2006 reference to chemical plants as “stationary weapons of mass destruction spread all across the country.”
Whitman acknowledged the difficulty of EPA action given this year’s election and the anticipated pushback from industry and the chemical lobby. But Jackson at least has “a White House that is willing to move forward,” Whitman said. If Obama does not get reelected, she said, it will be “even more difficult” to convince the EPA to use its Clean Air Act authority.
Although Whitman never received an official response to her April letter, she said Jackson had given a “green light for internal assessment” of the chemical security issue. The question, Whitman said, is whether anything will be done.
“The likelihood of something happening before the election is very slight,” Whitman said. “But we cannot continue to let politics trump policy. We’ve got to draw the line at some point.”
In an email to the Center for Public Integrity Tuesday evening, an EPA spokeswoman wrote, "We're not going to comment on internal discussions, but no decisions have been made."
Some chemical companies oppose EPA action by pointing to the Department of Homeland Security’s Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), an interim set of standards passed in 2006 that asks high-risk facilities to assess and report on their security procedures.
Scott Jensen, a spokesman for the chemical industry’s main trade group, the American Chemistry Council, said in a statement that CFATS has “improved security for thousands of facilities.”
Yet CFATS exempts thousands of plants, including about 2,400 water treatment facilities and most oil refineries. It also explicitly bars the Department of Homeland Security from requiring specific security measures, such as adopting safer processes.
Industry officials say chemical security is being addressed by CFATS and EPA action would be duplicative.
But Rick Hind, legislative director for Greenpeace, said, “It’s not a question of duplication. It’s a question of cracks the size of the Grand Canyon. The majority of the industry is escaping.”
The use of chemicals has increased dramatically due to the economic development in various sectors including industry, agriculture and transport. As a consequence, children are exposed to a large number of chemicals of both natural and man-made origin. Exposure occurs through the air they breathe, the water they drink or bathe in, the food they eat, and the soil they touch (or ingest as toddlers). They are exposed virtually wherever they are: at home, in the school, on the playground, and during transport.
Chemicals may have immediate, acute effects, as well as chronic effects, often resulting from long-term exposures. About 47 000 persons die every year as a result of such poisoning. Many of these poisonings occur in children and adolescents, are unintentional (“accidental”), and can be prevented if chemicals were appropriately stored and handled. Chronic, low-level exposure to various chemicals may result in a number of adverse outcomes, including damage to the nervous and immune systems, impairment of reproductive function and development, cancer, and organ-specific damage.
Sound management of chemicals, particularly heavy metals, pesticides and persistent organic pollutants (POPs), is a prerequisite for the protection of children’s health. Due to the magnitude of their health impact on children, the initial focus for action should be placed on the so-called “intellectual robbers” : lead, mercury and polychlorinated biphenyl, as well as on pesticides, but this by no means implies that other chemicals should be ignored.
Monday, May 21, 2012
U.S. Secret Drug War in Honduras: Botched DEA Raid Leaves 2 Pregnant Wom...
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has confirmed its agents were on board a U.S.-owned helicopter with Honduran police officers when four people were shot and killed on a boat earlier this week. Two of the victims were said to be pregnant women. The deadly incident has highlighted the centrality of Honduras in the U.S.-backed drug war. Honduras is the hub for the U.S. military operations in Latin America, hosting at least three U.S. bases.
“The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has confirmed its agents were on board a U.S.-owned helicopter with Honduran police officers when four people were shot and killed on a boat earlier this week.”
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Monday, May 14, 2012
What Obama Should Learn From Occupy
The first person I met at Zuccotti Park after it had become Liberty Plaza was Camille Raneem. She had been an Obama supporter and was disappointed, like so many, with his politics since the election. She'd been at Occupy Wall Street (OWS) since September 17, the day the camp sprang up.
"I've been waiting for this for three years," she told me then.
Months later, she elaborated: "The two most shining moments of my life were election night 2008 in Times Square, just because everyone was so together. The second time I had that feeling of just complete and utter connectedness was the second night of Occupy, when we spontaneously organized a candlelight vigil at a couple of different spots by Wall Street."
"Just walking through those quiet dark streets in the middle of the night with the lights, we were all completely silent, a hundred and some odd people in dead silence with their candles, it was beautiful and it took me back to when I started believing that I could have faith in my country again, that I could work together with citizens," she continued. "That's what I felt when Obama was elected. I had that shattered, but I never lost that hope because I knew it was possible."
It doesn't seem like too much of a stretch at this point to say that Obama is responsible for Occupy Wall Street's existence. The failures of his administration to stop the bleeding caused by financial meltdown have been well documented, as well as the disillusionment among many former supporters.
What's been discussed less often is the fact that the Obama campaign trained a lot of first-time political operators, young people as well as older folks inspired for once to go beyond showing up on election day and then left without much to do. Organizing for America was supposed to continue the movement that sprang up around the campaign, but political movements are unwieldy things and the control of the Democratic National Committee shut down much of the free-flowing energy that helped elect the president. For three years, as Raneem noted, activists waited and wondered if they'd made a mistake.
But some of them were planning something else.
The Politics of Personalities
Marta Evry, a California-based community organizer and blogger at Venice for Change, did asurvey recently of over 1,200 self-selected people, mostly political activists, about their feelings on the Obama administration. Perhaps unsurprisingly, she found that many of those who had worked or volunteered heavily for Obama in 2008 were undecided as to whether they will do so again - 47 percent of the respondents. Thirty-nine percent were undecided as to whether they would donate money to the re-election effort (82 percent of them had donated in 2008).
Evry told me herself that she's not going to go back to the Obama campaign unless "something drastic happens." The same is true, she said, for many of the people she worked closely with in 2008. But that doesn't mean they're dropping out of activism - and for many, their alternate solution has come through Occupy.
"There's this kind of damaged sentiment," Raneem told me. "We've already learned our lesson, that is that the powers of the people have to rest in the people."
Amin Husain, who was involved in planning the Wall Street occupation from July on, was one of many who had given his time and effort to Obama in 2008, registering to vote for the first time in his life and going to Philadelphia to work as a legal observer at the polls. "I gave it my true shot," he said. And for him it was the first and the last chance that the Democrats got.
Brook Packard, a musician and educator from Rye, New York, told me that she, too, was not a regular Democratic voter. After 2004 and her disappointment in the choice of John Kerry, she gave what she could, organized marches in her town and traveled to different places to volunteer. "You get sort of worn down; you vote; you work on the streets; you drive people to the polls - and then Obama goes and makes a sweet deal with Wall Street," she said.
The picture of the Obama activist is often of a young person like Raneem, getting involved in politics for the first time during or right after college, but many of them were also like Packard, Evry and Husain: adults who thought Obama might be different than the standard Democratic politicians who'd never inspired them before. And still others, like Stephen Shepherd from Lexington, Kentucky, had been involved with Democratic politics for a while.
Shepherd got his start as a college Democrat at the University of Kentucky, worked on Congressional campaigns in 2006 and then became a field staffer for Obama in the Lexington area in 2008. Though Kentucky obviously didn't swing Obama's way, Shepherd noted that Fayette county had the highest voter turnout in the state and went heavily for Obama. "I was a hard-core Obama fan, just sure he was going to solve every single problem that we had," Shepherd said.
It actually wasn't just Obama's failures (on health care and the Iraq war) that put Shepherd off the Democratic Party, either. He was also disgusted by Jack Conway, now the attorney general of the state and a Democrat, attacking Rand Paul's religion during the 2010 campaign.
Disillusionment with Obama, for many of these activists, led not to a search for another hero - as Micah Sifry noted - but a turn away from the idea of heroes and toward the specific problems that need to be fixed. "The conversations are between people who are looking at the politics of personalities and people who are looking at the politics," Evry noted and Raneem echoed her. Evry continued, "OWS is very issue-oriented. It's not being built around leaders. You start looking at what do you believe in, what do you want to organize around?"
For Husain and Shepherd and others, their disappointment led to questioning the two-party system and returning to activism on the outside. "I got pretty cynical after 2010 and Occupy really re-lit my hopes," Shepherd said. And Raneem points out, "I don't believe that anybody can get anywhere close to running for president without having certain ties and certain interests."
Packard agreed. "With Occupy, by not having a person, an agenda, the dream is shared by everyone and can be worked on by everyone. The dream is similar: no war, no patriarchy, the least among us gets strengthened."
Husain wanted to be sure to note, though, that in Zuccotti Park, at least, the movement was kicked off by people who had always wanted to work outside of the political system. "The anarchists were the first. The hippies were first."
From the Party to the Streets - Using Obama's Organizing Techniques to Occupy
The Obama campaign was a strangely open place; anyone could walk into a campaign office, be handed a walk list or a phone list, given cursory training and put to work. Volunteers were given personal logins to the voter database, demonstrating an extreme amount of trust in people whose backgrounds had not been vetted at all. Given that sort of freedom and responsibility, many were dismayed when Organizing for America (OFA) turned out very differently.
Evry was active with OFA during the battle for health care reform, but was disappointed by the organization's refusal to let activists pressure Democratic lawmakers who weren't supporting the bill. So instead, she and her group did their own organizing to target local Democrats. "I would not have thought to do that four years ago," she said.
That's what the Obama campaign empowered her to do, she noted, and it did so for a lot of young people, who immediately saw an outlet in Occupy for those skills they'd honed with the confidence they felt from winning.
Technology was an important part of the Obama campaign - tools like MyBarackObama.com gave activists experience in self-organizing, so putting together protests on Facebook became second nature. Raneem pointed out that a lot of central people in the media and public relations teams at Occupy in New York had either campaigned for Obama or other Democrats for years. But, now, using those skills for themselves, she said, "At the end of the day they're the hero, not somebody that they've spent 40 hours a week calling other people about."
Husain was part of the original email list that created the "We are the 99 percent" slogan and he pointed out that that slogan didn't come from a vetted, professional, controlled analysis or a trained media team. "It was 256 emails back and forth and a meeting. That came from a visceral place."
Working together is a pleasure in itself - that's been one of the tenets of Occupy's reclamations of public space, that being with other people is in a way its own reward. And that, too, was something that people organizing for the first time with Obama learned. "Human beings were meant to work together," Packard said. "[The Obama campaign] really brought people together, which is maybe why the hope crashed us so."
Evry, too, noticed this, that giving people positive feedback on the campaign (including, ultimately, the victory) kept them coming back. "They start forming community, you start forming these relationships that go beyond the political," she said.
The boost that comes with wins and with solidarity has helped carry Occupy to some startling places. Ironically, some of the things that helped OWS catch on in the beginning didn't look like wins - penned-up girls being pepper-sprayed in the face, 700 arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge - but surviving those things together helped push less radical activists to another level of activism beyond phone banking and calling one's representative.
Packard became involved with Occupy when her husband, Bishop George Packard, received a call from Chris Hedges, asking him to support Occupy's call for Trinity Church to allow them to occupy Duarte Square. Bishop Packard, a retired Episcopal clergyman, was arrested in Duarte on December 17 when, after Trinity refused to grant access to the space, he was one of the people who climbed over the fence and briefly took the square anyway.
"I was always the free radical in the family," Brook Packard said. "It's been sort of a growth for him."
Suddenly, Occupy tactics are everywhere and even state and local politicians have been willing to join in. Packard told a story of a group of senior citizens in her town, who together with county legislator Judith Myers, occupied a bus stop in protest at the elimination of service to their homes.
Shepherd, whose occupation in Lexington, Kentucky, had been in place since September 29 in front of a Chase bank, noted that they, too, have gotten support from state and local politicians, including a state representative, Kelly Flood, who took a handmade sign from Occupy Lexington and presented it to OWS in Zuccotti Park.
Still, Husain noted that there has been tension between what he terms "the very traditional well organized people" and "those who are like 'No, this is an uprising.'"
"There's room for everyone in here," he said, but the debate that remains is between those who argue that Occupy is about the political process and others who say that it's not, "that it's a transformative movement that is going to go beyond any election."
A Declaration of Independence?
Husain himself is on the side that chose uprising. But he also pointed out that the movement doesn't try to dictate whether people should or should not take part in the process. "Each individual is autonomous; they can do whatever they want; we don't have rules; it's about freedom and empowering each other."
Over and over again these days, pundit after pundit has waggled a finger at Occupy, calling for activists to occupy a voting booth, to not forget electoral politics, to remember, after all, to vote. But few of them seem interested in talking to the Occupiers themselves, many of whom are quite pragmatic about electoral politics.
Raneem pointed out, "For occupiers to come out and overtly ask the American people not to vote, it won't expedite us organizing together any faster."
For Shepherd, he's intrigued by Elizabeth Warren and a fan of Bernie Sanders, but isn't going to work for just anyone "just because they have a D next to their name." He advocates working with local politicians - as he noted, his local Occupy has gotten support from progressive state legislators and in New York, city council members Jumaane Williams and Ydanis Rodriguez have been huge supporters of OWS.
The Obama question even seems moot for some of the people I spoke to for this story - the frustration with the electoral system extends to an electoral college that renders one's vote largely meaningless in either a true-blue state like New York, where Packard wonders whom to vote for, or a solid red one like Shepherd's Kentucky.
Raneem pointed out the way that Occupy the Primaries, in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire, put pressure on Republican candidates (and also on Obama) and created space for independent activism around the campaigns and a dialogue about the election. And as the political conventions get closer, new crackdowns on dissent in Charlotte are already drawing scorn.
Evry argued, "If you can come in and take over Zuccotti Park, you can come in and take over the Democratic party."
And perhaps that's true. Perhaps wresting control of the party from those currently in charge would be its own type of declaration of independence. In a way, though, that's what happened with Obama, who ran an insurgent campaign against the presumed nominee, Hillary Clinton and won, only to disappoint.
But in that insurgent campaign, fueled by volunteers and small donors as well as Wall Street money, a bunch of activists learned not to wait their turn either. They learned to make things happen on their own and this year they've taken another huge step, calling into question not just the man who is president, but the way the system works from the bottom up.
As Husain said, "This movement isn't about left and right and center, it's about 'What does it mean to be a citizen of the United States?'"
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
Occupy Draws Strength From the Powerless
Chris Hedges is a weekly Truthdig columnist and a fellow at The Nation Institute. His newest book is “The World As It Is: Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress.”
“Those who do not carve out spaces separate from the state and its systems of power, those who cannot find room to become autonomous, or who do not “live in truth,” inevitably become compromised.”
There is a recipe for breaking popular movements. I watched it play out over five years in the war in El Salvador. I now see these familiar patterns in the assault against the Occupy movement. It goes like this. Physically eradicate the insurgents’ logistical base of operations to disrupt communication and organization. Dry up financial and material support. Create rival organizations—the group Stand for Oakland seems to be one of these attempts—to discredit and purge the rebel leadership. Infiltrate the movement to foster internal divisions and rivalries, a tactic carried out consciously, or perhaps unconsciously, by an anonymous West Coast group known as OLAASM—Occupy Los Angeles Anti Social Media. Provoke the movement—or front groups acting in the name of the movement—to carry out actions such as vandalism and physical confrontations with the police that alienate the wider populace from the insurgency. Invent atrocities and repugnant acts supposedly carried out by the movement and plant these stories in the media. Finally, offer up a political alternative. In the war in El Salvador it was Jose Napoleon Duarte. For the Occupy movement it is someone like Van Jones. And use this “reformist” to co-opt the language of the movement and promise to promote the movement’s core aims through the electoral process.
Counterinsurgency campaigns, although they involve arms and weapons, are primarily about, in the old cliché, hearts and minds. And the tactics employed by our intelligence operatives abroad are not dissimilar to those employed by our intelligence operatives at home. These operatives are, in fact, often the same people. The state has expended external resources to break the movement. It is reasonable to assume it has expended internal resources to break the movement.
The security and surveillance state has a vast arsenal and array of tools at its disposal. It operates in secret. It dissembles and lies. It hides behind phony organizations and individuals who use false histories and false names. It has millions of dollars to spend, the capacity to deny not only its activities but also its existence. Its physical assets honeycomb the country. It can wiretap, eavesdrop and monitor every form of communication. It can hire informants, send in clandestine agents, recruit members within the movement by offering legal immunity, churn out a steady stream of divisive propaganda and amass huge databases and clandestine operations centers. And it is authorized to use deadly force.
How do we fight back? We do not have the tools or the wealth of the state. We cannot beat it at its own game. We cannot ferret out infiltrators. The legal system is almost always on the state’s side. If we attempt to replicate the elaborate security apparatus of our oppressors, even on a small scale, we will unleash widespread paranoia and fracture the movement. If we retreat into anonymity, hiding behind masks, then we provide an opening for agents provocateurs who deny their identities while disrupting the movement. If we fight pitched battles in the streets we give authorities an excuse to fire their weapons.
All we have, as Vaclav Havel writes, is our own powerlessness. And that powerlessness is our strength. The survival of the movement depends on embracing this powerlessness. It depends on two of our most important assets—utter and complete transparency and a rigid adherence to nonviolence, including respect for private property. This permits us, as Havel puts it in his 1978 essay “The Power of the Powerless,” to live in truth. And by living in truth we expose a corrupt corporate state that perpetrates lies and lives in deceit.
Havel, who would later become the first president of the Czech Republic, in the essay writes a reflection on the mind of a greengrocer who, as instructed, puts up a poster “among the onions and carrots” that reads: “Workers of the World Unite!” The poster is displayed partly out of habit, partly because everyone else does it, and partly out of fear of the consequences for not following the rules. The greengrocer would not, Havel writes, display a poster saying: “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient.” And here is the difference between the terror of a Josef Stalin or an Adolf Hitler and the collective charade between the rulers and the ruled that by the 1970s had gripped Czechoslovakia.
“Imagine,” Havel writes, “that one day something in our greengrocer snaps and he stops putting up the slogans merely to ingratiate himself. He stops voting in elections he knows are a farce. He begins to say what he really thinks at political meetings. And he even finds the strength in himself to express solidarity with those whom his conscience commands him to support. In this revolt the greengrocer steps out of living within the lie. He rejects the ritual and breaks the rules of the game. He discovers once more his suppressed identity and dignity. He gives his freedom a concrete significance. His revolt is an attempt to live within the truth.”
This attempt to “live within the truth” brings with it ostracism and retribution. Punishment is imposed in bankrupt systems because of the necessity for compliance, not out of any real conviction. And the real crime committed is not the crime of speaking out or defying the rules, but the crime of exposing the charade.
“By breaking the rules of the game, he has disrupted the game as such, he has exposed it as a mere game,” Havel says of his greengrocer. “He has shattered the world of appearances, the fundamental pillar of the system. He has upset the power structure by tearing apart what holds it together. He has demonstrated that living a lie is living a lie. He has broken through the exalted façade of the system and exposed the real, base foundations of power. He has said that the emperor is naked. And because the emperor is in fact naked, something extremely dangerous has happened: by his action, the greengrocer has addressed the world. He has enabled everyone to peer behind the curtain. He has shown everyone that it is possible to live within the truth. Living within the lie can constitute the system only if it is universal. The principle must embrace and permeate everything. There are no terms whatsoever on which it can coexist with living within the truth, and therefore everyone who steps out of line denies it in principle and threatens it in its entirety.”
Those who do not carve out spaces separate from the state and its systems of power, those who cannot find room to become autonomous, or who do not “live in truth,” inevitably become compromised. In Havel’s words, they “are the system.” The Occupy movement, by naming corporate power and refusing to compromise with it, by forming alternative systems of community and society, embodies Havel’s call to “live in truth.” It does not appeal to the systems of control, and for this reason it is a genuine threat to the corporate state.
Movements that call on followers to “live in truth” do not always succeed. They failed in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1970s and 1980s, as well as in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, triggering armed insurgencies and blood-drenched civil wars. They have failed so far in Iran, the Israeli-occupied territories and Syria. China has a movement modeled after Havel’s Charter 77 called Charter 08. But the Chinese opposition to the state has been effectively suppressed, even though its principal author, Liu Xiaobo, currently serving an 11-year prison term for “incitement of subversion of state power,” was awarded the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. Power elites who stubbornly refuse to heed popular will and resort to harsher and harsher forms of state control can easily provoke counterviolence. The first Palestinian uprising, which lasted from 1987 to 1992, saw crowds of demonstrators throw rocks at Israeli soldiers, but it was largely a nonviolent movement. The second uprising, or intifada, which erupted in 2000 and endured for five years, with armed attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians, was not. History is dotted with brutal fratricides spawned by calcified and repressive elites who ignored peaceful protest. And even when nonviolent movements do succeed, it is impossible to predict when they will spawn an uprising or how long the process will take. As Timothy Garton Ash noted about Eastern Europe’s revolutions of the late 20th century, in Poland the revolt took 10 years, in East Germany 10 weeks, in Czechoslovakia 10 days.
Occupy’s most powerful asset is that it articulates this truth. And this truth is understood by the mainstream, the 99 percent. If the movement is severed from the mainstream, which I expect is the primary goal of the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, it will be crippled and easily contained. Other, more militant groups may rise and even flourish, but if the Occupy movement is to retain the majority it will have to fight within self-imposed limitations of nonviolence.
I do not know if it will succeed. If it does not ,then I fear we will see the classical forms of violent protest that are used by an enraged and frustrated populace; for me such a turn to violence, while understandable, is always tragic. Violence is a poison, even when it is ingested in a supposedly just cause. It contaminates all who use it. I watched this poison work on repressors and the repressed from Latin America to the Middle East to the Balkans. I am not a pacifist. I know there are limits. But I desperately want to avoid going there.
“We would not have a movement if violence or property damage were used from the outset,” Kevin Zeese, one of the first activists to call for an Occupy movement, told me. “People are not drawn to violent movement. Such tactics will shrink rather than expand our base of support. Property damage justifies police violence to many Americans. There is a wide range of diversity of tactics within a nonviolent strategy. Disciplined nonviolence is often more difficult because anger and emotion lead people to want to strike back at the police when they are violent, but disciplined nonviolence is the tactic that is most effective against the violence of the state.”
The organizer Lisa Fithian is an author of one of the most concise arguments for nonviolence, “Open Letter to the Occupy Movement: Why We Need Agreements.” The essay points out that without agreements that enshrine nonviolence, “the young [are privileged] over the old, the loud voices over the soft, the fast over the slow, the able-bodied over those with disabilities, the citizen over the immigrant, white folks over people of color, those who can do damage and flee the scene over those who are left to face the consequences.”
“ ‘Diversity of tactics’ becomes an easy way to avoid wrestling with questions of strategy and accountability,” Fithian and two other authors write of the slogan used by the Black Bloc anarchists. “It lets us off the hook from doing the hard work of debating our positions and coming to agreements about how we want to act together. It becomes a code for ‘anything goes,’ and makes it impossible for our movements to hold anyone accountable for their actions.”
“The Occupy movement includes people from a broad diversity of backgrounds, life experiences and political philosophies,” the article goes on. “Some of us want to reform the system and some of us want to tear it down and replace it with something better. Our one great point of agreement is our call for transparency and accountability. We stand against the corrupt institutions that broker power behind closed doors. We call to account the financial manipulators that have bilked billions out of the poor and the middle classes.
“Just as we call for accountability and transparency, we ourselves must be accountable and transparent,” the authors write. “Some tactics are incompatible with those goals, even if in other situations they might be useful, honorable or appropriate. We can’t be transparent behind masks. We can’t be accountable for actions we run away from. We can’t maintain the security culture necessary for planning and carrying out attacks on property and also maintain the openness that can continue to invite in a true diversity of new people. We can’t make alliances with groups from impacted communities, such as immigrants, if we can’t make agreements about what tactics we will employ in any given action.”
We must assume we are targets. And we must fight back by relying on our strength, which in the great paradox of resistance movements is embodied in our weakness. This does not mean we will avoid being repressed or persecuted. It will not keep us safe from slander, lies or jail. But it does offer the capacity to create internal divisions in the apparatus of the oppressors rather than permit the oppressors to create internal divisions within the movement. Divided loyalties create paralysis. And it is our job to paralyze them, not allow them to paralyze us.
This article was originally posted on Truthdig.
America's Dangerous Game - People & Power - Al Jazeera English
America's Dangerous Game - People & Power - Al Jazeera English
This film examines the covert war in Yemen and asks if the US is creating more enemies than it can capture or kill.
This film examines the covert war in Yemen and asks if the US is creating more enemies than it can capture or kill.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)












.jpg)