I've had a thought bubble up to the surface of my mind several times recently in connection to a wide variety of topics: where's the why? Any good detective (or frequent watcher of Law and Order) knows that when there is a crime, or a suspected crime, a central part of the investigation is looking for a motive. The "why". Its occurred to me that this critical piece of analytical thought is completely missing from the public and political dialogue from 9/11 to Occupy Wall St. I don't think its an accident though, I think its a symptom of a polarized and radical way of thinking that is pervasive (but more on this later).
At the wake of 9/11, the United States was shaken to the core. People were scared, equally as much of the prospect of another attach as of the shattered notion we have of US invincibility. Many conversations happened in the public sphere: homeland security, airports, terrorism, extremism, anti-Muslin sentiments, Al-queda, Taliban, Iraq, Afghanistan, war, weapons of mass destruction, etc. One conversation that I never heard was: "why?" I don't want it to be implied that if we could find a good reason than the action would be justified - I don't believe that at all. But even an unjustifiable actor has a motivation. To do what those men did - hijack planes and fly them into buildings - was not 'easy'. It was not a random, thoughtless act of violence. Whether we agree with them or not, human beings almost have justifications for the actions.
But its not even the answer that I'm in search of - its the question. Where was this conversation? Why did we declare war in retaliation before ever discussing why the action took place? We had a knee jerk reaction of 'lets go to war and get them back'. In a 7 year old boy or a pack of wolves this would be understandable but I expect better of adult humans, even moreso of Americans - purveyors of democracy, rule of law and reason all over the world.
One answer given was simply: "They are Muslims and the Koran told them to kill themselves as part of this war on America and the West. The Koran even offers them 72 virgins in 'heaven' - thats why they did it. They are crazy, radical, thoughtless terrorist monsters". But this brings me back to something I mentioned above: the absence of a thorough investigation into 'why' this crime happened against us is a symptom of a larger problem. We've ceased seeing people as our equals - whether it is America vs Muslims or Blue State vs Red State. We've lost the ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes and try to think like them. We can no longer imagine what it is to think differently than we already do - its a failure of imagination. We boil everything down to: "anyone who thinks differently than I do is a lunatic (or a terrorist) and its not worth trying to consider their motivations".
The connection to Occupy Wall Street is this: so many of the conversations in the main stream media are knee jerk reactions. They look different, we are scared. I heard one of them use the words socialism and anarchy, thats crazy talk. Look at the police in riot gear, this must be a riot. How expensive is it going to be to pay all these cops overtime? Look - they are trampling on the flowers!
And, yes people have asked 'why are you here?' but only really to get a quick answer and move on to 'when will you leave?'
This is a bit of rambler, I apologize. I'm just trying to narrow down what it is exactly that we are missing in American public dialogue. Part of it is the inquisitive 'why' but I guess it really boils down to a deeper, more complex understanding of the issues.
Arg, I'd rate my own blog post a C+ at best.
Thanks for reading.
- Mark
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
To ACD or not to ACD
Usually my blog posts are like radio broadcasts: I have a message to tell the world and here it is. But this one is different, I have something to work out and its easier to do it on paper. But since this is the year 2030 and we've already cut down the last tree, here I am on the blog.
Tomorrow morning at 9:30am, I appear in court in Manhattan in response to recieving a summons on the the Manhattan-side of the Brooklyn-Bound Brooklyn Bridge on Oct 1st. I was marching with a crown of ~1500, which got cut off by the NYPD to about 700 people on the bridge. About halfway across the roadway, the police blocked us in from both sides using orange nets and arrested all 700 of us. I have 2 summonses: Use of a Prohibited Roadway and Blocking Vehicular Traffic. I'm told I will be offered an ACD, which means 'adjournment contemplating dismissal', in other words: we'll drop the charge if you don't get arrested for the next 6 months.
This blog is specifically about whether or not I will take the ACD, if it is offered to me. The following are a few lines of logic:
1. Some people say that the cops behavior gave the protesters the impression that we had permission to go onto the bridge. I did see 2 or 3 cops at the front, one white shirt saying something into a bull horn. Then people just marched through. The argument goes: once we were on the bridge, they had a hundred cops, orange nets and everything. They seemed to work a small fraction as hard to keep us off the bridge and it certainly seems like they basically let us get on the bridge so they could arrest us.
To me, this line of logic is flawed. Firstly, I knew damn well going on that bridge was illegal. You don't have to be stopped by the police in order to know your action is illegal. That being said - I do think its probably true. They did let us on to arrest us.
2. The motifs of the cops are clear when the situation is considered thus: had we been unstopped by the police, the march would have blocked the bridge for MAYBE 30-40 minutes. The bridge isn't that long and people were walking quickly because we were excited. We had no plans to stop on the bridge or prolong the crossing. The police, however, DID stop us on the bridge and spent (literally) 4-6 hours arresting us one by one. If the purpose of the arrest was to clear the roadway for cars, it would have been effective to let us continue walking. I think its clear the purpose of the arrest was something else: to make a big show of police power and try to stamp out the Occupy Wall St protest movement by arresting as many of us as they could. All that being said - the intent of the police doesn't change whether the action was illegal, which it was. We were using a roadway intended for cars.
3. No one participating in a protest should accept an ACD because it can be used as a tool of deterring people from participating in future protests. This may, in fact, be true. But in reality, it would be a deterrent from the breaking the law - which the court doesn't really need to secretive about. Plus a second arrest in a short amount of time would look bad in court with or without an ACD. I think this is sort of a weak argument, although it might be true.
[The above 3 arguments were purely theoretical, I had already ruled them out by the time of writing; I just included them for the sake of thoroughness.]
3. I should plead guilty because, strictly speaking, I am guilty of the crimes they are accusing me of. This is not, as some people would like to claim, an obscure case. I am being accused of blocking traffic and using a road ment for cars and I am, technically, guilty of that. This argument is exactly the same for accepting the ACD, which is not an admission of guilt or innocence. If breaking the law was an act of civil disobedience, then accepting the appropriate punishment is part of this disobedience. Breaking a law and running to hide isn't civil disobedience, neither is hiring a good lawyer who can wriggle you out of a guilt ruling.
4. Being offered an ACD is, in some ways of thinking, a very strange thing. The police arrested (or really, detained) me for almost 12 hours on October 1st, supposedly because I was breaking a law. Now, 2 months later, without a trial or even hearing a plead from me, the court is likely to offer me a chance to walk away with no hearing and no fine or punishment. There is a futuristic conditional but, logically, that can't play into whether I did or did not break the law nor whether I should be punished in some way. Why should I be offered a get out of jail free card? The DA has no reason to show me favor, not that I know of. I can think of a few possible answers: 1) They know I am innocent but don't want to spend court time and money on declaring me innocent. 2) They don't care if I am guilty or innocent because the law I broke wasn't important or shouldn't be on the books. 3) They don't care whether I'm guilty or innocent, they just want to deter me from participating in further protests.
I've already addressed #3, so Im going to ignore it. If #2 or 3 is true, then I was arrested falsely and not only deserve an innocent ruling but the rules should be changed. More importantly, both of these options would be evidence of a broken system: not only the court system, which offers get out of jail free cards to people who should never have been up for jail in the first place, but the enforcement system (NYPD). In some ways, accepting an ACD is playing a part in a very unlawful system in which police can arrest people just to break up an event (this is much more broad than crossing a bridge) that they don't like. They don't have to prove or even suspect that someone is breaking the law - they know (and the DA knows and the judge knows) that the detainee can be given an ACD and let off, so the cop doesn't have to ever prove that he or she was in the right when they made the arrest. For the detainee this makes sense because its definitely better than risking being found guilty, but for future protests and actors of civil disobedience its terrible. It means the cops have a system in which to remove you from the street without evidence of guilt, threaten you with jail time and then bribe you to forget about the whole thing with removal of the threat. But if you were never guilty, then there was no threat in the first place.
And this, long as it may be, is a very power argument for not accepting the ACD regardless of whether I think I am guilty or innocent. Because being offered the ACD is part of a corrupt system which allows the NYPD to take people off the street without due process. Yes, its true that the court case might come later but there has been no consideration of justice or evidence when a person was removed from the street and placed in a jail cell. Giving the police this power is dangerous and the process is an abridgment of American freedoms.
Thoughts are welcome.
------------------------
Nothing in this blog post or any other should be taken as an admission of guilt; the writing in this blog cannot be used in the aforementioned court case or any other. Everything said here is in a purely theoretical manner and should be considered no more than story telling or a philosophical thought experiment.
------------------------
Tomorrow morning at 9:30am, I appear in court in Manhattan in response to recieving a summons on the the Manhattan-side of the Brooklyn-Bound Brooklyn Bridge on Oct 1st. I was marching with a crown of ~1500, which got cut off by the NYPD to about 700 people on the bridge. About halfway across the roadway, the police blocked us in from both sides using orange nets and arrested all 700 of us. I have 2 summonses: Use of a Prohibited Roadway and Blocking Vehicular Traffic. I'm told I will be offered an ACD, which means 'adjournment contemplating dismissal', in other words: we'll drop the charge if you don't get arrested for the next 6 months.
This blog is specifically about whether or not I will take the ACD, if it is offered to me. The following are a few lines of logic:
1. Some people say that the cops behavior gave the protesters the impression that we had permission to go onto the bridge. I did see 2 or 3 cops at the front, one white shirt saying something into a bull horn. Then people just marched through. The argument goes: once we were on the bridge, they had a hundred cops, orange nets and everything. They seemed to work a small fraction as hard to keep us off the bridge and it certainly seems like they basically let us get on the bridge so they could arrest us.
To me, this line of logic is flawed. Firstly, I knew damn well going on that bridge was illegal. You don't have to be stopped by the police in order to know your action is illegal. That being said - I do think its probably true. They did let us on to arrest us.
2. The motifs of the cops are clear when the situation is considered thus: had we been unstopped by the police, the march would have blocked the bridge for MAYBE 30-40 minutes. The bridge isn't that long and people were walking quickly because we were excited. We had no plans to stop on the bridge or prolong the crossing. The police, however, DID stop us on the bridge and spent (literally) 4-6 hours arresting us one by one. If the purpose of the arrest was to clear the roadway for cars, it would have been effective to let us continue walking. I think its clear the purpose of the arrest was something else: to make a big show of police power and try to stamp out the Occupy Wall St protest movement by arresting as many of us as they could. All that being said - the intent of the police doesn't change whether the action was illegal, which it was. We were using a roadway intended for cars.
3. No one participating in a protest should accept an ACD because it can be used as a tool of deterring people from participating in future protests. This may, in fact, be true. But in reality, it would be a deterrent from the breaking the law - which the court doesn't really need to secretive about. Plus a second arrest in a short amount of time would look bad in court with or without an ACD. I think this is sort of a weak argument, although it might be true.
[The above 3 arguments were purely theoretical, I had already ruled them out by the time of writing; I just included them for the sake of thoroughness.]
3. I should plead guilty because, strictly speaking, I am guilty of the crimes they are accusing me of. This is not, as some people would like to claim, an obscure case. I am being accused of blocking traffic and using a road ment for cars and I am, technically, guilty of that. This argument is exactly the same for accepting the ACD, which is not an admission of guilt or innocence. If breaking the law was an act of civil disobedience, then accepting the appropriate punishment is part of this disobedience. Breaking a law and running to hide isn't civil disobedience, neither is hiring a good lawyer who can wriggle you out of a guilt ruling.
4. Being offered an ACD is, in some ways of thinking, a very strange thing. The police arrested (or really, detained) me for almost 12 hours on October 1st, supposedly because I was breaking a law. Now, 2 months later, without a trial or even hearing a plead from me, the court is likely to offer me a chance to walk away with no hearing and no fine or punishment. There is a futuristic conditional but, logically, that can't play into whether I did or did not break the law nor whether I should be punished in some way. Why should I be offered a get out of jail free card? The DA has no reason to show me favor, not that I know of. I can think of a few possible answers: 1) They know I am innocent but don't want to spend court time and money on declaring me innocent. 2) They don't care if I am guilty or innocent because the law I broke wasn't important or shouldn't be on the books. 3) They don't care whether I'm guilty or innocent, they just want to deter me from participating in further protests.
I've already addressed #3, so Im going to ignore it. If #2 or 3 is true, then I was arrested falsely and not only deserve an innocent ruling but the rules should be changed. More importantly, both of these options would be evidence of a broken system: not only the court system, which offers get out of jail free cards to people who should never have been up for jail in the first place, but the enforcement system (NYPD). In some ways, accepting an ACD is playing a part in a very unlawful system in which police can arrest people just to break up an event (this is much more broad than crossing a bridge) that they don't like. They don't have to prove or even suspect that someone is breaking the law - they know (and the DA knows and the judge knows) that the detainee can be given an ACD and let off, so the cop doesn't have to ever prove that he or she was in the right when they made the arrest. For the detainee this makes sense because its definitely better than risking being found guilty, but for future protests and actors of civil disobedience its terrible. It means the cops have a system in which to remove you from the street without evidence of guilt, threaten you with jail time and then bribe you to forget about the whole thing with removal of the threat. But if you were never guilty, then there was no threat in the first place.
And this, long as it may be, is a very power argument for not accepting the ACD regardless of whether I think I am guilty or innocent. Because being offered the ACD is part of a corrupt system which allows the NYPD to take people off the street without due process. Yes, its true that the court case might come later but there has been no consideration of justice or evidence when a person was removed from the street and placed in a jail cell. Giving the police this power is dangerous and the process is an abridgment of American freedoms.
Thoughts are welcome.
------------------------
Nothing in this blog post or any other should be taken as an admission of guilt; the writing in this blog cannot be used in the aforementioned court case or any other. Everything said here is in a purely theoretical manner and should be considered no more than story telling or a philosophical thought experiment.
------------------------
Monday, November 21, 2011
A response to being called absolute human garbage.
"Just think about. How many veterans scarified their marriages, families, health and lives so that these individuals can Occupy Wall-street and whine about democracy, capitalism, environment and whatever else they can latch onto and bitch about.
Blood, sweat and tears defending the American Flag only for the occupiers to step on, shred, paint, shit on and burn it.
I can proudly say I am not in the 1% wealth bracket in this nation but you associate me with this 99% group consisting of absolute human garbage and I'll punch out your fucking lights.
I am proud of America; of being an American. I am proud of where I am in life. If I have any regrets or dislike for my current position in life, the only person I have to blame is myself. We are all in control of our own destinies and choices. Now live with the consequence of your own actions."
The message above was a facebook post by a person who Im not going to name on my blog - it doesn't really matter. The writer calls me, as a member of the Occupy movement, a piece of absolute human garbage. Much more importantly, he said a lot of things that point to the fact that he has been mislead about the Occupy movement. I'm not reaching out to 'prove him wrong' or 'start a fight', I'm reaching out because I believe very strongly that the main stream media has misrepresented the Occupy movement in a lot of ways and I think intelligent people should be able to make their own decisions, not accept the decisions fed to them. This letter is addressed to the writer of the message:
Sir,
I'm not going to talk much about the fact that the picture is of a person stepping on the flag - mostly because I wasn't there when that photo was taken and all the flags I saw were being waved proudly by protesters, as we believe that we are protesting in accordance with the ideals of America, fighting to protect these ideals - not against them. For all I know, the person was waiving the flag a minute before this photo was taken and he sneezed and dropped it or was hit in the face by pepper spray and stepped it while blinded… or maybe he was stepping on the flag as some form of political protest (which has been protected as an act of free speech by the US supreme courts) - I don't know and Im guessing neither do you. So I'd much rather talk about some of the radical, hateful points in the note below the picture - which I assume are your opinions regardless of the truth behind the photograph.
I know its not likely that this will happen, but I want you to go down to the location of an Occupy Wall St event to see with your own eyes and ears and use your own decision making skills. Talk to people - I've spent a lot of time there and I can promise you: no one will bite you for showing interest. Its not a brainwashing camp and the worst that can happen is that your previously established notions will be re-inforced, if you find them to be accurate. But the people down there are not human garbage, they are Americans exercising their constitutional rights that veterans fought so hard to defend. Not using these rights hardly honors veterans at all and I don't think the veterans fought for the rights so that you could mock anyone who exercises those rights. BUT those veterans fought equally hard for your right to mock them, so I guess you should continue doing that if you want to.
It is true that offering free food and medical service has attracted homeless people, but homeless people are also not human garbage - we are all products of the random placement of birth and it is impossible to say what you would have done being born into someone else's womb other than your mothers. You didn't work for your place in her womb, don't pretend that you did (I'll return to this later).
And the majority of protesters are smart, friendly, patriotic people who can intelligently express their political opinion, will not be violent or destroy property to express those points and who love this country (many have served). They may be willing to commit acts of civil disobedience to bring awareness to their expression and they will serve the consequences of their actions - sit down on a bridge, get arrested (for example).
This great country was founded by people committing acts of civil disobedience because they were left with no other discourse through which to express their political ideas. So when the founding fathers formed this country, they protected the rights of people to free speech and to assembly. Make no mistake - the right to free speech and assembly are key to the democracy that we've been involved in wars all over the world to spread and codify. They are not extra goodies given to citizens if they 'behave themselves', they ARE the ingredients of democracy and without them you do not have democracy anymore.
I want to tell you why I support the movement but first I want you to think of these reasons in the context of me because we tend to pretend that politics are not personal. But calling someone human garbage is personal. I'm a brother, a son, a husband. I have nieces and nephews that love me and get excited to see me because Im fun to play games with. Im also a freelance designer, my clients trust me and depend on me. I have friends that know they can come to me for advice, Im thoughtful and a good listener.
I'm not a terrorist or an anarchist or a violent person or a piece of human garbage. I might disagree with you but this country is supposed to allow for disagreement - and compromise can only be reach if we view each other with humility and understanding. Only if we try to find common ground, unlike our elected representatives are doing right now in Congress. Be better than we've seen other people set the example for. And make no mistake - this world is a crazy place and whether you view Iran or Climate Change as an immediately problem that needs attention: this country needs to move past name-calling, bickering and digging in our heals when we sit down at the table.
I believe that a combination of factors has led to the disenfranchisement of a large portion of the population of America - what I mean by this is that while people still technically have the right to vote, Americans (not just liberals) are being denied actual and functional representation in our government. The main factors that I see are skyrocketing costs of election campaigns and a lack of effective limitations on campaign contributions. The formula is simple: even the most honest, well meaning candidate for any federal office must raise millions of dollars and, if they want to spend any time at all on policy, meeting constituents, etc (as opposed to fundraising dollar by dollar) - they must accept large sums of money from wealthy people and wealthy groups of people - for example, large corporations (unions are another example). Once these politicians are in office - they owe favors to these large donors and must keep the donors in mind if they intend to run for another election round. This produces laws and policies that are more representative of campaign contributors than constituents, that skew towards the wealthy and big business. [The focus on Wall St is that they are a particularly blatant example of political influence leading to a lack of effective regulation, which allowed/caused a financial collapse in 2008 and nearly zero individuals or companies are being held responsible for their actions because of their friends in high places].
Now, the Occupy movement is not a members only club and there are no stated/declared goals. There are many members of the movement and many different opinions - some do talk about healthcare and others about education - but I think people are coalescing around what I have listed above because it underlies all other issues (i.e. the pharmaceutical companies lean heavily on the members of congress, right and left, who sit on the department of health subcommittees). The only opinions that are outright rejected by the movement are those that include the use of violence or destruction of property. Anyone with goals like that is ejected from the movement - it has already happened a few times (this includes anti-semitism, by the way: a man with a sign that said 'Kill the Jew Bankers' was immediately kicked out of Zuccoti Park by the group as a whole).
To close with a reference to your own closing sentiment: I am also proud of America. I am proud that America is a place where disagreement is not only tolerated but protected by our Bill of Rights and Supreme Court. I disagree that we have only to blame ourselves for our situation: if a law is passed tomorrow that Jews or Graphic Designers or Right Handed People are not allowed to be employed or owe a higher tax rate and I can no longer afford food, that would not be a situation for which I had myself to blame. The 'blame yourself' response is oversimplifying a complicated political situation that we live in. Our government is, in its current state, making laws that favor wealthy Americans and large corporations and they do not deserve disproportionate representation or sway in our Congress any more than lower and middle class people deserve to have their votes ignored. Thats not how our government works and blaming ourselves would be logically incorrect because we didn't create this situation. And, further, even if we did blame ourselves because maybe we, as a whole, should have more carefully protected our rights to representation over the last decade, then the Occupy movement is the way that we are dealing with the consequences of our actions. We are not waiting around for someone else to fix this mess - we are taking an active role in shaping our future - isn't that what you asked us to do?
"We are all in control of our own destinies and choices. Now live with the consequence of your own actions."
We can blame ourselves for the results of our own actions but this country is based on a very powerful notion that every man is created equal.
Have you ever thought about this phrase?
Have you ever thought how you would feel if you had been born into a situation that made it hard for you to get ahead?
I have and it makes me thankful for my own privilege and it makes me fight in the streets to ensure our government works to represent and protect every single American.
- Mark
Sunday, November 06, 2011
"All Men are Created Equal" and the new American revolution.
I had an epiphany just now, here it is (expanded slightly from its original form).
The reason why 'all men are created equal' was revolutionary is because concepts like 'the monarchy' and 'the aristocracy' (circa England in the 1700s) made it seem like being born into the right family or social class is something that fetus worked hard for and earned - something they deserved. But the American revolutionaries that founded this country said: no, its not - all men are created equal, some have had the fortune of being born to rich parents and some haven't but we are going to create a society where being born into a lower class doesn't mean you'll be there forever as if you did something for which you are being punished. All men are created equal was not a bumper-sticker-esque chantable catch phrase but a completely radical notion, an affront to thousands of years of religion-based governments and kings and nobles and aristocrats. All men are created equal broke all social class laws. All men are created equal did not pretend that each man was actually born into exactly the same amount of wealth with the same opportunity - thats factually untrue, all men are not born into equal situations. All men are created equal said that the second we are born, we are all equal. We've committed no crimes, earned no honors - we are completely and exactly equal. Even this is a slightly idealistic notion because education disparities will mean that the mother may not have known to avoid alcohol or get enough vitamins or may not have taken Lamaz classes; and a child born into Kings County General Hospital (in Brooklyn) may not exactly have all the luxuries as a child born into a private hospital in the Hamptons.
But to build a government based on the radical principle that "All men are created equal" would be set a ball rolling that would try to correct thousands of years of systematic oppression. This is the basis for why 'the american dream', now a cliche used to sell us crap we don't need, was once an equally radical idea worth dying for. Its so easy to think of the Statue of Liberty as this plastic figurine that is sold for too much money at every gift shop in New York City but it was a beacon of hope, attracting people from all over the world (including my own grandparents and great grandparents from Eastern Europe) with a bold promise:
If Thomas Paine and John Jay and James Madison and Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton and George Washington were alive today: where would they be standing? In the polished halls of Congress or the scattered city block at Occupy Wall St's Liberty Plaza. Would they be defending a corporation's right to spend unlimited amounts of money on those running for political office? I doubt it. I actually think the founding fathers made several warnings in their political writings (such as The Federalist Papers) that would right true to our ears right now and perhaps provide us with some guidance in these dark times. I may return to my high school days as a constitutional scholar and try to turn up some of these writings and put them here on my blog for your enjoyment.
As always offered but seldom taken up on, feedback would be appreciated: questions, comments, disagreements, counter arguments, anything.
- Mark
The reason why 'all men are created equal' was revolutionary is because concepts like 'the monarchy' and 'the aristocracy' (circa England in the 1700s) made it seem like being born into the right family or social class is something that fetus worked hard for and earned - something they deserved. But the American revolutionaries that founded this country said: no, its not - all men are created equal, some have had the fortune of being born to rich parents and some haven't but we are going to create a society where being born into a lower class doesn't mean you'll be there forever as if you did something for which you are being punished. All men are created equal was not a bumper-sticker-esque chantable catch phrase but a completely radical notion, an affront to thousands of years of religion-based governments and kings and nobles and aristocrats. All men are created equal broke all social class laws. All men are created equal did not pretend that each man was actually born into exactly the same amount of wealth with the same opportunity - thats factually untrue, all men are not born into equal situations. All men are created equal said that the second we are born, we are all equal. We've committed no crimes, earned no honors - we are completely and exactly equal. Even this is a slightly idealistic notion because education disparities will mean that the mother may not have known to avoid alcohol or get enough vitamins or may not have taken Lamaz classes; and a child born into Kings County General Hospital (in Brooklyn) may not exactly have all the luxuries as a child born into a private hospital in the Hamptons.
But to build a government based on the radical principle that "All men are created equal" would be set a ball rolling that would try to correct thousands of years of systematic oppression. This is the basis for why 'the american dream', now a cliche used to sell us crap we don't need, was once an equally radical idea worth dying for. Its so easy to think of the Statue of Liberty as this plastic figurine that is sold for too much money at every gift shop in New York City but it was a beacon of hope, attracting people from all over the world (including my own grandparents and great grandparents from Eastern Europe) with a bold promise:
“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door. ”Its so easy to forget how revolutionary this was. You can leave the country that is oppressing you based on factors that you had no control over and be free in America. Especially in the context of the America that we live in today, its easy to forget what this country was built on. All men are created equal - if it wasn't such a famously American phrase - one might get laughed at in Congress for quoting it and called a 'socialist' by the political clowns in Washington. They forget - those privileged, white millionaires that laughing call themselves our representatives - they forget that this country is literally filled with immigrants and the children of immigrants and the grand children of immigrants who came to this country based on the promise that All men are created equal. And then Herman Cain has the audacity to tell Americans to blame themselves for not having jobs or being rich?! And right wing politicians tell Americans that the notion of a government supplying basic health needs to those who can't afford to pay for it is wrong? That doesn't sound equal to me, that doesn't sound like its based on the principles of this great country - it sounds like its based on the principles that this great country was founded in OPPOSITION to: that if you were born into a poor family, that is YOUR FAULT and if you were born into a wealthy family, GOOD FOR OUR, you DESERVE IT.
If Thomas Paine and John Jay and James Madison and Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton and George Washington were alive today: where would they be standing? In the polished halls of Congress or the scattered city block at Occupy Wall St's Liberty Plaza. Would they be defending a corporation's right to spend unlimited amounts of money on those running for political office? I doubt it. I actually think the founding fathers made several warnings in their political writings (such as The Federalist Papers) that would right true to our ears right now and perhaps provide us with some guidance in these dark times. I may return to my high school days as a constitutional scholar and try to turn up some of these writings and put them here on my blog for your enjoyment.
As always offered but seldom taken up on, feedback would be appreciated: questions, comments, disagreements, counter arguments, anything.
- Mark
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
My Planet Money Top Picks
At the request of a friend, here are some of my top Planet Money podcast picks:
(The top three might be the best - they were shows done with This American Life, another great NPR show, so they might be a little more people-focused but they will also be more explanatory).
How Money Got Weird
Das got the airline to start making speculative bets on the price of oil. That decision was good for the bottom line: One year, the company made more money from trading than it did from selling tickets on its planes.
Why The World Stills Need The Dollar
The role of the dollar in international commerce, trade, etc.
Fed Behaving Dangerously, Fed President Say
About the Federal Reserve and the one guy who doesn't like how its being run.
Do We Need the IMF?
A look into the IMF, the role it was created the play and the role is plays today
Do The Rich Flee High-Tax States?
A quantitative look into this frequently used argument against taxing the rich
The Island That Ran Out Of Money
Using Iceland as a real-life case study, I think this explains a lot about a national banking system and how it interacts with the international economy.
Fannie and Freddie's Rise and Fall
A look into the two quasi-private institutions that were a large part of the 2008 financial crisis.
What Comes After Fannie And Freddie?
A look at the different proposals
(The top three might be the best - they were shows done with This American Life, another great NPR show, so they might be a little more people-focused but they will also be more explanatory).
About the housing crisis
How Money Got Weird
Das got the airline to start making speculative bets on the price of oil. That decision was good for the bottom line: One year, the company made more money from trading than it did from selling tickets on its planes.
Why The World Stills Need The Dollar
The role of the dollar in international commerce, trade, etc.
Fed Behaving Dangerously, Fed President Say
About the Federal Reserve and the one guy who doesn't like how its being run.
Do We Need the IMF?
A look into the IMF, the role it was created the play and the role is plays today
Do The Rich Flee High-Tax States?
A quantitative look into this frequently used argument against taxing the rich
The Island That Ran Out Of Money
Using Iceland as a real-life case study, I think this explains a lot about a national banking system and how it interacts with the international economy.
Fannie and Freddie's Rise and Fall
A look into the two quasi-private institutions that were a large part of the 2008 financial crisis.
What Comes After Fannie And Freddie?
A look at the different proposals
About the moment the US went off the gold standard - it might not sound important but it changed our concept of 'money' forever
Talking to the people in charge of writing the banking regulations
The findings of the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry committee - interesting, not satisfying.
A look at the 30-year mortgage at the cornerstone of US home ownership
A look into the strange concept of money, with a fascinating case study
A chemist explores the question of the gold standard
A look into social security
A look into national economy with a fascinating case study. A crazy plan to stop inflation that worked
Pet Toxie, a Toxic Asset - like the one that brought down our financial system
Planet Money bought a toxic asset (named it Toxie) in order to learn about what it is, how it works, etc. This turned into a series of podcasts:
The Fed bought this much money worth of mortgage bonds to prop up the housing market. How does this even work?
A little about subprime mortgages
About the stimulus and a bit of economics theory
I might add to this later. This list took a long time to make.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Educate yourself
One month ago, I got involved in the Occupy Wall St movement and realized that I needed to learn more before my anger could become sometime productive. Also, I was keenly aware of the criticisms, even before the critics themselves, that the movement would be full of people who didn't really know much about Wall St and the banking industry. Now, I don't think you need a degree in economics to know that things have gone wrong in our country. And I also don't necessarily thing it is the job of the Occupy movement to write the legislation that will fix these wrongs. But, we should know what we are talking about. And - many, many occupiers do. There are professors and lawyers and students and business execs (former and current) who are occupying and could debate the pants off any media show host. But this movement isn't going to elect them leaders and let them do the thinking - we need to educate ourselves (and each other). I think the 'teach-ins' are awesome and should happen every day, all the time.
But, me, I live in a rural area 2.5 hours north of NYC and can't attend a teach in. So I've spent the last month teaching myself. About the economy, about the banking system, about Wall St, legal standings of corporations in America and how it got to be that way, a bunch of about the history of the US left and a lot of US politics in general. I used to be really into politics actually - in high school I was into constitutional debate and did Model UN and all that. In college I got somewhat into progressive politics but lost steam and became jaded very quickly. For the last 2-3 years I have kept up with international politics a bit and hardly any US politics. I mean, can you blame me? US politics is a joke. Our representatives are clowns just trying to get laughs. We have serious problems and clowns in congress. [Note to self: 'Clowns in Congress' would be a great piece of gorilla art/occupational theater].
Anyway, I've been educating myself from a variety of sources:
#1 NPR's Planet Money podcast - entertaining, totally fact-based and they really make an attempt at getting different sides of the story. The general focus of the podcast is explaining economic issues in layman's terms and trying to make connections to 'regular day to day life' on Main st. I started listening only a few weeks ago and wanted more than twice per week, so I started going backwards. But this was annoying because some are part of a series, so instead I went to the oldest podcast and starting listening to them forwards. It turns out Planet Money started in the middle of the 2008 financial crisis when it was clear that something big was happening but no one was really sure what yet. The purpose of the podcast was to try to explain to non-economists what was going on.
#2 Dylan Ratigan's Radio Free Dylan podcast - Dylan used to work on Wall St and now works on MSNBC and has his own show. He is currently starting a massive political campaign called 'Get Money Out' and his podcast is real issues, real solutions, no media circus bullshit. To see what I mean, watch this short clip. I've only watched a few but listening to a real, intelligent debate on important political issues is so refreshing and educational. He actually talks about the need to educate yourself constantly.
#3 EconTalk - Okay, I haven't actually listened to any of these yet but I've heard good things.
#4 EconStories - The truth is, I didn't get into these but I wanted to put up the link because you might.
Other thoughts:
> In the iTunes store go to either 'iTunes U' or 'Podcasts' - lots of free sources of information (among pay sources).
> If you know anyone (even a boring uncle or old high school friend), go for coffee and pick their brains. Conversation is, with a doubt, my favorite way to learn and, in my opinion, the best way to really engage the information.
> Democracy Now - its not exactly a source of information but a non-main-stream media station that tells it like it is, and definitely tries to explain things without jargon.
The internet is a big place with lots of free knowledge. If you have any of your own sources, comment them to me!
Thanks,
Mark
PS. Not sure where to start? Here are keywords/areas to explore: 'Causes of 2008 Financial Crisis', 'Mortgage backed securities', 'Credit default swap', 'The Federal Reserve', 'Citizens United vs FEC'.
If I had all the time in the world, I'd do more writing and summarize what I'm learning on all these things but I don't want to make promises I can't keep.
But, me, I live in a rural area 2.5 hours north of NYC and can't attend a teach in. So I've spent the last month teaching myself. About the economy, about the banking system, about Wall St, legal standings of corporations in America and how it got to be that way, a bunch of about the history of the US left and a lot of US politics in general. I used to be really into politics actually - in high school I was into constitutional debate and did Model UN and all that. In college I got somewhat into progressive politics but lost steam and became jaded very quickly. For the last 2-3 years I have kept up with international politics a bit and hardly any US politics. I mean, can you blame me? US politics is a joke. Our representatives are clowns just trying to get laughs. We have serious problems and clowns in congress. [Note to self: 'Clowns in Congress' would be a great piece of gorilla art/occupational theater].
Anyway, I've been educating myself from a variety of sources:
#1 NPR's Planet Money podcast - entertaining, totally fact-based and they really make an attempt at getting different sides of the story. The general focus of the podcast is explaining economic issues in layman's terms and trying to make connections to 'regular day to day life' on Main st. I started listening only a few weeks ago and wanted more than twice per week, so I started going backwards. But this was annoying because some are part of a series, so instead I went to the oldest podcast and starting listening to them forwards. It turns out Planet Money started in the middle of the 2008 financial crisis when it was clear that something big was happening but no one was really sure what yet. The purpose of the podcast was to try to explain to non-economists what was going on.
#2 Dylan Ratigan's Radio Free Dylan podcast - Dylan used to work on Wall St and now works on MSNBC and has his own show. He is currently starting a massive political campaign called 'Get Money Out' and his podcast is real issues, real solutions, no media circus bullshit. To see what I mean, watch this short clip. I've only watched a few but listening to a real, intelligent debate on important political issues is so refreshing and educational. He actually talks about the need to educate yourself constantly.
#3 EconTalk - Okay, I haven't actually listened to any of these yet but I've heard good things.
#4 EconStories - The truth is, I didn't get into these but I wanted to put up the link because you might.
Other thoughts:
> In the iTunes store go to either 'iTunes U' or 'Podcasts' - lots of free sources of information (among pay sources).
> If you know anyone (even a boring uncle or old high school friend), go for coffee and pick their brains. Conversation is, with a doubt, my favorite way to learn and, in my opinion, the best way to really engage the information.
> Democracy Now - its not exactly a source of information but a non-main-stream media station that tells it like it is, and definitely tries to explain things without jargon.
The internet is a big place with lots of free knowledge. If you have any of your own sources, comment them to me!
Thanks,
Mark
PS. Not sure where to start? Here are keywords/areas to explore: 'Causes of 2008 Financial Crisis', 'Mortgage backed securities', 'Credit default swap', 'The Federal Reserve', 'Citizens United vs FEC'.
If I had all the time in the world, I'd do more writing and summarize what I'm learning on all these things but I don't want to make promises I can't keep.
Sunday, October 09, 2011
Unifying to Treat the Cause of All of our Problems (Instead of dividing to fight the symptoms separately)
See this image at its source (on Facebook)
This message is from Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org, an important organizing fighting to solve the climate crisis and push for policies that will put the world on track to get to 350 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere (which is the acceptable level for our planet; we are currently at 392 ppm).
But he doesn't talk about the parts per million of carbon dioxide in this message to his member-base. Instead he gives a message that I hope is repeated and sent all over the world and gets into the hands of every occupier of every city and state: our personal, and professional, issues are many but, instead of fighting separate battles, let us unify behind this cause to address the root.
The left has been too divided to do anything more than get Obama elected for many years. In my life, other than the Obama presidential campaign, I haven't really seen a united and strong left. I've seen a weak and spineless Democratic party that is hardly any further to the left of center than the Republican party is to the right of it. And the united push for Obama gave me hope for change (I wonder what made me think that was coming..), I felt proud to be a part of the left when I saw Obama sworn into the White House. And while I sure as hell am glad I didn't see John McCain get sworn in, my passion and pride has wained recently because Obama joined the ranks of all those politicians - left and right - who had favors to return once he arrived into his new position in DC.
I'm not saying Obama planned and plotted to unify the left, ride their passion to the presidency and then turn on them - I don't think life or politics are ever that simple. Though it is a nice narrative and I can understand why many members of the 'real' left have started using it. No, I think its more complicated than that - what can we expect a politician to do when it costs millions just to run a campaign? Go door to door asking for singles or panhandle for quarters on the subway? If they want to spend any time at all doing anything other than fundraising (discussing issues, drafting policy, their current jobs, etc)- they need big bucks and fast.
The 2008 campaign was the costliest in history, with a record-shattering $5.3 billion in spending by candidates, political parties and interest groups on the congressional and presidential races.Useful nay-sayer says:
["2008 Costliest..." Nov 5, 2008. Politico]
"but Mark, I don't care about campaign reform - thats not my issue - I'm protesting against the process of hydrofracking which is ruining our..."
I know what hydrofracking is.
I also know what the wealth gap is between the racial groups in America,
and I know the income gap between men and women,
and I know that there are groups of people that don't identify as 'men' or 'women',
and I know how cows are treated on Tyson's CAFOs that go into McDonald burgers,
and I know that its silly that marijuana is still illegal,
and I know capitalism and consumerism are rotting our souls,
and I know the education system is killing our children's imaginations and not teaching them anything,
and I know that none of this will matter if we don't get our act together and stop ruining this planet's fragile ecosystem.
I know all this - I'm not trying to diminish or belittle any of these issues, but I'm trying to say that they are symptoms of a larger problem here. We can all go our own ways and each raise money from similar pools of working class supporters, the fruits of which will be pennies compares to the millions that some corporations might put through the laundry in their suit pockets by accident. Almost every one of the issues listed above, comes with a large, multi-national corporation which stands to benefit from legislation opposing the cause. And it just so happens that each of these corporations made some generous contribution to the senator who heads the committee on [_your_issue_goes_here_].
Think this is starting to sound like conspiracy theories? Well, lets consider a real world example:
"Goldman Sachs, one of Wall Street’s most prestigious investment banks, was also among the many banks in 2008 and 2009 to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer money to help it stay afloat. Like others in the securities industry, Goldman Sachs advises and invests in nearly every industry affected by federal legislation. The firm closely monitors issues including economic policy, trade and nearly all legislation that governs the financial sector. It has been a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry." [Source: OpenSecrets.org]Goldman Sachs has contributed a total of $20,194,745 to campaign funds between 1990 and 2010 [Source: OpenSecrets.org]. No, I didn't comb through the FEC's documents for the last 21 years of campaign contributions to get this number - the Center for Responsive Politics does it for us. (Spend an hour on their website, your view of our political system just might be forever shifted).
I realize that the Goldman Sachs bit was a tangent but I'm making a point: organizations of working-class people in favor of wall st reform and regulation enforcement don't have $20 Million dollars to match the influence Goldman Sachs has (oh, and don't forget about paying for lobbyists - GS has already spent $2.4 million on lobbying, this year (2011) alone!
We can't match them and WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO.
Admittedly, we dropped our guard a few times (in May 1886, April 1978, January 2010, for example) and allowed the corporations to grab the reigns of this democracy - but I believe the power and support of the Occupy movement can become the first unified offensive against this trend. We cannot wait for congress to get to this issue on their own because they never will - there's nothing in it for them. There is no corporation paying big money to get this legislation pushed through the red tape and onto the floor. So how will it happen? Well, maybe in the first large show of the power of the people in a long time, we can demand this issue be addressed.
Unify because addressing the influence of corporate money in our politics IS addressing environmental issues, animal rights issues, gender politics issues, etc. Making the American government more accountable to the people (to all people, by the way, not just to liberals), is in everyone's best interest. Unless, of course, you are the CEO of a corporation that makes profit from exploitation, in which case I suggest you start working on a new business plan, because the tides are changing in America.
Monday, October 03, 2011
Jon Stewart: Is it okay to laugh at everything?
Now look, I like The Daily Show as much as the next left-leaning middle class American and I think Jon Stewart is genius - but I've harbored this reservation for a while and, with the reviving of this blog, I have a place to put it out there.
This train of thought returned to me today because a friend sent me a link to Jon Stewarts' coverage of the NYPD's excessive use of force and pepper spray on OccupyWallSt protesters.
See the video of the abuse here.
And see The Daily Show segment here.
My question is this:
Is it okay to laugh at everything?
I've heard, and probably given before, the response that laughter is way to make it through the day and, more so, that Jon Stewart is bringing important information to people who would otherwise not hear it. This is valid and true, especially the second part. But... when that video of the girls being pepper sprayed went viral - people got angry. Regular Americans (what I mean is: not just activists) got out of their couches - they at least got as far as their wallets to donate money and supplies to OccupyWallStreet, but thousands got out of their houses and went to Libery Plaza. But when the Jon Stewart segment aired on it - people laughed. They didn't laugh at the protesters in pain, nor at the NYPD's excessive use of force - but they laughed at a joke Steward made about the incident.
To give the counter argument:
"His media is a comedy show, so he jokes - but he told millions of Americans about this incident, that has got to be worth something."
And it is - its worth a lot. I'm not making the argument that he should not report or that he should not make jokes - he's a political satirist and humor is his tool or weapon here. I understand all this.
But... there are some issues should really garner more extreme reactions - aren't there? In Europe and the Middle East, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people will go into the streets when their government enacts bad financial regulations or laws. In America, if there is something ironic about it - Jon Stewart will report on it and we'll chuckle. If no one involved has a name that sounds like a type of meat, then most Americans probably won't hear about it.
And here is where the really effective, but ultimately depressing, counter argument comes in: if Jon Stewart stopped being funny, expressed his outrage about something or moved his show off of a network for Comedians - people would probably stop watching. He might be angry as hell about the pepper spraying of these girls but he knows that if he can't make it funny - his message will be lost also because people probably won't listen.*
And that is not Jon Stewart's fault, it's ours.
*In this wide world of the internet, if I could actually get a response on this from Jon Stewart - I would love to hear what he thinks about this because I have a lot of respect for him and I'm sure he's thought a lot about this.
This train of thought returned to me today because a friend sent me a link to Jon Stewarts' coverage of the NYPD's excessive use of force and pepper spray on OccupyWallSt protesters.
See the video of the abuse here.
And see The Daily Show segment here.
My question is this:
Is it okay to laugh at everything?
I've heard, and probably given before, the response that laughter is way to make it through the day and, more so, that Jon Stewart is bringing important information to people who would otherwise not hear it. This is valid and true, especially the second part. But... when that video of the girls being pepper sprayed went viral - people got angry. Regular Americans (what I mean is: not just activists) got out of their couches - they at least got as far as their wallets to donate money and supplies to OccupyWallStreet, but thousands got out of their houses and went to Libery Plaza. But when the Jon Stewart segment aired on it - people laughed. They didn't laugh at the protesters in pain, nor at the NYPD's excessive use of force - but they laughed at a joke Steward made about the incident.
To give the counter argument:
"His media is a comedy show, so he jokes - but he told millions of Americans about this incident, that has got to be worth something."
And it is - its worth a lot. I'm not making the argument that he should not report or that he should not make jokes - he's a political satirist and humor is his tool or weapon here. I understand all this.
But... there are some issues should really garner more extreme reactions - aren't there? In Europe and the Middle East, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people will go into the streets when their government enacts bad financial regulations or laws. In America, if there is something ironic about it - Jon Stewart will report on it and we'll chuckle. If no one involved has a name that sounds like a type of meat, then most Americans probably won't hear about it.
And here is where the really effective, but ultimately depressing, counter argument comes in: if Jon Stewart stopped being funny, expressed his outrage about something or moved his show off of a network for Comedians - people would probably stop watching. He might be angry as hell about the pepper spraying of these girls but he knows that if he can't make it funny - his message will be lost also because people probably won't listen.*
And that is not Jon Stewart's fault, it's ours.
*In this wide world of the internet, if I could actually get a response on this from Jon Stewart - I would love to hear what he thinks about this because I have a lot of respect for him and I'm sure he's thought a lot about this.
Great Reads on OccupyWallSt
Here are a collection of great articles/essays on OccupyWallSt:
'Occupy Wall Street': Drawing the Battle Lines (Rolling Stone Magazine)
Occupy Wall Street rediscovers the radical imagination (The Guardian)
Politicians Pinched by Protest Downtown (The Wall Street Journal)
The Bankers and the Revolutionaries (New York Times)
Chris Hedges, former journalist for the New York Times and currently of TruthDig.org, speaks from OccupyWallSt:
Why 'Occupy Wall St' Makes sense by Democracy New journalist Amy Goodman (for The Guardian)
Occupy Wall Street: FAQ (The Nation)
Coming soon: a collection of articles I've been reading on the issues surrounding the movement
'Occupy Wall Street': Drawing the Battle Lines (Rolling Stone Magazine)
Occupy Wall Street rediscovers the radical imagination (The Guardian)
Politicians Pinched by Protest Downtown (The Wall Street Journal)
The Bankers and the Revolutionaries (New York Times)
Chris Hedges, former journalist for the New York Times and currently of TruthDig.org, speaks from OccupyWallSt:
Why 'Occupy Wall St' Makes sense by Democracy New journalist Amy Goodman (for The Guardian)
Occupy Wall Street: FAQ (The Nation)
Coming soon: a collection of articles I've been reading on the issues surrounding the movement
Sunday, October 02, 2011
Why Occupy Wall Street?
This probably isn't necessary to say but I will anyway - I'm not an elected representative of the OccupyWallSt movement, but I am an active member who has spent the last three weekends taking part in the marches, general assemblies, logistics and occupation. So I'm not going to fill the following post with 'I-think' and 'in-my-opinion's, because this is all my opinion. Thats my disclaimer.
I've had a lot of conversation about OccupyWallSt over the past three weeks: with fellow occupiers, with police officers, new yorkers passing by Liberty Plaza, my wife, my parents, my siblings and my friends. And since dialogue is such an important part of the movement (both in practice and in principle) - Im going to going use the format of 'question and answer' or a dialogue to explain why I occupied Wall St and why I think others are doing it. Just to be clear, this is not a transcript of a real conversation, the italic speaker is also me.
Hey, I overheard you talking about that protest on Wall St - whats going on over there?
Well, theres a large group of people forming a movement called OccupyWall St and they've been camping out in a private park called Zuccotti Park (previously named and more recently renamed Liberty Plaza). The park was the closest space they could take to Wall St, which was barricaded by police before the event even started. Since before day 1, other Occupy events have popped up all over the United State and abroad - some are in full effect (like OccupyBoston, OccupySF, OccupyChicago) and many are in planning (OccupyNJ, OccupyPhilly, etc). 66 locations and counting.
Oh, who are they? and why are they there?
The movement is made up of a frequently-shifting group of organizers who were not previously part of one organization that created this event. It was thought up and announced by a Canadian magazine called Adbusters, which is ad-free, user generated and covers issues ranging from anti-globalization to corporate advertising. The magazine, as far as I know, has had no other involvement - the event took on a life of its own. An important group of organizers belong to the NYCGA (General Assembly) - which you can learn about here, they help facilitate group meetings.
The general group is huge variety of people (and I'll use overly simplified labels to categorize us). The movement is made up of left-leaning activists, students, academics, veterans, senior citizens (shout out to the Granny Peace Brigade), unemployed people, union workers, etc. Another way of saying it: people that are pissed.
Which is a great transition into why we are here. We are occupying, most generally and all-encompassingly, because we are not happy with the current financial/political/social situation in America and abroad. A little more specifically, we feel taken advantage of, or hoodwinked in some way, and want to express that frustration. I will, of course, get more specific but I first want to say that the more specific I get about the reason for OccupyWallSt, the more likely I am to exclude someone participating. Many people feel angry about the 2008 financial crisis and the bailout - this is a major theme at the event. Many people (and I) feel angry about the influence of money in our political system and feel that corporate campaign contributions (ranging into the tens of millions) will ALWAYS create laws that bias those contributors - which means our political system becomes much less of a democracy and more of a oligarchy or corporatacracy (Yes, I made that word up). I don't mean that as enflamed, meaningless political rhetoric, I mean literally that our politicians no longer represent the people they seem to, but actually only a small group of wealth contributors (including corporations).
Now, I do honestly believe that the majority of the movement would give a thumbs-up to the statements I just made. Certainly some people would not agree it, and many many people would have a particular issue or solution they feel strongly. The issues include the right to unionize, gender discrimination, homelessness, student loans, the mortgage and investment banking industry, etc. The solutions include some concrete and immediately possible (like re-instituting the Glass-Steagall Act), to more abstract and cerebral (a global shift in consciousness to value people ahead of profits) and the more bold and extreme (end the Federal Reserve). Instead of making judgements on this huge range of ideas, I'll say this: there is another goal adopted by many members of the movement that has already been realized. That is the creation of a space that is a microcosm of the world they wish to live in - much aligned with Ghandi's famous charge to "be the change you want to see in the world". This world they created has free expression in political discourse, music and art, it is not hierarchical in nature and make decisions by consensus and direct democracy. To some, creating this space is, in and of itself, an end.
Lastly, the most basic and widely realized goal of this movement is to create dialogue in the public sphere. Open, thoughtful, respectful and empassioned conversation is the most immediate and effective goal of this movement, (fine, I'll say it once:) in my opinion.
Ok - well some of that sounds crazy or weird to me, but I agree with the parts about corporate influence over politicians - but, come on - do you really thing anything can be done about the corporations? They run this show, everyone knows that - they are too big.
This I've heard a lot. After all, wanting a government that is more responsive to its people is not really red state or blue state specific. It reminds a lot of people of Tea Party talk, actually. Despite the general notion that 'wealthy people' and 'wealthy companies' are Republican - I think that corporate influence is not right or left wing. They certainly donate to legislators across the aisle and expect back-scratching from both in return. More importantly, the issues that they might 'encourage' their contribution-recipients to support are not always going to be right or left either. Corporations seek to protect profit - thats all. So unless you are a CEO, stockholder, or contribution-recipient there is a good chance you find some truth in these claims and frustrations. As far as 'too big to fail'? In the last few months, we've seen protests that started like this topple dictators and produce actual political revolutions. This country was started, the Tea Party reminds us, by revolutionaries fighting an all-powerful and god-ordained king. 'Too big to fail' is nothing more than a self-fulfilling attitude.
Ok, Im not sure I share your optimism, but I respect it. But lets talk nuts and bolts here: what does this OccupyWallStreet group want? What is your ONE demand?
The million dollar question right there. First let me explain a little bit of history on the beginning of OccupyWallSt. Adbusters, in their initial call to action, stated not much more than 'occupy Wall St' and 'We will state our ONE demand' - not saying what it was. And just to remind you, Adbusters did not actually create this movement of people, they are not actively involved in this movement in anyway and the OccupyWallSt is being run by the body of individuals that make it up. It seems clear that to me that people have largely rejected this 'ONE demand' approach. It is over simplifying, at its best, and would be group-splintering at its worst. At some point in the very beginning of the organizing for this event (or maybe from its inception), a decisions was made that the entire body of the movement would be deciding this key issue together and by consensus -
Wait - you mean you expect this group of hundred or thousands of individuals to make this decision all together and decide unanimously?
That is the goal and, yes, it is a lofty one. The general assembly process is slow and frustrating. Direct democracy takes time and patience and respect for each other (even those you disagree with - how radical in this country!). This made me immediately remember a lesson I learned in my US constitution class in high school:
Ok, I understand the process and the reason for rejecting one demand rhetoric, but what does this group want? They are making so much noise and getting media attention - don't you have a message?
Well, occupywallst.org is updated daily, especially if the GA has passed any statements or press releases. This is a good place to read up on past statements. Some of them are full of activist jargon, others are vague - but it seems like from the Day 1, each statement is more specific and the group is making progress - slowly, but thats okay. And, just because we can't sum it up in four words to fit on a New York Times headline - doesn't mean we don't know why we are here. Intelligent and productive discourse is still valued in some places in America. Maybe not in Congress or on our mainstream news channels - but in Liberty Square it still is.
Ok, so you've talked a lot about the group in general, but what about you? Why are you participating? What do you want?
Well, thanks for asking - as I mentioned briefly or hinted at above, I'm angry about the influence of big money on our government and the types of laws it passes. And I'd place myself into the pragmatist camp of the group - I believe there are real and concrete changes that could take place in our political and financial systems that would make a big difference. And these may be optimistic, but I don't think they are totally unrealistic. I think a suite of changes would need to come at once and in different avenues. I think we need some major campaign reform - there needs to be some way of making the playing field more even for all candidates. The American people should be able to learn about candidates who can't afford hundreds of millions of dollars in their campaign fund. Also, the politicians who do get in power are really and truly accountable to the people who voted them in, instead of to contributors to their campaign fund.
I think the supreme court needs to reverse their 5-4 Citizens United vs FEC decision in which they declared corporations as 'people' and called spending money 'free speech'. Corporations are not people, do not vote in this country, do not get representation in this government and cannot be held accountable to their actions - you can't put a corporation in jail (and CEOs and shareholders have limited liability). This change would affect campaign contributions as well as as a host of other indirect effects that came from affording a for-profit corporation protection under the Bill of Rights. And I can't understand how declaring money as a 'free speech' implies anything other than 'some people should have more free speech than other people'.
I believe that after these two changes, slowly over time the American government would be fundamentally different. Politicians would be free to act on behalf of their constituents and they would be held accountable to the voters instead of the financiers. But, if I can be allowed a little more indulgence - this gradual change might take too long and I think a few immediate changes could take affect. These changes would be to laws that were created by those legislators who were indebted to wealthy people and wealth corporations.
The suite of changes should include closing corporate tax loopholes and expenditures and getting rid of tax cuts for the wealthy. Like I said, I think free-thinking politicians would eventually make these changes, but I thought I would mention some other changes that would to level the playing field in America and return the power of this incredible country back to the people, where it belongs.
Wow, thanks for this interview - I'm going to go home, pick up my sleeping bag and head down to Liberty Plaza.
What a coincidence, Im going there myself - I can give you a ride.
--
Thanks for reading, feel free to comment (respectfully, of course) your feedback, questions, etc. This is an ongoing dialogue and every single person (that is, human being) has a voice and a place at the table.
Feel free to quote from or post this article if you feel it could add to the conversation somehow. Or, better yet, jot down your own thoughts and put them out there.
- Mark
I've had a lot of conversation about OccupyWallSt over the past three weeks: with fellow occupiers, with police officers, new yorkers passing by Liberty Plaza, my wife, my parents, my siblings and my friends. And since dialogue is such an important part of the movement (both in practice and in principle) - Im going to going use the format of 'question and answer' or a dialogue to explain why I occupied Wall St and why I think others are doing it. Just to be clear, this is not a transcript of a real conversation, the italic speaker is also me.
Hey, I overheard you talking about that protest on Wall St - whats going on over there?
Well, theres a large group of people forming a movement called OccupyWall St and they've been camping out in a private park called Zuccotti Park (previously named and more recently renamed Liberty Plaza). The park was the closest space they could take to Wall St, which was barricaded by police before the event even started. Since before day 1, other Occupy events have popped up all over the United State and abroad - some are in full effect (like OccupyBoston, OccupySF, OccupyChicago) and many are in planning (OccupyNJ, OccupyPhilly, etc). 66 locations and counting.
Oh, who are they? and why are they there?
The movement is made up of a frequently-shifting group of organizers who were not previously part of one organization that created this event. It was thought up and announced by a Canadian magazine called Adbusters, which is ad-free, user generated and covers issues ranging from anti-globalization to corporate advertising. The magazine, as far as I know, has had no other involvement - the event took on a life of its own. An important group of organizers belong to the NYCGA (General Assembly) - which you can learn about here, they help facilitate group meetings.
The general group is huge variety of people (and I'll use overly simplified labels to categorize us). The movement is made up of left-leaning activists, students, academics, veterans, senior citizens (shout out to the Granny Peace Brigade), unemployed people, union workers, etc. Another way of saying it: people that are pissed.
Which is a great transition into why we are here. We are occupying, most generally and all-encompassingly, because we are not happy with the current financial/political/social situation in America and abroad. A little more specifically, we feel taken advantage of, or hoodwinked in some way, and want to express that frustration. I will, of course, get more specific but I first want to say that the more specific I get about the reason for OccupyWallSt, the more likely I am to exclude someone participating. Many people feel angry about the 2008 financial crisis and the bailout - this is a major theme at the event. Many people (and I) feel angry about the influence of money in our political system and feel that corporate campaign contributions (ranging into the tens of millions) will ALWAYS create laws that bias those contributors - which means our political system becomes much less of a democracy and more of a oligarchy or corporatacracy (Yes, I made that word up). I don't mean that as enflamed, meaningless political rhetoric, I mean literally that our politicians no longer represent the people they seem to, but actually only a small group of wealth contributors (including corporations).
Now, I do honestly believe that the majority of the movement would give a thumbs-up to the statements I just made. Certainly some people would not agree it, and many many people would have a particular issue or solution they feel strongly. The issues include the right to unionize, gender discrimination, homelessness, student loans, the mortgage and investment banking industry, etc. The solutions include some concrete and immediately possible (like re-instituting the Glass-Steagall Act), to more abstract and cerebral (a global shift in consciousness to value people ahead of profits) and the more bold and extreme (end the Federal Reserve). Instead of making judgements on this huge range of ideas, I'll say this: there is another goal adopted by many members of the movement that has already been realized. That is the creation of a space that is a microcosm of the world they wish to live in - much aligned with Ghandi's famous charge to "be the change you want to see in the world". This world they created has free expression in political discourse, music and art, it is not hierarchical in nature and make decisions by consensus and direct democracy. To some, creating this space is, in and of itself, an end.
Lastly, the most basic and widely realized goal of this movement is to create dialogue in the public sphere. Open, thoughtful, respectful and empassioned conversation is the most immediate and effective goal of this movement, (fine, I'll say it once:) in my opinion.
Ok - well some of that sounds crazy or weird to me, but I agree with the parts about corporate influence over politicians - but, come on - do you really thing anything can be done about the corporations? They run this show, everyone knows that - they are too big.
This I've heard a lot. After all, wanting a government that is more responsive to its people is not really red state or blue state specific. It reminds a lot of people of Tea Party talk, actually. Despite the general notion that 'wealthy people' and 'wealthy companies' are Republican - I think that corporate influence is not right or left wing. They certainly donate to legislators across the aisle and expect back-scratching from both in return. More importantly, the issues that they might 'encourage' their contribution-recipients to support are not always going to be right or left either. Corporations seek to protect profit - thats all. So unless you are a CEO, stockholder, or contribution-recipient there is a good chance you find some truth in these claims and frustrations. As far as 'too big to fail'? In the last few months, we've seen protests that started like this topple dictators and produce actual political revolutions. This country was started, the Tea Party reminds us, by revolutionaries fighting an all-powerful and god-ordained king. 'Too big to fail' is nothing more than a self-fulfilling attitude.
Ok, Im not sure I share your optimism, but I respect it. But lets talk nuts and bolts here: what does this OccupyWallStreet group want? What is your ONE demand?
The million dollar question right there. First let me explain a little bit of history on the beginning of OccupyWallSt. Adbusters, in their initial call to action, stated not much more than 'occupy Wall St' and 'We will state our ONE demand' - not saying what it was. And just to remind you, Adbusters did not actually create this movement of people, they are not actively involved in this movement in anyway and the OccupyWallSt is being run by the body of individuals that make it up. It seems clear that to me that people have largely rejected this 'ONE demand' approach. It is over simplifying, at its best, and would be group-splintering at its worst. At some point in the very beginning of the organizing for this event (or maybe from its inception), a decisions was made that the entire body of the movement would be deciding this key issue together and by consensus -
Wait - you mean you expect this group of hundred or thousands of individuals to make this decision all together and decide unanimously?
That is the goal and, yes, it is a lofty one. The general assembly process is slow and frustrating. Direct democracy takes time and patience and respect for each other (even those you disagree with - how radical in this country!). This made me immediately remember a lesson I learned in my US constitution class in high school:
The founding fathers of our government built a system of government that was slow ON PURPOSE. In order to temper the intense passions that humans are prone to, laws must pass get approval in both houses of Congress and get signed in by the president - the whole system subject to checks and balances along the way.Slow on purpose is a hard concept to grasp, but it makes a lot of sense - especially seeing it in action. For example, one person gets up and makes a rousing speech encouraging an anti-police action and gets a moderate applause - but the general assembly process allows for people to get up and speak in response, one at a time, with the attention of everyone and it becomes clear that the crowd does not actually support the action - only the sentiment of feeling betrayed by the police officers. Mob-mentality does not win ou, calm is restored and the (long) debate continues about whether or not to pass a certain resolution.
[Paraphrased from Alan Brodman, former lawyer and teacher at East Brunswick High School, NJ]
Ok, I understand the process and the reason for rejecting one demand rhetoric, but what does this group want? They are making so much noise and getting media attention - don't you have a message?
Well, occupywallst.org is updated daily, especially if the GA has passed any statements or press releases. This is a good place to read up on past statements. Some of them are full of activist jargon, others are vague - but it seems like from the Day 1, each statement is more specific and the group is making progress - slowly, but thats okay. And, just because we can't sum it up in four words to fit on a New York Times headline - doesn't mean we don't know why we are here. Intelligent and productive discourse is still valued in some places in America. Maybe not in Congress or on our mainstream news channels - but in Liberty Square it still is.
Ok, so you've talked a lot about the group in general, but what about you? Why are you participating? What do you want?
Well, thanks for asking - as I mentioned briefly or hinted at above, I'm angry about the influence of big money on our government and the types of laws it passes. And I'd place myself into the pragmatist camp of the group - I believe there are real and concrete changes that could take place in our political and financial systems that would make a big difference. And these may be optimistic, but I don't think they are totally unrealistic. I think a suite of changes would need to come at once and in different avenues. I think we need some major campaign reform - there needs to be some way of making the playing field more even for all candidates. The American people should be able to learn about candidates who can't afford hundreds of millions of dollars in their campaign fund. Also, the politicians who do get in power are really and truly accountable to the people who voted them in, instead of to contributors to their campaign fund.
I think the supreme court needs to reverse their 5-4 Citizens United vs FEC decision in which they declared corporations as 'people' and called spending money 'free speech'. Corporations are not people, do not vote in this country, do not get representation in this government and cannot be held accountable to their actions - you can't put a corporation in jail (and CEOs and shareholders have limited liability). This change would affect campaign contributions as well as as a host of other indirect effects that came from affording a for-profit corporation protection under the Bill of Rights. And I can't understand how declaring money as a 'free speech' implies anything other than 'some people should have more free speech than other people'.
I believe that after these two changes, slowly over time the American government would be fundamentally different. Politicians would be free to act on behalf of their constituents and they would be held accountable to the voters instead of the financiers. But, if I can be allowed a little more indulgence - this gradual change might take too long and I think a few immediate changes could take affect. These changes would be to laws that were created by those legislators who were indebted to wealthy people and wealth corporations.
The suite of changes should include closing corporate tax loopholes and expenditures and getting rid of tax cuts for the wealthy. Like I said, I think free-thinking politicians would eventually make these changes, but I thought I would mention some other changes that would to level the playing field in America and return the power of this incredible country back to the people, where it belongs.
Wow, thanks for this interview - I'm going to go home, pick up my sleeping bag and head down to Liberty Plaza.
What a coincidence, Im going there myself - I can give you a ride.
--
Thanks for reading, feel free to comment (respectfully, of course) your feedback, questions, etc. This is an ongoing dialogue and every single person (that is, human being) has a voice and a place at the table.
Feel free to quote from or post this article if you feel it could add to the conversation somehow. Or, better yet, jot down your own thoughts and put them out there.
- Mark
Lets broaden these horizons a bit
I decided to re-resurrect this blog and try to use it as a space not only for my artistic ideas and projects, but my general thoughts on a range of issues. I've spend the last three weekends at #OccupyWallStreet and so many of my initial posts will probably be about the event and the issues surrounding it, but hopefully I'll keep up the writing. I've been really researching and trying to learn about issues that pretty new to me: the economy, banks, wall street, the 2008 crisis and bail out, campaign finance reform, campaign contributions, etc etc. Indirectly related, I've also been inspired to try and get back to creative projects and art-making, and will still use this blog for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)