Occupy Martin Luther King's Birthday .. an Occupy oriented candle-light vigil on Jan 15 2012 honoring Dr. King

How does a global scale leader-less open source no owners movement coordinate a global call for action on a given day?  Say if there is an interest in organizing a global candle-light vigil on Martin Luther King's birthday (Jan 15) how do all the individual branch organizations individually and collectively decide to take part?  Why, someone organizes a conference call, organizes one or two events in their own city, then sends out tweets announcing the conference call, and enrolling the people who show up on the call.

Here I am, I just got off a conference call organizing a global candle-light vigil honoring Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday on Jan 15, 2012 and I'm super excited about the vision and wishing to tell people about this thing.

First, it's very simple.  Candles.. people.. a place to gather at 7pm local time on Jan 15, 2012 .. that's the basic ingredients.  The rest is up to individual groups, in that they pick out locations that make sense for them, they pick out activities to do during the vigil that makes sense for their location, etc.

For example in the call I just listened to, a group in Cincinnati spoke up saying they have sites in Cincinnati related to the Underground Railroad (the path for freedom for black slaves in the early 1800's) and that's the location they're planning to use for their version of the candle-light vigil.  Cool.

A question stated related to this is -- if Martin  Luther King were still alive today and Occupy Wall Street were going on, what would he do?  Why, he'd be there with the Occupy movement, right?  He spoke at length numerous times about economic and social justice, which are the core items of concern in the Occupy movement.

Another aspect of this event is the Occupy movement itself demonstrating it can still organize events even though it's winter-time and most of the encampments have been shut down.

The place(s) to find out more are:-

http://www.j15global.com/

https://twitter.com/#!/J15global

https://www.facebook.com/J15global

You'll notice the theme - J15Global - J15 meaning Jan 15, and Global meaning, well, a global scope and reach to the event.  Their vision is to have a world-wide series of actions around the world as each time-zone hits 7pm local time on Jan 15. 

3 Things That Must Happen for Us To Rise Up and Defeat the Corporatocracy

I'm cleaning out the posts I'd star'd in Google Reader and came across this one from last August.  Yes.  August.  Anyway it's a thought piece outlining what "we" need to do to "defeat corporatocracy" given that we are pitiful weak individuated citizens.  It's an interesting read given what's happened since August, namely the campout in Zucotti Park that sparked the Occupy movement.  Especially as the Occupy movement is all about the pitiful weak individuated citizens coming together to join forces to in part defeat corporatocracy.

The article starts with this assertion, using these three points as the outline for the discussion

Transforming the United States into something closer to a democracy requires: 1) knowledge of how we are getting screwed; 2) pragmatic tactics, strategies, and solutions; and 3) the “energy to do battle.” 

Followed by

The majority of Americans oppose the corporatocracy (rule by giant corporations, the extremely wealthy elite, and corporate-collaborator government officials); however, many of us have given up hope that this tyranny can be defeated.

I suppose this is the first "HUH" piece of this, because isn't the U.S. supposed to be a Democracy anyway?  Well, our government is actually a Republic.  Remember in the Oath, "... and the Republic for which it stands ..."?  

In any case the first step ("knowledge of how we are getting screwed") just strikes me as the first step in a 12-step program, where you first have to admit that you're addicted to the thing.  In this case we have to collectively admit that we're collectively addicted to an unsustainable unhealthy undemocratic society and way of life.

Harriet Tubman (the pre-Civil-War activist who freed a thousand or more slaves) is quoted saying “I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.”  Amen, sister, if only more people in the U.S. would admit just how deeply controlled we are.  I do object however to applying the word 'slave' to us.  I don't know what the correct word is, but I disagree that the correct word is "slave".

It is true that we are "... ruled by so many 'industrial complexes'—military, financial, energy, food, pharmaceutical, prison, and so on" and that the control (rule) is so insidious and ubiquitous that it's difficult for us to truly see the depth of control.  There are many decisions being made by corporations that are out of the hands of anybody but the corporations.  Governments have been rendered ineffective in their role of oversight over corporate behavior.

"it is also necessary to have knowledge of strategies and tactics that oppressed people have historically used to overcome tyranny and to gain their fair share of power."   

I suppose what the article says here is that it's useful to have examples of successful revolutions so that we have a glimmer of hope that we, Americans, can throw off the chains of these corporate overlords?

The final point, "the energy to do battle", is especially apt considering the lengths to which the Occupy groups have gone, and the Police have gone to undermine the Occupy groups.  Several months of camping out full time is not cheap and requires extreme levels of commitment.  At the same time the role of the Police is to maintain order, and in many ways it can be said that an Occupy encampment is not exactly order.  Or it can be said that the Police are being used as a tool of the corporatocracy to keep the rest of us from gaining any measure of real freedom.

The issues are deeply entrenched and insidiously ubiquitous in our society.  To address the issues in any meaningful way will mean a long, very long, perhaps 10 years if we're lucky, process of continual work.


3 Things That Must Happen for Us To Rise Up and Defeat the Corporatocracy

Occupy Portland gets mired in (successful) military tactics, losing sight of the goal of fixing our society

A couple weeks ago Occupy Portland spontaneously developed a riot defense tactic that they're proud of.  They'd set up an encampment, got "cleared" out of the park where they set up camp, then by using the tactic they developed in the moment, they were able to retake and keep the encampment in the park from which they'd just been cleared.  The blog post linked below discusses military tactics in general, the specific tactic they developed.

The people in that group are rightfully proud of themselves.  Reportedly they developed the tactic, in the moment, using the direct horizontal democracy process (e.g. I suppose someone yelled MIC CHECK then proposed LET'S MARCH THIS WAY) to develop the tactic.  They were able to avoid getting into actual conflict with Portland's riot police.  They were able to make quite a showing in downtown Portland.  And they were able to retake the park.  In terms of military tactics, this is clearly a success.

However is it good strategically.  Note that I'm two paragraphs into this post and haven't mentioned anything about the message Occupy in general is bringing to our society.  Instead it has so far been about military tactics.  The blog post linked below spends nearly 10 paragraphs talking about small unit infantry military tactics (riot police are heavy infantry, the officers behind the front line firing bean bags and other non-lethal weapons are light infantry) before getting to describing the actual tactic.  Nowhere in the blog post did the writer discuss how these tactics do or don't further the goal of fixing our society.  Instead it's all about whether or not a group of people can continue camping out in a city park.

What are the Occupy groups about?  What is the purpose of this movement?  Why are people taking part in the Occupy protests?  Are they camping out because they like camping?  In the midst of developing tactics to maintain an encampment, have the participants lost sight of the goal?

Our society is in deep trouble, and there are deep serious problems at hand.  These problems need  attention. 

Occupy Portland Outsmarts Police, Creating Blueprint for Other Occupations

Do we let abandoned buildings rot while our people are homeless and unemployed?

I woke up this morning thinking about the stereotype of The Bronx, the abandoned tenement buildings with abject poverty, homeless people everywhere, squatters in the abandoned buildings, and so on. My girlfriend lives in a part of the Bronx that doesn't fit this stereotype, so it's nice to know the Bronx is not entirely a destroyed city full of abject poverty and abandoned buildings. At the same time many cities have many abandoned buildings tying up properties which could be put to productive use.

The current phase of US history we have lots of unemployed people, presumably a growing homeless population, housing foreclosures happening at a rapid pace, and hence lots of empty buildings.

The housing bubble a few years ago involved building too many homes and buildings, and selling them to people under shady mortgage situations, and in some cases to people who didn't have the proper financial wherewithall to be buying a house.  This meant vast swaths of mortgage fraud, people forced out of homes, home foreclosures, and so on.  I have not seen it with my own eyes, but understand their are plenty of U.S. cities with huge numbers of foreclosed-upon unoccupied properties.


We don't yet know what will happen in those areas with many newly empty buildings.  Will they go like the other areas with lots of empty buildings, and become slum lands?   Will the economy recover and people start returning to those areas?  Or will they crumble in the wind?  Whatever will eventually come of those places, we do know one thing. They are a missallocation of resources.


On the one hand we have abandoned buildings, and on the other hand we have homeless people.

One thing going on is groups who are aiding people in fighting against foreclosures on their homes.  Coincidentally Rachel Maddow had a piece on her show about this last night.  The Occupy groups are in some cases "Occupying" the homes of people threatened with foreclosure and eviction, and in some cases winning against the banks.  There are also groups who've been doing this work for a long time, and Maddow interviewed one of them (see below).

The other thing going on is a discussion of matching up homeless people with abandoned buildings.  But there is an issue of ownership.  The owner of an abandoned building probably isn't interested in having their building become a homeless shelter.  At the same time a building where the owner has abandoned the building, it has no occupants, it is not being maintained, etc. shouldn't there be a procedure where such properties can be taken away from the owner and turned to positive use?  Should a property owner who is exercising no control over a property retain the right of ownership of that property?

The following perhaps proves that I don't know how to write laws, and proves how difficult it is to write a law that specifically identifies a specific class of properties. In any case this attempts to precisely describe the class of unnocupied unmaintained buildings, and create a process where those properties will be put to use.

What should happen to abandoned land and buildings?  What is the extent of "property owners rights"?   Should a property owner be required to maintain some control or make use of their property?

In the macro-economics scheme any unused property is an under-utilized asset.  Should society step in and steer under-utilized assets to being utilized?

PROPOSAL

Land and property owners of unoccupied properties, within the boundaries of an incorporated city, are required to maintain their properties, and if not ownership of the property reverts to the local government.

• this section applies to land or properties within the boundary of an incorporated town, village, or city
• this section applies to such land or properties which has no occupants
• by property and properties, we mean buildings such as homes, apartments, duplexes, office buildings, retail buildings, factories, warehouses, etc
• an occupied property includes one or more of the following conditions
• the actual owner of the property (or agent) lives in the property, or visits it regularly. For an example, the owner might retain a security company to have someone patrol the property
• a renter or lease holder who has contractual rights to the property lives there or otherwise appropriately uses it regurlarly
• maintaining the property includes one or more of these actions
• for property that is simply land (no buildings) the requirements are minimal
• if the property is occupied as set forth in the previous section, this law does not apply perhaps, but what about buildings with renters where the landlord does nothing to maintain the building?
• ensuring the building stays in working order
• painting, landscaping upkeep, and other routine duties
• when these conditions are met (no occupants, no maintenance) then the building and it's land becomes owned by the incorporated city whithin whose boundries this property is The city is required to place these properties for sale or otherwise set forth a plan to put the properties to use with occupants and maintenance.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Grace Lee Boggs: You Have a Chance To Change The System

Wise words for our current times from 96 year-old Detroit based radical activist Grace Lee Boggs, whose seven decades of political involvement encompass the major U.S. social movements of the past hundred years. Grace was involved in extensive Civil Rights and Black Power Movement activism in Detroit in partnership with husband and black autoworker, James Boggs (1919-93) and together they founded the Boggs Center to nurture and devolop community leaders. Grace speaks her wisdom from the heart and highlights the potential for transformation during these revolutionary times and the #occupy movement.

More Info:
graceleeboggs.com
boggscenter.org
throwawaysmovie.com
occupywallst.org



Grace Lee Boggs: You Have a Chance To Change The System from Bhawin Suchak on Vimeo.

Why the Occupy movement should avoid getting pinned down with specific goals or specific demands

A critique of the Occupy movement is that besides being leaderless, they don't stand for anything. They don't have a list of 10 demands (or whatever) that helps us understand what the movement is about. Supposedly this makes them weak minded or something.

In a meeting last night between Occupy groups in Silicon Valley, Transition Silicon Valley, and Transition Palo Alto, a very cogent apt thoughtful idea came up.

That the issues being worked on through both the Occupy and Transition Town movements are very broad in a wholistic sense. We are wholistic movements, looking at the whole system and saying the whole thing needs to be fixed.

With that observation the next thought is: If we get pinned down to any number of specific demands, that we'd stop being "The 99%" but we'd be "The 10%" or "The 23%" or something.

Why?

It is very simple. People focused on peak oil (like I am) is maybe 5%; People focused on the fair treatment of left handed SouzaPhone players are .5%; People focused on climate change and greenhouse gasses are 11.2%; etc

I'm making up numbers here .. but I think you get the point. That each specific issue is attractive to the minority that's passionate about that issue.

If we were forced to focus on a specific demand, it would limit the movement to those passionate about that specific demand. Note that I'm talking a little loosely, containing both Occupy and Transition in this even though Transition isn't properly speaking a political movement. In any case focusing on a specific demand (or 10 specific demands or whatever) would be a trap to divide us up and limit our power.

Maybe this is a known ploy by political operatives that acts to limit the power of populist uprisings. Forcing the uprising to a specific list of demands would be a way to divide the population against itself, limiting the effectiveness of the uprising.

The lost generation that knows it can change our society for the better

This video came out a couple years ago, and was part of an AARP contest in which it won second place.  I just came across it again and think it's really appropos to the OccupyEverywhere events going on right now. 

Basically - there's are societal memes that would say we're stuck, that we can't change things in any appreciable way, that we just have to put up with whatever lumps life knocks us over the head with.

Some of us do not accept those limitations.  Some of us know we can live a different way, live a better life, live the life of our choosing.  I believe, ideally, the Occupy folk are doing their best right now to reinvent some things.

Lobbying Firm's Memo Spells Out Plan to Undermine Occupy Wall Street

An exclusive report from Up With Chris Hayes exposes a lobbying firm pitching to the American Banking Association that the Occupy movement is dangerous, which must be killed in order for the Bankers to be safe.

The piece concerns a proposal written on the letterhead of the lobbying firm Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford and addressed to one of CLGC’s clients, the American Bankers Association.  The proposal (linked below) is pretty damning evidence of how worried officialdom is about the Occupy movement, and some of the strategizing.  The proposal theorizes that the Obama campaign might attempt to join forces with the Occupy movement if Wall Street gets tarnished badly enough.  It also suggests some Republicans might do so as well if the tarnishing gets bad enough.  Never mind that all politicians are tainted with receiving huge sums from Wall Street.

The vision is that Occupy and Tea Party overlap in terms of being angered populist movements.  The radical left and radical right are both channeling frustration about the economy into political action.  Somehow in some weird parallel universe the two movements might join together to do something traumatic to Wall Street.  At least that's the story GLGC spins to the Bankers.

Their proposal outlines some actions:-  Polling in some key states (Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Nevada, and New Mexico) which are both states that Obama won, and states facing key issues in front of the electorate right now.  For example, Nevada is described as "ground zero for the foreclosure crisis".

Next they'd do "opposition research" looking for the financial backers of the Occupy movement, presuming that there are deep pockets people like George Soros behind this.  The idea will be to show these backers have "the same cynical motivation as a political opponent" to undermine the Occupy movement credibility.  Maybe at this point they're showing a profound misunderstanding of what's going on?

Social media monitoring to anticipate future Occupy actions and messaging, as well as "identify extreme language and ideas that put its most ardent supporters at odds with mainstream Americans."

Coalition planning activities would demonstrate that the companies targeted by Occupy still have political strength and that making those companies into political targets will carry political risk.

The ultimate deliverable is identifying messages that will "move numbers" (polling numbers), combat Occupy messages, and "provide cover for political figures who defend the industry."

As Chris Hayes points out, two of the names on the proposal are former staffers of Speaker of the House John Boehner.  

They also had an Obama campaign spokesperson on, Anita Dunn, to discuss this.  One critique of the Obama campaign is that they've taken a huge pile of campaign contributions from Wall Street, so doesn't that tarnish the campaign?  Ms. Dunn replied, sidestepping the question, that the majority of their contributions are small ones from individuals.  Didn't really answer the question.  She also said that the tough financial reforms against Wall Street were won by the Obama Administration, demonstrating that Obama isn't in the pocket of Wall Street.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Exclusive: Lobbying Firm's Memo Spells Out Plan to Undermine Occupy Wall Street (VIDEO)

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/CLGF-msnbc.pdf

Obama Campaign Responds to "Up" Exclusive on Lobbyist Plan to Take Down Occupy Wall Street

Police Captain Ray Lewis is Up with Chris Hayes to discuss the role of Police in Occupy protests, and the potential for Police to become Mercenaries for the Rich

Retired Philadelphia police Captain Ray Lewis was arrested on Thursday at the Occupy Wall Street protest.  Today he was on Up With Chris Hayes to explain his arrest, his stand, the role of police in situation and even the role of the police hierarchy to keep police violence in check.  He had retired over 8 years ago and was living what he described as a "Walden Pond" existence of solitude in the Catskills Mountains.  Except that he had become involved in hydraulic fracturing activism, so it's not like he was having a life of total simplicity.  Instead he would have been getting aware of the wrongness being committed upon our people, and when he saw the Occupy movement start he knew he had to get involved.

As a retired Police Captain being arrested by NYPD's finest, that's great symbolism.

He had some most interesting things to say about the role of Police Hierarchy in dealing with situations like this.  He said you always have "white shirts" (supervisors) overseeing the situation to reign in the tendency for fighting to erupt.  That is, we have an innate "fight/flight" reflex and the job of police officers requires they cannot engage in "flight" so therefore they tend to engage in "fight".  The "white shirts" are there to keep that fight tendency in check.  But what we've seen in the response to the Occupy protests, says Capt Lewis, is that the white shirts (supervisors) are engaging in the fight, and that therefore we have anarchy.

He says he'd been carrying a sign that got misinterpreted.  The sign read "NYPD don't be mercenaries for the 1%" but he didn't want to say that NYPD is currently mercenarying for the billionaires, but calling on them to not BECOME mercenaries.

There is a critique of police activity that the police is acting to protect the billionaires from the protest movement.  When they do, that would make them "mercenaries for the 1%". 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Occupy Wall Street: Robert Greenwald and Ed Schultz Discuss the Media Spin

Robert Greenwald, director of movies such as Outfoxed (showcasing Fox News' pattern of lies and deception) and Iraq For Sale (showcasing the military industrial complex), is working on a new project - WhoAreThe1Percent.com.  Greenwald was on The Ed Show recently to discuss who the "1 percent" is, and their project.

The idea is to NAME who the "1%" are, those ultra-rich who are gaming the system to squash everyone else.

A key core item to remain focused on .. money in politics?

Supposedly the Occupy movement is going to fail because it isn't focusing on a coherent set of demands.  I think it would be a mistake to focus on one small set of demands, because the real problem with the system is comprehensive, it's built into the design of the system, and the system is fundamentally flawed on many levels.  I also think the people of the Occupy movement know this.

I found this video claiming, however, that we need to "focus on ONE demand", on the CORE problem.  It then replays an amazing rant by Dylan Ratigan about the corrupt system, and the "extraction" of trillions of dollars from America going on.  I've posted this video before, it's an amazing rant.

But does that mean the ONE DEMAND of the Occupy movement should be to take money out of politics?  I agree that's an important goal, but should it be the single sole solitary goal?

Charles Eisenstein on Occupy Wall St as the The Revolution of Love

"You can't evict an idea whose time has come".  The Occupy message is so compelling that it's catching everyone's attention.  But, says Charles Eisenstein says, the movement can't be about defeating the 1%.  That is, we had better not end this with a bloodbath of the rich.  If that's how it ends up, well, we've seen that story before.  For example the French Royalty was killed off in the late 1700's, to be replaced by revolutionaries who then begetted a dictatorial government run by Napoleon who then waged war across Europe.  Defeating the 1% would mean the 99% would create a new 1% who would go back to committing the same sins our current 1% are responsible for.

The more beautiful world our hearts tell us is possible, he says, is a more sacred world.  One where the relationships are healing to each other.  For example at its root the exchange of money, he says, is a way of erasing the human element in commerce.  It means that if the food seller gets sick and can no longer produce food, your money can simply go to another food seller.  But if you're in a real relationship with your food provider you might go to their aid when they get sick.

The current world of political discourse doesn't allow for an end goal that would erode the current capitalistic system.  That's why the Police are being deployed to crush the movement.

The current world of political discourse sees its job as preserving the status quo.  Preserving the way things are, even if that way is harmful to us all. 

What the 99 Percent Are Fighting For: Three Reasons There Are Two Americas

Nice video posted by an activist group attempting to demonstrate what "the 99%" are fighting for.  Their discussion focuses on the growing inequality - the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is getting nothing.  Supposedly.  It's a claim presented with little in the way of proof, though they do cite measurements that the median income is falling.

In one scene the people at a rally are chanting "we are the 99%" and it sounds like a great rallying cry. That is, until you think of it as an affirmation.  That statement is one which affirms a given status, and supports the belief in division between 99%/1%.

The 99 Percent Movement is spreading, and their gripes are legitimate. How did we get to a place where the richest 1 percent of Americans control 40 percent of the country's wealth, own 50 percent of U.S.-owned stocks and bonds, and earn 24 percent of total income? Where the middle class is shrinking, to the point that the share of income going to the middle 60 percent of Americans fell five percentage points in the last 30 years. And where many millionaires pay less in taxes than their employees? In this video, the Center for American Progress identifies three factors that contributed to the creation of two Americas, one for the top 1% and one for the rest of us.

 

<iframe width="399" height="203" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6NPUBeo7ClY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Some wealthy people of the 1% are standing with the 99 percent…?

As noted below - a group of wealthy folk have launched a joint blog on tumblr (we were once a proud people who still had vowels) to present a message that some of the rich and wealthy are in support of the 99%.

The 99%/1% meme is part of the Occupy Wall Street protests that have been sweeping the world.  As a meme it's very attractive and goes right to the core of inequality and the disproportionate power that some have gathered to themselves.  But, does that automatically make all 1% folk evil?

Earlier I noted a report where Gingrich is making some political hay saying the 99%/1% meme is an instance of class warfare.  http://politics.7gen.com/2011/11/99-1-divisive-class-warfare-newt.html

Looking through the posts on the blog (see the links below) we see people - well, this is how I see it - I see people who are feeling unfairly maligned, and who want to essentially say that not all in the 1% are evil scum-buckets.

 

 

Wealthy People Show Support for Protests with new website: "We are the 1 percent. We stand with the 99 percent."

November 1, 2011

Washington DC – Resource Generation and Wealth for Common Good today announced a new website for wealthy people to show their support for the Occupy movement. Already over 100 members of “the 1 percent,” including young entrepreneurs, business owners and wealthy individuals, have posted their support on the new website “We are the 1 percent. We stand with the 99 percent.” (http://westandwiththe99percent.tumblr.com/)

“Those of us with more than we need and who believe in a more just distribution of resources can stand up and tell the truth about how the deck has been stacked in our favor. We need to say that we think it’s wrong too,” said Elspeth Gilmore, co-director of Resource Generation. “Just as the 99 percent has been a powerful rallying cry, the 1 percent has come to represent those who hold the majority of this country’s resources and have created—and benefited from—the financial and economic crises we now face. One hundred percent of us need a different world.”

Organizers were inspired by the “We are the 99 percent” blog that has been collecting the Occupy movement protester’s stories, and launched the parallel site We are the 1 percent, We stand with the 99 percent for wealthy people to join in, lend their voices and stand in solidarity with the protesters’ messages of challenging economic inequality and raising taxes on the wealthy.

Carl Schweser, founder of Schweser Study Program for the CFA (now called Kaplan Schweser), posted: “I made millions studying the math of mortgages and bonds and helping bankers pass the Chartered Financial Analyst Exam. It isn’t fair that I have retired in comfort after a career working with financial instruments while people who worked as nurses, teachers, soldiers, etc. are worried about paying for their future, their healthcare, and their children’s educations. They are the backbone of this country that allowed me to succeed. I am willing to pay more taxes so that everyone can look forward to a secure future like I do. I am the 1%. I stand with the 99%. (Which equals 100% of America.) Tax me.”

Farhad Ebrahimi, who has been involved in Occupy Boston says, “I have inherited an amount of money that is much more than I need. I AM THE 1%. My taxes are at a historical low, and the influence of money on our government is at a historical high. These are not good things! So what am I doing about it? (1) I am donating the vast majority of my money to social change organizations. (2) I am personally advocating for the repair of our broken system. I STAND WITH THE 99%. I am part of Occupy Boston. My money gives me no special influence here. That’s the way it should be.”

“When so many are struggling – to access healthcare, pay back their student loans, and make ends meet – the 1 percent has more than enough. Our networks include thousands of wealthy people who recognize our economy is out of balance and that wealthy people should pay more for the common good. It’s in the self-interest of the 1 percent to have a society that works all of us, and we anticipate many more will join us,” said Alison Goldberg, Coordinator of Wealth for Common Good.

# # #

Resource Generation organizes young people with wealth to leverage resources and privilege for social change and is a co-sponsor of the site along with Wealth for Common Good, a network of wealthy individuals and business leaders speaking out for fair taxation.

99%? 1%? Divisive? Class warfare? Newt Gingrich says so, but maybe that's the pot calling the kettle black?

I had a conversation this morning about how the "we are the 99% fighting the 1%" mantra of the Occupy Wall Street movement is itself a divisive idea.  It's pitting one group against another group.  It's a demonization of rich people.  It's painting reality with too-broad of a brush.  Just because someone is rich doesn't make them evil.  Not all corporations are evil.  Not all poor people are saintly.  The 99% meme is too simplistic, even though it's a very catchy idea.

The conversation went to developing a "we are the 100%" idea .. and searching for others discussing 100% I learned that Newt Gingrich discussed this exact idea in an interview with Larry Kudlow on Tuesday.  Okay, gag me with a spoon to find myself in agreement with Newt on anything.

“I am for 100 percent,” he said. “I think this idea of 99 percent and 1 percent is grotesque European socialist class warfare baloney.”  And President Obama is playing right along with that class warfare by expressing sympathy for the protesters, he added.  “I repudiate anybody who wants to divide Americans and I think that that there is a fundamental destructive quality to this 99 percent idea,” Gingrich said. “I think that it is shameful the president of the United States would engage in class warfare and pit Americans against each other in way which can only be destructive of the fabric of American society.”

See - while I somewhat agree with Newt's assessment, I believe he's using this meme to then slam Obama.  He's using a rhetorical/spin/twist to pivot from this idealism that 99%/1% is divisive, to then slam Obama for supposedly agreeing with the Occupy folk.

In other words - Newt himself is being divisive in that he's using this inclusive rhetoric as a weapon to slam someone.

Is the 99%/1% thing class warfare?  Maybe from the 1% perspective that Newt occupies it is.  Maybe he's feeling threatened.  Fact is that those 1% people are, well, people.

Gingrich: Idea of 99 Percent & 1 Percent is ‘Grotesque’

Master Teacher Calvin explains Occupy Wall Street - Is open revolt and exile is the only hope for Change?

Have a hard time understanding why there might be such a battle between Authority and the people in the street?  There's some ideas that only Master Teacher Calvin (of Calvin & Hobbes) can explain.

Our relationship with Authority isn't always pleasant.  Sometimes Authority drives us nuts and we want Change.  But what if Authority is unable/unwilling to change?  What if Authority denies us any means of change?  What if Authority denies us any meaningful method to change the conditions of our existence?   What then?

We don't pick our parents, right?  Can't vote them out of office etc.  Okay, some kids do things like divorce their parents but it's extremely rare.  What about in the adult world?  In modern western societies we pick the president and other leaders, right?  We can rally around a cause, vote, and choose leaders.

Or, do we?

The elections are rigged, many say, to favor attributes other than insightful leadership.  Getting media attention (or not) is life (or death) for Candidates.  Almost always the Candidates with media attention are the ones who raise the most money, not the ones with the best leadership ideas.  The distribution of money among politicians is not even, not based on best leadership ideas, etc.  The system favors candidates having pull with rich people/corporations, so they have enough money to get the attention of the media, so they have a chance of getting elected.

But that's just the political offices, how about other Authorities?  Heads of companies, or heads of most other large institutions - none of them are chosen openly.  They can't be voted out of office by normal people.  The CEO of a corporation, they're hired by the Board of Directors in a closed process way in the background.  It's the Elite choosing among the Elite to decide who will remain in positions of Authority.  That's the very definition of Oligarchy, right?

The Pope of the Catholic Church, and leadership of most other churches, are chosen the same way.  In a hidden process, behind closed doors, choosing from between existing elites ..etc..

What's the option?  We the people have no leverage over the leadership decisions of corporations.  Yet, Corporations have massive influence and control over everything that goes on in our supposedly open and free societies.  Who chooses the products in the stores?  Corporations.  Who chooses the production processes, the side effects (including toxic pollutions) from those processes, etc?  Corporations.  Government is supposedly in an oversight role over this but after a few decades of undermining and being weakened by deficit spending and growing government debt, the government is too weak to do much to reign in corporate power.

What's the option?  We live in a society that's supposedly free and open, but controlled by Elites who deny us any meaningful method to change the conditions of our existence.

What's the option?

 

Crusading state-level Attorneys General seeking to take down corrupt financial industry - Maddow

This week a major focus on Rachel Maddow's show is the corrupt financial industry that nearly killed the U.S. economy.  The deed was enabled by corrupt business practices that were in turn enabled by relaxed regulatory regime.  Largely speaking, even though many companies in the financial industry died, bankrupted, merged, etc, the people who committed the practices are often still employed in the same financial industry, and the regulatory system around them has changed very little.

As Maddow recounts, earlier in this decade a crusading NY Attorney General, Elliot Spitzer, took down several corrupt NYC financial industry titans.  That was before he went on to a prostitute scandal and a stint as a CNN host.  In her coverage this week she focused on two Attorneys General, Eric Schneiderman from New York and Beau Biden from Delaware.   One take-away from this is that Change can happen when bright people pursue a course of correcting wrongs, and use their position of power to enable change in the world.

Of course there is positive change and negative change.  Someone in a position of power can create a corrupt system, or work to remove corruption.  It depends on how they apply the power their position gives them.

These people who are in public service - ideally their job is serving the better interests of all.  Consider the Attorney General job.  It's about seeing justice is served, lawbreakers are found and punished, the law is applied in a just manner, etc.

But history is replete with people who used positions of power to instead feather their own nests, or work with cronies to feather each others nests, or create a regime of dictatorial control, or .. etc .. on and on ..  There have been plenty of Attorneys General who used their positions of power to hide corruption, to stonewall investigations, etc.  Again, it's a matter of how each individual uses their time in the position of power.

During the interviews below, Maddow asked Beau Biden (son of Vice President Biden) why these investigations are happening at the state level rather than the federal level.  Interesting question, and he answered that while there is a lot of state-level investigation, that it seems the state level investigators are cooperating, there is also federal level investigations.

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This starts a little slow with analysis of Republican advertisements, the poor pitiful state of Democratic advertisements .. etc ..  The segue point is a Democratic ad that really hits hard on the mortgage crisis corruption.   Almost half of Arizona home-owners are "under water" with foreclosures "everywhere" but Romney's message to Arizona is that he wants the mortgage crisis to "hit bottom" and that home-owners are on their own.

In other words - the banks (e.g. the rich 1%) got bailed out, while we the 99% get foreclosed.

Would it work to brush the corruption under the rug and ignore it?  The business-friendly Republicans want to brush this aside, but does this mean they think "business-friendly" means "corruption-friendly"?

A lot of the base raw feelings driving the Occupy protests is this exact issue.  Rampant financial corruption and corrupt practices.  Who is going to step up to the plate to correct this?  A minute ago I suggested that people in positions of political power have a choice, to use their power for the good of all, or to use their power to protect corrupt practices keeping the game going.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Later in the show they had Glenn Greenwald on to shill for his latest book, but this weaves into the same narrative.  This book, With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, "lays bare the mechanisms that have come to shield the elite from accountability" and "shows how the media, both political parties, and the courts have abetted a process that has produced torture, war crimes, domestic spying, and financial fraud".

The book has a chapter titled - Too Big To Jail - great meme.

Basically, he was there to talk about officially sanctioned corruption and the general pattern that the rich get away with things we little people would be in jail over.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In this segment Maddow shows, with numbers charted on a graph, the effect of the system.  Note that Greenwald identified a tipping point 40 years ago when Richard Nixon got pardoned, and by being pardoned started this "Too Big To Jail" precedent that's been used to let others get off with little or no punishment for misdeeds.

Here the graph shows how, upon the election of Ronald Reagan, the economic well-being of the 99% and 1% began to diverge.  The Rich got Richer far faster than the rest of us, creating an enormous gap in financial well-being.  Reagan did a lot to remove the regulatory system that had kept the financial system in check, keeping corruption out of finance.  One thing that enabled was for the rich to get richer, and it enabled the rampant corruption.

Oh, and this more-or-less proves how bogus were the "Trickle Down Economics" of the Reagan era.  We see right here that there's no trickle-down.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This is the segment where she talks about Elliot Spitzer in the period he was the crusading New York Attorney General, the role now held by Eric Schneiderman above.  The segment starts with a quote from the Chamber of Commerce complaining about Spitzers effectiveness.  From the Chamber of Commerce perspective we can imagine they saw Spitzer as a threat, but that just fits the meme where "business-friendly" really means "corruption-friendly" doesn't it?

Thanks to Spitzer, Wall Street was being "perp walked" for stuff they used to routinely get away with.

Sure, investments are not a sure thing and investors should certainly know this.  THe one thing investors deserve is honest advice.  Instead what they got was crap self serving advice that actively misled investors to investing in crap.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Immediately after the prior segment, we have Beau Biden (VP Biden's son) on to talk about what Delaware is doing.  Where Delaware enters the picture is jurisdiction.  Where Delaware is the preferred state to register corporations, those corporations are subject to accountability by Delaware's judicial system.

Beau Biden as the Delaware Attorney General has just launched a lawsuit against the entire mortgage industry.

The allegation is that in the mid 90's the banks privatized regulation of mortgage notes, so that mortgages could be securitized so that they can be traded on the open market.  A result of the securitization was that it's now nigh-on-impossible to determine who actually owns a given house, because the mortgage originator securitizes the mortgage to sell the mortgage securities on the market.

 

Occupy San Jose campers were warned a week ahead of time they would be fined and arrested

Earlier today I posted about how the Occupy San Jose group had gotten arrested this morning.  http://politics.7gen.com/2011/10/occupy-san-jose-arrested-on-friday.html It's not like the arrest was a surprise, they had been warned at least a week ahead of time.  The first two videos are local news coverage.  After those two videos is a series posted by the OccupySJ team and it is an interesting encapsulation of the protesters and their goals, of police who probably are in agreement with the protesters but have to enforce the law, and news media not quite representing the situation accurately.

 

 

And how about some videos from the Occupy San Jose group:-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KMO covers the Occupy Wall Street protest on the C-Realm podcast

The C-Realm podcast by KMO is almost always highly recommended by me.  His conversations are always intriguing and mind expanding (well, almost always), and episode 280: OWS – the Spark is among his top episodes.  He was traveling in New York and decided to drop by the Occupy Wall Street crowd in downtown NYC and got some amazing interview material with people in the street.  He then talked with Justin Ritchie, of the Extraenvironmentalist Podcast, to put the protests into an interesting context.

 

This text will be replaced

 

Occupy San Jose arrested on Friday morning and expected to remain in Jail until Tuesday

The Occupy San Jose protest was arrested in the wee hours of Friday, October 21.  Below is an email sent to the OSJ-Legal mailing list which they requested to have reposted widely.

The San Jose Mercury News published an article, San Jose: Eight Occupy Wall Street protesters arrested, one cited

San Jose police arrested eight Occupy Wall Street protesters and cited one man in a wheelchair early Friday for violating a city ordinance that forbids camping out on city property.

Sgt. Jason Dwyer said the arrests came about 3 a.m. near Fourth and Santa Clara streets at San Jose City Hall Plaza, where protesters have been complaining about corporate greed for more than a month as part of a nationwide movement.

… "Basically, this comes down to a sanitation issue," Dwyer said. "There is just a lot of trash and public urination and it can be very unsanitary."

The article goes on to quote Shaunn Cartwright disputing the characterization from the police

"There is no trash," she said. "We are very conscientious. I have personally picked up the trash myself. We take away all our trash and we recycle. We use the bathrooms of local businesses and we even clean those bathrooms because they've been so nice to us."

 

 

----- Original Message -----
*From:* Daniel Mayfield <mailto:Dan@...>
*Sent:* Friday, October 21, 2011 6:41 AM
*Subject:* [SBM] Occupy San Jose Busted 3:00 am Friday morning

See the below note from Tom on the OSJ legal team

At 3 am 8 police officers (on overtime?) and 5 police cars arrested and
transported to county jail the protestors outside city hall in San Jose

One person in a wheel chair was cited and released the others were all
taken to jail in apparent violation of PC 853.6(i)

More importantly all of their belongings were taken by the Police.
Because of cut backs the SJPD property room is not open until Tuesday

IF the individuals taken to the jail are not released from the jail (
and the DOC does a better job on releasing felons than they do for those
in on a misdemeanor) the they will have to stay in custody until at
least Monday and probably Tuesday.

This was clearly a coordinated well thought out plan. The day was picked
(Friday morning) on purpose and the confiscation of the food , money ,
tents, was no accident.

Please remember that the city has on at least two other occasions
allowed people to "occupy" the city plaza area where they have been in
agreement with the content of the protestors speech. Here since the city
was threatened by the content of the speech the city has chosen to
selectively enforce the ordinance.

theordinance itself is probably unconstitutional because it does not
contain a process for granting a waiver of the fees associated with free
speech rights

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS MESSAGE -- NOTE THIS IS NOT JUST BEING SENT TO
LAWYERS. MEDIA AND OTHER INTERESTED PEOPLE ARE INCLUDED. HENCE IT IS NOT
A SECURE LIST. LAWYERS INTERESTED IN WORKING ON THE CASE CONTACT ME OR
THE OSJ LEGAL TEAM AT MY OFFICE

Daniel M Mayfield
Carpenter and Mayfield
Phone (408) 287-1916. Fax (408) 287-9857

This message is for the intended recipient only. It is from the law
offices of CARPENTER AND MAYFIELD. Any interception, detection,
infection, inspection, hoodoo, voodoo, sneak and peak, or any other
unethical or unconstitutional spying on the part of the U.S. Department
of Justice, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, NSA, or any other alphabet
agency, is strictly prohibited. Violators will be prosecuted, punished,
and publicized. If you have received this email in error please destroy
it and let me know of my mistake.

Thank you for your cooperation

Begin forwarded message:

> *From:* Thomas Higgins <vetlaw@...
> <mailto:vetlaw@...>>
> *Date:* October 21, 2011 4:37:13 AM PDT
> *To:* osj-legal@...
> <mailto:osj-legal@...>
> *Subject:* *[OSJ--Legal] OSJ in jail*
> *Reply-To:* OSJ Legal Committee <osj-legal@...
> <mailto:osj-legal@...>>
>
> Cracker, Jerome, and about ten occupiers were arrested, placed into a
> paddy wagon, and transported to jail. Elaine and I are going to try to
> salvage the tents, etc.
> Legal may need to take further action re jail. Press.
> More later.
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSJ-Legal mailing list
> OSJ-Legal@...
> <mailto:OSJ-Legal@...>
> http://lists.collectorsforum.org/mailman/listinfo/osj-legal

Reposted from:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tpa_chat/message/66

http://lists.collectorsforum.org/pipermail/osj-legal/2011-October/000154.html