Is OccupyWallStreet failing?

Any number of political pundits have dismissed #OccupyWallStreet as a failure for a wide variety of reasons. Mytheos Holt (pseudonym?), a writer for the usually fairly intellectually honest if right leaning Frum Forum wrote a piece on Why the Wall Street Protests are Failing. On the face of it he argues that it is and will continue to be ineffectual while citing activist Saul Alinsky's keys to successful protest. Ironic coming from the right, but that's beside the point.

The point is that Mr. Holt and his compatriots among the establishment media are dead wrong. 

The protests have been more successful than most anyone believed possible. 

Remember, this whole thing started 18 days ago!

In 18 days the protesters have managed to accomplish:

• worldwide news coverage with the pepper-spray incident
• facetime with celebrities (Susan Sarandon, Russell Simmons), celebrity rabblerousers (Michael Moore), social activism intellectuals (Cornel West), politicians (Former NY Governor David Paterson), and media pundits (too many to name).
• the support of several large unions
• the largest mass arrest in New York City history
• 87,000+ facebook "likes"
• 38,000+ twitter followers
• blocked from trending on twitter (JP Morgan Chase recently invested $400M)
• coverage on almost every large media outlet 
• front page of the NY Times and several other big dailies
• 147 spin-off protests in cities throughout the United States
• a Boston protest group that's already had a 3,000 person march and several arrests
• a San Francisco group that is actually occupying bank property
• 28 spin-off protests in foreign countries on 3 continents

While their recent Declaration of the Occupation of New York City may read like a group-think classroom project and lacks the polish of some alternatives, such as FDR's proposed Worker's Bill of Rights, it also has some strong language including this gem: 

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. 

The list of proposed demands on their website is also a bit silly in parts, but it's a work in progress. However, if they want to be taken seriously and supported by a majority of Americans, they'll need to revise or eliminate demands such as:

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." 

That, of course, would be catastrophic for our economy and violate billions of legal contracts. So it's absurd on its face.  

In fairness, these are proposed demands written by a member of the movement. Not the demands the movement has actually chosen to support. They are using a voting system to accomplish that. Having now gone through the voting process, most of the demands garnering overwhelming support are reasonable expectations from a movement focusing on getting money out of politics, reining in invsetment banks, and reforming our government. Fortunately, debt forgiveness for all doesn't appear anywhere in the proposal. 

This is what direct democracy looks like. It's messy, sloppy, and full of equality. We, fortunately, live in a representative republic in which representatives air the issues rather than having every citizen vote on every issue. That would result in chaos and the tyranny of the majority. At some point the OccupyWallStreet protest will need to move beyond their horizontal leadership model if messages are going to coalesce and become more effective. But now is not that time. 

I look forward to watching this evolve. I hope they're successful. As a country, we need these issues resolved for our great experiment to flourish.  

Remember, it's only been 18 days. They don't need a firm message or set of demands yet. 

This is only the beginning. 

Corporations are people too?

Corporate Personhood is a pretty dry and obtuse subject, but it's fundamental to our broken government.

Legal scholars claim corporate personhood is required to allow corporations to enter into contracts, sue and be sued for contract violation, etc. It also simplifies tax collection from a snigle entity rather than from all persons within the corporation. All that makes sense.  

The US Supreme Court established corporate personhood in a ruling based on the 14th Amendment - an amendment that was supposed to apply to freed slaves after the Civil War. The Courts decided this concept of "personhood" could apply to corporations as well. Mystifying in retrospect. 

This metaphor of corporations as people has crept into our national consciousness (the danger of metaphors explained eloquently) and we are a weaker democracy for it. The right to free speech was granted to corporations. And campaign contributions were deemed speech - so now corporations can give enormous donations to political organizations. Far larger contributions than the average citizen can afford. 

And so corporate personhood has irrevocably corrupted our political process. All based on a metaphor. 

But Jon Stewart said something pretty enlightened the other day in an interview with Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (about the 1:35 mark). "As Mitt Romney would say, 'Corporations are people..." but they're not Americans."

And there you have it. The funadmental fallacy in the corporate personhood argument for free speech and corporate campaign financing. Corporations are not citizens of the United States. Corporations lack the right to vote. We prohibit foreign campaign contributions. Why then are corporations given outsized influence in our electoral process?

The answer, of course, is that they've already bought and paid for our government. Our president. Our representatives. Our Supreme Court. All are beholden to the powers of these corporate intersts.  

That needs to end now.  

Corporations are people too?

Corporate Personhood is a pretty dry and obtuse subject, but it's fundamental to our broken government.

Legal scholars claim corporate personhood is required to allow corporations to enter into contracts, sue and be sued for contract violation, etc. It also simplifies tax collection from a snigle entity rather than from all persons within the corporation. All that makes sense.  

The US Supreme Court established corporate personhood in a ruling based on the 14th Amendment - an amendment that was supposed to apply to freed slaves after the Civil War. The Courts decided this concept of "personhood" could apply to corporations as well. Mystifying in retrospect. 

This metaphor of corporations as people has crept into our national consciousness (the danger of metaphors explained eloquently) and we are a weaker democracy for it. The right to free speech was granted to corporations. And campaign contributions were deemed speech - so now corporations can give enormous donations to political organizations. Far larger contributions than the average citizen can afford. 

And so corporate personhood has irrevocably corrupted our political process. All based on a metaphor. 

But Jon Stewart said something pretty enlightened the other day in an interview with Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (about the 1:35 mark). "As Mitt Romney would say, 'Corporations are people..." but they're not Americans."

And there you have it. The funadmental fallacy in the corporate personhood argument for free speech and corporate campaign financing. Corporations are not citizens of the United States. Corporations lack the right to vote. We prohibit foreign campaign contributions. Why then are corporations given outsized influence in our electoral process?

The answer, of course, is that they've already bought and paid for our government. Our president. Our representatives. Our Supreme Court. All are beholden to the powers of these corporate intersts.  

That needs to end now.  

OccupyWallStreet - 9/24 @ University & 12th

I'm not sure how or when exactly, but I was made aware of the plan to occupy Wall Street sometime before last Saturday's occupation by a group simply calling itself #OccupyWallStreet - a handy twitter hashtag that makes use of the social media site to keep each other informed and organized. You can also stay informed via their webiste (OccupyWallStreet.org)

It started off innocuously enough last Saturday with a few hundred people decending on Liberty Plaza to stage a sit-in at Zuccotti Park. The occupation entered its 2nd week yesterday and up until then it had met with little controversy - a few daily arrests by the growing police presence around the park and a couple of videoed confrontations between police and protesters. 

There'd also been little press coverage and there had been the claim that the corporate controlled media was intentionally ignoring the protest in hopes it would dissipate without their attention. My personal belief is that the protests were too small and new to draw media attention. The group is also truly grassroots, having started in the forums of adbusters.com. They don't have the deep pockets and media presence of the tea party, because they haven't had the support of insiders who could get the word out easiliy. Instead they have relied on their own media efforts. That's probably the right approach, but the lack of media attention was clearly frustrating to the organizers. 

All of that changed yesterday.

On Saturday, September 24th, around noon several thousand people began a march from Zuccotti Park to ... well, the destination didn't appear to be entirely clear - but the people began marching. The police, with the advantage of motorized transport and coordinated radio communications were able to stay one step ahead of the protesters and made the march very difficult to follow as the group zig-zagged through lower Manhattan, eventually arriving at Union Square. 

Union Square is where I caught up with the marchers having chased them uptown along their route, always a few blocks behind. And in Union Square, that's where things got surreal. 

The police blocked the marchers from heading East out of ths square, so the protesers switched to Southwest, streaming across 14th Street and around police fencing that had been set up to pen them in. We followed down University - behind a mass of probably 30-40 police officers who were following several hundred marchers.

Upon reaching 12th & University things got real. At least a dozen people were arrested, two women were pepper sprayed by an overzealous NYPD officer. One protester was bleeding from a head wound. A woman was shoved to the ground by an officer dragging an arrested protester away. All of the violence was instigated by the NYPD. The protesters remained peaceful throughout. Agitated once the police began using violence, no question, but at no time did I see a protester initiatve a physical altercation with a police officer. 

A block away another 50+ protesters were arrested while sitting peacefully on the sidewalk - where they'd been told to sit by the police. Including a PBS reporter who was trying to interview one of the women who was pepper sprayed. 

 

To see my photos from the altercation at University & 12th Street in Manhattan.

The unclear part of this whole thing, to me, is why didn't the police simply allow the protesters to return to Zuccotti Park? Why the show of force? What are they afraid of? 

I'm deeply ashamed to see such indiscriminate force used against peaceful proteters in my city. This isn't supposed to happen in the United States. Since when is it okay for the authorities to deny our citizens their first amendement rights? 

I attended this march mostly out of curiosity. Now I'm engaged. Word is that thousands of others have been similarly outraged and are now flooding the park with support and plenty of new activists. These are our children, our friends, our neighbors out there putting their freedom at risk for our country. You should too. 

Tired of High Gas Prices? Blame Wall Street.

[[posterous-content:pid___0]]

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the man I'd most like to be president, wrote an editorial in The Washington Post about oil speculation. 

Now I get the point of commodity futures trading. A transportation company can buy oil futures to in effect gaurantee that they won't spend more than they futures price for any oil they buy in the time period they speculate about. While sometimes they win, sometimes they lose, at least they get a set price so they can budget, figure out their fees, etc. It's a positive development to reduce volatlity in the prices of plane tickets, train tickets, bus tickets, shipping, and other big users of transportation. That provides stability to the markets so it's worthwhile.

There's just one problem. Oil futures trading no longer reflects the bets of transportation companies, but rather then bets of Wall Street speculators who work together to artificially push up the price of oil futures in order to turn a profit. And of course, who pays the difference? We do. Average citizens pay higher prices for goods that are transported, for plane tickets, for heating oil, for all sorts of things that are sensitive to movement in the energy markets.   

How big is the speculation? To quote Senator Sanders:

Goldman Sachs alone bought and sold more than 860 million barrels of oil in the summer of 2008 with no intention of using a drop for any purpose other than to make a quick buck

Aware of the rampant speculation, Congress has chosen to do nothing. As per usual. 

Of, by, and for the people, right? 

Sobering Statistics

14 million able bodied Americans are out of work. That's a robust 9.1%. It's worst in Nevada (12.9%) and California (12.0%). It's 10% or above in 8 other states plus the District of Columbia. 

As if that news weren't sobering enough, the U.S. Census Bureau released their annual report Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States (2010).  

46 million Americans now live in poverty, an addition of 2.6 million impoverished since last year's count. That's 15.1% of all Americans live in poverty. 15.1%. That's more than 1 in 7 Americans. 

50 million Americans are without health care coverage. That's 16.3%, or nearly 1 in 6 Americans. 

Nationally, median household incomes have declined -2.3% since last year, or $1,154 per family. 

The Congressional response to these trends in employment, income, poverty, and lack of healthcare coverage is startling. Slash federal spending, push to reduce benefits from entitlement programs, challenge legality of the health care reform law, all while steadfastly refusing to raise taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations in order to cover the revenue gap. 

Our country is hurting ... badly. And Congress is more interested in protecting special interests than in helping our citizens weather this storm. Shame on them. And shame on us for electing them. 

Voters get what they deserve. 

 

 

President Obama Steps Up

Whether you think President Obama has been a disappointment (liberals) or is out to destroy America (conservatives), he stepped up last night with his jobs speech. 

He proposed a plan in which he'd:

1. Put construction workers back to work with direct investment in infrastructure, particularly roads, bridges, airports, railways, and schools. Huge and much needed investment that would greatly help one of the hardest hit job sectors. 

2. Put teachers back to work in the classroom so our kids can get an adequate education. Given the systematic GOP effort to destroy teacher's unions, I don't think this will be popular. 

3. Create tax incentives for businesses to hire the long-term unemployed. Not sure if the incentive ($4,000 per new employee) is strong enough, but it can't hurt, but it's a tax break so the GOP will love it. 

4. Develop a jobs program for veterans. After they've risked their lives for our country, they shoudln't have to fight for a job when they get back. 

5. Create incentives for companies to innovate here and keep jobs here. 

6. Extend unemployment benefits again. Probably the least popular idea of the night for the Republicans in the room, except for .... 

7. Pay for this by eliminating tax loopholes and having the rich pay their fair share. 

 

Predictably, Rand Paul's response was hyper-critical of the president and devoid of any ideas. After briefly blaming the president for the current economy, he gets on his deficit reduction horse, which is completely comical. He then lays out 5 ideas:

1. Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. How this creates jobs is anyone's guess outside of teaville. It's also an absolutely moronic idea since deficit spending actually increases growth when our interest rate on our debt is so absurdly low.

2. "The Penny" Plan. Cut federal spending by 1% per year for 6 years and then freeze spending for 2 years. At this point, according to his math, the deficit will be eliminated. But about 30% of the GDP is government spending, so a 1% reduction would put a 0.3% drag on GDP. At 6 years that would be a full 2% drag on GDP. Great idea, huh?

3. Half the Corporate Income Tax & Eliminating Capital Gains Taxes (So Warren Buffett would pay ZERO taxes). As I've previously explained, corporate income taxes do not affect jobs. A lower corporate income tax actually incentivizes thrift by corporations. 

4. Regulatory Moratorium. No new regulations (apparently ever). And repeal one regulation every week until the economy starts recovering. Yes it might help, because we could start raping the environment at wll, which would certainly create jobs. So in other words, get ready for an unsafe environment, unsafe roads, unsafe food, unsafe drugs. What an insipid "idea". Fortunately, most Americans and most of Congress aren't as stupid. 

 5. Entitlement Reform. So I guess this spells out how he's planning on achieving a "Penny" Plan. On the backs of retirees, the unemployed, and the ill.

Nice work, Senator. Give huge tax breaks to the wealthy and screw the rest of us.