February 1, 2012
The Occupation Party position on protest and direct action is clear: We advocate non-violence. Events in Oakland, California, on Saturday, January 28, 2012, prompt us to state this again.
We exercise our rights to peaceable assembly and free speech, and bring change to our political process and government through nonviolent means.
[...]
February 1, 2012
The Occupation Party position on protest and direct action is clear: We advocate non-violence. Events in Oakland, California, on Saturday, January 28, 2012, prompt us to state this again.
We exercise our rights to peaceable assembly and free speech, and bring change to our political process and government through nonviolent means.
Therefore, we condemn the violent actions taken by a minority of protestors in the Occupy Oakland Move-in Day demonstration on January 28, 2012.
However, we embrace the right of all people to defend themselves when confronted with violence.
Therefore, we join the National Lawyers Guild San Francisco Bay Area Chapter (NLGSF) in condemning Oakland Police and Alameda County Sheriff’s Office violence, mass arrests, brutality, use of excessive force, and abuses against Occupy demonstrators and those arrested at the demonstration on Saturday, January 28, 2012.
Non-violent direct political action is an essential part of bringing change to our political system. It enables all people to participate: young and old, people of color or those with pale skin, mothers and fathers with babies in strollers, people with able bodies or people with disabilities, the fearful and the brave, those who have been downtrodden or abused. The 99%, who have not had a voice for so long, have many faces. If we are to bring change to the system then all of us need to participate in order to overcome the voice of money.
We support creative political action. Violence is not creative. It is destructive on many levels. It undermines the institutions we cherish. For, when there is violence, people do not feel safe enough to assemble or practice free speech.
We do not support breaking into public buildings, damaging and destroying public property, or burning the United States flag.
We engage in political action because we love our country. We are patriots, and we want to see the benefits of our democracy reach all citizens, not just those with money. Therefore, we reject the burning of the United States Flag. Flag burning has no context in the current discussion.
We call on the Occupy Movement to reject violence as an option or tactic. We call on the Occupy Movement to use its creativity, its many human resources, its innovative general assembly approach, and its skill at building consensus to find new ways of direct political action.
We invite you to join with us in rejecting violence as a tactic.
The New York Times ran a great op-ed piece written by Amy Gutmann, president of the University of Pennsylvania and professor of political science, and Dennis F. Thompson, professor of government at Harvard. In the article, called “How to Free Congress’s Mind,” (November 29, 2011) the authors talk about Washington’s uncompromising mindset, its [...]
The New York Times ran a great op-ed piece written by Amy Gutmann, president of the University of Pennsylvania and professor of political science, and Dennis F. Thompson, professor of government at Harvard. In the article, called “How to Free Congress’s Mind,” (November 29, 2011) the authors talk about Washington’s uncompromising mindset, its sources, some of its effects, and potential ways to overcome it.
It’s a vicious circle, and it’s driven by the campaign cycle, energized by money and power, and egged on by the media. I hate to say this, but we’re probably part of the problem too.
You know how it goes. People running for office promise to act on voters’ favorite causes. To the extent that voters and firms believe in a candidate, they contribute money to the campaign. During the campaign, opponents try their best to undermine voters’ beliefs that their favorite candidate can deliver on those promises. The news media pounces on the least hint of any candidate not sticking to his or her stated positions, either in the present or in contrast with past statements or behavior; this news, scoop, or scandal draws subscribers and viewers, which ultimately increases advertising revenue. Candidates demonize each other, PACs demonize candidates, the media reports, and it all becomes a kind of reality show that many of us feast on.
The process doesn’t stop when the election is over. Elected officials, it turns out, are still candidates. Maybe they feel that not getting reelected is a form of losing, and they don’t want to be losers; maybe they enjoy the power and media attention. At any rate, the elected begin a permanent campaign, going back to their home states and districts to continue raising money to fill their war chests for the next election.
Gutmann and Thompson point out that “the environment rewards those who stand tenaciously on their principles and demonize their opponents.”
It might have begun with “read my lips: no new taxes,” but one place this vicious circle has taken us is to John Boehner saying that he rejects the word compromise. And why wouldn’t he? For if he comprises, sometime someone is going to call him a flip-flopper, a liar, or worse.
I think this is part of the story, but not the whole story. For a long time now, we’ve been electing people who know how to raise money, how to get elected, and how to stay in office. We have not been electing people who know how to govern. It may be that people who know how to govern aren’t even running for office.
What does it take to govern? According to the World English dictionary, to govern means “to direct and control the actions, affairs, policies, functions, etc. of a . . . nation”. In the kind of democracy that our constitution established, governing requires compromise. Why? Because the Constitution establishes three branches of government–the executive, the legislative, and the judicial—with equal power and with the ability to interact as checks and balances. And our democracy as it has evolved with a two-party system further requires compromise. Without compromise, as we’ve seen, the legislature can accomplish nothing.
Gutmann and Thompson say, “If its [Congress] members won’t relearn the value of compromise, then voters must use the next election to show that they want representatives who care enough about governing to try to compromise.”
However, if the people who are running for office do not know how to compromise or are being trained by the system to be uncompromising, what are voters to do? If people who know how to compromise (as demonstrated by their past behavior) are being weeded out by the campaign and electoral system, what are our options?
One option might be to return civility to the campaign process, to reject the smear campaigns and subtle or not-so-subtle character assassination that goes on. Another might be to reintroduce treating others with respect into the system.
A third option might be to take a hint from the Occupy Wall Street movement: consensus is the way forward. Perhaps, come spring, we should reestablish Occupy encampments in our most visible cities and invite candidates running for office to Occupy. They would attend general assemblies, learn the arts of consensus building and how to accomplish life’s tasks in a leaderless, non-hierarchical group.
You know? An Occupy encampment sounds just the place to be come spring.
But spring is a long time from now, too long to wait. I want to hear your thoughts. How do we escape from this Catch-22 right now, in this election cycle?
Something has gone horribly wrong in this country. We are four years into an economic slump that was started by an avoidable crisis on Wall Street, and our government has been too paralyzed by partisan politics to do anything effective to help the millions of people who are out of work.
On November 17, 2011, [...]
Something has gone horribly wrong in this country. We are four years into an economic slump that was started by an avoidable crisis on Wall Street, and our government has been too paralyzed by partisan politics to do anything effective to help the millions of people who are out of work.
On November 17, 2011, thousands of Occupy Wall Street protestors put their welfare on the line for the rest of us—the 99%–to carry the protest directly to the source of the problem: Wall Street. For the real disease paralyzing our government is the money in the political system. The 1% have the best government that their money can buy. But it largely ignores the needs of the 99%, people who are equally citizens, who are suffering in many ways, who often foot the lion’s share of the bill for public services, and who are angry.
In spite of the people’s anger, frustration, and fear—produced by a prolonged recession with 9% unemployment—the OWS movement has assembled in peace and calmness. In fact, in the midst of the November 17 Mass Non-Violent Day of Direct Action protests in New York and the violent police response to it, the OWS twitter feed broadcast, “general assembly urging continued peaceful civil disobedience: Stay Strong, Stay Calm, Stay Non-Violent.” This peaceful and nonviolent direct action continued in spite of increased violence from the New York police staff between 1:30 and 2:15 PM.
Reports say that police invaded Liberty Square and indiscriminately shoved people and hit them with batons. There are reports and video of police striking protestors with barricades (which are made of metal). In one reported incident, police tackled a bloodied man from behind. The video footage and multiple verbal reports of similar events establish that the police violence is fact.
At this time, it isn’t clear why the police responded with violence and brutality. We’ve been there and done that; we have no need to repeat the events of May 4, 1970, at Kent State in Ohio. In the intervening years, crowd and riot control training have become part of the curriculum at our law enforcement training institutions. As a consequence, we call for objective and unbiased investigations of incidents of police violence in response to OWS protests across the country.
As policy, the Occupation Party stands in solidarity with the 60 year old woman whose handcuffs were too tight. We stand in solidarity with former Philadelphia police captain, Ray Lewis, who was arrested the morning of November 17, 2011. We stand in solidarity with the hundreds of people who were arrested while police tried to censor the media. We stand in solidarity with the thousands of protestors who chanted the truth that Liberty Square is our square. We stand in solidarity with 84-year-old Seattle activist Dorli Rainey, who was pepper sprayed by police on November 16, 2011.
To the extent that the violence represents human police officers succumbing to their own over-heated emotions and fear, we stand in solidarity with them too. If, however, investigation reveals that police violence resulted from local government policies, we protest.
The Occupation Party position on protest and direct action advocates non-violence. We will raise our voices, exercise our rights to assembly and free speech, and bring change to our political process and government through nonviolent means.
Our Constitution is clear: The purpose of our government is to represent all of us and promote the general welfare. It is not to represent and promote the welfare of the few. We stand in solidarity with OWS and are committed to restoring our government to its original purpose as outlined in the Constitution. In fact, we have a most wonderful Constitution that provides for open discussion and change in government practices so that we do not need to resort to violence.
Yes, something is horribly wrong with our political, financial, and economic systems. They need to be fixed so that they work for all of us, not just 1% of us. We will practice nonviolence, and we will work through the system for change. We won’t take corporate money, and we won’t succumb to the rot that money is causing in our system of government. We will practice nonviolent direct action within the political system. And we won’t go away.
The Occupation Party
The police raid of the OWS occupation in Zuccotti Park this morning (1 am to 4 am , November 15, 2011) destroyed a lot of personal property–including books and communications equipment–and injured a number of people–including at least one journalist and a city council member. It is no coincidence that this attack happened two days [...]
The police raid of the OWS occupation in Zuccotti Park this morning (1 am to 4 am , November 15, 2011) destroyed a lot of personal property–including books and communications equipment–and injured a number of people–including at least one journalist and a city council member. It is no coincidence that this attack happened two days before the planned occupation of the New York Stock Exchange. Regardless of what was planned, the Constitution of the United States guarantees us the right to assemble and our freedom of speech. The Occupation Party stands in solidarity with OWS and is committed to restoring our government to its original purpose, which is to represent the people and promote the general welfare.
Since August 2011 when I heard about Occupy Wall Street, I’ve been thinking about the meaning of the words occupy and occupation. It has different meanings depending on the context, and those meanings create positive or negative emotions. My occupation is the work I do. When I am working, I am occupied—I have a job [...]
Since August 2011 when I heard about Occupy Wall Street, I’ve been thinking about the meaning of the words occupy and occupation. It has different meanings depending on the context, and those meanings create positive or negative emotions. My occupation is the work I do. When I am working, I am occupied—I have a job to do, and this is a good thing. If someone is sitting in the chair, it is occupied, and I can’t sit there too. (The couch is a different story.) My daughter says that she is occupying her older brother’s bed while he is away at college. I remember a comic-strip penguin, Opus, who used to shout “Occupied!” when someone knocked on the door of the bathroom he was using.
Sadly, there are the occupied territories of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict. And in some Palestinians’ minds, Israel’s existence is all together an occupation. The emotions here can’t be anything but negative, and complexly so.
So, how do we decide whether the Occupy Wall Street Movement and The Occupation Party draw on the positive aspects of occupy and occupation or the negative? Obviously, it depends on your point of view. And your point of view sometimes has nothing to do with how things really are and has everything to do with ideology, culture, and the way the brain works. (Reading The Cognitive Dissidents, by Barry Ritholtz, will help open your eyes to this.)
In Western culture, we like to think in dualities (in Asian culture, not so much, but that’s another story). We have good or bad, foreground or background, black or white, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, socialism or capitalism. We often set these concepts against each other with the word versus, which means against or in contrast. We rarely think about the many colors between black and white, the millions or billions of commercial and political actions between capitalism and socialism.
The reality is that the world is made up of black, white, and the many colors in between. When it works well for us, our economy works well because it draws on elements of capitalism, socialism, and every –ism in between.
How do we overcome our natural tendency to think in terms of black or white, capitalism or socialism? How do we learn to shift between foreground and background, use what is beneficial in any –ism and leave the rest behind? I think the answer is knowledge and learning how to use it.
I’ll be using this blog space to talk about the issues that confront us and to present background information in as unbiased, clear, and simple a way as possible. I intend to keep an open mind—yes, even to the point that my brain falls out. I intend to occupy my mind, and invite you to occupy yours as well.
The Editor
It wasn’t enough that banks got bailout money from taxpayers. They decided to take more and raise their fees and add new ones. Bank of America and Wells Fargo have now been hit hard by the reality that consumers will only take so much. After losing so many of their customers to credit unions, local [...]
It wasn’t enough that banks got bailout money from taxpayers. They decided to take more and raise their fees and add new ones. Bank of America and Wells Fargo have now been hit hard by the reality that consumers will only take so much. After losing so many of their customers to credit unions, local banks, and so on due to their greed–and greed alone–these banks have now decided not to go with new debit card fees. Other banks got smart and refused to initiate them, and that, along with people having had enough, convinced the likes of BofA that there was more to be lost than gained with new fees. It was an arrogant move on the banks’ part: to think that the public would just lay back, take it, and get screwed.
“Why are you closing your account?” the woman at Wells Fargo bank asked me, and I told her that new fees after my tax money helped save Wells Fargo’s ass is not nice.
“Oh, but the government forced us to take that stimulus money,” she said.
“Did the government force you to raise your fees and add new ones too?” I asked.
She just sat there quietly and didn’t answer. And continued filling out my ACCOUNT CLOSED form.
What is the Keystone XL pipeline?
Keystone XL pipeline is phase two of a TransCanada project that will carry an estimated 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of Canadian sand oil thru a 1,384 mile underground pipeline to refineries in Texas and Oklahoma. It will also carry “up to 100,000 bpd of domestic crude [...]
What is the Keystone XL pipeline?
Keystone XL pipeline is phase two of a TransCanada project that will carry an estimated 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of Canadian sand oil thru a 1,384 mile underground pipeline to refineries in Texas and Oklahoma. It will also carry “up to 100,000 bpd of domestic crude oil from the Bakken formation in the Williston Basin in Montana and North Dakota.”[1] Unlike other pipeline carrying crude oil, the Keystone pipeline will be heated in order to keep the thick sand oil from Canada fluid during its trip to the refineries. The pipeline will include 30 electrically operated pump stations, 112 mainline valves, and 50 permanent access roads through 6 states.
According to TransCanada’s own estimates, the monitoring system that they install will not be able to detect leaks if they are less than 2 percent of the flow rate. Moreover, along a 1.7 mile stretch of its pipeline the company’s estimated maximum spill volume is 2.8 million gallons before a leak is detected and repaired. They also estimate that for 50 percent of the locations along the pipeline the spill volume is 672,000 gallons. Concerns have been raised that TransCanada has grossly underestimated the potential spill volume for its pipeline. Phase one of the Keystone project was completed and started operation in June 2010. Since that time they have experienced 14 oil spills. The worst was at a North Dakota pump station, spilling 21,000 gallons of crude oil.
How could the Keystone XL Pipeline affect the lives of average Americans?
TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline will affect 21,333 acres of privately owned land, 582 acres of state owned land, and 579 acres of federally owned land. TransCanada claims that its pipeline will have insignificant effects on land use and wildlife. However, the pipeline will have a 50 foot permanent right of way. No landowner structure will be allowed to be constructed on the right of way, which limits what private owners can do on their own land. In addition, no shrubbery or trees will be allowed to grow on the right of way, permanently affecting some ecosystems, one of which is the hardwood wetlands in Texas. Moreover, the heat radiating from the pipeline will change the ecosystem on many of the abutting lands. The pipeline will also cross emergent wetlands in Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska and forested wetlands in Oklahoma and Texas. It will disturb the habitat of 12 nationally threatened and endangered species and many others on state designated threatened and endangered species lists.
The pipeline’s greatest threat is fresh water contamination. Phase two of the pipeline will be constructed over many miles of vulnerable and valuable public and private lands including the Northern High Plains Aquifer System. This aquifer system “supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska and approximately 30 percent of the water used in the United States for irrigation and agriculture.”[2] The U.S. government’s impact study also identified “more than 200 Public Water Supply wells, most of which are in Texas, are within 1 mile of the proposed centerline, and 40 private water wells are within 100 feet of the centerline.”[3] Moreover, in Nebraska the pipeline will travel for 65 miles over ground water that is less than 10 feet from the soil surface. In spite of these facts, TransCanada claims that an oil spill would not affect the integrity of the aquifer. Nebraska’s governor and two senators have requested that an alternative route be used in order to bypass the vulnerable Sand Hills region of their aquifer. They have been told that it would cost too much money and that it is too late to change the path of the pipeline.
In fact, it is not too late to change the path of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Construction has not started, and the cost of the relocation is not relevant to the interests of the American public. What is at stake is America’s most valuable future resource, fresh water.
Who benefits from the Keystone XL Pipeline?
Oil companies are the chief benefactors of the pipeline. The Canadian government estimates that the Integrated Oil Sand Industry will average $86 billion per year for the first 7 years after the pipeline’s completion.[4] This estimate does not include profits from U.S. oil companies using the pipeline.
What will be the tax revenue generated from the Keystone XL Pipeline? According to the Executive Impact Study governments will collect $140.5 million annually in property tax revenues.
However, Kansas state officials gave TransCanada a ten year property tax exemption, an estimated $50 million public revenue loss, and “…local officials along the pipeline’s path think that the state sold them out unnecessarily to get the pipeline.”[5] Revenue generated by the pipeline for the American public has not been provided.
While TransCanada estimates that 5,000 to 6,000 temporary jobs will be created during the 3-year construction period, an independent study done at Cornell estimates the numbers will more likely be 2,500 to 4,650 temporary jobs. But, these will not be local jobs for the communities surrounding the pipeline. “Keystone would establish four temporary work camps … to minimize impact to transient housing and public services.”[6] Few to no jobs will be created for residents of local communities.
Who will be responsible for monitoring the integrity of the Keystone XL Pipeline?
TransCanada will be responsible for creating an emergency response plan and team and will be responsible for monitoring the pipeline’s integrity. Response teams will be located within the larger surrounding communities, leaving more remote areas along the pipeline more vulnerable to oil spill contamination.
Has TransCanada conducted itself in an ethical manner during the review process?
According to a Reuters article, 14 lawmakers have asked the U.S. State Department to investigate TransCanada’s business relationship with Cardno Entrix, the company that prepared the environmental impact statement for the proposed Keystone XL Project. TransCanada is listed as a client in Cardno Entrix’s marketing materials. This raises questions of a potential conflict of interest for Cardno Entrix.
[1] Executive Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Keystone XL Project pg 6.
[2] Executive Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Keystone XL Project pg 13.
[3] Executive Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Keystone XL Project pg 13.
[4] Environment Canada, An Integrated Oil Sands Environment Monitoring Plan pg 15.
[5] Keystone Pipeline. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
[6] Executive Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Keystone XL Project pg 25.
CINCINNATI (TDB) Are we experiencing collective déjà vu these days, or is history just repeating itself? The run up to the 2007-2009 Great Recession resembles the economic worlds of the Gilded Age and the Roaring Twenties. Unregulated investment banks and hedge funds—the shadow banking industry, similar to the unregulated trusts of the early 1900s—created the [...]
CINCINNATI (TDB) Are we experiencing collective déjà vu these days, or is history just repeating itself? The run up to the 2007-2009 Great Recession resembles the economic worlds of the Gilded Age and the Roaring Twenties. Unregulated investment banks and hedge funds—the shadow banking industry, similar to the unregulated trusts of the early 1900s—created the circumstances for the Great Recession of 2007-2009. Similar effects of Wall Street and corporate greed played a role in the beginning of the Great Depression, the financial panic of 1907, and the Panic of 1873. Even the Piatt brothers, Abram and Donn, wouldn’t find all that much to be surprised about.
Although by now you are probably familiar with Piatt Park, you might not realize that today’s Occupy Cincinnati is simply following in the brothers’ footsteps. You can read the history in Bill Sloat’s blog post at the Daily Bellwether: Allow ‘Occupy Cincinnati’ Protesters to Camp in Piatt Park.
Piatt Park has been more than a place for protesters to overnight. While gathered around the statue of Garfield, a group of protestors joked about the situation: business as usual with the Democratic Party and other existing organizations wasn’t going to suddenly make a difference for the 99% in our political process. And The Occupation Party, Ohio’s newest political party, came to life. Maybe they heard the echoes of the Piatt brother’s voices. At any rate, we’re sure Abram and Donn Piatt would approve.
What You’re Saying
- Bea Elle on Home
- Mioh/Marilyn on Our Candidates
- dave goggin on Our Candidates
On the Forums
- Why laws are passed
by: bustr
March 3, 2012, 00:43 - Re: #OccupyWallStreets Thoughts on Politics and Electoral Reform - just released today!
by: Guest
January 10, 2012, 17:00 - Foreclosure resources
by: michaelanarchist
January 8, 2012, 02:16
- Why laws are passed
