If Occupy is to have a positive impact

When I was a teenager, I sat around a kitchen table with a group of people who were drafting a flyer.  There was going to be an anti-war rally at the local college campus, and we were discussing the text.  I submitted a draft text, and so did several others.  I learned a lesson that day.

The text that was overwhelmingly approved (not mine) was designed to appeal only to the most radical members of the movement.  Instead of reaching out to mothers who's children had been drafted and sent to Viet Nam, this was talking about solidarity with their Viet Cong brethren.  This was the left wing version of the Tea Party, and they were all patting themselves on the back for being so radical.

The anti-war and civil rights movements were successful when they evoked sympathy from the public at large.  When four anti-war protestors were killed by National Guard troops in Ohio, it served as a stark contrast between those protestors and the entrenched opposition.  When the network news showed the inhumanity of the police in response to black Americans who simply wanted to vote, that was also something that the American public at large could identify with.

Planning actions is the right thing to do.  They call attention to the movement, keep it in people's minds.  But if they do not want to be relegated to the lunatic fridge by the majority of Americans, then they need to adhere to three simple concepts.

• The purpose of an action is to focus the public's eye on both the Occupy movement, and the response of the establishment.  Getting the press there is important.
• Remember who your audience is.  You are on a stage.  You are trying to do three things.  Wake people up.  Highlight injustice.  Make them feel that you are standing up for them.
•  Avoid actions that are the political equivalent of public masturbation.  You are not there to please yourself, you are there to make a point that most of the 99 percent would understand and sympathize with.  Note I did not say agree with, there is almost nothing in this country that most people would agree with.  There were many people in America who did not want to sit next to a black man at a lunch counter, but sympathized with the desire of black Americans to be treated equally under the law, and to not have fire hoses set on them when they tried to protest.

Right now, I am not seeing that.  It makes me sad that a movement that could have been an important force for good in this country is marginalizing itself.

Went for his gun?

You are walking alone, being stalked by a stranger.   The stranger approaches you, and addresses you in a belligerent manner.  The stranger is not a police officer.  He are carrying a gun.  What do you believe is about to happen?  What do you do?

This is why George Zimmerman's excuse does not sound like any kind of an excuse at all to me.  Even if it is completely true that Trayvon Martin hit him and tried to take his gun, that would only mean that young Trayvon had decided that his best chance of getting out of there alive was to overpower his assailant.

The 'followed him back to his car' part of the story does not fit with the narrative that Martin's girlfriend provides.  She was receiving an ongoing account from Martin right up until the apparent struggle where he was killed.  She heard the initial exchange of words between them.

Lastly, how would Martin even know that Zimmerman had a gun to take away, unless he was brandishing it?

None of us know the whole story.  There may be much one to this than any of us know.  But why do I see these stories offered at face value, with none of the important questions being asked?

Prisoners of War

I had the opportunity to visit Andersonville, the site of the infamous prisoner of war camp run by the confederacy during the civil war.  Also there is the national Prisoner of War Museum.

The museum exhibits spoke in generalities, the history of how prisoners of war have been treated, and it also spoke personally, stories of individuals and their experience as prisoners of war.  And it talked about all the different flavors of prisoner.

The Japanese-Americans who were shipped to camps during the second world war, they were, in a way prisoners of war.  They had committed no crime, not taken up arms against this nation, and yet they were treated as hostile foreigners.  Their treatment was similar to civilians who were living in hostile or occupied countries when war broke out, interned for the duration.

But as I walked through the museum, reading the stories of men and women who had endured capture and sometimes torture, I could not help be be reminded of what a stain on our national soul is Guantanamo.

Someone in the Bush administration made up the term 'illegal combatants' to justify what would otherwise be illegal treatment of captives.  In 10+ years, how many of these men (and sometimes children) have been charged with any crime?  I still maintain that they must be treated as prisoners of war, or charged with some sort of crime.

We do not defeat terrorism by becoming terrorists.  Terrorism is a tactic used by the powerless against the powerful.  It is not an end unto itself.  As long as people feel oppressed, that their hopes and dreams are being ignored or actively suppressed, there will be terrorists.  You defeat that by attacking the root cause, and yet we continue to be the root cause instead.

As long as places like Guantanamo exist, there will continue to be more and more people who come to the conclusion that we are their enemy.  And how do you strike out an an enemy so large and powerful as the United States?  With acts of terrorism.

By our refusal to follow international convention, or even our own laws, we have become our own worst enemy.

Peanuts

That is the word that comes to mind whenever I think about the proposed settlement with the banksters. 

The housing bubble was essentially their creation.  They made money creating it, and when the bubble burst, we paid to bail them out.

So they were made whole again.

How much equity was lost by how many people?  Twenty-five billion dollars is a drop in the bucket.  It does not come close to repairing the damage done to the financial position of millions of Americans.  So the banks got their money back, and they got a lot of the properties back too, in foreclosures, many of them illegal.  They rest of us?  Chump change.

If the price of food goes up, you have to pay it.  If the price of gas goes up, you have to pay it.  How is it different if the price of a home goes up?  If you do not pay it by buying a home, you pay it in rent, either way, you pay it.  And in this case, the price of homes went up because they gamed the market.  And if you do not think lending money to buy a house to virtually anyone who wanted one drives up the price of homes, then I would like to talk to you about a great opportunity in investment property.

So the bankers got theirs.  Until the homeowners of America are made whole, this isn't over.  Not even close.

Being a Republican requires that you have a bad memory

As I have watched the rise of Newt from the ashes, I am reminded of the words of our favorite whipping boy.  You know the one, the fat guy.  Back when Bill Clinton was running for president, his mantra was 'character counts'.  That was of course before he had so publicly displayed his own lack of character.

So on one hand you have Mitt Romney, who finds nothing wrong with putting thousands of people out of work so a small group of people can make a quick buck.  We are not talking about taking a dying company and salvaging what's left.  We are talking about taking a profitable company, one that perhaps treats it workers too well, not squeezing every last drop of blood they can out of them   Or perhaps they are good citizens of their community, and don't take illegal shortcuts on disposing of toxic material.  You get the idea, there is a little more to be profit squeezed out of them so the Romney's of this world move in to dismantle it.  It is the quick buck verses the long view.

And on the other hand you have Newt Gingrich, a man who resigned in disgrace from his position as Speaker of the House of Representatives.  A serial adulterer and deadbeat dad who is so convinced of his own infallibility that he is still beating the faith and family values drum.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Names and Faces

I have a stepdaughter who has been active in the Occupy movement, and she talks to us about what goes on in the meetings they have discussing strategy and tactics.  My wife and I were talking about it the other day, and during that conversation my wife made what I think was an excellent observation.  A big difference between the Occupy movement and the earlier anti-war movements has been the lack of a specific target.

We knew who was responsible for committing American lives and treasure to the ill-conceived war in Iraq.  It was Bush and Cheney and their ilk.  The current financial mess we find ourselves in has also those who were responsible also, but who are they?

Put it this way.  A lot of people made a shit load of money driving our economy into the ground.  So far, none have gone to jail for it.  What they did that was legal, and what was illegal, I am not going to debate here.  In any case, what they did was wrong.  Whether or not any of them go to jail, they should be exposed.

This would be a great next step for the Occupy movement.  Identify who did what, how much they made, and put names, faces, amounts on the signs of the next series of demonstrations.  Call these people out in public, let their names and faces appear on television.

This will not be easy.  A lot of the decisions were probably made by people we have never heard of.  But I don't see the Attorney General doing this, so it is being left to the rest of us.  I am not even sure how I would start looking.  But it is what the movement needs right now.

Make no mistake, these are the architects of our decline.  It was done for personal gain without regard for the impact it would have on you and me or the nation at large.  It is time that you, and the rest of the nation, knows who they are.

Do as I say, not as I do

Well they Iowa caucuses have come and gone and we have learned two very important things about the Republican party.   One is that they do understand how a democracy is supposed to work, as the recent caucuses were a fine example of an open, fair, transparent electoral process.   The other is that while they understand that, they do not believe that is the way that America should be run.  The spate of laws being rammed through be Republican controlled states are the complete antithesis of the way they behave when only fellow Republican are present.

How were the Iowa caucuses run? 

• You could register on the same day. 
• No picture ID was required to participate.  They wanted all Republicans, even the elderly that do not drive and for whom getting a state sponsored ID would be a burden.
• Paper ballots were used so there is a verifiable record of each vote cast.
• The votes were counted, in public, at the polling place.
• The results were announced at each polling place, so that it would be possible to compare the individual precinct number with those published at the state level.

The is the way a democracy is supposed to work.

Contrast this with the laws they have been passing for the rest of us.

• Restricting mail-ins ballots
• Doing away with instant registration
• Requiring a picture ID to register or to vote
• And the ever popular electronic voting machine, which leaves no paper trail so there is no way to detect tampering.  (OK, both sides of the isle are guilty of this one, but so far only the right side has done any tampering)

You see, if it is just them, they want everyone to vote and they want to be sure that the voting is fair.  But if you mix in any opposition, then all of a sudden they are concerned with non-existent voter fraud.  It is plain that their goal is voter suppression, they just proved it.