my thoughts on a bunch of tech-industry drama i don't really know anything about, but feel like commenting on anyway

Here's my take on this whole Penny Arcade vs. Ocean Marketing thing, as this op-ed is the first I've heard about any of it:

Some corporate bigwig (or at least someone who fancies himself one) named Paul sends a few condescending replies to a customer named Dave — who has a legitimate question/complaint regarding his order of 2 Avenger controllers — and when the customer gets frustrated, becomes even more unprofessional, verbally abusive/insulting, and threatening.

Mike (a.k.a, Gabe), an artist for Penny Arcade and co-founder of Child's Play, steps in after being Cc'd by Dave and tells him that this guy won't get a booth at the next Pax East because of his conduct (which I think understandable). The customer, on the other hand, feels bad that his 'pissing match' may ultimately prevent people who could really use this product from getting it, asking Mike to not cancel his booth (a very nice and mature thing to do, I might add).

Apparently, Mike has already done so, however, as Mr. Bigwig now starts to send Mike extremely condescending, abusive, and tasteless emails that increasingly become threatening as Mr. Bigwig begins to name drop and listing off his credentials, contacts, etc., telling Mike that he'd better side with the company rather than the customer "unless you're his boyfriend." (Classy.)

To his credit, once Mr. Bigwig figures out who Mike is, he tries to smooth things over, admitting that he fed "into [Dave's] emails a little bit too much," and stressing that it's only one person (as if that somehow makes the shit he said to him OK). But Mike obviously doesn't like this guy (who can blame him?), and asks to be removed from his mailing list despite the unapologetic apology.

And here's where Mr. Bigwig truly shines, shitting on Mike's website, and overtly threatening to put his 125 person marketing team "on a smear campaign of you and your site and your emails." (Shit just got real.)

All things considered, I think Mike's best option under the circumstance was to go public. For one, the legal authorities probably wouldn't do a damn thing about Mr. Bigwig's threats of launching an all-out smear campaigns, and I'm sure Mike was a little scared about it, as well as angry. I think preemptively going public with the emails was a smart defensive strategy on his part. He was simply utilizing a resource at his disposal.

From a purely strategic point of view, having the solidarity and support of his readers put him in a much stronger position, one where he felt safer. It's the exact same principle behind unions and other kinds of organizations, i.e., alone, you're at a disadvantage against your employer or whomever; but together, workers or whomever have the strength to address grievances, bargain, be protected from threats by someone more powerful, etc.

In this situation, I find nothing wrong or unethical about what Mike did — who was not only trying to stand up for the 'little guy,' but protect his own career and reputation — and I'd probably do the same thing if I were his position. That said, I do think that putting an end this would be the more skillful thing to do.

Mr. Bigwig has been publicly shamed and lost his position that got him into this mess; Dave, the archetypal 'lowly, individual consumer' has won a victory over the 'condescending corporate bigwig'; and Mike doesn't have to worry about being hit with a massive, corporate smear campaign—at least not by Mr. Bigwig, who's now just a humbled and humiliated Paul at this point.

To encourage any further actions against Paul at this point is, in my mind, excessive; and lowers the probability that Paul will take this whole experience as a 'lesson learned' and grow from it. Instead, he'll very likely continue to feel persecuted (because he is) and become even bitterer about the whole affair, which won't help Mike, Dave, or anyone else for that matter.

That's my unenlightened two cents, anyway.

salo

I watched Pier Paolo Pasolini's last film, Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom, tonight. The genius of Salo is also its downfall and why it was banned in several countries. It's one of those films that, if we let it, succeed in forcing us to confront what we fear the most—the evil that lurks in the depths of the human heart, a horror that's all the more terrifying because it's real.

It was tough to watch. But, after thinking about it and learning a little bit about the director and the book it was loosely based on when I got home, I quickly started to appreciate what it does and how it was made. Movies like this make me want to get more into film theory, which I generally scoff at. It's horrible, yet there are so many genius elements in it that I can't help but admire such a vile thing.

Much of Salo's intensity stems from the unflinching way it addresses the darker side of humanity, the side that enjoys and even revels in the vilest of human transgressions; the side that has the ability to derive pleasure from indulging in what Freud called the 'death drive,' with its psychological pressure towards self-destruction and death arising out of a seeming "urge inherent in organic life to restore an earlier [i.e., inorganic] state of things."

In this, Salo exceeds in showing us too much; it takes us over the edge with its stylistic parade of nihilistic sex, violence, and depravity; often all three at the same time. It shows us the kinds of dehumanizing monsters we can truly be, while the entire time wearing a human face. It shows us the extent with which we can desensitize ourselves to even the most extreme acts of violence and cruelty, particularly when continually escalated and viewed over time—one horror becoming so common that another, more extreme horror must take its place in order to produce the same levels of shock, revulsion, and excitement.

Worst of all, in the midst of the film's climax, where the crescendo of torture, rape, and murder become the focal point of overt voyeurism, we're forced to realize, if we can allow our shocked psyche to reflect upon the construction of the scene itself, that by the very act of watching this film, we've become voyeurs ourselves, and have unwittingly allowed ourselves to be entertained by the very same acts of violence — even if not in the exact same way — that we abhor.

It can be difficult, especially if you are extremely sensitive to scenes of graphic sexual violence and degradation like I am, to fully appreciate the masterful way in which this film explores its themes, from the psychology of fascism and the dangers of passivity to the growing ills of bourgeois society we'd rather ignore. But if you can see beyond its nonchalant brutality, you'll find something deeply disturbing yet brilliant, an existential social commentary that doesn't pull a single fucking punch.

merry christmas, comrades

You know, if you think about, the modern-day version of Santa Claus is not unlike a Gilded Age industrialist, a philanthropic, fantasyland robber baron. He's essentially an imaginary, white, 'chubby and plump' old man who 'employs' an entire race of other imaginary beings in some frozen, unregulated tundra sweatshop to make the gifts he then gives and gets all the credit/cookies and milk for. Maybe some class-conscious kid should slip a copy of the Communist Manifesto in with their letter next year, because I bet Santa doesn't bother to read them all himself: "Let Santa Claus tremble at a Communistic revolution. Santa's helpers have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Elves of the world, unite!"

At least I think it's funny. Merry Christmas, comrades. :)

the complexity of freedom, part deux

Average, working-class people are usually shocked and outraged by stories about sweatshops and child labour, like the recent allegations surrounding the Kardashian clothing lines, as I think they should be. But few realize that global capitalism thrives upon, and even logically defends, this kind of exploitation, generally utilizing the classic 'it's better than the alternative, like x' defense that's perfectly exemplified here by Prof. Ben Powell:



"Hey, eating this turd on a bun with mustard is WAY better than just eating a plain ol' turd; and since you're starving and have no other options but these two turds I'm offering you, I think the better choice is obvious."

Some, like Prof. Powell, at least have the balls to admit that they unambiguously support sweatshops and child labour. However, it often seems to be the case that, instead of being forced to confront and potentially question the logic of a system where the road to higher wages and better working conditions is paved with sweatshops and child labour, free-market advocates and capitalist apologists in general find it easier to simply gloss over the problem, or else blame it on specific offenders, like China, rather than the 'invisible hand' that guides production in global capitalism and directs "industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value."

And this is how 'freedom' (e.g., of the market) can actually be used to justify exploitation, which is precisely the argument George Monbiot makes in his recent article in the Guardian.

the complexity of freedom

George Monbiot makes an interesting yet surprisingly little-made point about the one-sidedness of many of the pro-free market arguments about freedom, i.e., that the state isn't the only entity or social institution that intrudes on our liberties:

This bastardised libertarianism makes 'freedom' an instrument of oppression

As a result, it also begins to reveal some of the underlying contradictions that are rarely brought to the surface in these superficially seductive arguments about freedom and liberty, e.g., there's obvious tension between freedom and equality, where complete freedom doesn't necessarily lead to equality when some have the freedom to exploit, oppress, or otherwise take advantage of others because of their particular situation in life, and where full equality means potentially limiting or even denying some their freedom to do things that negatively impact others.

It's contradictions like these, for example, that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution attempt to balance to varying degrees of success. Definitely broadens the argument, I think.

tax inequality

Ian Ayres, a professor of law at Yale, and Aaron S. Edlin, a professor of law and economics at UC Berkeley have an interesting idea on how to "to end the continued erosion of economic equality in our nation" with a "tax that would limit the after-tax incomes of this club to 36 times the median household income":

Don’t Tax the Rich. Tax Inequality Itself.

I'd certainly support something like this — with the caveat that the revenue generated from this new tax be expressly allocated to social welfare programs like food stamps, low-income housing, Medicaid, Pell grants, and unemployment insurance — especially in combination with a modest 0.25% tax on stock trades and a 0.02% tax on the purchase of credit default swaps (raising an estimated $100-150 billion per year according to economists Dean Baker, Robert Pollin, and Marc Schaberg), and getting rid of the Bush tax cuts (netting an additional $72 billion per year according to Citizens for Tax Justice).

All these things together in conjunction with targeted spending cuts not only have the potential to help limit the rising rate of income inequality, but to help reduce the deficit that everyone's been squawking so much about recently, as well.

how the austerity class rules washington

Just read an interesting article in the Nation about the rise of the 'austerity class,' and the growing popularity of deficit reduction measures in political discourse:

How the Austerity Class Rules Washington

The way I see it, the inherent contradictions within capitalism that give rise to crises always seem to put government into a tricky position. On the one hand, it makes sense, especially from the point of view of a household, to have a 'balanced budget,' i.e., to be 'austere' today and save any discretionary income for future hardships, invest it for future returns, or both. And, utilizing this rather 'common sense logic,' people want their government to be 'responsible' and have a balanced budget just like any household should.

The problem is that, if everyone is saving and investing on a national scale (i.e., not consuming), or if they have little in the way of discretionary income to begin with, especially in the midst of an economic downturn, higher unemployment will result due to lack of demand, and the value of any investments will be greatly reduced since no one's consuming the products being produced. When this inevitably happens, people begin to scream at the government to do something, which either means some kind of conservative austerity plan to reduce spending and increase investments, or some kind of liberal stimulus plan to promote aggregate demand and boost employment.

Unfortunately, neither solution can eliminate the contradictions within capitalism that naturally lead to boom and bust cycles and financial crises; but the latter makes far more sense to me in that it helps boost employment, which further stimulates demand and speeds recovery, and doesn't come at the expense of people who need help the most in the form of cuts to things like food stamps, low-income housing, Medicaid, Pell grants, and unemployment insurance, which is precisely the kind of spending conservative austerity plans tend to target.

the credit union myth

Admittedly, I was one of those who thought that simply switching over to a local credit union, especially if it was done by a large number of people, would make a real statement and 'stick it' to the big banks, depriving them of the use of our money to finance their irresponsible lending practices, and disrupting the continued merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and by extension, weakening the stranglehold of the these financial monopolies. I got rid of my own Chase account two years ago, in fact.

But, according to an article by Doug Henwood, it turns out that it doesn't really make that much of a difference, that our money still greases the wheels of these financial juggernauts, especially considering how credit unions and small banks actually end up investing a lot of their money in things like Treasury bonds and federal agency securities (including things like mortgage-backed securities), which in turn get fed via the federal funds market to, wait for it, larger banks like Chase. As Henwood concludes at the end of his article, "Getting banks under control is a matter of politics, not individual portfolio allocation decisions," and I'm reluctantly inclined to agree.

Of course, there are still a lot of good reasons to bank locally, but 'sticking it' to big banks isn't one of them.

r.i.p., vaclav havel

In honour of Vaclav Havel's passing this weekend, here's Slavoj Zizek's 1999 review of John Keane's book, Vaclav Havel: A Political Tragedy in Six Acts:

Attempts to Escape the Logic of Capitalism

In the spirit of full-disclosure, half-way through the review, I found myself thinking, "Wow, that's pretty genius," being impressed by the way Zizek's analysis (influenced by a combination of Hegel, Marx, and Lacan, among other things) actually helped broaden my admittedly poor understanding of how and why some of these events took place, while at the same time raising, and then connecting them to, questions I've been struggling with myself recently.

The conclusion reached by Zizek at the very end, however, doesn't satisfy me; and I wonder whether that's because I'm unconsciously worried that 'the direct ethical foundation' of my own politics (arising out of my Buddhist practice, and influenced by a mixture of radical liberalism, Marxism, and Plato) will 'sooner or later turn into its own comic caricature,' or whether there's something missing here, as if I intuit the bulk of his analysis pointing in a slightly different direction, but am unable to articulate precisely what that direction is (although, I suspect it's probably mainly the former).

the future direction of organized labour

With organized labour once again on the ropes, it may time for labour to rethink modern-day contract unionism, which relies on bloated bureaucracies and effectively neuters unions with its no-strike clause, and go back to the more 'radical' roots of the American labour movement—a time when, in the words of Stanley Aronowitz, "Workers ... used to fight for their demands continuously and agree to return to work only when they were met."

One option could be, as some within the IWW have recently argued doing themselves, for unions to move in the direction of 'direct unionism', where the focus isn't on contracts, workplace elections, or legal procedures, but building "networks of militants in whatever industry they are employed" who'll then "agitate amongst their co-workers and lead direct actions over specific grievances in their own workplaces." The goal essentially being to start small and "build up leadership and consciousness amongst other workers" that'll eventually lead to "large scale industrial actions that address issues of wages and conditions across entire regions or even whole countries" rather than just "union recognition from a single boss" and the signing of contracts that ultimately seek to de-radicalize workers.

Whether or not it's a direction labour wants to take, I think it's definitely time to try something new. The current direction is going nowhere fast.

the making of the american 99%

This article by Barbara Ehrenreich (author of Nickel and Dimed) and John Ehrenreich presents an interesting look at the coalescence of the 99%:

The Making of the American 99%

It suggests to me that, among other things, what we often call 'class' is ultimately a social relationship, which, in the words of Edward Thompson, "happens when some [people], as a result of common experiences (inherited or shared), feel and articulate the identity of their interests as between themselves, and as against other [people] whose interests are different from (and usually opposed to) theirs." The implication being that, for the Occupy movement to continue to grow and truly become "a force to change the world," divisions within the 99% need to be patiently confronted and resolved (or at least put aside), and common interests need to be identified and made into an increasingly more conscious, unifying force.

obama to sign indefinite detention bill into law

When I've said in the past that there's not much difference between Republicans and Democrats in practice, it's things like this that I'm referring to, where the current Democratic president is continuing, and even expanding, the previous Republican president's policies, going so far as to enshrine indefinite detention without trial into US law:

Obama to sign indefinite detention bill into law

Ultimately, I don't think the problem lies within the two dominant political parties themselves so much as within the structure of the system itself, which actively promotes a two party duopoly, produces toxic accumulations of both wealth and power (which seem to go hand in hand in politics), and serves to protect the economic, legal, and political hegemony of the ruling class. That's why it seems to me that, even when people who have the best interests of the citizenry in mind get elected to office, the system often forces their hand and they end up being like every other politician, or else the system just runs them over (metaphorically speaking, of course).

Hence, the candidate in 2008 who, assuming he was genuine, strongly criticized what he called "the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo," now continues where his predecessor left off by being a proponent of, and codifying into law, what the Bush administration argued the original 2001 AUMF against terrorism already empowered them to do, i.e., to, in the words of Greenwald, "imprison people without charges, use force against even U.S. citizens without due process (Anwar Awlaki), and target not only members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban (as the law states) but also anyone who 'substantially supports' those groups and/or 'associated forces' (whatever those terms mean)."

In my opinion, once people start to realize that voting for one party or the other (an electoral version of the 'lesser of two evils' principle) doesn't really make that much of a difference, that there's something inherently wrong with the system itself, the better off we'll be.

if i were a poor black kid

A friend of mine posted this Forbes article by Gene Marks on Facebook yesterday, and I couldn't help but read it:

If I Were A Poor Black Kid

What it sounds like he's trying to say is, "I know things are harder for poor, black youths in this country, but there are tools out there that can help you succeed. If I were in your place, knowing what I know, here's what I'd do." What I'm actually hearing, however, is, "If you're poor and black, you have to work a million times harder than any white kid from the suburbs, and that's just the way it is. Deal with it."

I think the sentiment is genuinely sympathetic; but the presentation is terribly condescending, and essentially glosses over the roles things like class and race play in keeping minorities from succeeding in our society, not to mention ultimately placing the blame on 'poor black kids' for not succeeding instead of questioning a system that makes it so disproportionality difficult in the first place.

In other words, I think we need to be challenging this historically classist, racist, and sexist socio-economic paradigm instead of simply accepting it as a fact of life—a sentiment that's seemingly echoed by, surprisingly enough, fellow Forbes contributor Charles Green:

You conclude by saying, “…the opportunity is still there in this country for those that are smart enough to go for it.”

So, if poor black kids seem to be disproportionately not going for it, your conclusion would be, what–they’re just dumb? Come on, spell out what you’re trying to suggest here!

Viktor Frankl emerged from Nazi death camps stronger for the experience. That doesn’t justify prison camps.

The fact that a few people can escape overwhelming social forces doesn’t prove much of anything. The much more important question is, if millions of people are doing worse than millions of others, what the heck is going on? And to suggest the answer lies in IQ is simply disgusting.

Social mobility is measurable, and is measured. And social mobility in this country is declining. We are less socially mobile than almost every country in Europe now except for Britain and Italy. The land of opportunity–defined as the chance to do better than your parents–is now demonstrably better in a lot of what Americans like to call “socialist” countries.

We need to stop listening to ignorance like this and get a grip.

led by the child who simply knew

Just read this extremely touching article about Nicole, a transgender teen:

Led by the child who simply knew

I know this story may be difficult for some people to read, especially for many social and religious conservatives; but I think it's important to understand some of the struggles transgender individuals have to go through, and that they need our support rather than our scorn.

It's heartening to see such a relatively positive story; but many transgender children (as well as adults) aren't as lucky as Nicole, and many suffer lives of intense abuse, bullying, discrimination, and ostracization, often leading to suicide or ending in murder.

It makes me incredibly sad that we live in a world where intolerant and insecure people harass and hurt others simply because of their gender or sexuality or anything else for that matter. In my opinion, we'll never truly be a 'civilized society' until we stop hating and hurting others simply for being who they are.

support occupy the ports

I understand why some people are critical of the port shutdowns. For one, it ends up financially hurting front-line workers like longshoremen and truck drivers. That said, the plight of the working class is generally ignored unless something big happens, and drastic actions such as port shutdowns and strikes seem to be the only way to get people's attention.

Nobody seems to take notice or care, especially the 1%, until the flow of commodities and capital stop, or at least is impeded. One of the few nonviolent tactics the working class has at its disposal is to withhold its labour and/or impede the flow of noncritical goods and services. Yes, it hurts the working class more in the short-term; but it also makes enough noise to really get people's attention and make them realize that the 99% is serious about addressing pressing socio-economic issues.

Furthermore, purely electoral solutions are limited. The logic of the present system itself seems to produce toxic accumulations of debt, wealth, and power (especially in the sense that money equals social power). That's why it seems to me that, even when people who profess to have the best interests of the 99% in mind gain political office, the system often forces their hand and they end up being like every other politician, catering to the needs of the 1%, or else the system just runs them over (metaphorically speaking, of course).

So, in the end, I support these kinds of tactics, and I hope to see them spread to more than just ports. The working class needs to unite in this fight. That way, maybe we'll actually see some real solutions to these problems instead of business as usual in Washington and Wall Street, which, for all intents and purposes, are practically one and the same.

my body, my rules: a case for rape and domestic violence survivors becoming workplace organizers

This emotionally raw yet well-written article/essay has been making the rounds pretty quickly on the interwebs, and I can see why:

My body, my rules: a case for rape and domestic violence survivors becoming workplace organizers

It presents an interesting (and horrifying) perspective on the unequal social relations created by a system where one class of people is forced to sell their labour in order to survive while another thrives by exploiting that labour; as well as powerful a reminder that the right to organize is one of the few tools workers have to shift the (in my opinion, unfair) balance of power in their favour.

The main lesson I take from it, however, is that we shouldn't let the proverbial (or even literal) 'pizza party' make us forget where our strength lies, or pacify our struggle for workplace democracy.

rats free each other from traps, then share chocolate

Just read this extremely interesting article from New Scientist:

Rats free each other from traps, then share chocolate

More evidence that rats (and potentially other animals, particularly mammals) exhibit levels of compassion, empathy, and generosity previously thought to be unique to primates; as well as further corroboration of Peter Kropotkin's theory that cooperation and mutual aid are factors of evolution at least as important as competition, if not more so.

the media's blackout of the national defense authorization act is shameful

I couldn't agree more with this article that Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 needs to be covered, and widely:

The Media's Blackout Of The National Defense Authorization Act Is Shameful

Unfortunately, most media outlets haven’t covered it (and probably won't), at least not in any great detail. Part of the problem, I suspect, is that the vast majority of what we call the 'mainstream media' is really a conglomeration of roughly six main corporations. What gets reported by these major multimedia outlets is arguably limited in many cases to what's in the interest of the owners, controllers, and shareholders of these companies, which themselves are part of the ruling class.

This Orwellian piece of legislation, on the other hand, with its ambiguous language about covered persons including "any person who has committed a belligerent act," would make it easier for the government to put down and indefinitely detain 'nuisances' like Occupy protesters who the state and others of the ruling class deem as 'terrorists'; and the state is already in the habit of labelling peaceful protesters as terrorists (e.g., Max Obuszewski).

I think this piece of legislation is both scary and troubling; but the lack of media coverage is scarier and more troubling because it puts us, the working class, even more in the dark as to what's really going on in this country. More importantly, it highlights the need for average, working-class individuals to continually educate themselves and turn towards alternative sources of media.

secret fed loans gave banks $13 billion undisclosed to congress

According to a recent Bloomberg article, the Federal Reserve allegedly gave out approximately $7.77 trillion in secret loans and guarantees to banks throughout the financial crisis of 2007 to 2009.

What I found even more interesting, however, is the article also notes that, among other things, "Total assets held by the six biggest U.S. banks increased 39 percent to $9.5 trillion on Sept. 30, 2011, from $6.8 trillion on the same day in 2006, according to Fed data." Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown is quoting as saying: "When a few banks have advantages, the little guys get squeezed... That, to me, is not what capitalism should be." Except that's precisely how capitalism is, and always has been.

The capitalist mode of production, which forms the economic base of our society, is, in effect, the process of commodifying, privatizing, and monetizing goods, service, ideas, etc.; and which, by its very nature, promotes the concentration of wealth and power, primarily into the hands of the owners/controllers of capital. It's working exactly as it's supposed to work, and the Fed is merely one of the institutionalized tools capital uses to displace inherent contradictions within the system in an effort to limit and/or stave off crises.

If this article doesn't piss you off and start to make you question whether we can do better, it probably should.

occupy detroit: faith in the future

I went down to St. Aloysius with my friend Dave today to meet with some of the members of the church who were interested in learning more about what the Occupy movement, and Occupy Detroit in particular, is all about; and it was a pretty enlightening experience. It's been a little over two months since the emergence of the Occupy movement in New York, and taking a broader look at the phenomenon itself, I can see a lot of similarities between it at the Catholic social justice movement, which itself has always focused on things like equality, fairness, and a strong sense of community.

Listening to some of the older parishioners and social activists who were present for this informal gathering, it struck me that today's younger generation may be subconsciously looking for a sense of community that has been lost over the past few decades, and a return to more community-based activism and creating more community-based (as opposed to purely political) organizations. The cultural trend over the past few decades has been towards extreme individualism and the fetishizing of privatization, as if 'private' somehow automatically equals 'better' or 'more efficient.' This has led, in my opinion, to a culture of blaming the victim, when the victim (the economically declining 99%) is actually a symptom of a much larger systematic problem.

For example, if you're underwater on your mortgage or student loan debt, it's your fault and your problem (you shouldn't have taken out more than you could afford). If you and your family are getting evicted from your home, it's your fault and your problem (you should have kept up with the payments). If you're laid-off and unemployed, it's your fault and your problem (you should have found a new job already). If you don't make enough money to pay all your bills and you don't have any health insurance, it's your fault and your problem (you should have gone to college to get a better paying job). If you get sick and go bankrupt because of all the medical bills, it's your fault and your problem (you shouldn't have gotten sick in the first place, or had a job with a good insurance plan).

Instead of looking around and seeing these people as our neighbors and members of our community (or just fellow human beings) who might need our help, we have a tendency to see them as merely irresponsible and/or lazy strangers who need to 'man up' and take responsibility for everything that happens, regardless of whether there's 'extenuating circumstances' or bad luck involved. "It's your fault and your problem, not mine. Deal with it!" And, sadly, the number of victims has been growing at an increasingly alarming rate, in no small part due to the actions of arguably 'irresponsible' people and financial institutions on Wall Street.

Both the Occupy movement and religious-based social justice movements in general, on the other hand, are, at their core, about coming together as a community (which is really what organizing is all about) and trying to make things better for everyone, gathering whatever money, time, and experience we, as individuals, have to offer into a single entity that's dedicated to fighting things like economic inequality and poverty in our society. For some, like many involved in predominately religious-based social justice movements, this collective fight against inequality is something that's part of their spiritual calling in life; while for others, like myself, it's simply the most rational way to combat these social failings (neither of which are mutually exclusive). And regardless of where we each of us may stand on other issues, this is one battle we can all agree is worth fighting.

But exactly how to go about fighting this battle is something the fledgling Occupy movement is still trying to figure out for itself, especially here in Detroit, where a large portion of occupies are relatively young and inexperienced. And I think a lot of us newbie activists can potentially learn a lot from people like we met at St. Aloysius, many of whom spent their earlier years participating in the civil rights movement, and are still active in things like the anti-war movement, the economic justice movement, volunteering at soup kitchens and homeless shelters, etc. More importantly, many in the religious community already have access to resources and social networks in these areas, and linking them together with occupiers could go a long way in furthering the work we're trying to do to strengthen and rebuild our community.

happy wopila

While I love to stuff my face full of delicious, home-cooked food and watch football as much as the next stereotypical American, I think it's worthwhile to reflect on the history of Thanksgiving — from the mythologized 1621 celebration at Plymouth to the 1863 proclamation celebrating the Union victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg — and what it means to each of us who celebrate it. For me, like many others, Thanksgiving is a time to give thanks and share a meal with those around me, friends, family, and strangers alike, in the spirit of generosity and kindness. But, given what I know, it's also a time to remember with somber clarity the bloody history this national holiday commemorates, and in doing so, strengthen my resolve to try and make this world a better place.

imperial overstretch: is a bloated defense budget weakening the u.s.?

Interesting article suggesting that the US's economic decline, as well as its decline as a major power in the world, is directly tied to its bloated defense budget:

Imperial Overstretch: Is A Bloated Defense Budget Weakening the U.S.?

In The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Prof. Kennedy argues that empires can extend themselves beyond their ability to maintain or expand their military and economic commitments in what he calls 'imperial overreach' or 'imperial overstretch'; in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin argues that modern day imperialism is actually the highest form of capitalism, a distinct, developmental phase or stage of capitalist economy as opposed to merely a policy preferred by finance capital.

Incidentally, considering the recent report about record lobbying spending by banks and the massive consolidation of banks since the '90s, number two in his list of basic features of imperialism seems especially relevant today, i.e., "the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this 'finance capital', of a financial oligarchy." Looking at the present state of things, as well as the way they've been trending for at least the past few decades, and comparing that to what Lenin wrote about the evolution of capitalism, I think there's ample reason to take his analysis seriously.

The US's actions and polices, as well as its current economic structure in general, seem to indeed be more or less imperialistic in the sense that Lenin defined it, and follow much the same pattern as he laid out in his 1916 pamphlet. That doesn't mean, of course, that I believe Lenin's analysis to be 100% correct, but I do think both Prof. Kennedy's and Lenin's ideas have merit, and are worth considering in tandem. Not only to see where we're potentially headed, but to start a conversation about what, if anything, we can do about it.

ebenezer newt

Apparently, Newt Gingrich (who, for some inexplicable reason, is still seeking the Republican presidential nomination) thinks that poor kids should be put to work as things like school janitors because, well, you know, they're poor and child labour laws are 'stupid' and stuff. Not to mention the fact that it'll help get rid of unionized janitors, which is always a bonus for conservatives. (Just don't let the kids unionize, because that'll make them into little socialists!):

Gingrich: Laws preventing child labor are 'truly stupid'

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with young adults trying to make some extra money by working part-time if that's what they really want to do, and I doubt that many people would. But saying that we should put poor kids 14 and under to work as school janitors simply because they're poor (and because it'll help boot unionized janitors out of a job in the process) is as fucking herpy derpy as it get, in my opinion.

For one thing, it's not as if all you have to do is just throw out a couple of garbage bags at the end of the day; it's pretty physically demanding work. Janitors (or custodians as they're often called) routinely work 8 hours a day. For example, one listing that came up on my job search back in May lists hours as 2-10pm for high school and 3-11pm for grade school. The job itself entails "moderate to extensive degree of physical stamina and frequent lifting up to 50 pounds" and "frequent and prolonged standing, walking and bending." Plus, the job also includes a great deal of repetitive motion and the use of some seriously heavy-duty cleaning products. I've been a janitor before, and it's not something I really think kids 14 and under should probably be doing.

It should also be pointed out that 14+ year olds are already allowed to work limited non-school hours if they want. Child labour laws are essentially there to prevent kids under 14 from being put into the workforce, and limit the amount of hours a minor can work (so they have time to learn and play and do all the things kids should be doing instead of being janitors). What Gingrich wants is for poor kids 14 and under (which in most areas are statistically minorities) to be allowed and encouraged to work a physically demanding and dirty job, while at the same time taking those jobs away from actual, adult janitors (and specifically unionized janitors).

Basically, what I hear Newt saying is: "Instead of actually fixing (or better yet, supplanting) a system where so many people are left in poverty, let's just go back to the early 1900s and get rid of child labour laws. Because poor people are just lazy; and if we get their kids working sooner, maybe they'll develop a better work ethic and not be poor like their parents. In the meantime, we'll let them take their parents' jobs because we can pay them less. It's a win-win!"

If the multiple reasons why this is a bad idea aren't readily apparent, I'm not sure what else there is to say. The whole thing brings to mind an exchange between Ebenezer Scrooge and two unnamed gentlemen from Charles Dickens' classic, A Christmas Carol:

"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir."
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."
"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"
"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.
"You wish to be anonymous?"
"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that."
"But you might know it," observed the gentleman.
"It's not my business," Scrooge returned. "It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!"

cairo or new york?

For a second, I thought this story in my Yahoo! news feed was about New York's Liberty Square when reading, "An Associated Press reporter at the scene said police and troops chased the protesters out of most of the square, dismantling their tents and tearing their banners." But then I remembered that Mayor Bloomberg prevented local news helicopters from flying over the area, and barred reporters from covering the raid.

'to protect and serve' whom?

Two videos. The first, an interview with an amazing 84 year old woman who was pepper-sprayed by police at Occupy Seattle; the second, a police officer pepper-spraying student protesters at UC Davis in the face at point blank range for apparently sitting quietly on the pavement—just two of many recent cases of police attacking peaceful, unarmed protesters across the country.




I hate to say it, but in these instances, the police are not our friends; they're not part of the 99%. It's not that cops are individually or inherently bad people (I know a couple, and they're great, hardworking men and women), or that they're not struggling to make ends meet like many of us are. The problem is that, as an institution, the police are designed to serve and protect the interests of the 1%, the owners and controllers of wealth, the ruling class.

Hopefully, occupiers can hold out and stay the course, maintaining "a rigid adherence to nonviolence" and "a refusal to respond to police provocation and a verbal respect for the blue-uniformed police," to quote Chris Hedges, until these generally decent men and women begin to no longer obey orders, defecting from the ruling class and their agencies of state repression, and start protecting the 99%. If not, the movement may be crushed, or even worse, turn violent.

why the first amendment won’t protect occupiers

Great article pointing out the limitations of the Occupy movement relying solely on the First Amendment for judicial protection against state intimidation:

Why the First Amendment Won’t Protect Occupiers

In short, it ain't gonna happen, especially considering the conservative lean of SCOTUS (not to mention the inherent bias of the legal superstructure in favour of property and the ruling class).

occupy detroit: trouble in paradise

I went down to Occupy Detroit Sunday for the 'Labor in Solidarity' rally and march, as well as to just check out how things are going; and to be honest, I'm feeling rather apprehensive about the whole experience.

When Dave and I first arrived at Grand Circus Park, I was initially optimistic. I was happy to see more tents than the last time I was there, and even happier to find Tony sleeping in one. He was just getting up as we strolled into the park, and Dave immediately set about adjusting some tarps under and over the tent to help keep out the water that Tony had mentioned was sneaking its way in. Right after that, Dave saw Anthony, one of Tony's friends, trying to do the same, and proceeded to help him too, going so far as to make his own stakes out of old pallet boards.

Overall, things seemed to be going well enough at first glance. Spirits still appeared to be high despite the increasingly cold weather and other challenges. I saw some familiar faces, as well as some new ones, and more were slowly wandering into the park for the upcoming rally. It felt good to be back down after so long. But soon, I started to notice small changes here and there. I was surprised, for example, when I heard that, for security reasons, they decided to fence off certain areas and give out colour-coded wristbands to help keep track of who's actually camping, as well as who should have access to where donated items are stored.

Trying to be more organized about that kind of thing makes sense. Unfortunately, there appears to be little rhyme or reason to who they're given to. Dave had trouble getting one earlier in the week even though he's been a regular face at Occupy Detroit from the very beginning, and some of the people they were given to have been accused of harassing other occupiers. Tony pointed out one man working security for the day who he said harassed (and possibly sexually assaulted) a female occupier the week prior. And some of the 'security' team seemed to be taking their roles a bit too seriously, strutting around the park with other people's dogs acting like they were tough shit, talking down to anyone questioning their presence and making them feel uncomfortable, while turning a blind eye to the ones shooting dice and selling weed.

In addition, some of the homeless people who have been hanging out and sleeping in that park for years are starting to resent being what they perceive to be as segregated and restricted from the rest of the occupiers, while others are getting angry at being pushed out of the park. Certainly there are issues that need to be addressed here. Some of the homeless who have joined the occupation are just there to hustle occupiers, while others are stealing things out of tents and selling drugs. But at the same time, they're fucking homeless and we're essentially occupying their park; what'd we really expect to happen, an endless chorus of Kumbaya? They've been doing this to survive long before we showed up, and they're going to continue doing whatever it takes to survive long after we retreat to our regular lives.

It's almost comical in that the occupiers are setting up a mini version of the system they're protesting; and there seems to be a big disconnect between occupiers and the homeless, which should be natural allies in this fight. It's kind of sad, really; because as my friend, Francesca, so succinctly put it, "If even the people with the best of intentions lose sight of the greater purpose, what chance does anyone else have?"

But despite these growing challenges, there are a lot of people down there with good hearts who are working extremely hard to make this movement successful; and the majority of the homeless people I've met and hung out with have been a never-ending source of knowledge and inspiration for me. They're giving me a perspective on the world I thought I had, but really didn't. The trick is getting the two groups to see the other's point of view, and to get occupiers and homeless alike to take more of an active role in the committees. From what I've heard, many of the decisions are being made by a minority of occupiers who are actually participating in the various committees, and many of the committee members themselves change regularly, leaving greenhorns unfamiliar with certain issues and people to introduce/block proposals and make relatively uninformed decisions.

Of course, the majority of my views and opinions about what I've seen have been influenced more by the homeless participates like Tony and his friends than the occupiers, as I've spent far more time with them and listening to what they have to say than anyone else, so I'm sure there's 'more to the story' as they say. Nevertheless, I think their ideas and concerns should be taken just as seriously. Tony, for example, questions why they're occupying the park in the first place.

"Who are you fightin'? Ain't nobody in this park but a bunch of homeless motherfuckers." He's been saying from the very beginning that protesters should be occupying the governor's backyard. And I think he has a point. Some have suggested moving the Detroit occupation to Lansing, the political center of Michigan, where they've got the support of the mayor and an indefinite permit. Word also has it that legislators routinely walk by the dozen or so occupiers in Lansing and talk with them about why they're there. The idea has merit and makes tactical sense; although strategically, it'd be difficult to get everyone up there, not to mention organizing a reliable supply chain. Donations are difficult enough to come by, let alone trying to figure out how to get them consistently to Lansing. And many simply don't want to 'abandon' Detroit. But that's something for the occupiers themselves to collectively decide.

What concerns me the most, however, is the fundamental stability and longevity of the movement itself; because if the Occupy Detroit movement implodes, whether due to our relative inexperience, infighting, political apathy, or whatever, it'll be our failure—one not so easily blamed on the 1%.

happy birthday, eugene

Most people think of Guy Fawkes on November 5th, a member of the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 who was arrested while guarding explosives placed beneath the House of Lords; but today is also the birthday of Eugene V. Debs, one of the greatest Americans to ever have lived, in my opinion. He was a champion of the working class if there ever was one. Happy Birthday, comrade.



"Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free" (Eugene V. Debs, upon being convicted of violating the Sedition Act for giving the speech read above by actor Mark Ruffalo).

blah

A friend of mine just got laid off yesterday. After moving cross-country, their employment, due to no fault of their own, was terminated. Same thing happened to me last year. Sucks to know that no matter how good you are at what you do, you're ultimately expendable; that to capital, you're labour power is little more than a commodity to be bought, sold, and sometimes discarded on the marketplace. Is it any wonder that some people want to see a radical economic transformation in which the exploitation, alienation, and commodity fetishism of the present system are gradually eliminated via a more socialized mode of production?

zizek on al jazeera

Just watched an interesting discussion with Slavoj Zizek about "the momentous changes taking place in the global financial and political system." The genius of Zizek, in my opinion, isn't so much his critical analysis of capitalism as it is his skill at trolling people (esp. liberals) in order to get them to think outside the box. He often seems to say intentionally provocative and contradictory things in order to provoke a violent intellectual response within the mind of his real and theoretical interlocutors alike, acting as a kind of dialectical koan subverting their ingrained, bourgeois assumptions about political, social, and economic realities/potentialities, effectively saying, "A new paradigm is possible." Either that, or I'm just a gullible asshole who easily falls for chubby, Slovenian philosophers/critical theorists with thick accents and ceaseless nervous tics. :\

the onshoring manufacturing glass: half empty or half full?

A recent article in Forbes speculates that manufacturing jobs will start coming back to the US soon, partly based on one manufacturer's plans to flee "the high costs of Chinese manufacturing for the relatively lower costs of the U.S." And while people are celebrating this potential shift, it's a bit of a mixed blessing.

From the average worker's perspective, it's definitely good if some of these manufacturing jobs actually come back to the US. Unfortunately, one of the reasons they'll be returning is that wages in the US are currently so low, and falling even lower.

For example, one article, referencing data recently released by the Social Security Administration, notes that, "The median wage for the 150 million workers surveyed in 2010 was just $26,363.55 per person. For comparison, the poverty line for an average 4-person household is set at $22,350, while the line for a single person living alone comes in at $10,890." Which means that, by definition, "50 percent of wage earners had net compensation less than or equal to the median wage."

Another recent article points out that, "Over the past two decades -- and especially since about 2000 -- the share of national income that flows into wages and other kinds of worker compensation has been plummeting in various countries [here it's dropped approximately 5% or about $500 billion a year since 1990]."

Furthermore, according to a report by the Nation Employment Law Project, close to 75% of the new jobs added in the last two years are below $14 an hour, while, as Alternet's Sarah Jaffe notes, "60% of the layoffs from the Great Recession were in what the report calls midwage occupations, those that make between $28,142 and $42,973 per year."

In essence, the addition of these new jobs, if they do come, will certainly help, especially when it comes to lowering the persistently high unemployment rate we've been experiencing since the 2008 economic collapse. But they're most likely not going to be very high paying jobs, which is definitely good for capital, but not necessarily so good for labour.

And, of course, nobody talking about this seems to care that for every job we gain, a worker overseas may very well lose theirs. So, for me, the potential onshoring of manufacturing trend back to the US is a bit of a mixed blessing when looking at the big picture.

occupy detroit: getting schooled

Homeless Tony just dropped some serious knowledge on my ass. Some serious fucking knowledge.

When I started out on a 'field study' to Occupy Detroit with my friend, Dave, who also happens to be a teacher, I had no idea I was going to get schooled, literally. We met Tony, a homeless man about fifty years old, who's been on the streets at least a year, sometime after midnight, long after most of the protesters had left and it was starting to get cold. His words, gruff and oftentimes filled with profanity, hit us both harder than the rally or anything the speakers themselves had to say. They were sad yet powerful, angry yet caring. More importantly, they came from experience.

There was something about what he said during our first meeting and the way he said it, as well as the fullness of his humanity in the face of complete privation, that made me feel almost as if I was in the presence of holiness. But Tony's not a saint, at least not the kind most people would recognize. Most people call him a bum and tell him to get lost; most simply see him as just another homeless, unemployed black man endlessly roaming the streets of Detroit—not the contemporary Francis of Assisi with the attitude of Diogenes that my friend and I saw that night.

Tony looked around at what remained of the group, the people who were willing to risk the cold and possible arrest to camp out in Grand Circus Park, and shook his head. "I like what you're doing. What you're doing is right. But the way you're doing it is wrong. Fuck Wall Street. I'll show you what people need to be protesting, what the people should be taking pictures of and writing about. Be here at 7am and I'll show you some real shit." And good to his word, Tony was standing right outside the orange Coleman tent someone was nice enough to have set up and left for unprepared idiots like us, waiting, despite the cold, wind, and pouring rain. "See. I told you I'd be here."

I'll admit it, I was tired, cold, and hungry when I finally crawled out of the tent. Even with all the layers I had on and the protection of the tent, it was too cold for me to sleep more than a couple of hours. Then I immediately thought about Tony and the other people who didn't even have a tent to protect themselves from the bitter cold and rain, and wondered how in the world they managed to survive this night after night.

We started walking south down Woodward, and Tony pointed out building after empty building. "What's that? An empty fucking building. It's been sittin' there three years. Why don't they let us sleep in there? They're not using it." This went on for a couple of blocks, with Tony pointing out property after property, storefront after apartment building, empty, waiting. Many of the buildings had signs saying things like: "For Lease. Wanted: Bar/Restaurant. Liquor License Available."

It's funny. People generally assume that help for the homeless has to come from the state, which means 'bigger government' and 'higher taxes'—buzzwords that have never been very popular. But as Tony took us by Comerica Park, Ford Field, and the Greektown Casino, he asked why is it that wealthy individuals and corporations can seem to afford to build huge, multi-million dollar stadiums and casinos downtown, but can't seem to find a fraction of that to build a simple shelter where people with nowhere else to go can sleep, eat, keep warm, etc. Ironically, what happens instead is that businesses push the publicly-funded police to enforce local loitering laws and essentially harass the homeless community, making them endlessly wander around downtown, looking for a quiet place to hide and rest.

As we continued our impromptu tour of his world, he'd often stop and tell us something about his life or about some of the people we ran into. He seemed to know everyone, and everyone seemed to know him. Whatever he had at the time — whether it was some spare change, a cigarette, or a swig of cheap vodka — he shared with whoever we ran into. At first I wasn't sure if this was just a show; but the way the others responded to him made me think otherwise. They seemed to love and respect him.

Many of the people we met on the way had some obvious signs of mental illness or disability, a fact which Tony pointed by saying that half of them were probably thrown out of mental health facilities. Pointing behind me, he said, "Look at him. He don't even know where he's at." It was a young man, in his twenties or thirties I'd guess, walking out of an alley with a smile and a blank stare. Tony asked the man if he'd eaten yet. The man said no and continued to smile and talk to himself. "I try to make sure he gets something to eat. You know anybody who's talkin' to himself and answers back is crazy. Shit. He might kill somebody or rape a kid one day and not even know what he did."

Just before that, he'd shown us where he 'sleeps'; although he said he hadn't actually slept in days. It turns out it was right across the street from where we parked, in a windowsill of the Old Wayne County Building. His 'bed' consisted of a hard concrete recess that offered minimal protection from the wind, rain, and cold. He kept what few things he had stashed in a small play area, including a small grill, and someone had already ransacked through his stuff. His blanket, which was still there, was pulled out of a plastic bag and was soaked. I didn't even know what to say. All I could do was look at him with all the sympathy I could muster, which I knew wasn't nearly enough. And yet he rarely stopped smiling. "I'm the happiest homeless man out here. You gotta laugh to keep from crying."

He showed us where he regularly asks for food, which is right out in front of the Sweet Water Tavern. He pointed out the places on the sidewalk, in between manhole covers issuing steam, where a lot of them try to sleep due to the warmth. He took us by streets he said he didn't go down because he'd either be arrested or shipped off in the 'party van.' According to Tony, the police routinely throw homeless people who wander around Greektown too much into the back of a police van and drop them off in the worst possible neighborhoods. When that happens, he says, he immediately files a complaint, for whatever good that does.

Later that night, when we ran into him showing some other people from Occupy Detroit what life on the streets was like, he took us behind the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law on St. Antoine, where we found a group of people sleeping. One of them was a lady who was over sixty. Tony talked to them for a minute, and then gave the lady the extra sleeping bag my friend had given to him earlier. After we walked a block or two away, he sat down at a bench to finish his vodka and broke into tears over the fact an elderly woman has to hide like some kind of vermin just to try and get some sleep.

The toll this kind of life takes must be staggering, mentally as well as physically; so it didn't come as much of shock when he told us that he was on a suicide mission—that he wasn't scared to die, he was scared to live; that he was tired, tired of looking after the others, like Chuck and Red—one, almost seventy, the other not all quite there. We ran into them earlier in the day. Tony said they get beat up a lot, that other guys routinely steal what little money they get. He said he's had to step in on more than one occasion. "I got two or three more good years in me," he said with a laugh as he threw a punch into the air.

More than once, Tony mentioned that he felt like he was being tested, that he was on a mission to help others, often accompanied his constant mantra, "I'm tired. I'm tired." It was impossible for me not to notice the similarities between him and the biblical Job, both men struggling to remain righteous in the face of excruciating circumstances and trials. It reminded me of something his friend, a man by the name of Kevin Johnson, said the night before: "You have to love others more than yourself." Something he said he learned only after losing all of his family while in prison and found himself on the streets when he was finally released.

"Why do I do it? People say I'm stupid. 'Why you lookin' after them? They're not related to you.' That's just me," Tony said with a shrug. "Out here, we're all we got." He illustrated this by asking random passers-by for change or their leftovers, and noting in his own unique way how many of them simply ignored him. "See? And they say I'm blind. Fuck you! I'm your real daddy!" He also liked to use the word 'dyke' a lot. Definitely not saintly language; but he had a point. Very few of the people coming out of the numerous bars, clubs, and restaurants acknowledged him, let alone stopped to offer anything, or to even just say that they didn't have anything to give at the moment.

"They can spend $500 partying, but they can't spend $2 to give a man a damn sandwich?" As one person walked by, completely ignoring Tony, he said with watery eyes, "You don't think that hurts me?" It reminded me of all the times I did the same thing. I felt ashamed. And when one man actually did stop to offer Tony some change, Tony said, "I don't want your money. But what you just did right there, man, I love you for that."

And that, for me, perfectly illustrates the essence of this movement. No matter what others may say Occupy Detroit is about, or how the media tries to frame it, for me it's all about treating people like people. And that's exactly what the occupiers of Grand Circus Park are doing. They're not just 'a bunch of hippies' camping in protest of the growing economic inequality; they're setting up a comfort station, where occupiers and the homeless can get things like gloves, coats, and blankets; a food station, where anyone can get a bite to eat and cup of coffee; a medical station, where basic first aid can be given (I saw Red there last night). In essence, they're protesting by taking care of the community. As Dave would say, it's a movement by humanity, for humanity.

occupy detroit: yosh!

Occupy Detroit is scheduled to begin this Friday. We're meeting at the iconic Spirit of Detroit at 4pm, and marching to Grand Circus Park at 6pm, where the occupation is planned to take place. A friend and I are planning on at least spending Friday night there. Like other protesters, we want to help add our voice to movement and inspire others to do the same.

Of course, some people don't think that organizing and protesting can change anything, that it's simply a waste of time; but history shows otherwise. During the Great Depression, for example, similar protests and civil unrest motivated Roosevelt to institute major reforms such as the enactment of Social Security, unemployment insurance, minimum wage, the right of workers to organize unions, etc. And more recently, protests and occupations led to the resignation of Tunisia's longtime president and toppled Egypt's de facto dictatorship.

As for my own reasons for supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement, I can think of four right off the top of my head. I'm protesting: (1) rising wealth inequality and lower economic mobility; (2) the increased influence of money in politics since Citizens United v FEC; (3) grievous conflicts of interest in the 16 trillion Federal Reserve Bailout, which went to large financial institutions while average, working-class Americans got next to nothing; and (4) restrictions on the use of public space. Beyond that, I'm just trying to help create a better world—one where 1% of the population doesn't essentially rule over the other 99%.

To be honest, I don't know if this movement will be successful in the long run; but as I said before, I'm truly heartening to see so many people passionate about something greater than themselves rallying around a common cause, particularly in my home town of Detroit, and I'm happy that I can be a part of it. Even if we fail to change the world, at least we can say we tried.

google hands wikileaks volunteer's gmail data to u.s. government

This story reminds me of something I wrote last month: "[The use of digital/social media by activists] brings up issues from censorship to the security of the people who are trying to organize (e.g., the ability of corporate interests to reveal names, locations and correspondences of activists to governments) to whether the internet and certain online services should be regarded as part of the commons since they're fast becoming an integral part of how we communicate and function as a society. And that's just the tip of the iceberg." 'Don't be evil' my ass.

To be fair to Google, however, they were merely complying with a 1986 law enacted by Congress; and they're one of the companies actively trying to get Congress to revise the law in order to require more search warrants. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean I think it's kosher for Google to do whatever the government asks it to. Not only do I feel that the law itself is unjust as it stands, but I think that Google has a moral responsibility (because corporations are people, right?) to not comply if they're against the law ethically, morally, etc. There's nothing preventing Google from participating in an act of civil disobedience by simply not turning over private information to the government. By their own admission, they've complied with 94% of the 4,601 requests they've received, which makes me wonder how they got out of the other 6%.

Furthermore, according to another article by the Wall Street Journal, Google says that they "pressed for the right inform Mr. Appelbaum," but it isn't clear exactly what that means. How hard did they 'press,' for example? It seems that Twitter managed to successfully challenge a similar order and at least won the right to notify the people whose information was being sought, including Appelbaum. Moreover, Twitter hasn't turned over information from the Appelbaum's account yet, which is the same type of information Google was asked to turn over. Seems to me that Google isn't quite as powerless here as they might initially appear, which is why I'm so critical of their compliance.

And thinking about it some more, I've realized that I've completely written off Congress at this point. I have absolutely no faith whatsoever that they'll do anything useful, let alone anything that's in the best interest of average citizens. I have more faith in Google, a for-profit company, and their ability to say 'no' than I do of the potential for Congress, our 'elected representatives,' to respect our rights and privacy, especially if the initial enactment and subsequent extension of the Patriot Act is any kind of indication. In essence, my complaint is primarily with Google because I think they can, and actually will, do something positive given enough pressure.

public space for public use

Last night, Boston's mayor made it explicitly clear that, "Civil disobedience will not be tolerated." About a hundred people were arrested, including members of Veterans for Peace, for the awful crime of occupying a public space in order to exercise their constitutionally protected right to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We're being intimidated, and our voices are being suppressed by the very people we employ to protect and serve us. This is why we, the people, need to work even harder to reclaim our public spaces for public use and protect our rights. As one Occupy Wall Street protester in New York so succinctly put it in early October, "This group is reasserting the power to use public space in a democratic manner. That's democratic with a small d. Occupying public space is a metaphor for occupying political space." In my opinion, no one should be harassed and/or arrested by the police simply for peaceably occupying public space like parks, greenways, etc., especially when in the process of exercising their First Amendment right to free speech. And that goes doubly for veterans.

occupy detroit: a hopeful start

Today I attended the first General Assembly meeting for Occupy Detroit. It was an incredible experience. Not only was the turnout great, but the energy was, too. It was truly heartening to see so many people passionate about something greater than themselves rallying around a common cause, particularly in my home town of Detroit, which has a reputation of being cynical to the point of apathy when it comes to things like political activism. One lady even brought her young son to the event, and later tweeted, "Thanks for tonight. I brought my 4 yr old. We're both excited. He says he wants to make the world better."

Of course, not everything at the meeting went smoothly, but that's to be expected at the beginning of any spontaneous, grassroots movement; and I'm hopeful that the next meeting/march/occupation that's planned for this Friday will be even bigger and better if what I saw tonight is any indication of its potential. And that's saying something considering that many people, including myself, doubted that Detroit would actually manage to organize any sort of concerted response to, and in solidarity with, the Occupy Wall Street movement at all. But it is, and I'm damn proud of Detroit for it. As the handout I picked up says, "Detroit is a city of voices that deserve to be heard."

the homeless are people too

A fairly disheartening story I read in today's Macomb Daily:

Mount Clemens business owners concerned about vagrants, teens, bar crowd

What I mainly gather from this story is that the Mount Clemens Downtown Development Authority (DDA) cares more about harassing the homeless than it does welcoming alternative energy into the city, which is obvious from the things business owners are saying about the homeless themselves. (Of course, the article also mentions teenagers and rowdy bar goers, but the focus is predominately on the homeless.)

Instead of talking about these people as fellow human beings, they're talking about them as if they're some kind of pests, e.g., "We can't just tell them to get out, but we can enforce our loitering ordinances. We're doing what we can." They're idea of 'doing what we can' reminds me a lot of the Portland Business Alliance (PBA) and their repeated attempts to help pass the various sit-lie ordinances over the last 8-9 years.

The money — which could be used to help install electric charging stations, or even go towards some kind of program to help the homeless get off the streets so they don't have to sleep "in the crevices of City Hall" — is most likely going towards more foot patrols downtown in order to "make the public feel more secure." And, apparently, 'the public' doesn't include the homeless, which is one of the business community's primary targets.

(Incidentally, one of the issues I have with the institution of private property in relation to our current political-economic setup is that it essentially links private property to liberty, and through private property rights, secures the liberty of the propertied. Consequently, the greater one's property, the greater one's means of self-determination; while no access to property means a complete lack of self-determination whatsoever.)

It's not surprising to me that businesses value short-term profit over long-term sustainability or the welfare of the less fortunate; but it surprises me that we're not more critical of this kind of attitude as a community. I really hope that the budding Occupy Detroit movement will be able to help reverse this trend in some by giving the homeless and other marginalized segments of the community a voice they so desperately need, and in my opinion, deserve.

happy indigenous peoples' day (my yearly columbus day rant)

(Since I'm feeling lazy, here's something I wrote about Columbus Day last year.)

Screw all this Columbus Day bullshit, I prefer to call today Indigenous Peoples' Day. Why? Because Columbus doesn't deserve a national fucking holiday, that's why.

I don't dislike Columbus Day simply because he 'discovered' land that was already inhabited (Hispaniola), I dislike it for the fact that he helped to literally wipe that land of its original inhabitants, the peaceful Arawaks, through his unbelievable cruelty and that of those who followed him to the New World.

What happened to these poor people was nothing short of genocide, and there's simply no justification for it. Stealing land and killing and/or enslaving its native inhabitants isn't OK, and it's certainly not something to celebrate with a national holiday.

And for all those who are unfamiliar with the real history behind Columbus Day, I suggest checking out this excerpt from Howard Zinn's Columbus and Western Civilization, as well as this clip from The Canary Effect.

anime 101: equivalent exchange

According to Wikipedia, the general principle of equivalent exchange in Fullmetal Alchemist ("To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's first law of equivalent exchange") was initially inspired by the author's parents, who had to give all their effort working on their farm in order to earn the money to eat.

But the idea of equivalent exchange itself has been around for ages; and not just in relation to alchemy, either. For example, the concept can be found (perhaps most famously) in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, where, in the midst of discussing the role of money in the exchange of commodities, he writes, "If there were no exchange there would be no association, and there can be no exchange without equality, and no equality without commensurability" (1133b.1).

The more you know.

obligatory 'steve jobs is dead' post

So, Steve Jobs is dead. To be honest, I'm ambivalent about Steve Jobs' passing as I didn't know him personally; but I find the polarizing effect his death has had interesting. I see people fawning over him as if he single-handedly cured cancer and "invented the future," while others decry him as a capitalist monster who outsourced production to hellish Chinese factories and bashed teachers unions as "off-the-charts crazy."

For my own part, I don't think he was a saint or a monster, just an exceptionally intelligent, ambitious and lucky man (sans the whole pancreatic cancer thing) who was good at what he did, which wasn't necessarily good for all those inevitably involved. I will say, however that these opposing reactions bring to mind the Great Man Theory debate, which I think is perfectly illustrated by these two different perspectives on Steve Jobs' accomplishments: "Here's to the crazy ones: a farewell to Steve Jobs" and "The Social Genius Behind Steve Jobs."

In the end, my opinion of Jobs and his accomplishments falls more on the cynical side (as I'm generally critical of what Arthur Goldhammer calls "the hagiographic depiction of Steve Jobs as the heroic entrepreneur," which often ignore his penchant for authoritarianism and other faults); and as amazing and intelligent as he may have been (which I don't doubt is also true), I can't help but be reminded of Bertolt Brecht's poem, "Questions From a Worker Who Reads":

Who built Thebes of the 7 gates ?
In the books you will read the names of kings.
Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock ?

And Babylon, many times demolished,
Who raised it up so many times ?

In what houses of gold glittering Lima did its builders live ?
Where, the evening that the Great Wall of China was finished, did the masons go?

Great Rome is full of triumphal arches.
Who erected them ?

Over whom did the Caesars triumph ?
Had Byzantium, much praised in song, only palaces for its inhabitants ?

Even in fabled Atlantis, the night that the ocean engulfed it,
The drowning still cried out for their slaves.

The young Alexander conquered India.
Was he alone ?

Caesar defeated the Gauls.
Did he not even have a cook with him ?

Philip of Spain wept when his armada went down.
Was he the only one to weep ?

Frederick the 2nd won the 7 Years War.
Who else won it ?

Every page a victory.
Who cooked the feast for the victors ?

Every 10 years a great man.
Who paid the bill ?

So many reports.

So many questions.