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).