My Occupy LA Arrest, by Patrick Meighan

December 6, 2011

My name is Patrick Meighan, and I’m a husband, a father, a writer on the Fox animated sitcom “Family Guy”, and a member of the Unitarian Universalist Community Church of Santa Monica.

I was arrested at about 1 a.m. Wednesday morning with 291 other people at Occupy LA. I was sitting in City Hall Park with a pillow, a blanket, and a copy of Thich Nhat Hanh’s “Being Peace” when 1,400 heavily-armed LAPD officers in paramilitary SWAT gear streamed in. I was in a group of about 50 peaceful protestors who sat Indian-style, arms interlocked, around a tent (the symbolic image of the Occupy movement). The LAPD officers encircled us, weapons drawn, while we chanted “We Are Peaceful” and “We Are Nonviolent” and “Join Us.”

As we sat there, encircled, a separate team of LAPD officers used knives to slice open every personal tent in the park. They forcibly removed anyone sleeping inside, and then yanked out and destroyed any personal property inside those tents, scattering the contents across the park. They then did the same with the communal property of the Occupy LA movement. For example, I watched as the LAPD destroyed a pop-up canopy tent that, until that moment, had been serving as Occupy LA’s First Aid and Wellness tent, in which volunteer health professionals gave free medical care to absolutely anyone who requested it. As it happens, my family had personally contributed that exact canopy tent to Occupy LA, at a cost of several hundred of my family’s dollars. As I watched, the LAPD sliced that canopy tent to shreds, broke the telescoping poles into pieces and scattered the detritus across the park. Note that these were the objects described in subsequent mainstream press reports as “30 tons of garbage” that was “abandoned” by Occupy LA: personal property forcibly stolen from us, destroyed in front of our eyes and then left for maintenance workers to dispose of while we were sent to prison.

When the LAPD finally began arresting those of us interlocked around the symbolic tent, we were all ordered by the LAPD to unlink from each other (in order to facilitate the arrests). Each seated, nonviolent protester beside me who refused to cooperate by unlinking his arms had the following done to him: an LAPD officer would forcibly extend the protestor’s legs, grab his left foot, twist it all the way around and then stomp his boot on the insole, pinning the protestor’s left foot to the pavement, twisted backwards. Then the LAPD officer would grab the protestor’s right foot and twist it all the way the other direction until the non-violent protestor, in incredible agony, would shriek in pain and unlink from his neighbor.

It was horrible to watch, and apparently designed to terrorize the rest of us. At least I was sufficiently terrorized. I unlinked my arms voluntarily and informed the LAPD officers that I would go peacefully and cooperatively. I stood as instructed, and then I had my arms wrenched behind my back, and an officer hyperextended my wrists into my inner arms. It was super violent, it hurt really really bad, and he was doing it on purpose. When I involuntarily recoiled from the pain, the LAPD officer threw me face-first to the pavement. He had my hands behind my back, so I landed right on my face. The officer dropped with his knee on my back and ground my face into the pavement. It really, really hurt and my face started bleeding and I was very scared. I begged for mercy and I promised that I was honestly not resisting and would not resist.

My hands were then zipcuffed very tightly behind my back, where they turned blue. I am now suffering nerve damage in my right thumb and palm.

I was put on a paddywagon with other nonviolent protestors and taken to a parking garage in Parker Center. They forced us to kneel (and sit--SEE UPDATE) on the hard pavement of that parking garage for seven straight hours with our hands still tightly zipcuffed behind our backs. Some began to pass out. One man rolled to the ground and vomited for a long, long time before falling unconscious. The LAPD officers watched and did nothing.

At 9 a.m. we were finally taken from the pavement into the station to be processed. The charge was sitting in the park after the police said not to. It’s a misdemeanor. Almost always, for a misdemeanor, the police just give you a ticket and let you go. It costs you a couple hundred dollars. Apparently, that’s what happened with most every other misdemeanor arrest in LA that day.

With us Occupy LA protestors, however, they set bail at $5,000 and booked us into jail. Almost none of the protesters could afford to bail themselves out. I’m lucky and I could afford it, except the LAPD spent all day refusing to actually *accept* the bail they set. If you were an accused murderer or a rapist in LAPD custody that day, you could bail yourself right out and be back on the street, no problem. But if you were a nonviolent Occupy LA protestor with bail money in hand, you were held long into the following morning, with absolutely no access to a lawyer.

I spent most of my day and night crammed into an eight-man jail cell, along with sixteen other Occupy LA protesters. My sleeping spot was on the floor next to the toilet.

Finally, at 2:30 the next morning, after twenty-five hours in custody, I was released on bail. But there were at least 200 Occupy LA protestors who couldn’t afford the bail. The LAPD chose to keep those peaceful, non-violent protesters in prison for two full days… the absolute legal maximum that the LAPD is allowed to detain someone on misdemeanor charges.

As a reminder, Antonio Villaraigosa has referred to all of this as “the LAPD’s finest hour.”

So that’s what happened to the 292 women and men were arrested last Wednesday. Now let’s talk about a man who was not arrested last Wednesday. He is former Citigroup CEO Charles Prince. Under Charles Prince, Citigroup was guilty of massive, coordinated securities fraud.

Citigroup spent years intentionally buying up every bad mortgage loan it could find, creating bad securities out of those bad loans and then selling shares in those bad securities to duped investors. And then they sometimes secretly bet *against* their *own* bad securities to make even more money. For one such bad Citigroup security, Citigroup executives were internally calling it, quote, “a collection of dogshit”. To investors, however, they called it, quote, “an attractive investment rigorously selected by an independent investment adviser”.

This is fraud, and it’s a felony, and the Charles Princes of the world spent several years doing it again and again: knowingly writing bad mortgages, and then packaging them into fraudulent securities which they then sold to suckers and then repeating the process. This is a big part of why your property values went up so fast. But then the bubble burst, and that’s why our economy is now shattered for a generation, and it’s also why your home is now underwater. Or at least mine is.

Anyway, if your retirement fund lost a decade’s-worth of gains overnight, this is why.

If your son’s middle school has added furlough days because the school district can’t afford to keep its doors open for a full school year, this is why.

If your daughter has come out of college with a degree only to discover that there are no jobs for her, this is why.

But back to Charles Prince. For his four years of in charge of massive, repeated fraud at Citigroup, he received fifty-three million dollars in salary and also received another ninety-four million dollars in stock holdings. What Charles Prince has *not* received is a pair of zipcuffs. The nerves in his thumb are fine. No cop has thrown Charles Prince into the pavement, face-first. Each and every peaceful, nonviolent Occupy LA protester arrested last week has has spent more time sleeping on a jail floor than every single Charles Prince on Wall Street, combined.

The more I think about that, the madder I get. What does it say about our country that nonviolent protesters are given the bottom of a police boot while those who steal hundreds of billions, do trillions worth of damage to our economy and shatter our social fabric for a generation are not only spared the zipcuffs but showered with rewards?

In any event, believe it or not, I’m really not angry that I got arrested. I chose to get arrested. And I’m not even angry that the mayor and the LAPD decided to give non-violent protestors like me a little extra shiv in jail (although I’m not especially grateful for it either).

I’m just really angry that every single Charles Prince wasn’t in jail with me.

Thank you for letting me share that anger with you today.

Patrick Meighan

My Occupy LA Arrest, by Patrick Meighan


My Occupy LA Arrest, by Patrick Meighan

From the Farm to the Occupation

By Shannon Hayes

When an email from the group Food Democracy Now! landed in my inbox last week, asking farmers to occupy Wall Street, it seemed only right that I notify the subscribers of Grassfed Cooking—a monthly e-newsletter I run for other farmers of grassfed meats—and ask that they consider joining.

Some farmers, myself included, heeded the call and joined the march. Many who couldn’t make it to the city on short notice wrote to express their support. But a handful of caustic, angry responses showed up in my inbox as well:

“I hate to tell you, but you are part of the 1%...You may not be a millionaire banker, but you do own a business….Folks at OWS believe you should provide for their needs, and that they need to do nothing in return.”

“You just lost me as a subscriber.”

“OWS objectives are to destroy our free-choice political system and our free-market economy and replace them with anarcho-socialism. [If they succeed,] your first task of a morning will be to fire up the computer for the latest email from the Agricultural Czar, telling you what to plant in which field, and when.”

“OWS methods are as ugly as the future they envision, including defecating on the American flag and urinating on police cars.”

“What is wrong with you?....These “occupiers” are the ones that want something handed to them for doing nothing.”

“Occupy Wall Street is EVIL!”

“I wish you had stayed apolitical.”

Maybe I should have deleted the emails and moved on. I get plenty of nasty letters from anonymous folks who don’t like the fact that I eat meat, or that I’ve advocated homemaking as an ecologically and politically powerful vocation. Those letters go into a folder called “Alternative Fan Mail,” where they pretty much get forgotten. I could just do that with these. Or I could write and tell the senders they were being misled by corporations with a vested interest in convincing them that occupiers were bad people, out to ruin their way of life. I could explain they were being manipulated to get their continued compliance with the existing power structure. Chances are, they would tell me I was the one being misled. Our exchanges would zero each other out.

My stomach churned in angst over these notes. It was like getting hate mail from family, from people I deeply respect—people who believed in me and my work long before anyone else did. I started my writing career publishing recipes for grassfed meat. As a proponent of sustainable agriculture and grass-based ranching, and as a family farmer trying to get the American public to think outside the grocery store, it was the most important place for me to begin. If I wanted Americans to change the way they eat, then they needed recipes.

But for a long time, it was hard to get my work out. Glossy magazines didn’t want to talk to me; big house publishers said my topic wasn’t important. Tips for success were dropped in my lap along the way: “Hire a publicist.” “Go make friends with Rachel Ray.” “Pray that Martha Stewart will discover you, and then you’ll have it made.” “Accentuate your cleavage.” Not very practical tips. About two years after publishing my first cookbook, a well-meaning publishing professional from New York dropped by my farmers’ market booth to pick up a pack of sausages. Seeing my first cookbook on display, he chatted to me about my writing efforts. Before he left he leaned over and whispered his final prognosis for my career: “You’ll never make it. You don’t do lunch in the city.”

No. I didn’t do lunch. We were too busy growing lunch.

I decided that, if no one wanted to pay me to do my work, then I would give it away for free to the folks who valued it: other farmers. I began GrassfedCooking.com, a website devoted to helping pasture-based farmers communicate with their customers. I sent out the e-newsletter, providing recipes or tips for working more effectively with grassfed meats, or else opinion pieces that covered developments that impacted small farmers. The site slowly developed a faithful following of salt-of-the-earth farmers, food activists, and meat lovers. It became a kind of community.

Then I asked them to join a protest, and stepped in a hornet’s nest.

How to respond? To dismiss the opposing views would mean dismissing our relationship. That doesn’t help the Occupy movement, and it doesn’t help the grassfed farming movement. In the end, I did my best to have a dialogue, to point out our common interests, to respectfully explain that I was moving forward with my choice to march on Sunday. Not all farmers think of our work as political, but I do; it’s hard not to notice the role that corporate power plays in distorting our food system, from prices to farming practices.

I know I lost a few readers. But I think I managed to convince a few of them that, while they may not agree with all of the folks who have chosen to occupy Wall Street, there were at least a few people down in New York on Sunday who didn’t fit the profile that the news had told them to expect.

In truth, nobody fit the profile. My experience at the Sunday rally was one of the most moving four hours of my life, surrounded by hundreds of people who cared about the same issues I do: food sovereignty, the need for city people to start building soil and growing their own food, the need for rural and urban folks to build better relationships with each other to sidestep the corporate food system. I met dairy farmers, meat producers, seed producers, vegetable growers….even some friendly vegetarians. I met food activists, senior citizens concerned about the quality of food for their grandchildren, community gardeners, college students who were trying to learn how to feed themselves ethically and healthfully. We saw American flags, held up high. One of them led our march. And I saw a side of New York City that I’d never seen before. New Yorkers hung out their apartment windows, came to sit on their steps, sat out at cafes and stood in front of their small grocery stores and food stands. They cheered and clapped as we marched by. They sang and chanted with us. We marched through community gardens reclaimed from abandoned lots. I stepped on ground that was as lush and beautiful as any earth I tread upon here upstate.

The most poignant moment for me, however, was when our march passed through a community garden and I heard cheers from up above me. I looked up and saw four urban teenagers standing in a tree house. They waved and smiled, then held up a giant sign for us to read: This land will live again.

This land will live again. It will live in America’s countryside, in her mountains and rivers, as well as in her cities. To me, that’s what the Occupy movement is all about—finding ways for all living things to thrive. And for those of us in the grassfed farming community, that’s what we’re all about too, even if we don’t all agree with protests.

Shannon Hayes wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Shannon is the author of Radical Homemakers: Reclaiming Domesticity from a Consumer Culture, The Grassfed Gourmet andThe Farmer and the Grill. She is the host of Grassfedcooking.com andRadicalHomemakers.com. Hayes works with her family on Sap Bush Hollow Farm in Upstate New York.

This article was published at NationofChange at: http://www.nationofchange.org/farm-occupation-

L.A. and Occupy L.A. Agree: It’s Time to End Corporate Personhood | NationofChange

Published: Wednesday 7 December 2011

“What’s the issue that unites the occupiers and the city they’re occupying? Getting corporate money out of politics.

On De­cem­ber 3, just two days be­fore Oc­cupy L.A. was evicted by po­lice, the Gen­eral As­sem­bly of the oc­cu­pa­tion passed a unan­i­mous res­o­lu­tion call­ing for a con­sti­tu­tional amend­ment to end cor­po­rate per­son­hood.
Today, the City Coun­cil of Los An­ge­les also voted, also unan­i­mously, for a res­o­lu­tion mak­ing the same ap­peal, be­com­ing the first major city in the na­tion to do so.
So what’s the issue that unites the oc­cu­piers and the city they’re oc­cu­py­ing? Cor­po­rate per­son­hood, the legal con­cept that un­der­pins rul­ings like the Supreme Court's 2010 de­ci­sion in Cit­i­zens United v the Fed­eral Elec­tion Com­mis­sion, means that cor­po­ra­tions are con­sid­ered peo­ple under the law, with the con­sti­tu­tional right of free speech. Since the courts have also de­fined money as speech, the up­shot is that cor­po­ra­tions are em­pow­ered to spend un­lim­ited amounts of money try­ing to in­flu­ence the po­lit­i­cal process.

Na­tionofChange is a 501(c)3 non­profit funded di­rectly by our read­ers. Please make a small do­na­tion to sup­port our work.

It’s lit­tle sur­prise that Oc­cupy, a move­ment that wants our na­tion’s de­ci­sions to be made by the 99% in­stead of the 1%, sup­ports a con­sti­tu­tional fix for the prob­lem of cor­po­rate in­flu­ence on pol­i­tics. In its first of­fi­cial state­ment, the flag­ship oc­cu­pa­tion in New York’s Zuc­cotti Park de­clared, “no true democ­racy is at­tain­able when the process is de­ter­mined by eco­nomic power.” The as­sem­bly in­cluded in a list of griev­ances the fact that cor­po­ra­tions “have in­flu­enced the courts to achieve the same rights as peo­ple, with none of the cul­pa­bil­ity or re­spon­si­bil­ity.” Other Oc­cupy sites have also called for con­sti­tu­tional checks on cor­po­rate power, and slo­gans call­ing for the end of cor­po­rate per­son­hood and Cit­i­zens United are com­mon sights on pro­test­ers’ signs.
But when L.A. and Oc­cupy L.A. are mak­ing the same unan­i­mous de­mand, it’s clear that the de­sire to take on cor­po­rate power in pol­i­tics is gain­ing trac­tion.
In­deed, though Los An­ge­les is the largest city to date to join the call for a con­sti­tu­tional amend­ment tak­ing on cor­po­rate per­son­hood, it’s not the first. So far this year, vot­ers in Boul­der, Colo.; Mis­soula, Mont.; Madi­son, Wisc.; and Dane County, Wisc., have all passed bal­lot ini­tia­tives mak­ing the same ap­peal, with sup­port rang­ing from 75 % to 84%. Other cities, in­clud­ing Pitts­burgh, Penn., have gone so far as to elim­i­nate the rights of “per­son­hood” for cor­po­ra­tions seek­ing to per­form cer­tain ac­tiv­i­ties (such as nat­ural gas drilling in Pitts­burgh) within their bor­ders.
“Local res­o­lu­tion cam­paigns are an op­por­tu­nity for cit­i­zens to speak up and let it be known that we won’t ac­cept the cor­po­rate takeover of our gov­ern­ment,” said Kaitlin Sopoci-Belk­nap, a spokesper­son for Move to Amend. The group was cre­ated in the wake of Cit­i­zens United to ad­vo­cate for a con­sti­tu­tional amend­ment that would over­rule the de­ci­sion; a local chap­ter pressed for pas­sage of the res­o­lu­tion by the L.A. City Coun­cil. Move to Amend hopes that 50 cities and towns will put the same res­o­lu­tion on bal­lots next No­vem­ber. “Our plan is build a move­ment that will drive this issue into Con­gress from the grass­roots,” said Sopoci-Belk­nap.
Ap­prox­i­mately 100 peo­ple came to the L.A. coun­cil meet­ing to sup­port the res­o­lu­tion, many of them re­port­edly mem­bers of Oc­cupy L.A.
The Los An­ge­les Times re­ported only one dis­senter: a man in a top hat, with fake money pour­ing out of the pock­ets of his suit, who said he had come to speak for the wealthy. He im­plored the coun­cil not to pass the res­o­lu­tion.
Brooke Jarvis wrote this ar­ti­cle for YES! Mag­a­zine, a na­tional, non­profit media or­ga­ni­za­tion that fuses pow­er­ful ideas with prac­ti­cal ac­tions. Brooke Jarvis is YES! Mag­a­zine's web ed­i­tor.

Post a Com­ment

Re­size Text + | - | R

Plain Text

Print

SHARE

Email

On De­cem­ber 3, just two days be­fore Oc­cupy L.A. was evicted by po­lice, the Gen­eral As­sem­bly of the oc­cu­pa­tion passed a unan­i­mous res­o­lu­tion call­ing for a con­sti­tu­tional amend­ment to end cor­po­rate per­son­hood.
Today, the City Coun­cil of Los An­ge­les also voted, also unan­i­mously, for a res­o­lu­tion mak­ing the same ap­peal, be­com­ing the first major city in the na­tion to do so.
So what’s the issue that unites the oc­cu­piers and the city they’re oc­cu­py­ing? Cor­po­rate per­son­hood, the legal con­cept that un­der­pins rul­ings like the Supreme Court's 2010 de­ci­sion in Cit­i­zens United v the Fed­eral Elec­tion Com­mis­sion, means that cor­po­ra­tions are con­sid­ered peo­ple under the law, with the con­sti­tu­tional right of free speech. Since the courts have also de­fined money as speech, the up­shot is that cor­po­ra­tions are em­pow­ered to spend un­lim­ited amounts of money try­ing to in­flu­ence the po­lit­i­cal process.

Na­tionofChange is a 501(c)3 non­profit funded di­rectly by our read­ers. Please make a small do­na­tion to sup­port our work.

It’s lit­tle sur­prise that Oc­cupy, a move­ment that wants our na­tion’s de­ci­sions to be made by the 99% in­stead of the 1%, sup­ports a con­sti­tu­tional fix for the prob­lem of cor­po­rate in­flu­ence on pol­i­tics. In its first of­fi­cial state­ment, the flag­ship oc­cu­pa­tion in New York’s Zuc­cotti Park de­clared, “no true democ­racy is at­tain­able when the process is de­ter­mined by eco­nomic power.” The as­sem­bly in­cluded in a list of griev­ances the fact that cor­po­ra­tions “have in­flu­enced the courts to achieve the same rights as peo­ple, with none of the cul­pa­bil­ity or re­spon­si­bil­ity.” Other Oc­cupy sites have also called for con­sti­tu­tional checks on cor­po­rate power, and slo­gans call­ing for the end of cor­po­rate per­son­hood and Cit­i­zens United are com­mon sights on pro­test­ers’ signs.
But when L.A. and Oc­cupy L.A. are mak­ing the same unan­i­mous de­mand, it’s clear that the de­sire to take on cor­po­rate power in pol­i­tics is gain­ing trac­tion.
In­deed, though Los An­ge­les is the largest city to date to join the call for a con­sti­tu­tional amend­ment tak­ing on cor­po­rate per­son­hood, it’s not the first. So far this year, vot­ers in Boul­der, Colo.; Mis­soula, Mont.; Madi­son, Wisc.; and Dane County, Wisc., have all passed bal­lot ini­tia­tives mak­ing the same ap­peal, with sup­port rang­ing from 75 % to 84%. Other cities, in­clud­ing Pitts­burgh, Penn., have gone so far as to elim­i­nate the rights of “per­son­hood” for cor­po­ra­tions seek­ing to per­form cer­tain ac­tiv­i­ties (such as nat­ural gas drilling in Pitts­burgh) within their bor­ders.
“Local res­o­lu­tion cam­paigns are an op­por­tu­nity for cit­i­zens to speak up and let it be known that we won’t ac­cept the cor­po­rate takeover of our gov­ern­ment,” said Kaitlin Sopoci-Belk­nap, a spokesper­son for Move to Amend. The group was cre­ated in the wake of Cit­i­zens United to ad­vo­cate for a con­sti­tu­tional amend­ment that would over­rule the de­ci­sion; a local chap­ter pressed for pas­sage of the res­o­lu­tion by the L.A. City Coun­cil. Move to Amend hopes that 50 cities and towns will put the same res­o­lu­tion on bal­lots next No­vem­ber. “Our plan is build a move­ment that will drive this issue into Con­gress from the grass­roots,” said Sopoci-Belk­nap.
Ap­prox­i­mately 100 peo­ple came to the L.A. coun­cil meet­ing to sup­port the res­o­lu­tion, many of them re­port­edly mem­bers of Oc­cupy L.A.
The Los An­ge­les Times re­ported only one dis­senter: a man in a top hat, with fake money pour­ing out of the pock­ets of his suit, who said he had come to speak for the wealthy. He im­plored the coun­cil not to pass the res­o­lu­tion.
Brooke Jarvis wrote this ar­ti­cle for YES! Mag­a­zine, a na­tional, non­profit media or­ga­ni­za­tion that fuses pow­er­ful ideas with prac­ti­cal ac­tions. Brooke Jarvis is YES! Mag­a­zine's web ed­i­tor.

NationofChange is a 501(c)3 nonprofit funded directly by our readers. Please make a small donation to support our work.

On December 3, just two days before Occupy L.A. was evicted by police, the General Assembly of the occupation passed a unanimous resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood.
Today, the City Council of Los Angeles also voted, also unanimously, for a resolution making the same appeal, becoming the first major city in the nation to do so.
So what’s the issue that unites the occupiers and the city they’re occupying? Corporate personhood, the legal concept that underpins rulings like the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v the Federal Election Commission, means that corporations are considered people under the law, with the constitutional right of free speech. Since the courts have also defined money as speech, the upshot is that corporations are empowered to spend unlimited amounts of money trying to influence the political process.

NationofChange is a 501(c)3 nonprofit funded directly by our readers. Please make a small donation to support our work.

It’s little surprise that Occupy, a movement that wants our nation’s decisions to be made by the 99% instead of the 1%, supports a constitutional fix for the problem of corporate influence on politics. In its first official statement, the flagship occupation in New York’s Zuccotti Park declared, “no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.” The assembly included in a list of grievances the fact that corporations “have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.” Other Occupy sites have also called for constitutional checks on corporate power, and slogans calling for the end of corporate personhood and Citizens United are common sights on protesters’ signs.
But when L.A. and Occupy L.A. are making the same unanimous demand, it’s clear that the desire to take on corporate power in politics is gaining traction.
Indeed, though Los Angeles is the largest city to date to join the call for a constitutional amendment taking on corporate personhood, it’s not the first. So far this year, voters in Boulder, Colo.; Missoula, Mont.; Madison, Wisc.; and Dane County, Wisc., have all passed ballot initiatives making the same appeal, with support ranging from 75 % to 84%. Other cities, including Pittsburgh, Penn., have gone so far as to eliminate the rights of “personhood” for corporations seeking to perform certain activities (such as natural gas drilling in Pittsburgh) within their borders.
“Local resolution campaigns are an opportunity for citizens to speak up and let it be known that we won’t accept the corporate takeover of our government,” said Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, a spokesperson for Move to Amend. The group was created in the wake of Citizens United to advocate for a constitutional amendment that would overrule the decision; a local chapter pressed for passage of the resolution by the L.A. City Council. Move to Amend hopes that 50 cities and towns will put the same resolution on ballots next November. “Our plan is build a movement that will drive this issue into Congress from the grassroots,” said Sopoci-Belknap.
Approximately 100 people came to the L.A. council meeting to support the resolution, many of them reportedly members of Occupy L.A.
The Los Angeles Times reported only one dissenter: a man in a top hat, with fake money pouring out of the pockets of his suit, who said he had come to speak for the wealthy. He implored the council not to pass the resolution.
Brooke Jarvis wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Brooke Jarvis is YES! Magazine's web editor.

On December 3, just two days before Occupy L.A. was evicted by police, the General Assembly of the occupation passed a unanimous resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood.
Today, the City Council of Los Angeles also voted, also unanimously, for a resolution making the same appeal, becoming the first major city in the nation to do so.
So what’s the issue that unites the occupiers and the city they’re occupying? Corporate personhood, the legal concept that underpins rulings like the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v the Federal Election Commission, means that corporations are considered people under the law, with the constitutional right of free speech. Since the courts have also defined money as speech, the upshot is that corporations are empowered to spend unlimited amounts of money trying to influence the political process.

NationofChange is a 501(c)3 nonprofit funded directly by our readers. Please make a small donation to support our work.

It’s little surprise that Occupy, a movement that wants our nation’s decisions to be made by the 99% instead of the 1%, supports a constitutional fix for the problem of corporate influence on politics. In its first official statement, the flagship occupation in New York’s Zuccotti Park declared, “no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.” The assembly included in a list of grievances the fact that corporations “have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.” Other Occupy sites have also called for constitutional checks on corporate power, and slogans calling for the end of corporate personhood and Citizens United are common sights on protesters’ signs.
But when L.A. and Occupy L.A. are making the same unanimous demand, it’s clear that the desire to take on corporate power in politics is gaining traction.
Indeed, though Los Angeles is the largest city to date to join the call for a constitutional amendment taking on corporate personhood, it’s not the first. So far this year, voters in Boulder, Colo.; Missoula, Mont.; Madison, Wisc.; and Dane County, Wisc., have all passed ballot initiatives making the same appeal, with support ranging from 75 % to 84%. Other cities, including Pittsburgh, Penn., have gone so far as to eliminate the rights of “personhood” for corporations seeking to perform certain activities (such as natural gas drilling in Pittsburgh) within their borders.
“Local resolution campaigns are an opportunity for citizens to speak up and let it be known that we won’t accept the corporate takeover of our government,” said Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, a spokesperson for Move to Amend. The group was created in the wake of Citizens United to advocate for a constitutional amendment that would overrule the decision; a local chapter pressed for passage of the resolution by the L.A. City Council. Move to Amend hopes that 50 cities and towns will put the same resolution on ballots next November. “Our plan is build a movement that will drive this issue into Congress from the grassroots,” said Sopoci-Belknap.
Approximately 100 people came to the L.A. council meeting to support the resolution, many of them reportedly members of Occupy L.A.
The Los Angeles Times reported only one dissenter: a man in a top hat, with fake money pouring out of the pockets of his suit, who said he had come to speak for the wealthy. He implored the council not to pass the resolution.
Brooke Jarvis wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Brooke Jarvis is YES! Magazine's web editor.

It’s little surprise that Occupy, a movement that wants our nation’s decisions to be made by the 99% instead of the 1%, supports a constitutional fix for the problem of corporate influence on politics. In its first official statement, the flagship occupation in New York’s Zuccotti Park declared, “no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.” The assembly included in a list of grievances the fact that corporations “have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.” Other Occupy sites have also called for constitutional checks on corporate power, and slogans calling for the end of corporate personhood and Citizens United are common sights on protesters’ signs.
But when L.A. and Occupy L.A. are making the same unanimous demand, it’s clear that the desire to take on corporate power in politics is gaining traction.
Indeed, though Los Angeles is the largest city to date to join the call for a constitutional amendment taking on corporate personhood, it’s not the first. So far this year, voters in Boulder, Colo.; Missoula, Mont.; Madison, Wisc.; and Dane County, Wisc., have all passed ballot initiatives making the same appeal, with support ranging from 75 % to 84%. Other cities, including Pittsburgh, Penn., have gone so far as to eliminate the rights of “personhood” for corporations seeking to perform certain activities (such as natural gas drilling in Pittsburgh) within their borders.
“Local resolution campaigns are an opportunity for citizens to speak up and let it be known that we won’t accept the corporate takeover of our government,” said Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, a spokesperson for Move to Amend. The group was created in the wake of Citizens United to advocate for a constitutional amendment that would overrule the decision; a local chapter pressed for passage of the resolution by the L.A. City Council. Move to Amend hopes that 50 cities and towns will put the same resolution on ballots next November. “Our plan is build a movement that will drive this issue into Congress from the grassroots,” said Sopoci-Belknap.
Approximately 100 people came to the L.A. council meeting to support the resolution, many of them reportedly members of Occupy L.A.
The Los Angeles Times reported only one dissenter: a man in a top hat, with fake money pouring out of the pockets of his suit, who said he had come to speak for the wealthy. He implored the council not to pass the resolution.
Brooke Jarvis wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Brooke Jarvis is YES! Magazine's web editor.

On December 3, just two days before Occupy L.A. was evicted by police, the General Assembly of the occupation passed a unanimous resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood.
Today, the City Council of Los Angeles also voted, also unanimously, for a resolution making the same appeal, becoming the first major city in the nation to do so.
So what’s the issue that unites the occupiers and the city they’re occupying? Corporate personhood, the legal concept that underpins rulings like the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v the Federal Election Commission, means that corporations are considered people under the law, with the constitutional right of free speech. Since the courts have also defined money as speech, the upshot is that corporations are empowered to spend unlimited amounts of money trying to influence the political process.

NationofChange is a 501(c)3 nonprofit funded directly by our readers. Please make a small donation to support our work.

It’s little surprise that Occupy, a movement that wants our nation’s decisions to be made by the 99% instead of the 1%, supports a constitutional fix for the problem of corporate influence on politics. In its first official statement, the flagship occupation in New York’s Zuccotti Park declared, “no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.” The assembly included in a list of grievances the fact that corporations “have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.” Other Occupy sites have also called for constitutional checks on corporate power, and slogans calling for the end of corporate personhood and Citizens United are common sights on protesters’ signs.
But when L.A. and Occupy L.A. are making the same unanimous demand, it’s clear that the desire to take on corporate power in politics is gaining traction.
Indeed, though Los Angeles is the largest city to date to join the call for a constitutional amendment taking on corporate personhood, it’s not the first. So far this year, voters in Boulder, Colo.; Missoula, Mont.; Madison, Wisc.; and Dane County, Wisc., have all passed ballot initiatives making the same appeal, with support ranging from 75 % to 84%. Other cities, including Pittsburgh, Penn., have gone so far as to eliminate the rights of “personhood” for corporations seeking to perform certain activities (such as natural gas drilling in Pittsburgh) within their borders.
“Local resolution campaigns are an opportunity for citizens to speak up and let it be known that we won’t accept the corporate takeover of our government,” said Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, a spokesperson for Move to Amend. The group was created in the wake of Citizens United to advocate for a constitutional amendment that would overrule the decision; a local chapter pressed for passage of the resolution by the L.A. City Council. Move to Amend hopes that 50 cities and towns will put the same resolution on ballots next November. “Our plan is build a movement that will drive this issue into Congress from the grassroots,” said Sopoci-Belknap.
Approximately 100 people came to the L.A. council meeting to support the resolution, many of them reportedly members of Occupy L.A.
The Los Angeles Times reported only one dissenter: a man in a top hat, with fake money pouring out of the pockets of his suit, who said he had come to speak for the wealthy. He implored the council not to pass the resolution.
Brooke Jarvis wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Brooke Jarvis is YES! Magazine's web edi

L.A. and Occupy L.A. Agree: It’s Time to End Corporate Personhood | NationofChange

Jobless Take Their Grievances Directly to Congress | NationofChange

Amer­ica's un­em­ployed work­ers brought their mes­sage of frus­tra­tion and de­spair di­rectly to the U.S. Capi­tol on Tues­day as they filled the con­gres­sional of­fices of dozens of law­mak­ers and re­fused to leave until they met with their elected rep­re­sen­ta­tives.
The sit-in style con­fronta­tions were the open­ing salvo of a three-day protest event dubbed "Take Back the Capi­tol," which is spon­sored by a coali­tion of pro­gres­sive or­ga­ni­za­tions.
The groups want Con­gress to pass Pres­i­dent Barack Obama's jobs bill, ex­tend the fed­eral pay­roll-tax break for work­ing Amer­i­cans and ex­tend the fed­eral emer­gency un­em­ploy­ment-in­sur­ance ben­e­fits that are slated to ex­pire Dec. 31.
While the protests over­whelm­ingly tar­geted Re­pub­li­can law­mak­ers who op­pose the Obama jobs plan, the groups also vis­ited with lead­ing con­gres­sional De­moc­rats such as Rep. Heath Shuler of North Car­olina and House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Mi­nor­ity Whip Steny Hoyer of Mary­land.
Un­daunted by a steady morn­ing driz­zle, hun­dreds of pro­test­ers emerged from their "tent city" on the Na­tional Mall and trekked to the Capi­tol, where they made good on their promise to "swarm the halls" and track down mem­bers of Con­gress to de­mand com­mit­ments on their pet is­sues.
"If they don't pass the jobs bill, we will get rid of them," said Oliver Hen­dricks, an un­em­ployed iron­worker from Boston who was among 250 Mass­a­chu­setts res­i­dents who came to protest.
As the Mass­a­chu­setts group made its way through the Mall chant­ing, "We are the 99 per­cent," Hen­dricks said he was anx­ious to chal­lenge Mass­a­chu­setts Re­pub­li­can Sen. Scott Brown's op­po­si­tion to the pres­i­dent's jobs bill and Brown's pre­vi­ous vote against ex­tend­ing job­less ben­e­fits.
"He has voted against every bill that would help us," said Hen­dricks, who hasn't found work since he lost his job in March 2010.

Help us speak truth to power. Do­nate what you can af­ford to sup­port Na­tionofChange.

Hen­dricks, 56, said he'd lost his home of 16 years to fore­clo­sure re­cently when the bank backed out of a loan mod­i­fi­ca­tion plan with­out no­tice and then tried to auc­tion off his prop­erty. He re­mains in the home while he chal­lenges the ac­tion in court, but he must pay monthly rent to the bank until his ap­peal is re­solved.
The cri­sis is test­ing his met­tle. "I'm a Chris­t­ian and I'm liv­ing only by the grace of God," Hen­dricks said. "I'm fight­ing for every­thing right now. I'm fight­ing for my life."
In many of the of­fice meet­ings with GOP law­mak­ers, staffers were po­lite but dis­mis­sive, telling pro­test­ers that the con­gres­sional rep­re­sen­ta­tives or sen­a­tors they sought were out of the of­fice or too busy to meet with them. At that point, most pro­test­ers de­cided to oc­cupy the of­fices or camp out until the law­mak­ers showed up.
Capi­tol Po­lice ar­rested at least one pro­tester for un­law­ful entry at the of­fice of Rep. Vicky Hart­zler, R-Mo.
About 40 pro­test­ers faced "strong op­po­si­tion" from staff at Cal­i­for­nia Re­pub­li­can Rep. Dar­rell Issa's of­fice be­fore se­cu­rity es­corted them away, said pro­tester Rikki Bradley, a Cal­i­for­nia state em­ployee with the De­part­ment of Hous­ing and Com­mu­nity De­vel­op­ment.
The staff for Rep. Dan Lun­gren, R-Calif., was much more hos­pitable, Bradley said. Lun­gren emerged from his of­fice after sev­eral hours and shook hands with the re­main­ing four or five pro­test­ers who'd de­cided to wait for him.
When pressed on his vot­ing record, Lun­gren said he'd voted for nu­mer­ous bills to cre­ate jobs in Cal­i­for­nia, Bradley said.
"Then we asked, 'What about the ex­ten­sion of un­em­ploy­ment ben­e­fits?' to which he turned around and walked out. He made a left out of the of­fice and kept going," Bradley said. "We were sur­prised he even talked to us, but we felt like he just heard us. He didn't lis­ten."
When 40 peo­ple showed up at Florida Re­pub­li­can Sen. Marco Rubio's of­fice, they de­clined of­fers to meet with the sen­a­tor's se­nior staff mem­bers.
"The staff has al­ways promised us that they'll get back to us and the sen­a­tor will even­tu­ally meet with us. This has gone on for months. We want to meet with the sen­a­tor now," said Jose Suarez, a spokesman for 1Mi­ami, a coali­tion of pro­gres­sive grass-roots or­ga­ni­za­tions.
"One hun­dred fifty peo­ple got on buses, took time out of their lives, left their fam­i­lies back in Miami for 18 hours to come and do this today, so we're not going to meet with any­one but the sen­a­tor," Suarez said. At 6 p.m. Tues­day, the group was still wait­ing. Suarez said they'd re­turn Wednes­day.
John Reat, 62, from Wor­thing­ton, Ohio, was among the 40 or so who were camped out out­side the of­fice of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, just off the Capi­tol Ro­tunda. Since he lost his in­for­ma­tion tech­nol­ogy job in De­cem­ber 2009, Reat has re­ceived un­em­ploy­ment in­sur­ance ben­e­fits. But they'll ex­pire next month un­less Con­gress agrees to ex­tend the fed­eral emer­gency ben­e­fits.
Be­cause his wife still works, Reat's fam­ily isn't in dire fi­nan­cial straits. But as one of the face­less "99 per­centers," Reat said it was im­por­tant to come to Wash­ing­ton to make his voice heard.
"I just got up off my couch and said, 'I've got to say some­thing,' " Reat said. "I'm part of the 99 per­cent who play by the rules. We pay taxes. We save for re­tire­ment. But the 1 per­cent is play­ing fast and loose with the mort­gages, fast and loose with the re­tire­ment plans, and fast and loose with the jobs. And this just sim­ply has to stop. It can't con­tinue this way."
The protest ac­tiv­i­ties con­tinue Wednes­day, when the group walks to K Street to protest the po­lit­i­cal in­flu­ence of cor­po­rate lob­by­ists. On Thurs­day, it'll host a na­tional prayer vigil for the un­em­ployed on Capi­tol Hill.

Jobless Take Their Grievances Directly to Congress | NationofChange

Crossing Police Lines: US cops defect to OWS - YouTube

More from one of the bravest men in America working for the Occupy movement on the streets of NY City while representing the 99%, retired police officer Lt Ray Lewis. Who's keenly aware of the tyranny bearing down on America from a militarized police force and the suppression and censorship of the media.

Uploaded by RussiaToday on Dec 1, 2011

Police in Los Angeles have cleared one of the last and longest-standing 'Occupy' camps in the U.S, making 300 arrests in the process. These latest arrests bring the total across the whole 'Occupy' movement to almost 5,000, but now police are starting to defect to the other side. Our correspondent Marina Portnaya has been finding out why some people have been choosing to make history instead of making arrests.

RT on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com
RT on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews

Crossing Police Lines: US cops defect to OWS - YouTube

Randi Rhodes Homework | RR - Homework - Randi Rhodes

Randi has some great material and information here, her staff works hard to keep us well informed...so do your homework! Hey, at least she tries to make it as fun as possible...

Audio/Video

Payroll Tax Cut Fails to Proceed
Boehner On Whether Letting The Payroll Tax Cut Expire Hurts The Economy: ‘I’m Not An Economist’
Mitt Romney with Fox and Friends on the Unemployment Numbers
Colbert On A Testy Mitt Romney
Gingrich Doubles Down On Child Labor: Poor Kids Should ‘Clean The Bathroom’
Newt Gingrich: "I'm Going To Be The Nominee"
Kermit the Frog To Wolf Blitzer: ‘I Have To Tell You, Newt Is From The Swamp’
Ron Paul Launches Brutal Attack on Newt Gingrich
Cain: I helped a friend in need; my wife didn’t know about it
Bachmann: Gays ‘can marry a woman if they’re a man’
Michele Bachmann Wants To Close US Embassy In Iran That’s Been Gone for 31 Years
Our Listener Tom at Occupy LA

Jobs & the Economy

Jobs Report: 140,000 private-sector jobs added; 20,000 public-sector jobs lost; Sept & Oct revised upwards by 72,000; unemployment rate drops to 8.6%
Unemployment Drops to 8.6% as Private Sector Adds Jobs
Andy Stern: The free-market fundamentalist economic model is being thrown onto the trash heap of history
Payroll Tax Cut Extension Rejected In Senate Vote; GOP wanted to slash 200K jobs
Raise Taxes on Rich to Reward True Job Creators: Consumers
Fact Check: Barack Obama says taxes are lower for middle class today than when he took office – he’s right.
Norquist Tells GOP That Raising Taxes On The Middle Class Doesn’t Count As A Tax Increase
Expiration of jobless benefits sparks debate
Ohio Gov. John Kasich Is ‘Very Pleased’ That The Auto Rescue He Originally Opposed Saved The Auto Industry
Sidebar: Guns are a big seller on Black Friday

GOP 2012

How Republicans are being taught to talk about Occupy Wall Street by Frank Luntz
Why Republicans Embrace Simpletons and How it Hurts America
Cain Says He Aided Accuser Without Telling His Wife
Herman Cain sets Monday decision deadline
Why can’t it be Ron Paul?
Elizabeth Warren Is Pulling Ahead Of Scott Brown: Poll
Sidebar: House Votes To End Public Funding Of Presidential Campaigns

The Occupation

Occupy protesters disrupt Cain event
Protesters greet CEO of Wells Fargo at NCSU
Cops Invade Occupy Boston To Seize Its Sink
Civil rights lawyers move to fight Occupy evictions nationwide

Meanwhile…

Read more: http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/homework.html?feed=364336&article=9464177#ixzz1fSam3ot9

Randi Rhodes Homework | RR - Homework - Randi Rhodes

Pizza Brutality: Police Devour Protesters' Pies - NYTimes.com

December 2, 2011, 3:14 pm

By JILLIAN DUNHAM and ANDY NEWMAN

First there was pepper spray. Then came the batons. But on Thursday night, bad relations between the police and protesters entered a new dimension. While arrested demonstrators sat in their cells at a Lower East side station house, the police, protesters say, stole their pizza and drank all their soda pop.
“NYPD Sadistically Eats Pizzas Meant for World AIDS Day Occupy Wall St. Protesters,” read the headline on the protesters’ news release about the episode.
The police concede that they ate the pizza, but said they thought the pies were intended for them.
“Any way you slice it, it was an honest mistake,” said Paul J. Browne, the head police spokesman.
On Thursday — World AIDS Day — eight marchers in Robin Hood costumes were arrested for lying down in Broadway near City Hall while demanding a tax on the rich to pay for AIDS research.
They were taken to the Seventh Precinct station house on Pitt Street. Supporters from the advocacy group Housing Works ordered two large pies — “from the revered pizzeria Mini Munchies, which earned four and a half stars on menupages.com,” the news release noted.
They were delivered to the station house, but not to the prisoners. “We could see the empty pizza boxes in the trash,” Charles King, Housing Works’ chief executive and one of those arrested, said in a statement.
When the protesters confronted the officers, Mr. King said, the officers “just smiled and laughed at us and didn’t deny it.” Also missing in the fray: one-liter bottles of Sprite and Coke.
Mr. Browne, the police spokesman, explained that the officers “began to consume pizza delivered at the desk in the mistaken belief that Task Force officers had ordered it for their fellow officers, a common practice when outside units make arrests in another command.”
In any case, Mr. Browne said, “prisoner meals must be provided by the department itself,” not by outsiders — for the prisoners’ own safety.
The officers, both parties agree, offered to order replacement pizza. But the prisoners refused — because it was late, and out of principle, said David Thorpe, a Housing Works spokesman.
As to the honest-mistake explanation, Mr. Thorpe pronounced it “laughable.”
“They were smug about having pulled a joke on the activists,” he said. “They can say they’re sorry now, but their actions at the time say something else.”

Pizza Brutality: Police Devour Protesters' Pies - NYTimes.com

The 2012 Awakening: Musician Jackson Browne: ‘Occupy’ having ‘a real effect’ on politics | The Raw Story

Check out Jackson Brown's "unplugged" performance for a small crowd at Occupy NY and his appearance on Keith Olberman at our sister site The 2012 Awakening here:

The 2012 Awakening: Musician Jackson Browne: ‘Occupy’ having ‘a real effect’ on politics | The Raw Story

Occupy Seattle swoops in around JPMorgan Chase executive - latimes.com

I would beg to differ with Dimon's assessment below that it will get better, yes it will but it's going to take 16 years at the current rate for all the jobs that were lost to come back. Something MUST DRASTICALLY change if any of us are to have a chance at a decent life any time in the foreseeable future. This just in from Turthout.org:

"Over the last three months, overall job growth has averaged 143,000. It takes roughly 90,000 jobs to keep even with the growth of the labor force. At this rate, it will take close to 200 months, or 16 years, to make up for the 10-million-job deficit in the economy." http://www.2012theawakening.org/2011/12/trends-show-women-losing-access-to-jobs.html

November 3, 2011 | 12:43 am

How to light a match under what has been a mainly low-key Occupy Seattle protest? Try bringing the guy protesters like to think of as Darth Vader to town.
Leaders of the University of Washington's Foster School of Business say it was a year ago that they booked JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon as the keynote speaker at their business leadership dinner, enthusiastic about his stated belief that "the constant creation of good leaders" is the key to companies passing "the true test of greatness."
But by Wednesday, when Dimon arrived, the story line had changed somewhat.
Activists camped out in cities across the country have for weeks singled out Chase and other big banks as enemies of good government and popular prosperity. In Seattle, Chase has been the target of particular ire as a result of its acquisition of former hometown bank Washington Mutual, a buyout that put 3,400 WaMu employees out of work and left much of the former bank's downtown real estate suddenly empty.
As it ended up, Dimon's speech was a big draw on all counts: It was a sellout to the MBA crowd inside, and Occupy Seattle activists outside moved in like X-wing starfighters to the Death Star.
Protesters marched through downtown to the hotel where Dimon was speaking, locking arms in an attempt to barricade hotel entrances and waving signs: "Prosecute the Real Thieves -- Chase CEO" and "What are profits if you lose your soul?"
In another part of town earlier in the day, activists surrounded a Chase bank branch and a few briefly got inside before police pulled them out, prompting running clashes between protesters and police and arrests on trespassing charges of five people who had been in the bank.
Police said in their report that at least 10 officers were physically assaulted while removing activists from the scene of the bank protest, with two suffering minor injuries.
Pepper spray was deployed to push back protesters at the bank and later when police cleared entrances to the hotel where Dimon was speaking.
"We are hoping that by our presence at an event where he is a keynote speaker, we will let him and the larger community know that the public is no longer tolerating the misdeeds of the big banks," an Occupy Seattle spokeswoman, who would identify herself only as Ellen, said in an interview.
The Seattle Times and other local reporters talked to the Chase CEO before his speech, and he said he understood protesters' frustration with Wall Street. "They're right. In general, these big institutions of America let them down. That's not the same thing as to say that every bank was bad, every politician was bad. That's where I would disagree," he said, according to the Times.
"America has become more inequitable in the last 10 or 20 years. That's a fact," he said. "I don't personally think that's a good thing. I've been a big supporter of progressive taxes."
But Dimon also predicted that the current economic downturn would eventually reverse, and that young people looking for jobs would eventually find them. "Keep the faith," he said. "I wish we hadn't put them in this position. Remember those fundamentals always when you wake up: You are in the best country, and it will come back."
On Thursday, Dimon is scheduled to head to Portland, Ore., for a Business Alliance lunch. Occupy Portland is ready: Activists there say on their "Occupy Jamie Dimon" Facebook page that they're planning "a little guerrilla theater."
ALSO:
Ricin: Is it the perfect way to kill?
Bloods, Crips, Juggalos? FBI: Insane Clown Posse fans are gang
Woman on Texas death row to be re-sentenced; life term expected
-- Kim Murphy in Seattle
Photo: Protesters try to barricade the Sheraton Hotel in Seattle, where JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive Jamie Dimon was speaking. Credit: Elaine Thompson / Associated Press

Occupy Seattle swoops in around JPMorgan Chase executive - latimes.com

The 99 Percent Takes Office: Lessons From a Rhode Island Special Election | Truthout

The lesser of two evils isn't an option anymore, we must find and elect people at the grassroots level who will champion the interests of the 99% against powerfully influential corporate lobbying interests and the lure of money.

Thursday 1 December 2011

by: Amy Dean, Truthout

Carmen Castillo. (Photo: carmencastilloward9.com)

If labor and other progressive groups are going to rebuild an economy that works for the 99 percent in America, they need to do great organizing in workplaces and communities and they also need to build deep coalitions among themselves. But that's not enough.

They also need to translate their organizing muscle into political power. And that means looking at electoral strategies in a new way.

The progressive victories in this November's elections were inspiring and important, but they were essentially defensive. We fended off Republican attacks in Ohio, Mississippi and Maine, but we need to be winning pro-active campaigns, too. We need to be able to use electoral politics to reinforce our organizing strategies.

We often elect lesser-evil politicians and send them off in the vague hope that they will do the right thing once taking office. But we have seen time and time again, that even when we have friends in elected positions, they often end up holding the grassroots constituencies that got them elected at arm's length. Politicians face huge pressures from corporate interests once in power and, consequently, just having a "D" after their name does not guarantee that they will take tough stands on behalf of working people. We don't need friends in office; we need champions.

Fortunately, activists in Providence, Rhode Island - prominently including the hotel and restaurant workers union (UNITE HERE) - are providing a model for electing officials at the municipal level who will champion the interests of working people. These progressives are creating impressive coalitions, overcoming historic divides between the building trades and other unions and translating organizing strength into a political program that can produce real community benefits.

What's more - in an exciting special election this Tuesday - they succeeded in electing one of their truest champions yet. Carmen Castillo, a hotel housekeeper and a rank-and-file union leader, brought to her campaign the life experience of an immigrant and a single mom, along with the vision of an organizer. She is drawing on the strength of an electoral coalition that has never looked more impressive.

It Takes an Agenda

Providence's city council has long been heavily Democratic and all 15 council members currently in office are Democrats. In this setting, party affiliation is not the main issue. The importance of having true champions in office became clear when activists started thinking big - imagining an economic agenda that could be enacted at the municipal level and would truly benefit working people.

In the past decade, social movement thinkers have recognized that not all policies must be set at the federal level, where Congressional conservatives can easily stonewall progressive measures. By presenting an alternative vision for economic development at the level of states and metropolitan regions, grassroots movements can have an impact on critical issues of housing, transportation, environmental protection and living-wage standards.

UNITE HERE has been actively involved in Rhode Island politics for many years, but in 2010, the union aggressively expanded its volunteer operation to give workers a louder voice in local elections, especially in Providence. They connected their drive with established efforts by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) locals 1199 and 615, the Laborers, and a variety of community groups that had been working to build a core of strong progressives on the city council. In the 2010 elections, five council candidates endorsed by the union prevailed, making up a third of the body.

The point for the union was not just to get friends into office. It was to pass innovative policies that could help working people in the city in a concrete way. A key example of the types of policies they envisioned was a worker retention ordinance, which could help union members keep their jobs when businesses changed hands and reduce the temptation of subcontracting as a way to reduce decent-paying jobs. An initial version of the ordinance passed in 2009, an expanded version passed in 2010 and it has survived initial court challenges. As Chris Cook, a worker at the Westin Hotel in Providence and vice president of UNITE HERE Local 217 explains:

"If a new company comes in the hospitality industry in Providence and purchases an existing business with existing employees, the ordinance says that the new owners can't terminate workers on the spot; they have to give them three months. This is huge. It gives workers a chance to get to know the new boss and maintain their jobs, or it gives them three months to find a new job so they aren't just thrown out on the street."

The ordinance has since been cited as a precedent in fights in other parts of the country. It is an example of social justice activists figuring out what decisions can be made at the local level that actually impact people's lives - and then leveraging their organizing to produce political gains.

Carmen's Story

UNITE HERE saw that political power at the municipal level could produce real benefits, not only for its members, but also for wider communities of working- and middle-class people. Consequently, the union has sought to further develop its political program by encouraging grassroots leaders within its organization to run for office. When council member Miguel C. Luna - a strong advocate of social justice causes - suddenly died in August, the union decided it needed a champion to replace him. The organization decided to back Carmen Castillo.

"I've known Carmen for 14 years and she's been a true blue fighter for the union on the contract committee, shop steward, executive board member," says Cook. "She can rally the troops at the drop of a dime. She's hardcore. Of course we are excited to support her."

Castillo will bring more than just her union experience to the Council. "She isn't a one-sided candidate; she is also a huge part of her community. She knows what it is to pay her mortgage; she knows what it is to try and make ends meet and get the groceries on the table for her children, get them through college. She is concerned that we have clean streets to live in, good homes. As hard as she fights on worker issues; she is going to fight on issues of community."

In a ward of largely Latinos and people of color, which have had problems with racial profiling and Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, Castillo's Republican opponent, Christian Chirino, espoused Tea Party-like positions and advocated militarizing the border. In contrast, Castillo's story embodies a powerful progressive vision of what our country can be - a vision that is pro-worker, pro-immigrant and pro-American.

"I came from the Dominican Republic almost nineteen years ago with my three little girls and I started working at the Westin Hotel in 1994," Castillo says. "I came to this country for opportunities for my family. I was looking for a better life. I wanted the opportunity to work to support my family."

Having a union job allowed her to do that. "I'm a room attendant," she says. "I'm a single mother. I worked hard to bring my daughters through college. Now, I want to do something for my community to give back for what this country did for me. When my best friend Miguel Luna passed away, I decided to run."

Tuesday's victory is a testament to her perseverance. "Sometimes we're so tired," she noted during the campaign. "I am still working in the hotel, I didn't quit my job. When you are working 40 hours a week and working 40 hours on the campaign, it's too much. But I do it because I know that to win we need to work hard."

A Coalition for Political Success

Ultimately, it wasn't just one union that contributed to this formula for political success. Castillo's campaign drew support from the Laborers, the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), the Painters, SEIU and the Teachers Union, as well as from the city's Central Labor Council.

The participation of the building trade unions was particularly important. Historically, there has often been a political divide between the building trades and service sector unions. However, in Providence, the modest size of the area has allowed coalitions to form and made close collaboration possible.

As Scott Duhamel, a representative at the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades and secretary treasurer of the Rhode Island Building Trades and Construction Council, explains: "Rhode Island is a small state, very much of a city-state. There is a lot of collaboration between public and private unions in this state, particularly in these dire times. We're all linked pretty intricately right now in a number of struggles. It's a no brainer."

Asked about historic divisions, Duhamel cites a new generation of leadership as a key to building stronger coalitions. "There is some new leadership in the building trades and you can easily categorize them as much more progressive than their predecessors," he says. "Since they assumed leadership there has been a big effort to make sure that different unions are aware of each others' strategies. And it has been very successful."

For Duhamel, supporting Castillo's victory is a part of the building trades reclaiming a pro-immigrant history and overcoming divides with the community that have formed in past decades. "Our history, we are based on the immigrant experience," he says. "The early building trades were manned and built by a lot of new immigrants to the United States. But we became a closed club; there's no denying it. History shows it. In the '60s and the '70s, and the '80s ... we were thumbing our nose at the inner-city residents, who were once mostly African-American, but have now become Latino and Asian. But someone finally realized this was a big mistake. We haven't connected where we should have been connecting, so around the country there are some groups that have made steps to change."

In Providence, this push for change connected to the effort to elect champions in city council. As in some other cities, political power allowed building trade unions to pass Community Workforce Agreements, which not only mandate that major construction projects in the city hire union workers, but also that members of local communities - including inner-city communities - be hired. Apprenticeship programs facilitated by these agreements have allowed increasing numbers of people of color to enter the unions.

It is not uncommon for unions to circle the wagons when they are under attack - as they did in Wisconsin and Ohio. But what makes the Rhode Island case special and hopefully groundbreaking, is that labor's unity is being used to win ground. What unity means is that each union does not cut its own deal with an employer or the political establishment, allowing piecemeal, short-term gains to divide the movement. Instead, different members of the coalition must look at the big picture and hold out for agreements that benefit the movement as a whole. It takes some risk and some faith to stand with an ally in demanding additional concessions once your needs have already been met. But it is powerful to see when it happens.

"Successes begets success," says Duhamel. "All of the politicians, taxpayers, developers want to show that they give back to the community. When it's done right, it's success all around for everyone."

The Road to Victory

With a broad coalition of unions and community groups signed on, Castillo's campaign became a formidable force. At the municipal level, the limited scale of elections allows grassroots, door-to-door field campaigning to be a key factor in determining which candidates prevail. In the case of Castillo, it proved decisive. In a six-way primary for the Democratic nomination, all candidates vowed to be the friends of working people. But social movements were able to advance a champion who is looking to engage them as a partner in governing.

UNITE HERE's Cook explains, "When Carmen ran in the primary, we had somewhere around 75 workers who put in around 190 three hour shifts of walking the streets, knocking on doors, talking to residents, making phone banking, passing out literature. In the end, we won by 29 votes."

The very slim margin of victory made the importance of grassroots campaigning undisputable. "If we had won this by 200 or 300 votes," says Cook, "maybe you could say she would have won anyway. But when it came down to a 29-vote victory, every person out on the doors mattered."

On Tuesday, Castillo went on to win in the general election with close to 495 votes out of 650 votes. A representative of the 99 percent who is now taking office, she will be bringing her experience as a hotel housekeeper, as an immigrant and as a single mom to the city council. Cook takes a powerful lesson from the experience. "You can't say it can't be done," he says. "I encourage people to step up, stand up and be counted and run. We certainly need more workers, more people who know what our struggle is to be elected. And it can be done."

The 99 Percent Takes Office: Lessons From a Rhode Island Special Election | Truthout