Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Protestors Occupy Ports in Oakland and Beyond | NationofChange

Article image

Oc­cupy move­ments in Oak­land, Cal­i­for­nia; Port­land, Ore­gon; and Longview, Wash­ing­ton claimed vic­tory Mon­day when they pre­vented work­ers from load­ing or un­load­ing ships at the three ports.

"We shut it down, peo­ple, we shut it down," An­thony Leviege, In­ter­na­tional Long­shore and Ware­house Union (ILWU) mem­ber, told the cheer­ing crowd at Oak­land's Berth 55, just be­fore 10 a.m. local time.

"I'm im­pressed that so many peo­ple got up at 5 o'clock in the morn­ing... We can't stop here."

About 800 peo­ple showed up for the pre-dawn ac­tion in near-freez­ing weather, chant­ing, "Whose port? Our port!" and hold­ing plac­ards that called for "Sol­i­dar­ity With Long­shore­men Against the One Per­cent" and "Cer­re­mos Wall Street del Puerto".

The protests, stretch­ing from San Diego to An­chor­age, Alaska, aimed at the con­trol of the ter­mi­nals by those whom the Oc­cupy Move­ment has dubbed the "one per­centers", es­pe­cially Gold­man Sachs, pri­mary in­vestor in ter­mi­nal op­er­a­tor SSA Ma­rine.

The port ac­tion was just the lat­est in the tac­tics of the nim­ble Oc­cupy Move­ment that, in Oak­land, began with tent camps, twice de­stroyed by po­lice. Last week it changed course and oc­cu­pied fore­closed homes and on Mon­day, it ral­lied sup­port­ers to shut down work at the port.

"What is amaz­ing about this move­ment is that it re­fuses to be dis­man­tled," said ac­tivist and re­tired uni­ver­sity pro­fes­sor An­gela Davis, speak­ing at an af­ter­noon rally in down­town Oak­land be­fore the sec­ond wave of pick­eters left for the port.

"The oc­cupy move­ment has had its tents de­stroyed, has had its en­camp­ments dis­man­tled," Davis said, adding that the po­lice and cor­po­ra­tions be­lieved the move­ment would die when the camps were crushed, but "from those ashes, the oc­cupy move­ment has risen once again, like a phoenix rises."

To pre­vent port work­ers from on and off load­ing ships, an ar­bi­tra­tor had to cer­tify the picket line was a health and safety issue for the work­ers.

Al­though the de­ter­mi­na­tion was made in the morn­ing for both morn­ing and evening shifts, a crowd es­ti­mated in the thou­sands and led by Scott Olson, the young Iraq War vet­eran hit in the head with a po­lice pro­jec­tile in Oak­land on Nov. 2, marched back to the port in the late af­ter­noon to renew the picket and cel­e­brate vic­tory.

They stayed the night and ended up block­ing the 3 a.m. shift at the port, ac­cord­ing to KPFA radio.

Con­tro­ver­sial clo­sure

The de­ci­sion to shut down the port, how­ever, was con­tro­ver­sial both in­side and out­side the Oc­cupy Move­ment, even though tar­get­ing Gold­man Sachs and its role at the port was not in dis­pute among oc­cu­piers.

"Gold­man ex­ec­u­tives can take credit for many of the fi­nan­cial crises of the last decade, in­clud­ing in­sider trad­ing, fraud, credit de­fault swaps, and sub­prime mort­gages," wrote Michael Siegel, at­tor­ney and Oc­cupy Oak­land ac­tivist.

Still, most unions sat out the port block­ade, nei­ther con­demn­ing nor sup­port­ing it.

The Oak­land Ed­u­ca­tion As­so­ci­a­tion did, how­ever, strongly en­dorse the ac­tion, with Betty Ol­son-Jones, OEA pres­i­dent, di­rectly link­ing port op­er­a­tions to Oak­land school needs.

Pri­vate mar­itime busi­nesses in the Port of Oak­land "use rent-free pub­lic land [that] gen­er­ates 27 bil­lion dol­lars an­nu­ally in trade", Ol­son-Jones said. She sug­gested that tax­ing them one per­cent would be enough to pay off Oak­land school debt, re­store full li­brary ser­vices and re­hire ever laid off li­brary worker.

While some long­shore work­ers were promi­nent in­di­vid­u­ally in or­ga­niz­ing the port shut­down, union lead­er­ship op­posed it. Much of the con­tro­versy cen­tered on a labor dis­pute be­tween the ILWU and Ex­port Grain Ter­mi­nal (EGT) in Longview, Wash­ing­ton.

Both the West Coast Oc­cupy move­ments and the ILWU say that EGT broke a promise to hire ILWU work­ers, and both want the pledge ful­filled.

Mean­while, an EGT com­pany spokesman said the com­pany tried to ne­go­ti­ate an agree­ment with ILWU, but that the union wanted a pen­sion plan that was too ex­pen­sive, re­ported the New York Times.

When the Oc­cupy Move­ment began or­ga­niz­ing against EGT with­out the ILWU's bless­ing, ILWU Pres­i­dent Robert McEll­rath re­acted, telling the Oc­cupy Move­ment to stay out of the con­flict.

The ILWU's fight for democ­racy "is the hard-won right to chart our own course to vic­tory", he wrote, warn­ing that the union doesn't want out­siders to adopt the strug­gle as their own, given the dan­ger that they might do so "in order to ad­vance a broader agenda… de­struc­tive to our de­mo­c­ra­tic process and [one that] jeop­ar­dizes our over two year strug­gle in Longview".

Oak­land Mayor Jean Quan pleaded with Oc­cupy Oak­land not to per­sist with the shut­down.

"The Port of Oak­land is not the home of the one per­cent," he wrote. "Rather, it gen­er­ates over 73,000 jobs in the re­gion and is con­nected to more than 800,000 jobs across the coun­try. It is one of the best sources of good pay­ing blue-col­lar jobs left in our city."

The port com­mis­sion wrote that the shut­down would "hurt work­ing peo­ple and harm our com­mu­nity". Even some within Oc­cupy Oak­land ex­pressed con­cern that in­de­pen­dent truck­ers would lose a day's pay. Dur­ing the morn­ing picket at Berth 55, Alameda County sher­iffs tried cross­ing the picket line twice to take a bus into the port area. Blocked the first time by pick­ets, sher­iffs turned the bus around and re­turned on foot, using ba­tons to force their way through the picket line and line up be­tween pro­test­ers and port prop­erty. No one was hurt or ar­rested.

The sec­ond time the sher­iffs at­tempted to drive into the port area, four or five pick­eters with bi­cy­cles stood ground di­rectly be­fore the bus, which soon left the area.

Protests in other cities

From Port­land, or­ga­nizer Tomas Bernal said in a phone in­ter­view that the 300-400 pro­test­ers there also suc­ceeded in shut­ting down the port in the morn­ing. "It's quite his­toric – with only two and a half weeks to pre­pare," he said.

The Port­land ter­mi­nals were also shut down in the evening, Jamie Par­tridge, an­other Port­land ac­tivist, told IPS in an email.

In Longview, where the EGT ter­mi­nal is lo­cated, about 100 pro­test­ers ar­rived at the port's main en­trance. Work­ers were re­port­edly sent home due to safety con­cerns.

But in Van­cou­ver, Long Beach and San Diego, pro­test­ers were un­able to stop work at the port, while in Seat­tle po­lice re­port­edly used flash-bang grenades and pep­per-sprayed demon­stra­tors, block­ing one of the ter­mi­nal en­trances and ar­rest­ing 11.

The Seat­tle Times re­ported that or­ga­niz­ers claimed vic­tory be­cause the work­ers at two ter­mi­nals didn't come to work. The port, how­ever, sent out a press re­lease say­ing the protest had min­i­mal im­pact.


Protestors Occupy Ports in Oakland and Beyond | NationofChange

Monday, December 12, 2011

NYPD and NYC City Hall Break Kids Hearts - YouTube


Uploaded by on Dec 11, 2011

http://www.parentsforoccupywallst.com
http://twitter.com/@ParentsForOWS

Brought to you by Dana Glazer, Parents for Occupy Wall St. March against police brutality. Children created 5,000 paper hearts one for every peaceful protestor arrested on behalf of the Occupy Wall Street movement in the three month period leading up to the march. The children delivered them to New York City Hall for Mayor Bloomberg only for the NYPD to aggressively tear them down and apart in front of the children. Children cried and the NYPD did yet another action against peaceful protestors. We as a country should not stand for this, get involved, speak up, do something for our children's futures.


NYPD and NYC City Hall Break Kids Hearts - YouTube

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Don't Buy War! Freeze Flash Mob & Police Brutality in Austin, TX - YouTube

This is a very disturbing scene and a BLATANT violation of our first amendment right to free speech, it was particualrly upsetting for me because I really identified with the girl who was victim to this brutal assualt. She was at the mall Christmas shopping, she was moved to join the group and shortly thereafter was assaulted for doing a good thing. We need people wake up before it's too late...


Merry fucking Christmas. Greedy war mongering bastards!

Uploaded by on Dec 6, 2011
CodePink Austin, along with allies from Veteran's for Peace and Women in Black staged a Don't Buy War "freeze" at Barton Creek Mall on Saturday, December 3rd. The strategically chosen mall location was between the Santa photo station and the Gamestop store, which prominently advertises the 'Modern Warfare 3' video game.

The goals were to raise awareness about the continuing wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, to educate shoppers about the costs (both human and economic) of the wars, and to dissuade parents from purchasing war toys. The creative action was well received by shoppers, and several veterans approached the group to thank us. All was peaceful until mall security and APD arrived, and an APD officer brutally attacked a young woman who had joined the group spontaneously. She was seriously beaten and ended up with three cracked ribs and bruises all over her body!

Produced for Austin Indymedia by Jeff Zavala.
A ZGraphix Production.
http://zgraphix.org
http://twitter.com/zgraphix
http://facebook.com/zgraphix.org
http://austin.indymedia.org

Don't Buy War! Freeze Flash Mob & Police Brutality in Austin, TX - YouTube

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Bernie Sanders Files Amendment To Overturn Citizens United | Care2 Causes

Bernie Sanders Files Amendment To Overturn Citizens United

Care2 recently brought you the news of two city councils that passed symbolic resolutions to support constitutional amendments that would undo the Supreme Court’s disastrous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling.
The votes, which took place in Los Angeles, California, and Albany, New York, were both unanimous, and met with widespread approval among Occupy Wall Street participants. Repealing Citizens United has been a major rallying cry of the OWS movement since its beginning over 2 months ago.
On Thursday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) decided to take the next step toward realizing this goal by introducing a constitutional amendment to the U.S. Senate that would overturn the ruling which classified multi-national corporations as people and therefore entitled to the same rights as living, breathing, human individuals.
The Saving American Democracy Amendment states:
  • Corporations are not persons with constitutional rights equal to real people.
  • Corporations are subject to regulation by the people.
  • Corporations may not make campaign contributions.
  • Congress and states have the power to regulate campaign finances.
“There comes a time when an issue is so important that the only way to address it is by a constitutional amendment,” Sanders said. He had previously described the Citizen United ruling as “basically insane. Nobody that I know thinks that Exxon Mobil is a person,” Sanders said in November.
Sanders is accompanied in his endeavor to restore fiscal sanity to the political system by Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), who has introduced a companion measure in the U.S. House.
Sens. Tom Udall (D-NM) and Michael Bennet of (D-CO) have also introduced a similar constitutional amendment that would essentially defeat Citizens United by granting Congress and the states the authority to regulate the campaign finance system. Udall and Bennet hope that by emphasizing states’ rights, they’ll gain the support of a few Republicans.
Related Reading:
Bernie Sanders Stands Up For The Rest Of Us
Top 10 U.S. Corporate Tax Avoiders Named On Senate Floor
Sanders: It’s A Social Security Echo Chamber [Video]
Image Credit: sanders.senate.gov

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/bernie-sanders-files-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united.html#ixzz1g8czMopp

Bernie Sanders Files Amendment To Overturn Citizens United | Care2 Causes

Friday, December 9, 2011

Hey You Millionaires! | Common Dreams

Occupy Everything! Love this approach, not that any of these people listened but it gets their attention to the fact that we're awake, we're finally aware of what's going on and we're watching.

by Abby Zimet

Several dozen Take Back the Capitol protesters crashed a posh Newt Gingrich fundraiser last night after its organizers forgot to lock the back door. They also forgot not to hold an event with glass doors facing the outside, thus providing the 99% with some nice visuals.

"The poor get poorer, the rich get rich! That's the platform of Gingrich!"



Hey You Millionaires! | Common Dreams

U.S. News - 'Mockupy': Protesters flood into supposed TV set replicating Occupy camp


courtesy Tim Weldon
Occupy protesters gather at Foley Square in New York City for a recreation of their former camp for an episode of 'Law and Order'.
Dozens of protesters from Occupy Wall Street converged overnight Thursday on another park in New York City – where they say a television set for an upcoming “Law & Order” episode replicating their Occupy Wall Street camp has been set up, according to various reports on Twitter, a live video stream and a demonstrator.
“Light, camera, ACTION! Everybody head to Foley Square. Bring y(ou)r headshots and make y(ou)rself at home! See you at midnite! #Mockupy #D9,” read a tweet sent out from the OccupyWallSt Twitter account.
No one from the long-running crime series – which often films in New York and touts its episodes as ripped from the headlines – could be immediately reached to learn if this was indeed the show’s set. But later Friday, Sharon Pannozzo, publicity director of East Coast Entertainment for NBC, said the company would not be making a comment at this time.
However, according to protester Tim Weldon, a board at the site read: “Please be advised that the T.V. show, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit will be preparing this area of the park for a scene to be filmed in the morning hours on Friday, December 9th. All items in park will be removed immediately upon completion of filming.” (The television show airs on NBC. Msnbc.com is a joint venture of NBC Universal and Microsoft).
The playing of drums and “mic check” – the call for announcements – could be heard in Foley Square via a live video stream (which also tweeted their participation: “We have an incredibly special episode of OWSNYC tonight at midnight”).
“This feels good,” said one man who led others in a “mic check” at the scene, which was being followed under the hashtags "Mockupy" and "Fauxcotti" (a play on the former camp's location at Zuccotti Park near Wall Street -- from where they were evicted on Nov. 15).
“Ok, I've just snuck into a tent here at Fake Zuccotti Park and I'm going to live tweet all night and then the shoot tomorrow Ha …,” tweeted Newyorkist, who also noted: “A lot of signs all over the place. Some wanted signs too, featuring CEOs” and he linked to this photo.
“Law & Order's fake Zuccotti is hilarious," tweeted Christopher Robbins, a reporter at Gothamist who linked to this photo. "The food in the kitchen is real!”

courtesy Tim Weldon
A sandwich board at Foley Square with information about the filming.
But some people lamented the quality of the replication: “You can totally tell those signs were made by drones. real #OWS are way more colorful & less 'fonty' than those,” tweeted Liza Sabater.
advertisement.

Jokes abounded about the longevity of the show versus that of the camp: “We were evicted and #lawandorder still hasn't been canceled?” read a tweet from the official NYC_GA (NYC General Assembly) account.

Weldon – and numerous photos on Twitter – recounted the replication of their former library, kitchen and tents – and, in some cases, how off it was.

“It’s the most comical thing ... it’s just so hilarious,” Weldon said, noting he had found pamphlets on Pap smears and anesthesia and books like “Mommy Dearest.”

It didn’t seem the protest would last long, with protesters noting on Twitter and the live stream the arrival of police.

"We want Law & Order!" the protesters chanted at one point, Weldon said.
Production crews appeared to be taking tents down – and Weldon said they wouldn’t talk to him when he tried to speak with them – and police were telling people that they had to leave or they would be arrested.
“Captain telling Law & Order guy, ‘permit is pulled. Break it down now,’" Newyorkist, of nyctheblog.com, tweeted.
A man identified as Brian Donohue on Twitter noted: "Can you evict a fake idea? Can you fake-evict an idea? Can the occupiers at the perimeter move to arrest the NYPD inside?"
A police spokesman said there were no arrests or incidents at Foley Square. He did not know the subject of the production, and said the mayor's office handled filming permits.
All was not lost on the protesters. One man shown on the live video stream encouraged the crowd to do more such guerrilla actions, especially creative ones, noting it could be "a way to make actions go viral."


U.S. News - 'Mockupy': Protesters flood into supposed TV set replicating Occupy camp

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-

Thursday, December 8, 2011

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


Article image

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Jobless Take Their Grievances Directly to Congress | NationofChange

Article image

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.
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

Saturday, December 3, 2011

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 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