This Is Wrong and They Know It -- "The Whole World's Watching"

Photo by Jeremiah Mayhew, who has been doing brilliant work photo-documenting what's been going on.

Last Night's Arrests

What a strange sensation to get up this morning and find the OccupySacramento Facebook page filled with extended arguments on the value of using precious police resources to get your ass arrested for some unfocused cause.

Up to last night there had been approximately 35-40 people arrested over the course of the Occupation for "failure to disperse" at the rather flexible closing time of the Plaza.

Last night, I'm not sure of exactly how many demonstrators were arrested -- these numbers always change after a while in any case -- but those who were arrested were not the Usual Suspects. They included Cindy Sheehan, Karen Bernal, and Russell (whose last name I forget, but he is in a wheelchair and is part of the internet committee/working group for the Occupation). There are reports that several officers were in tears as they conducted these needless arrests, carrying out orders from On High, but to what object?

Night after night, people in Sacramento get arrested -- voluntarily, let the record show -- on behalf of the First Amendment guarantees of free assembly, free speech, and petitioning for redress of grievance. They know the reason they are out there, why they are resisting, and they pretty much know the consequences for doing so (though, of course, Authority can and does change those consequences to suit itself.)

The arguments that seem to have become intense last night have to with the fact that so many people have been arrested over so many nights; it was a media circus last night because of Cindy Sheehan (who has been arrested many times for civil disobedience connected with the Imperial Wars of Aggression); and because some people believe it doesn't work to make your point.

That's the most interesting argument to me. How can people, many of whom say they are sympathetic with the movement, insist, apparently sincerely, that civil disobedience doesn't work to make your point? It boggles the mind. Aren't these people aware of any history of social progress at all? Is it even possible that any substantial portion of Americans do not know of the long tradition in this country and all over the world (thank you, Mahatma) to engage in civil disobedience when the other avenues of politics don't work?

Nobody who is doing this in Sacramento is doing it frivolously. This is one of the most mindful group of civil disobeyers I've ever personally witnessed. They know what they are doing. They know why. They are not following a leader into the paddy wagon. Most of them have no personal agenda at all; they are consciously doing this solely for the benefit (they hope) of all.

And yet, the argument rages: "It doesn't work, you're wasting resources, do it the right way..."

No. When the situation reaches the point where civil obedience no longer works, the Right Way is to resist. Engaging in civil disobedience is correct and at this point, it's necessary. It may or may not lead directly to some desired change in the status quo -- in this specific case, honoring the Constitutional First Amendment protections instead of trying to restrict civil rights. And while the distinction may be a fine one sometimes, these actions are on behalf of honoring civil rights as opposed to civil liberties.

I can't argue with that.

The underlying issue here is the Occupation itself. As I've said, the OccupySacramento is not yet an actual Occupation. It is what I call a "coming-and-going" because the bulk of the Occupiers do vacate the Plaza every night at closing time; they break down the camp and store it in a panel truck parked at the corner (with permission from the city) and then they set it up again every morning. The people who are most involved in this logistical process get very little sleep, they are very tired -- because it is physically exhausting to keep doing this -- and we all wonder why the city manager hasn't used his independent authority to waive the restrictions on access to the Plaza after some arbitrary hour. It is a simple thing. It could have been done at the outset (many cities are cooperating with their Occupations without any civil disobedience at all; others aren't); it could have been done at any step along the way. Instead, the City Manager continues to order the arrests, and so we have the startling sight of dozens of police vehicles, up to seventy police officers -- in light riot gear -- confronting a dozen or so sitting (or sometimes prone), absolutely nonviolent and often silent, passive resisters, who get relatively gently zip-tied, hoisted up, and escorted to the paddy wagons and taken to jail, where apparently they are "guests" in the tanks until they're released the following morning or afternoon.

Some of them have been arrested over and over, but others volunteer for the first time every night, and the police stand there with tears in their eyes, batons at the ready, wondering what the fuck they're being ordered to do this for.

Then there's the guy on the hunger strike -- into his sixth day.

Why can't they just leave the Occupation alone?

That's the question being asked of Authority and clearly internally by Authority everywhere.

Before I went to my comfy bed (talk about privilege!) last night, I was watching the preparations for clearing the Occupation in Chicago from Grant Park. Oh the memories, some of which I mentioned earlier. It was a similar scene but not the same scene as the DNC police riots of 1968. It's in almost the same location as the nighttime tumult of 1968, so the site itself is evocative. The police -- so far as I could tell from the livestream feed until it abruptly went dead -- were not at all inclined to riot, and the Occupiers were engaged in classic nonviolent resistance: they linked arms in a circle around the tent encampment, and then they sat down. "♫We will not be moved♪." The police then formed a standing line around the perimeter of the demonstrators. There were reports of preliminary arrests. But there were also reports of very positive relations with the Chicago police, nothing like the fury and animosity of the past. There was no sign of violence before the feed went dead, and I haven't had a chance to check the news yet for updates.

The arrests in New York yesterday at the CitiBank branch are looking more and more bizarre the more info and video is coming out. I watched the action on the Livestream as it was happening, but the camera was outside the perimeter established by the police which was quite a distance from the bank entrance. So the story of what happened is still being pieced together. What we saw was stupid in the extreme. People were literally being arrested and hauled away for nothing; that is, they had done nothing that would be wrong in any rational world. Whether they made any kind of ruckus inside the bank I don't know, but from what I've seen, they didn't. They were, for the most part, quiet outside the bank as well, at least until the arrests began. At which time they protested, loudly. From all appearances, the arrests were made because CitiBank customers were trying to close their accounts.

And people will ask, "Why are you protesting that way? Why don't you do it the right way?"

This will be a perpetual argument, I think. Everyone wants to be a critic. How well I know. And everyone seems to want to be the Authority.

And then there's the issue of direct democracy in the Occupations which is triggering a whole other layer of dispute. "It's a MOB!!!! Eeek, run away!!!"

---------------------
200 Arrests in Chicago over night:
Some pictures from Chicago last night (Facebook album link)


Santiago de Chile yesterday:

Ian Welsh on Cuomo and the NY Gay Marriage Thing

This is so true and it cannot be made any clearer:

• 1) The left sells each other out for either small tactical gains, or nothing at all (hello national NARAL) all the time, so why shouldn’t the gays promise to help Cuomo in his next election for giving them gay marriage, even if it screws unions and helps an austerity governor?
  
  
• 2) The reason gays get anything is that unlike the rest of the left, they did two things: they cut off the donations, and they got ugly in people’s faces. They stopped playing nice. They stopped playing by the rules. They stopped worrying about whether people in power “liked” them (hello National NARAL) and started playing rough.
  
  
• 3) Given that the left doesn’t hang together, which means that the choice is “gay marriage + austerity”, or “no gay marriage + austerity”, well, why not gay marriage plus a shitty economy?

Of course it is impolite to say so. It is always impolite to point out that on the "left" there is no solidarity, only a competing series of discreet interests, vying for the Royal Nod, and in the case of gay marriage, it's been obvious for years.

(I've never been a fan of gay marriage as an issue at law. Marriage, in my humble opinion, is fundamentally a religious sacrament -- banging that Old Tyme Catholic gong, don't you know -- that has no place in Law. If religious/faith practitioners want to sanction same sex marriage, I say hurrah. Some have been doing just that for decades. No, these marriages have no legal standing in most jurisdictions, and that's a problem. But the way to deal with that, in my opinion, is to get the Law and the State out of the marriage business altogether. To the extent the Law and the State need to recognize and/or sanction marriage unions, it is solely as a civil matter, without regard to religious interests or issues. Therefore, the only legal and state interest should be in gender neutral "civil unions". That's it, period, nothing else at law. That way, religious freedom and custom is preserved and protected, and so is the interest of the people, community and the state. The whole push for gay marriage has in my view been off base -- and intentionally offensive to traditionalists. But that's not actually what Ian is pointing out...)

No, what's he's getting at, which I essentially agree with, is that the New York Gay Marriage measure is effectively a trade for votes, votes for policies that will cause great harm to millions of New Yorkers by advancing 'Austerity' and Bankster Protection. But, hey! Gay folk can get married now! Yay!

Ian's view about it may be too sour by half, but at the same time he's right.

After the Revolution Comes -- Again

I broke off yesterday with the topic of Citizens' rights, privileges and responsibilities in and to the New Model America to be created after the revolution comes.

As I put it yesterday:

15) Citizenship includes civil, political, and economic rights and privileges, as well as civil, political and economic responsibilities.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that is a very difficult concept for most Americans -- and especially the Civil Libertarian crowd -- to grasp.

That there can be categories of rights, that there can be privileges which aren't rights, and that there can be economic as well as civil and political rights is radical thinking in the United States today, as it has been most of our history. That rights and privileges come with responsibilities is even more radical.

But unless these concepts are accepted and internalized, I see no way past our current level of non-responsive governance by a self-selected Elite/Aristocracy.

Civil Rights:

Citizens have the right to be secure from search and seizure in their persons and effects by any authority public or private;

Citizens have the right to speak and write and otherwise express themselves as they see fit subject to limitation only on the basis of libel, slander, public disturbance, and falsely causing panic;

Citizens have the right to worship the Divine -- or not worship -- as they see fit and proper. Citizens' right to worship -- or not worship -- shall only be restricted to the extent one's rights interferes with another's;

Citizens have the right to travel freely within the borders of the Regions and between them. No internal passports shall be required. Travel outside the Nation shall not be unduly restricted, nor shall onerous requirements be imposed on either exiting or returning to the nation;

Citizens have the right to fair and impartial justice under the law;

Citizens have the right to vote by secret ballot in free and fair elections for local, regional, and national representatives;

Citizens have the right to be treated with dignity and respect at all times by the state and its authorized agents;

Citizens have the right to contest any charges against them;

Citizens have the right to legal representation in any action brought by civil or criminal authorities and in any private dispute between parties;

Citizens have the right to protest, the right to petition, and the right to seek redress of grievance from the state and/or its authorized agents;

Citizens have the right to organize in concert with other citizens for any lawful purpose;

Citizens have the right to an education, to decent and safe housing, to health care, and to gainful employment and to a dignified retirement.

Privileges include honors for achievement, financial and other rewards for innovation and development, and distinctions awarded for outstanding wisdom.

Responsibilities include the responsibility to vote in elections, the responsibility to learn, to follow the law, to care for one's self and one's family, to contribute to the economic well being of the society as a whole, to respect one another, and to be involved in local and regional public affairs.

We could certainly add to this far from comprehensive list.

These kinds of rights, privileges and responsibilities are the sorts of things that make civil (and other) Libertarians cringe and pull their hair out, for the simple reason that in the system that I'm proposing, economic, political and social predators are not protected as they are in the current system.

Once you take away protection for systemic predators, what seems impossible now becomes far more possible. It's a truly radical, indeed Revolutionary, approach to problem solving and mutual development.

So long as predators are protected by the Constitution, by custom, and by statute, so long will we be mired in misery.

Trade-offs

In all the verbiage spilled over the Tedious Little Peckerhead, Rand Paul of Kentucky, one of the things that pops out at me about Libertarians as a class and Puritans in general is a complete failure to recognize that living in a civilized -- or even just a civil -- society involves trade-offs.

As the poet put it:

You can't always get what you want...

People who have adapted to living in a civil society accept that as a fundamental tenet. You can't always get what you want, and there are always trade-offs -- sometimes ugly ones -- in establishing and maintaining relatively peaceful and mutually rewarding civic, social, and economic conditions.

And if you try sometime you find you get what you need...

The example that is the focus of the current controversy over Rand Paul is that of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which no one under 40 is thoroughly cognizant of on the one hand, and people over 60 still remember the struggles over it as if they were yesterday. The measure is that important to the way society in this country functions, and it took major upheavals and some very bold leadership in Washington, in the States, and at the local levels to get from where we were in matters discriminatory to where we are.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the subsequent civil rights and voting rights legislation undid the strange and twisted Apartheid state that Jim Crow legislation and long-time social custom had imposed -- and not just in the South.

It was as radical a transformation of American society as there has ever been, and its effects appear to be lasting and profound. At least so far as we know, most Americans under 40 wouldn't even dream of reverting to the Jim Crow past, not even in the Heart of Dixie. The idea is absurd to them. They've seen a couple of generations of relatively peaceful, more or less racially integrated living, and the genuine liberation of all sorts of groups, including women, from the restrictions of a straight-laced discriminatory and overtly oppressive white male privilege society.

There's no going back.

But we didn't get where we are without some pretty heavy, and to some extent catastrophic, trade-offs.

We should be discussing those trade-offs much more than we are.

Jim Crow wasn't overcome without a massive trade off. The United States is now a prison society, incarcerating and adjudicating the lives millions upon millions of Americans. Approximately one in three black men being ground up in the prison state mechanisms. Liberation for all has meant imprisonment for many.

This trade off has devastated black families.

The liberation of women from the home has come with a trade off: the stagnation of worker wages over generations. It now takes two workers -- instead of ordinarily one -- for typical households to support families in a comfortably modest lifestyle.

We could go on and on with examples of trade offs for liberation, and we should recognize that both "liberated" society and oppressive, discriminatory society involve trade-offs, and we should recognize what they are and evaluate their social, economic, and political worth.

For example, is the trade-off of living in a prison society like we do right or just or necessary in order to implement the "equal rights for all" premise that underlies civil rights legislation?

Do we have to have the Drug War, "fought" primarily against black and brown men, in order to overcome the racial fears and animosities of a shrinking middle class?

Does liberation of women require flattening and eventually reducing household living standards?

Puritans and libertarians don't accept trade-offs in their pursuit of Liberation to do what they want, when and how they want, with no regard for others if they don't choose to have such regard. They are would-be petty tyrants within their own spheres, which they would endeavor to increase as much as possible. They don't accept trade-offs; it's their way or no way. However, adopting their political, social and economic determinism would mean certain very obvious trade-offs that most rational people reject out of hand. Accepting Puritan/Libertarian "liberation" means the vast majority would be subject to outright and potentially very fierce tyranny.

The Puritan/Libertarian Motto: "I demand the Liberty to impose my Authority on you." The only way the tiny faction of Puritan/Libertarians can have their "Liberty" is by imposing their Tyranny on everyone else.

Which is their goal.

No wonder most people reject it.

On the other hand, there is not nearly enough discussion and consideration of the trade-offs that have been made in order to secure the Blessings of Liberty implicit in the concept of Equal Rights for All.

That's where social, economic and political discussion needs to go.

And I went down to the demonstration
To get my fair share of abuse
Singing, "We're gonna vent our frustration
If we don't we're gonna blow a 50-amp fuse"
Sing it to me now...

[NB: I have seen the Rolling Stones... but I have never seen... "Glee" ]

It's 3:00AM -- Canaries in the Coal Mine

A friend called me yesterday while I was finishing up my work for the day. "Have you heard," he said, "they're tasering protesters in Minneapolis and St. Paul." I said no, I hadn't heard that. He said it was in the paper, I'd better take a look. I told him some of what I had been reading and seeing on the Internets, about the numerous assaults by police and the mass arrests. He hadn't heard about the numbers arrested, had no idea so many had been hauled away.

Then I got around to checking out FDL's extensive and disturbing coverage of the police overkill in the Twin Cities. I'd been following Glenn Greenwald's less extensive but equally outraged coverage and had been spending a good deal of time in a kind of "dialogue" with various commenters there about the events unfolding outside the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. So, clearly I had missed a good deal of the news.

One of the noticeable aspects of the reports of what was going on in Minneapolis and St. Paul was that apparently very few people cared about what happened to a few hundred "anarchists" who got out of line. They broke windows!!! And they deserved every bit of what they got. There is nothing worse in the history of Domestic Terrorism than the breaking of windows!!!! Except for the balloons full of urine. And the bags of feces.

Then there were the reports of what happened to Keith Smith, 17, of Menomonie, Wisconsin.



According to reports, he'd actually stopped a line of police by sitting down in the street, shaking his sistrum, and being photographed. His action evoked something of the admiration people around the world have for the brave fellow in Beijing who stopped a line of tanks headed to Tienanmin Square to put down the revolt there in 1989.



Somewhat later -- how much later, I don't know -- he was assaulted by five police officers and beaten before he was arrested and taken to a juvenile detention center where he was held for a couple of hours and then released. His injuries are documented here.

And he is one of many peaceful and non resisting citizens and demonstrators who have been brutalized by the hyper militarized police forces deployed in St. Paul to protect and defend the Republican National Convention from the crazed youth who otherwise would interfere with their party.

As I watched some of the videos on this page, I became angrier and angrier that this sort of outrageous police overreaction continues in this country every time there is a significant gathering of the rich and the powerful in a city, gatherings which are by their nature subject to protest by citizens.

On a smaller scale the same thing happened in Denver during the Democratic National Convention. The police there also received $50 million and direction from the Secret Service and the FBI; but in St. Paul and Minneapolis (where many of the raids and pre-convention arrests took place), the brutality and the constant police instigated conflict, as well as the mass arrests and brutalization while in custody reached a new level -- for this year.

Of course it is nothing new. Since the WTO protests in Seattle in 1999, there's been repeated street warfare and street theatre again and again all over the country, large scale peaceful marches and protests being broken up and put down brutally.

Yet strangely, sports fans continue to riot whenever their team wins or loses, and there is little more than a shrug from the hyper-vigilant and militarized police forces. Strangely, enormous protests against the Iraq War, protests organized by a coalition of Communists, have gone off almost without a hitch. And strangely, too, Americans tend to look at these things -- when they look at all -- with a sort of distate and with boredom.

How do we break the cycle?

These incidents are the canaries in the coalmine for our deteriorating, vanishing rights as citizens of a free and prosperous land. Many Americans simply don't care what's happening to scruffy youths who think they have the right to mouth off to Authority. Yet what happens to those scruffy youth now is quite likely to be what happens to anyone in the future who tries to exercise civil and political rights against the orders and wishes of the Powers That Be. For now, the youths being brutalized by the Authorities in St. Paul are not like you and me, any more than the criminals being held in our bulging prisons and jails are like the rest of us. They are separate and different and so they can be -- and are -- treated with surpassing indifference by the rest of us, and with apalling brutality by the Authorities.

But what happens to them could happen to any of us.

And that's what those who do the brutalizing and those who are indifferent to -- or celebrate it -- need to come to understand.