We're still in Crunch Mode here at Casa Ché, only now with (minor) injuries!
There's far more to this 'moving out' business than I anticipated (isn't there always?) but the Goodwill down the street is delighted with us and wonders when the donations will stop.
A friend, of course, calls to cheer us on: "Don't forget," he says, "you're Old now, and you can't really do even half of what you think you can." Well, thanks, I say. Thanks a lot. Now sit down before you fall down and break your own hip. Heh.
"Occupy" burst back into the national consciousness with the roiling events culminating in the mass arrest of hundreds of demonstrators in Oakland, CA, on January 28, 2012.
Since then, the Occupy Movement's consciousness and conscience has been pre-occupied with questions of "nonviolence" vs "diversity of tactics" -- and how or whether to enforce a strategy of nonviolence on what appears to be or be becoming a much more militant movement.
What one believes and how one feels about these issues appears to depend -- at least to a substantial degree -- on the source of the information one has about what happened in Oakland on January 28, on what one's involvement and investment in the Movement has been, together with how one defines or conceptualizes Nonviolent Resistance.
As I've explored the issues being debated and the contexts of the debate, it's fairly clear that negative mass media news reports about the J28 events in Oakland have had a profound effect on many people's perceptions of what happened and how those events relate to Occupy as a whole.
Those negative perceptions based on negative (and very limited) mass media reports of what happened are then used to reinforce pre-existing points of view about Occupy and its focus, and particularly points of view about certain kinds of Occupy activism and activists that don't appear to follow -- or in point of fact, don't follow -- the precepts of nonviolence.
Disclosure: Just to be clear, I'm not in Oakland, nor am I directly involved in any Occupy Oakland or Oakland Commune affairs; my knowledge of developments and events in Oakland comes from personal contacts, the online presence maintained by Occupy Oakland, the many alternative media reports through livestream. I follow a number of other Occupys in the same manner, though I am physically closer to Oakland. I began participating in the local Occupy at its first public meeting, October 1, 2011. I have been a life-long student of nonviolence and nonviolent resistance and have been closely involved in a number of nonviolent resistance campaigns. I have encountered and engaged the sometimes explosive nature of the arguments between advocates of nonviolence and diversity of tactics.
The questions and issues being raised now in the national conversation about Nonviolence as it relates to Occupy have been there from the beginning. In some ways, this debate is continuous. In my view, it is in the DNA of the Movement and provides part of the strength of the Movement.
As I've tried to point out here and elsewhere, taken as a whole, the Occupy Movement is an organic, evolutionary, international Nonviolent Resistance Campaign. That doesn't change, in fact it isn't affected at all, because someone throws an object or curses a cop or burns a flag or even breaks a window during some Occupy action somewhere.
Rare and essentially spontaneous incidents of vandalism and mischief, and to an extent the strategic use of confrontation tactics and defiance in the face of Authority, have become the focus of the debate, however.
Some of the more strident nonviolence advocates argue that these incidents and strategies are against the interests of the Movement and should be policed and suppressed -- and often use absolutist and authoritarian language to make their point. Others are somewhat less strident and authoritarian about it, but express dismay at the perception that advocates of violence have taken over the Movement.
Much of the language involved in the debate is that of scapegoating and demonization, almost all of which, in my perception, has been coming from those who purport to advocate nonviolence -- such as we've seen in Chris Hedges' polemic. He didn't invent that way of approaching and discussing the issues involved; it was there long before he adopted Occupy Wall Street as his own.
My deepest understanding of the conflict, however, comes from any number of people who have been very honest and up front about what's really driving their anger and animosity -- no matter which side of the conflict they're on.
It's about trust and the betrayal of trust.
Time and again, the underlying issue is a perception that a handful of activists have taken over or are trying to take over the Movement to push their own interests and agenda, regardless of anyone else, and thus they are destroying a Movement that so many people have put so much faith and trust in to bring about Real Change.
The "handful" meme is consistent and it is used to characterize the Other Side, no matter what their position is. "Taking over" is also a consistently used rhetorical device used to characterize the Other Side. "Destroying" is a constant accusation against the Other Side.
Most important, however, is the concept of "trust" and the betrayal of trust through the actions and attitudes of the Other Side.
In my experience, this has always been at the root of the Movement's Big Controversies and its most explosive conflicts.
Mutual respect and trust are considered fundamental for the success of any community of like minded activists. And yet we see constant conflict within the Occupy Movement based on perceived lack of respect and betrayal of trust, combined with... remarkable successes.
From an empirical standpoint, what's happening is working. But it's not necessarily working the way many people wanted or anticipated, and that is giving rise to feelings of fear and dread that something is going terribly wrong, or that it will go terribly wrong soon enough.
Because some of the individuals on either side of the internal conflicts are perceived to be untrustworthy or lacking in respect for other points of view, they become the focus for animosity and denunciation -- which can sometimes turn into scapegoating and demonization, which in turn can become deadly.
Chris Hedges is rightly criticized by David Graeber for descending to that very ugly place, but I noticed that few others criticized Hedges for that particular failing, focusing instead on his incoherence and inaccuracies, a phenomenon I've noticed in other aspects of the conflict. The ugliest charges and accusations against the Other Side are often simply set aside and ignored. They may be hurled at will, but their effect, if any, is slight.
People who get involved in movements of this kind make themselves highly vulnerable, and they have to believe they can trust the others with whom are aligned in order to feel they are protected. They need to feel respected as individuals and valued as part of the group as well. Unfortunately many activists and would-be activists in the Occupy Movement feel their trust has been betrayed, they are not respected, and they are not valued by key Others in the Movement, and that their vulnerability is not protected. They feel unsafe and unsure -- and afraid.
Some can work their way through these feelings, but many cannot. Betrayal of trust by public and corporate officials is one of the chief reasons for Movement itself. It is at the root of the whole thing. Had the public trust not been betrayed on such a massive and continuous scale, there would likely not be an Occupy Movement. Some of those who made themselves even more vulnerable in order to participate in the Occupy Movement found themselves subjected to what they saw as even worse levels of exploitation, indignity and disrespect than they had previously experienced.
Some people will leave the movement when they feel they are not respected or valued and the see their trust betrayed; others will fight back. And that's how we get to the conflict over nonviolence we're in, a conflict that's been going on, sub rosa, from the beginning, and one that I suspect may be elemental, may in fact be necessary for the Movement's strength.
In other words, if it were ever resolved in favor of one side or the other, it could well signal the end of the Movement.... or that the Revolution has succeeded.
I've pointed out many times that Occupy is by nature and by definition unquestionably a Nonviolent Resistance Campaign. Violent resistance is not part of the Occupy framework.
It's just not there. Nor is it developing into a Violent Resistance Campaign, nor is it likely to.
On the other hand, it is becoming increasingly militant, and becoming increasingly effective as a militant nonviolent resistance campaign. Coordinated militant nonviolent resistance can be be among the most effective tactics in countering even the apparently strongest authoritarian systems.
In that overall context, rare incidents of vandalism or object throwing are simply "incidents." They don't define the campaign, no matter what mass media propaganda says about how "definitional" they are.
Yet there are nonviolence advocates who are still obsessing over black bloc vandalism that took place in Oakland on one day in November of last year even though there has been no black bloc in Oakland since then. As members of that black bloc have pointed out, and the videos amply demonstrate, they were the objects of physical assault and threats of assault (including by one man who waved around a pole of some sort as a weapon) by purported "nonviolence" advocates. In fact, violent rhetoric and threats of physical force and violence against "black bloc anarchists" are routine features of the arguments against "black bloc anarchists" by "nonviolence" advocates. (You should see my email...)
It might help matters if the accusers looked in the mirror sometimes. But that's another issue for another time.
The question under consideration now is one of trust.
When "the anarchists" are routinely threatened with physical harm or are actually being physically assaulted by strident advocates of "nonviolence," it can give rise to an understandable lack of trust in the motives of some of these "nonviolence" advocates as well as some level of disrespect for their arguments and their point of view.
The following video gives an overview of nonviolent resistance from the perspective of some of those who study and promote it. The link came through some of the same channels in my email that contain some of the most virulent hostility and hypocrisy by self-proclaimed nonviolence advocates I've ever seen.
This video stands in complete contrast to the virulence and hostility and violent rhetoric so often employed by self-professed "nonviolence" advocates. It is only an overview, it doesn't get into the weeds and the details of campaigns, though it does touch on testimonies and tactics from the campaigns of Dr. King and Mahatma Gandhi and others. The point is that a Nonviolent Resistance Campaign can occur in a variety of ways, through use of a variety of tactics, and that militant nonviolent resistance can be very effective. There are other nonviolent paths than those of Gandhi and King. Really.
Points to ponder:
Betrayal of the public interest by indifferent and corrupt leaders is a fundamental betrayal of trust that has led to the global appearance of the Occupy Movement.
Betrayal of trust between participants within the Movement due to lack of mutual respect and lack of mutual understanding of the principles of nonviolent struggle has led to the current conflict within Occupy over tactics of nonviolence.
Even though there is so much inner turmoil over these issues, the Movement remains fundamentally strong and vital, in part because the first listed betrayal motivates the resistance, and the second listed betrayal, once recognized and addressed, frequently leads to a even greater level of solidarity within the Movement.
The cowards who pass for Regents of the University were supposed to hold their meeting in San Francisco tomorrow. They got a report from the UC Police that there might be some unpleasantness having to do with the recent tumult at the UC Berkeley campus -- and other things -- so they advised the Regents to postpone their meeting.
This they promptly voted to do. Can't have any unpleasantness. Ick.
This is the Press Release announcing their cowadice:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Monday, Nov. 14, 2011 UC Office of the President (510) 987-9200
Announcement from UC Board of Regents leadership
The following announcement was released today (Monday, Nov. 14, 2011) by Sherry Lansing, chair of the University of California Board of Regents, Vice Chair Bruce Varner and President Mark G. Yudof:
Late last week University of California law enforcement officials came to us with concerns about credible intelligence they had collected in advance of the Board of Regents meeting, scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday (Nov. 16 and 17) at the UC San Francisco Mission Bay campus.
From various sources they had received information indicating that rogue elements intent on violence and confrontation with UC public safety officers were planning to attach themselves to peaceful demonstrations expected to occur at the meeting.
They believe that, as a result, there is a real danger of significant violence and vandalism. They have advised us further that this violence could place at risk members of the public, students lawfully gathered to voice concerns over tuition levels and any other issues, the UCSF community, including patients, and public safety officers, UC staff and neighbors of UCSF Mission Bay.
They recommended to us, in the strongest of terms, that we cancel or postpone the meeting as scheduled.
After further consultation with these law enforcement officers, we have decided that, in fact, the most prudent course for us would be to postpone this meeting and reschedule it for another time and, possibly, an alternate venue. Failure to do so might constitute a reckless disregard of credible law enforcement intelligence. Ensuring public safety must be a top priority.
By rescheduling, it is our intent to allow the business of the University of California to go forward, but in a manner that will allow the public, including students, to express their views on issues related to the university without putting their personal safety in peril.
We will be announcing a new schedule for this meeting as soon as possible. We will not elaborate further on the law enforcement intelligence that prompted us to postpone, and we have asked our police officials to do the same.
Finally, we want to point out that the agenda for this meeting included updates from UC staff members on several initiatives that have been launched in an effort to offset state disinvestment in the university, providing alternate revenue streams beyond tuition and taxpayer support. This work will continue to go forward. Contrary to some public misperceptions, a tuition increase was never a part of the agenda for this meeting.
The arrogance -- and cowardice -- of the UC Board of Regents was legendary back in the Olden Days, but this announcement makes me believe it is even worse now than it was then.
Student Regents had a different take:
An Open Letter to Students, Administrators, Faculty, and the Regents:
The leadership of the Board of Regents has chosen to cancel this week’s Regents meeting. This letter addresses that decision, the recent protests on UC campuses, the continued defunding of public higher education by the State of California, and recent police brutality at UC Berkeley. The State of California’s unprecedented and short-sighted divestment from public higher education is a disastrous moral and economic choice. In the short term, it hurts students. In the long term, it will hurt all Californians.
The University of California is a nationwide leader in educating students who are the first in their families to go to college, students who come from underserved communities, and first-generation students who are the children of immigrants. Collectively and through sacrifice, the State of California has built an institution that excels at providing a world-class education to students who have faced the greatest challenges to access it.
And yet the State is choosing to tear that institution down. The State of California cut the UC by $650 million in the past year, with a $100 million trigger cut likely on the way. These latest cuts come on the heels of decades of declining funding. The cost is felt first and foremost by students, who face nothing but bad choices: work multiple jobs to make ends meet, take out enormous loans that will be paid back in a terrible job market, or drop out and pursue an education somewhere cheaper or not at all. Generations of Californians attended an excellent UC at low or no cost; today, those same Californians are forcing the next generation of students to attend a university under threat, and at a high and rising cost. It is privatization of our greatest public good, and a morally bankrupt choice on the part of our citizens and our state government.
It is also a short-sighted economic choice. For decades, the University of California has fueled this state’s economic success, by driving innovation and entrepreneurship and graduating thousands of highly skilled workers into the California economy. Defunding this institution may ease our budget problems today, but doing so will bear bitter fruit for decades to come, as we become a less attractive destination for businesses and entrepreneurs. Cutting the UC hurts every Californian’s opportunity to get a well-paying job, decreases our future tax revenues, and delays or prevents entirely the research breakthroughs that advance our society and our economy.
The Student Regent and Student Regent-Designate support the actions of students who call attention to the privatization of public education through courageous and peaceful protest. The police violence at UC Berkeley on November 9 was reprehensible and ought to be condemned, not defended, by campus and systemwide administration. We have additional concerns about freedom of speech – on the day of the protests, a Berkeley Law student was stopped by police officers while far from the events at Sproul Plaza simply for carrying a megaphone. When she was unable to produce a student ID, she was handcuffed, placed in a squad car, and cited for a misdemeanor. Free speech and providing equitable access to education have been hallmarks of the UC and particularly UC Berkeley — by suppressing speech that advocates for education access, we do violence to two of our most cherished principles.
The Student Regent and Student Regent-Designate oppose the decision to cancel this week’s Regents meeting. We understand that local law enforcement authorities recommended the meeting be postponed in the interest of public safety. However, students have a right to protest peacefully and make their voices heard forcefully; this action eliminates their opportunity to do that. We would support finding a way for student attendees to exercise their constitutional and moral right to protest while excluding non-student elements that raise the specter of violence and vandalism. We urge students who had made plans to travel to San Francisco for the Regents meeting to travel to Sacramento instead, and make student frustrations known to the state’s ultimate decision-makers.
To fund the University of California, the State needs revenues. The Student Regent and Student Regent-Designate support ending Proposition 13’s treatment of corporate property taxes and ending the two-thirds supermajority requirement for raising new revenues in the state legislature. The Student Regent and Student Regent-Designate also support increasing taxes on the wealthiest Californians. Those at the top of California society have benefited the most from the fact that California is a vibrant, innovative, and diverse place; in times of struggle, they should give back to make sure that other Californians have the same opportunities to succeed that they did.
We hope that our fellow Regents and the administration of the UC will be forceful advocates for new revenues for state government. To not do so leaves us with only a single, cynical choice every year: submit a funding request to the State and lobby for it despite knowing Sacramento is unlikely to meet it; search internally for savings after yet another budget cut that we knew was coming; and fill the balance of our budget deficit on the backs of students, pushing those in the middle class further to the margins.
We have a responsibility to fight for an alternative. Students are leading the way. We hope that the University of California and its leadership can join students in the fight to preserve truly public higher education for all our citizens. As the Student Regent and Student Regent-Designate, we have a responsibility to be the students who partner with the Regents and the University’s top decisions-makers. We will continue to advocate from within the system for the principles and beliefs driving student energy and passion.
Alfredo Mireles Student Regent
Jonathan Stein Student Regent-Designate
Meanwhile, his Excellency the Chancellor of the University, has had something of a change of heart -- after students and others filed lawsuits and denounced him and the UC Police for their appalling brutality against students:
Calling videos of the demonstrations “disturbing,” Birgeneau stated that all students arrested during the protest for blocking police officers will be granted amnesty and will not face charges under the student code of conduct.
“The events of last Wednesday are unworthy of us as a university community,” Birgeneau said in the message. “Sadly, they point to the dilemma that we face in trying to prevent encampments and thereby mitigate long-term risks to the health and safety of our entire community.”
Sure. Whatever.
Tomorrow is a Day of Action throughout the UC system; there are supposed to be strikes everywhere. What will actually transpire is anyone's guess. There are plenty of students in the UC system (and the related public university systems) who are delighted to see police brutality on campus or off. The tuition hikes don't phase them a bit.
We'll see... -------------------------
As an addendum:
As of 8:00pm PST, over 1800 people had signed the Open Letter to Chancellor Birgeneau, the UC Berkeley administration, and the UC Regents, regarding the unpleasantness of November 9, 2011, when the UC Police went on a rampage.
The Open Letter reads as follows:
We, the undersigned faculty, lecturers, and graduate student assistants—all of whom teach at Berkeley and are invested in the educational mission of this university—are outraged by the unnecessary and excessive use of violence by the police and sheriff’s deputies against peaceful protesters at UC Berkeley beginning on Wednesday, November 9, 2011.
We will not tolerate this assault on the historic legacy of free speech on this campus.
The protests on Sproul Plaza on November 9 were organized by a coalition of undergraduates, graduates, faculty, union members, and staff to clearly articulate links between the privatization of the university, the global financial crisis, the burdens of student debt, and the composition and power of the UC Regents, whose actions demonstrate a lack of concern with sustaining the public character of the UC system. The principles of these protests reach well beyond the Berkeley campus.
After a large demonstration at Sproul and a march into the city of Berkeley, the protesters formed a General Assembly that called for a non-violent encampment under the name Occupy Cal. As the encampment was being established, protesters were immediately met with physical violence by the police, including the jabbing and striking of students and others with batons. This assault by UCPD and Alameda County riot police against those peacefully assembled led to the forcible arrests of 39 protesters and one faculty member. Associate Professor Celeste Langan offered her wrist to the police in surrender, saying “arrest me, arrest me,” but was nevertheless aggressively pulled by her hair to the ground and cuffed. This began a series of tense confrontations—punctuated by further police violence—that lasted throughout the night and has persisted on our campus. The spectacle of police brutalizing members of our community does inestimable damage to our integrity, our reputation, and our standing as a public university.
We are appalled by the Chancellor’s account, in his November 10 “Message to the Campus Community,” that the police were “forced to use their batons.” We strenuously object to the charge that protesters—by linking arms and refusing to disperse—engaged in a form of “violence” directed at law enforcement. The protests did not justify the overwhelming use of force and severe bodily assault by heavily armed officers and deputies. Widely-circulated documentation from videos, photographs, and TV news outlets make plainly evident the squad tactics and individual actions of members of the UCPD and Alameda County Sheriff’s Department. This sends a message to the world that UC Berkeley faculty, staff, and student protesters are regarded on their own campus with suspicion and hostility rather than treated as participants in civil society.
We call on the Berkeley administration to immediately put an end to these grotesquely out-scale police responses to peaceful protest. We insist that the administration abandon the premise that the rigid, armed enforcement of a campus regulation, in circumstances lacking any immediate threat to safety, justifies the precipitous use of force.
We call upon the Chancellor to comply fully and in a timely manner with the Public Record Act request made in writing by the ACLU on November 10. We also call upon the Chancellor to initiate an independent investigation, separate from that to be undertaken by the campus Police Review Board, to ensure a fair review of events and procedures to prevent such attacks on free speech from happening in the future.
We also express our concern with the repressive policing that has occurred around the wider Occupy Wall Street movement—including Occupy Oakland, where undue force has led to numerous injuries such as those sustained by Iraq veteran Scott Olsen. In solidarity with Occupy Cal and the Occupy movements around the country, we condemn these police acts unequivocally.
We call for greater attention to the substantive issues raised at the protests on November 9 regarding the privatization of education. With massive cuts in state funding and rising tuition costs across the community college system, the Cal State network, K-12, and the University of California, public education is undergoing a severe divestment. Student debt has reached unprecedented levels as bank profits swell. We decry the growing privatization and tuition increases that are currently heavily promoted by the corporate UC Board of Regents.
We express NO CONFIDENCE in the Regents, who have failed in their responsibility to fight for state funding for public education, and have placed the burden of the budget crisis on the backs of students.
We express NO CONFIDENCE in the willingness of the Chancellor, and other leaders of the UC Berkeley administration, to respond appropriately to student protests, to secure student welfare, and to respect freedom of speech and assembly on the Berkeley campus.
Signed, Julia Bryan-Wilson, Associate Professor, History of Art Peter Glazer, Associate Professor, Theater, Dance, and Performance Studies Gregory Levine, Associate Professor, History of Art
[And here I thought I was verbose!]
Most of those who have signed, by the way, are current active UC faculty, grad students, and workers. And as many have pointed out, this is really an astonishing response given the real risks to their academic careers -- and even their department fortunes -- many of these people are taking. It was an astonishing response when there were only 600 signatories. Now, with over 3 times that many, it's stunning.
Liberty Plaza is overflowing with people at the moment. Jammed. A huge sign appears behind the speakers' rostrum: "Occupy Everything" but there are so many people, so many union representatives, so many media, so much energy, so much noise, it's hard to make out just what has happened there.
My heart soars.
There are so many people that the speakers' words have to be repeated first by the crowd nearby, then by the crowd further out so that everyone can hear. What had been a quirk and an iconic action has become a necessity. And still they say they can't hear!
It's become so... anarchic(?) that some are suggesting just go ahead and use megaphones. (Actually, there is a non-amplified one in use.) As the BART protesters liked to say: "You can't kill us all."
They are trying to organize a march to Wall Street (a couple of blocks away); it's not easy. There are so many people and communications are inadequate for this size gathering, yet they're figuring out a way.
The Livestream, of course, is acting up. But check it out.
The Ruling Class and their tireless agents in the Republican Party have it made it very clear that they do not retreat, they do not surrender; neither do they negotiate in good faith, nor do they compromise. They are the Ruling Class, after all. They declare, they command, they order, they rule.
Everyone else has the choice to submit. That is their only rational choice. Should they choose to do otherwise, they will pay a heavy price for their insolence.
This behavior of the rentiers and their tireless agents has been going on for so long now that it seems to be the normal state of affairs. Orders and commands are issued and by and bye they are obeyed.
Of course, it means that ordinary people are sacrificing practically everything they have on the command of the Ruling Class and their tireless agents. If they can manage to keep a job at all, ordinary people are working harder than ever and they are earning less, sometimes 75% less, than they did just two or three years ago.
They are paying more and ever more for necessities.
Their retirement security is being stolen from them piece by piece: first their pensions, then the value of their retirement accounts, then the value of their homes and property, then their Social Security and Medicare benefits.
More and more overseas wars of aggression are started in their names, others are continued into the indefinite future.
We see in the protests in Europe that the Ruling Class is not just unmoved by popular unrest, they in fact have doubled down on their demands for austerity, imposing even harsher conditions on the hapless populations than previously thought.
The nominally Socialist governments yield, without any fight at all. They believe they have no other rational choice than to yield and by yielding, they seal their own political fates, but maybe that doesn't matter. Perhaps they are rewarded by their Owners and Sponsors for "doing the right thing," ie: putting the entire burden of the financial and economic collapse on the masses, putting none of the burden on the financiers and rentiers.
That is, after all, the point of "austerity," no matter where it is imposed, and no matter the precipitating cause. The masses, the People, must and will be made to pay for the recklessness of their financial Overlords.
Street protest, which has roiled Greece and the other countries being squeezed dry by the Financial Interests, has had no positive effect at all. Governments ignore the Street in "Peripheral Europe" just as they once did in the Arab World. Oh, but that changed, didn't it?
In the Euro-Core -- ie: France and Germany -- which is ostensibly being "protected" by the austerity measures being imposed on Peripheral Europe, the public is being propagandized to believe that they are being "forced" to work harder and longer to bail out Greece and the other Peripheral countries, and they are steaming mad about it.
But they're being lied to. "Greece" as a nation, and the People of Greece are not being bailed out. National sovereignty is being extinguished, and the People of Greece are being forced to pay off the gambling debts of the financial class, in full. With interest. The People of Germany and France are being forced to pay off those same debts, not Greece's debts, the gambling debts of the Euro-Banksters, just like here in the United States, where the Banksters have been paid off for the same losses over and over and over again. Once the cycle starts it is almost impossible to stop.
Governments are so completely in thrall to their financiers and Banksters, they cannot imagine saying "No!" to the extortion demands they face, and when Iceland, alone, said "No!", the propaganda went into full cry insisting that's not what the People and their government said at all. It's astonishing to witness.
But as usual, peoples are being set against one another in these trying times.
Iceland said "No!" Years ago Argentina said "No!" All over Latin America, governments came to the conclusion that the austerity measures that were being demanded of them for more loans simply weren't in the national or popular interest, and more and more they said "No!"
Surprisingly, the world did not end.
Nor did these nations collapse. Saying "No!" was what these governments needed to do then, and it is what the governments of Peripheral Europe need to do now, but they are paralyzed with fear of the consequences to them, personally, of saying "No!"
They cannot do it. Not yet.
The plug has to be pulled on the financial class once and for all.
The way that's done is the way it's always been done: by effectively nationalizing the banks, strictly regulating currency and financial transactions, prohibiting and punishing speculation, and seizing assets of the hyper wealthy. The financial class may try to fight back, by freezing credit, but they can only go so far in that direction before they are face to face with their own intrinsic vulnerability. As we have seen whenever the demands of the financier class are refused and rejected, the financiers rather quickly back off and seek out other marks for predation.
The class is highly vulnerable because they don't deal in either a product or a service, they deal in fantasy. Most of the bubble wealth and the extortion they thrive on is simply phantom wealth; but it's all they know.
Convincing governments to do what's necessary to free the People from the predation of the financiers is no simple task, though. We see that the pleading of the People -- such as has been taking place in Spain and Portugal -- doesn't work. Anarchist riots (as in Greece) don't work. Replacing governments (as in Ireland) doesn't work.
What does work are sustained General Strikes. Surrounding and shaming the wealthy can be very effective. Making their lives miserable, and making it impossible for their companies to function are the key ways of bringing about necessary liberation from their thrall, but it is necessary to shut down the operations of the complicit governments as well, and all of this involves greater or lesser physical and financial risks in the short term that, for the most part, ordinary people are not particularly willing to endure -- unless they are relatively certain of success.
Ian Welsh posted an outline of strategies for resistance and change that's worth considering. There is more, much more, to effective resistance. The key is to shut down the operations of the Overclass -- which is probably easier in this technological age than many of us realize -- and hamstring their governmental servants. Make it impossible for them to function. Suddenly, their tune changes, and what was once implacable is suddenly yielding.
Right now, of course, they are yielding nothing because they don't think they have to. In fact, they are redoubling their demands. Governments are yielding en masse.
Word has it, from no less authority than Prof Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research and the redoubtable DEBKA File (by which I mean, 'continue to doubt it') that things may not be what they seem to be in Libya, and if they aren't there, where are they? (links via "American Everyman", a resource for skeptics everywhere on just about any topic of interest you care to name, but not much Show Business.)
This is always the problem with an abundance of skepticism. Because nothing can be taken at face value, nothing is "true" -- but then, nothing is really "false" if everything is false. It's all a muddle, and you're just lucky to remember to breathe day to day.
Of course the plethora of Revolutions popping up everywhere should be taken with a grain of salt, if not an entire barrel of it. Our Rulers have been manufacturing dissent for almost as long as they have been manufacturing consent. It's all a matter of Rulership, which they have no intention of giving up voluntarily any time soon if ever.
Together with some information on the mechanics of it.
Teaching Assistants from the University of Wisconsin have been crucial to the continuation of protests in and around the Capitol day after day. Despite the Labor gloss, this is really a protest led and maintained by Youth. And that's the way it has to be.
The public employees' labor movement is cast in the role of supporter to the Youth Movement that is leading and perpetuating the protests in Madison, and -- let's face it -- around the world. Labor, the Middle Class, the Good Burghers, Bureaucrats, Teachers, Firefighters, and what have you, even Old Farts like me, have their place in the scheme of all the uprisings, but we're not in charge of it, not even remotely. This is a Movement of the Young, for their Dignity and for their Future.
Their future has been stolen by the plutocrats and the oligarchs, the Kochs and their many minions, the globalists and the cabals they underwrite. That future is gone unless they seize it back.
And that's what they are setting out to do throughout the Arab world, in Europe, and now in the United States.
It is a wonder to behold. I cannot predict the outcome, none of us can.
We are on the cusp of a general revolt. This is not -- yet -- a Revolution. The Revolution may come -- or it may not. If it does, there is no way to determine in advance how it will resolve or even if it will.
But there's something happening here. No doubt about that.
It's impossible not to be moved -- for me anyway -- by this "labor unrest" phase of American History. The People are getting some of their spirit back, some of their strength, some of their soul. It's an amazing and thrilling sight, it's wonderful to be part of it if only on the fringe and periphery.
Yes, something like this has happened before. Many times. But not recently. Not recently enough. Sustained and determined protest is what wins the day against the murderous plutocrats and oligarchs who rule us. And that, the sustained and determined protest, hasn't happened for a long time.
Despite the fact that I'm not altogether sure that the Wisconsin public employee union leaders actually understand the danger Scott Walker's assault on reason represents, the Solidarity Movement is gaining steam.
Last evening, the Ché household (current and retired public employee union members all) attended a Solidarity Rally organized by SEIU at the California State Capitol. Ultimately, there were perhaps 2,500 to 3,000 attendees -- a relatively light turn out compared to some of the events staged there (I've seen 25,000 or even on one occasion 100,000 at the Capitol) but a significant turnout just the same. This was the core of union support in Sacramento and Northern California, and that means a lot over the long haul.
Some pictures and a video:
The 'Bagger "counter protest". Actually, their numbers almost doubled by the time the event was over.
Those of you who followed the saga of Casa Ché in California know of the seemingly interminable episode of The Plumbers wherein the water heater gave out early one AM leading to replacing all of the supply piping in the house (as well as the water heater) and also part of the drains and sewer piping. There was a break in the drain line out of the bathtub which probably would have gone unnoticed if not for the fact that the wall behind the tub was opened up to put in new copper piping. So all that had to be re-done, even as we thought things were about to get back to normal.
Here in New Mexico our place started out around 1900 as an adobe ranch house more or less in the middle of nowhere; it had no plumbing. Supposedly, this was the house where Toney Anaya grew up, though personally I don't believe it. The story he tells, the house where he grew up had dirt floors and no indoor plumbing until the later 1950s. This house has pretty much always had wood floors (mostly wide pine planks, but the north and south bedrooms have narrow floor boards, not sure what species, probably pine, too, but it actually looks like maple), and there was at least an attempt to put in plumbing in the 1930's as far as I can determine from the old piping and its location. In the 1950's, pretty early I'd say, a bathroom was installed in the older wing of the house, and a kitchen and laundry room were added to the front by enclosing what was the portal. That's basically how the house is now. Though we had a lot of renovations done, it was primarily to rehab the place from a ruin and make it liveable, not to change the footprint.
So yesterday morning, I noticed strange sounds coming from the plumbing in the bathroom. Gurgling, burping, and what sounded like water draining directly onto the ground under the floor. Not good. There wasn't really a back up, either, though the water was draining slowly. I decided I better call the plumbers.
They came, shortly -- within a few hours -- Rich and Chris, local fellows who hadn't had their lunch. They scoped out the situation, heard the sounds, said, "Oh dear," kind of like I did, and they called their boss, Fred, who came to look things over. It sounded like the sewer line had broken, no doubt about it, and Fred gave me two bids to replace the sewer line, one if the break was close to the toilet, the other (much bigger) if it was far and they had to dig extensively. Both were pretty reasonable for what would have to be done, so I said OK, and Rich commenced to open a small hole in the bathroom floor in order to see if he could determine where the break was.
I was in the other room while he and his helper Chris were doing their business in the bathroom. Suddenly everything went quiet. I checked, Chris was here by himself, Rich having left. Chris was peering into the hole.
"What's up?" I queried.
"Ohhhh," says Chris. "It's not broken."
"It isn't?"
"Nope. Gonna go run the snake."
So he does, opening up the cleanout in front of the house. Meanwhile, it seems like the whole world is coming over. Fred had called the utility Emergency Spot number to locate all the utility lines in case they had to dig. So the gas man came, and the electric co-op people came, and the phone man came, and someone from the water and sewer side, the cable guy too, an endless parade of semi-officials, one after the other. It was quite a show.
Chris busied himself with the snake, and sure enough, the drain ran free within a few minutes.
"Is it OK now?" I asked.
"Yup. Shoulda done that first. Rich jumped the gun and Fred just went along. It was only a clog. Rich went to get the bigger equipment, but we don't even need that. Everything's running fine now. I'll put the toilet back as soon as I can get a wax ring."
A few minutes later, Rich shows up looking sheepish. Chris asks if he has a wax ring. He does, so Chris goes to put the toilet back and clean up.
Rich explains what had happened. He said there was a clog pretty far down the sewer line, but the problem seemed to be that the sewer line was broken because no water was backing up into the house, which is usually what happens when the problem is a clog. Instead, he said, they found out when they opened the floor that the water was coming out right below the toilet flange, so it never got into the house, it was just pouring out under it. He said it was really soaked down there and it would be best to leave the hole open for several days to let things dry out. Run a fan.
So the sewer lines are fine? Seem to be. I told him that the supply piping had been replaced just before we bought the house five years ago. It was all that no-break-when-frozen plastic, and it worked well. All the other drains were OK so far as I knew. He said they'd only charge for the clog and a helper, and that was fine.
He asked if he could have the stump at the side of the house. I wondered what for. "Heat" he says. It was the only thing he could afford to keep warm. Oh. I said sure. Take it. It might provide a few days' heat in a good tight stove.
I had to pay for the plumbers at the hardware store in town since they weren't able to take charge cards at the job site. And I learned that there had been very little work for anyone in construction and plumbing and electrics and so on for quite some time. This was a big job, even though it turned out to be only a clog. And the rush to make it bigger, it seems, was in part due to the lack of work for so long before. They weren't trying to over bid or over charge at all -- at least not to my way of looking at it, if what we suspected was wrong had been wrong, they would have had a lot to do, and their charges for it were in line. The problem was, they hadn't tried to clear the clog first, which they really should have done.
And the idea that Rich actually needed the stump to heat his own house -- because he couldn't afford to pay for gas -- made me sad and confused at the same time. Gas (natural and LP) rates are not cheap in this area, but they aren't outrageously high, either. Our house doesn't have central heat. There's a big free-standing gas furnace in the living room and we use electric heaters in the bedrooms when needed. The adobe warms up after a few days and holds the heat. When we're not here, we keep the house at about 50 degrees; when we're here, it's 68-70. We haven't spent a whole winter here, but from the utility bumps in the weeks we have been here during cold weather, we figure winter heating costs at around $250 a month, which is higher than we pay in California -- it's a lot colder here! -- but not shocking.
Well, we say. Compared to what? You'd expect a plumber would make decent money, and heating his house wouldn't be that big an expense comparatively, but it turns out there's so little work in the field, nobody's making much money, and yes, heat is a huge expense comparatively. What I paid at the hardware store went right to paying the bill the plumbers had run up there for supplies and equipment. So... how do the plumbers get paid? I don't know. So yeah, take the stump. Please.
Of course a lot of folks around here heat with wood, either what they can chop or purchase already chopped or pellets, and it is overall, they say, about 30-50% less than gas or electricity. If they can get the wood free, it's gravy. Or at least a warmer few days.
The Endless Recession is partially to blame for this situation, but part of it is just the way things are here and have been for generations. So much of what lucky people like me take for granted is a struggle here -- and it has been for as long as anyone can remember. I realize how lucky we are and how little I really have to complain about.
It was a beautiful day yesterday, the sky an incredible deep blue, the clouds almost too pure in their whiteness. After all the excitement, I went to check for something in the van, and witnessed the most incredible sunset in the west. Well. Compared to what? We've shown pictures of New Mexico sunrises and sunsets to friends in California, and they always remark on how "unusual" it must be. And we say, no. It's practically every day. When I was driving over to the hardware store to pay the plumbers' bill, I caught my breath gazing at the mountains, as I do almost every time I come here. The mountains here are just a stunning sight, like the starry firmament at night, with bright stars all the way down to the horizon, the Milky Way shining bright, like nothing you would ever see in California unless you were in the high mountains on a good night.
Below is an incredible picture taken outside of Flagstaff, AZ, that appeared on APOD in 2008. It's consciously dramatic, showing the San Francisco Peaks enveloped in the clouds they attract (mountains do attract the clouds around these parts) and the Night Sky -- after long exposure. No, your eye doesn't quite see it this way, but the sensation of what you do see, on a clear night in Flagstaff, or from where I am now, is almost as strong.
