Occupy Philly and Independence Hall

Black Friday, Philadelphia, Pa.

 My first look at Occupy Philly was after a free ride on the 9:52 Media Local, The Santa Train.  This was not by plan but a matter of sheer coincidence.  I should have guessed; I was the only one standing on the Morton platform without a small child in tow.  But shortly after boarding, it was all too clear.  The elves came first, wailing Jingle Bells and Wish You a Merry Christmas.  They were followed by out-of-season Mummers dressed in holiday garb, belting out another round of X-mas cheer, complete with accordion, banjo and sax.  Mrs. Claus assured the children that Santa was busy, busy at the North Pole, making sure all their wishes [even though edited to economic realities] would come true. And then, there was the free candy and balloon animals.

The magic of childhood!  Where we can believe everything and anything.  When the world appears kind and right and true.

An out-of-stater now, I deliberately got off at Suburban Station, my old work stop.  Also, the stop at which I’ve frequently disembarked to attend exhibits at the Franklin Institute, the Museum of Natural History or the Philadelphia Museum of Art, a brisk walk west up the Parkway, past the Rodin Museum and the soon-to-open home for the controversy-laden Barne’s collection.

But not today. 

This morning I headed east, winding through the underground towards City Hall and the Occupy Philly encampment.  Later, I would team up with a friend and hoof down to the historic district.  But right now, I had a different historical event in mind.

I no sooner hit the outside doors than the vivid blue of plastic tarps and tent tops were visible.  A strange sight.  Normally, I would have walked through the West arch at City Hall, stood for a few moments googling at the city’s Christmas tree.  But this year was different.  So different.

The western entrance to the City Hall complex was barricaded.  ‘For Restoration’ the signs said.  No towering tree this year.  Instead, the Occupy tents decorated Dilworth Plaza, a strange but fascinating sprawl of makeshift living quarters and standard issue camping gear.  The area was quiet and still, the air crisp.  I circled around the entire plaza.  No sight of my friend, so I headed back towards the encampment, spotted the medical and information tents, as well as a petition table outlining the dangers of in-state fracking by over-zealous gas drilling companies.

At the Information Tent there was an array of literature on upcoming actions, the November issue of the Occupy Wall Street Journal and several people discussing Mayor Nutter’s deadline to dismantle the encampment within 48 hours.  Two of the occupiers said almost in unison: ‘It was never about the tents.’

So what is it about? It’s a question I read constantly on the blogs and in newspapers, even hear from family and friends.

Here’s what I learned in the morning hours I spent on the Plaza:

  1. In the 53 days of Occupy Philly, 26,000 local citizens signed on expressing support.
  2. At the height of the encampment, City Hall was encircled with tents, sleeping bags and a variety of makeshift living accommodations.
  3. Active supporters numbered around 200-300, some living on-site, others coming in to protest, march and rally during the day.
  4. Local Unions support the effort.  In fact, the Trades Union offered to assist the protestors in the original plan to move off Dilworth to an encampment across the street.  The Union needs those ‘renovation’ jobs.  That idea was scrapped because permits were denied.
  5. The area was clean.  No needles, drug paraphernalia or trash scattered about as the MSM would have readers/viewers believe taints all encampments. Talking to several encampment members, I was told a goodly portion of each day is spent ‘cleaning up.’
  6. The encampment/protest was peaceful.  There was a sense of community and the overriding sentiment was to voice anger and dissent over the widening income inequality in the US and the corporate capture of all facets of government.
  7. I heard no political posturing or Obama shilling. Simply stated, the system is broken for the 99%.
  8. Forty to fifty of the encampment members were homeless. They joined for the free food and the safety of numbers.
  9. The police presence, even on this Friday morning, was unusually large but basically stationed within the confines of the City Hall plaza.
  10. Though Mayor Nutter had leveled a 48-hour deadline, there was no sense of panic or great urgency the morning I arrived.  I later learned that the majority of the encampment was dismantled voluntarily Sunday evening and the homeless were moved elsewhere for their own safety.
  11. This morning [Wednesday 11/30 at 1:20 am, according to the Associated Press], the Philly police department began tearing down the remaining tents.

But as the protesters I spoke with said: It was never about the tents. It has always been about visibility—the eyesore of inequality, injustice and corruption.

I left Dilworth Plaza, and then headed down to Independence Mall.  A surreal juxtaposition. In a matter of a few blocks, my friend and I walked from the current protest to the historical marker of the Mother of All Protests.  Philadelphia is the birthplace of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. We strolled through the portrait gallery installed in the Second Bank of the United States and the faces of those earlier protesters, that grand collection of merchants and farmers, philosophers and scientists, lawyers and bankers stared back.  What would they be thinking? I wondered.

We went on to Carpenter’s Hall, where Benjamin Franklin reportedly had secret meetings with like-minded citizens prior to the Revolution.  Years later, on leaving the Constitutional Convention, a woman reportedly asked Franklin what sort of government he and the others had designed. Franklin’s terse reply: ‘A Republic, Ma’am. If you can keep it.’

Our final stop was Independence Hall, which was originally the Pennsylvania State House. This was where the Second Continental Congress met, the Declaration of Independence was adopted and where the Constitutional Convention met to draft, debate, and then sign the US Constitution in 1787.

We’re a long way from who and what we were in 1787. But Franklin’s words have a haunting edge to them: ‘A Republic, Ma’am. If you can keep it.’ Another quote that’s perhaps equally pertinent is:

‘We must hang together, gentleman, or assuredly we will all hang separately.’

For me at least, this is what the Occupy Movement has been and is still about.  In an age where corporations have been awarded the distinction of personhood, when free speech is equated to money and The Rule of Law is applied in an unjust and inequitable fashion then we, ordinary citizens, have a duty to support and join one another in protest. To hang together, if you will.

Oh, and that Tea Party, the real one in Boston that got everything rolling? 

We all recall the ‘taxation without representation’ line from our school years, stemming from the passage of the Stamp Act in the 1760s and later the Tea Act in 1773.  King George had debts to pay off—a Seven Year’s War among other things.  And the East India Company’s tea pitched into the Boston Harbor?  East India was basically provided a monopoly on tea shipped into the colonies. The company [and its aristocratic shareholders] were none too happy about their profits pinched and drowned in the harbor and helped push [lobby] the King to pass the Coercive Acts, aka The Intolerable Acts. The colonists were generally peeved at the British Parliament for taxing them without their consent and then adding insult to injury, giving the East India Co. a cushy, duty-free export to undercut colonial merchants. But they were beyond peeved when punitive measures were leveled. They demanded that Parliament end its corrupt economic policies with and stop the bailout of that era’s own TBTF East India Company.

Sound vaguely familiar?  Whatever’s old is new again. Of course, no one age can be accurately compared to another. Context is everything. To quote Barbara Kingsolver from the November issue of The Occupy Wall Street Journal:

“Every system on earth has its limits. We have never been here before, not right here exactly, you and me together in the golden and gritty places all at once, on deadline, no fooling around this time, no longer walking politely around the dire colossus, the so-called American Way of consecrated corporate profits and crushed public compassion. There is another American Way. This is the right place, we found it. On State of Franklin, we yelled until our throats hurt that we were the 99% because that’s just it. We are.”

As I’ve said elsewhere, I support Occupy until I don’t. The ‘don’t’ for me is if the Movement becomes another co-opted arm of one corrupt political party or another. Our existing two-party system is thoroughly compromised; a shipload of bleach and scrub brushes couldn’t clean it up.  I support Occupy because I hate the idea of leaving my kids and future grandbabies with a broken, twisted Republic, one dedicated to piranha-school profits, the amassing of criminal wealth by a callous, irresponsible few at the expense of the many. I support the Occupiers because of those sweet-faced kids on the Santa train; they deserve the best we have.  But I also support what I saw on Dilworth Plaza because of what I saw and recalled inside Independence Hall, what we owe to all those who sacrificed and struggled, dreamed and achieved, lived, loved and died over the last 200+ years.  We stand on the shoulders of so many.

That’s something we should never forget because our past, our history is no small thing. But our future, that other American Way?  That’s all about what we do now.


Crony Capitalism and Damned Lies

I just had to point out a WSJ Op-Ed/article that is just one more example of how much the media has ceded facts to right wing tropes.  It’s written by Arthur Brooks. It’s called “Fairness and the Occupy Movement”.  Brooks tries to equivocate the rent seeking activities of rich and powerful interests like the war and finance industries and the existence of social safety net programs like food stamps.  It is not difficult for me to understand there is no real connection between providing things to the poor that need programs to stay alive and handing stuff needlessly to rich industries to attain extraordinary profits from market protections, subsidies and out right federal largess.  Why is it so difficult for the press and politicians to grok the difference?

Economists Jeffrey Sachs and Mark Thoma call shenanigans on Brooks’ pretzel logic and self-serving ignorance of facts.  Of course, I’ve come to expect nothing less from the American Enterprise Institute and its researchers who suspend all kinds of data and theories for their highly paid propaganda.  The Wall Street Journal is basically an arm of that enterprise.  The problem is that these lies shape policy debates.

First, Sachs points out this is an absolutely disingenuous narrative.

Where Brooks goes wrong is his description of inequality and fairness. The Republican view, which he espouses, is to reduce taxes, cut government services, and let markets be the standard of fairness. Here Brooks is deceptive in his rendition of the facts.

First, Brooks downplays the extent of inequality that has been built up in thirty years of crony capitalism. He favorably writes that “every income quintile has seen a real increase in purchasing power of at least 18% over the past 30 years,” citing a recent study of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Yet the real point of the CBO report, which Brooks does not mention, is that the richest 1% enjoyed a staggering rise of 275%, while the poorest stumbled by with a meager 18% gain. Moreover, the CBO report takes the data only to 2007. By now, even those meager gains at the bottom have been mostly lost.

Second, Brooks fails to note that the situation for the poor will be drastically worse if federal transfer programs are cut as the Republican Party is urging. The poorest quintile depends on these federal programs to stay alive. If the poorest Americans had to survive without government support, their incomes would be slashed to disastrous levels.

The Republicans answer to crony capitalism is to slash government. Yet by this they mean mainly an attack on the remaining social programs. This is a kind of bait-and-switch strategy: rev up the anger against government corruption, and then kill the life-support programs of the poor and working class. Crony capitalism exists mainly in the big-ticket sectors of the economy — banking, oil, real estate, private health insurance, military contractors, and infrastructure — not in the essential but much smaller parts of the economy: malnutrition of poor children, lack of quality pre-school, insufficient job training, and inadequate student loan coverage.

Yes, crony capitalism should be confronted anywhere in the economy, yet cutting the life-support systems for the working class and poor won’t fix government, but instead would cripple the prospects of more than 100 million poor and near-poor Americans. To control crony capitalism, we need to direct our attention where it belongs: the wealth-support systems of the rich, not the life-support systems of the poor.

Sachs points out 5 egregious examples of crony capitalism.  Mark Thoma goes even farther. He discusses how the Democrats have been sucked into the right wing agenda of twisted facts and ground shifting. Your guess is as good as mine as to how this has come about.  I’m sure Dems like Ben Nelson support the agenda and could care less about the untrue narrative that supports wealth transfer and market manipulation for the uberrich.  Others are likely captured because they want the wealth that comes with “serving the public” and they want to get re-elected.  Political office appears to be the fast track to the 1 percent these days.  Others probably think this is sincere negotiation or they get some side benefit to concession so they go along.

The hope for common ground where there is none can lead to Obama like one-sided concessionary behavior, and we have more than enough of that already. Yes, let’s find common ground where it exists, but let’s also be careful not to try to meet in the middle when the other side is pursuing a bait and switch strategy. The Republican goal of reducing the size of government through reductions in social programs is unwavering, and they will pursue any argument handy at the moment to bring this about. In recessions, they tell us tax cuts are needed to stimulate the economy, but the real goal is to cut funding for the government permanently. Once the taxes are reduced, they won’t agree to increase them again (unless it’s to protect their cronies, i.e. an increase in payroll taxes is fine so long as it prevents the increase in taxes on the wealthy needed to fund it). In normal times, we’re told tax cuts stimulate economic growth even though there’s not much evidence to support this claim. Presently, it’s the cronyism argument, and tomorrow it will be something else. The Republicans have their eyes on the ball, and the rules of the game are to be adjusted as necessary to allow them the best opportunity to take the ball across the goal line. Winning is all that matters. Fairness for both sides playing the game, etc. has nothing to do with it and we’d be wise to keep our eyes on the ball as well.

The other thing to note is that the location of common ground has shifted to the right from where it used to be. “Meet us in the middle” now means meeting on ground that would have been considered on the right not all that long ago. Democrats have already conceded too much in the ideological war, and there comes time when leaders in the party must take a stand and hold their ground. That time is long past.

What is clear to me is that there is very little left of what an economist would view as a free,efficient, functional market through out our economy.  Economies of scale, information brokers, concentration of markets into the hands of very few corporations, tax subsidies, federal contracts handed to friends of politicians, advertising, imagined product diversity, insider information, and moral hazard have all dealt blows to efficient pricing, resource allocation, and resultant quantity produced. It’s terribly dishonest of people like Arthur Brooks to equivocate programs that exist to protect the weakest in the society from the predatory behavior of the most rich and powerful who destroy functioning markets to achieve extraordinary profits and market power.

I have no idea why any one takes these fake “think tanks” seriously except they put out propaganda to serve the interests of crony capitalism itself..   The Paul Ryan Budget Scam was an example of crank analysis coming from the Heritage Foundation. Their output plagues policy discussion.  Their stuff wouldn’t be given the light of day in actual empirical or theoretical journals so they have to invent some institute just to look serious.  How these guys can lie with such a straight face is beyond me.  Also beyond me is the number of people that fall for the lies.  But then, some gullible and clueless media outlet or one saying that they’ll print lies just to be perceived as fair or some journalist with an agenda runs with the story.  Then, crank analysis achieves some critical mass of “serious”.  By the time that damned lie gets fact checked, no one is paying attention any more.  It’s no wonder that we are so f’d.


How to Buy the US Congress

Lots of political earthquakes and eruptions going on recently, so many that I missed 60 Minutes this past Sunday evening.  But fortunately, I picked up the CBS clip of an extraordinary interview that Lesley Stahl conducted with the infamous Bush-era lobbyist, Jack Abramoff.  If you haven’t seen it, gird your loins.  If you saw the original program, watch again because this 14-minute video explains in good measure exactly how the ‘train’ [the US government] went off the rails.

In one word: corruption.  But let’s use two words: systemic corruption.

Some will insist that Abramoff is an unreliable narrator, considering he spent 4 years in a medium security prison for conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion.

But who better to describe the underbelly of a wrecked, thoroughly compromised system than the best lobbyist that money could buy?  Btw, before Abramoff was nailed, he claims he ‘owned’ 100 US Congress people.  He considered that number woefully low. See 60 minutes link here.  It’s mind boggling.

That Indian Reservation scandal mentioned in the interview?  It should be noted that no other than Grover Norquist [No Taxes Ever] and Ralph Reed [Moral Majority’s darling] were involved as well.  Somehow they escaped prosecution.  The vein of corruption that infects and compromises the very heart and soul of this country runs deep.  Abramoff may be a despicable character but he’s actually doing a service [redemption?] by pulling the curtains back, letting in the light.  As Bostonboomer has said a number of times: sunlight is always the best disinfectant.

Herman Cain has been fending off accusations of inappropriate sexual conduct left and right.  I certainly don’t wish to minimize those charges.  If proven credible in the court of public opinion, those accusations will end Cain’s Presidential bid.  But Abramoff and his crew of buddies?  They’re the real professionals in the art of the screw, subversive actions raping and robbing an entire Nation.

The question is: will the American public demand a return to the Rule of Law and rout out the corruption that’s killing us.  Because as my mama always said: there’s never only one cockroach in the pantry.


Why Occupy Wall St. Should Bother

Here’s a message that should go viral for all the doubters and naysayers and critics of the Occupy Wall St. Movement.  Why should we bother as one poster at Sky Dancing asked this morning?  Why should Occupy beam in on the Koch brothers or Lloyd Blankfein or any of the infamous 1% that have brought the United States and the world to its knees?

Watch and listen.  And then ask: how can we or Occupy or any rational, reasonable human being not be bothered?


What the MSM Isn’t Reporting

If anyone had doubts that the mainstream media is deliberately fudging the details on the events surrounding the Occupy Wall St. Movement in general and the Occupy Oakland protests in particular, the following video is unlikely to dissuade you of that doubt.  Cenk Uygur was actually in Oakland on Wednesday during the general strike in Oakland—feet on the ground, eyeballs watching the events unfold.

Surprise!

The MSM had no cameras present. They had no cameras available during the Oakland police department’s original raid on protesters, The Night of Tear Gas and Batons.  That was also the night of the strange, weird coincidence when both the ABC and CBS helicopters needed refueling at precisely the same moment.

The world is being blanketed by stunning coincidence.

Fortunately, [but to the shock of many Americans] that night was recorded independently, the startling images preserved.

Cenk Uygur [The Young Turks] as some may recall had a brief 6-month stint on MSNBC, an hour-long show during which he was often critical of Barack Obama’s less than stellar record.  Uygur’s ratings were excellent but he was called in by management and asked to ‘tone it down.’  Translation?  Stop knocking POTUS and the Democratic Party’s slide to the corporate right.  Though offered more money to host a new show, Uygur politely turned MSNBC management down, and then went on the record and told his audience what had happened.  His slot was quickly filled by the Reverend Al Sharpton, who is happy as a clam to shill for the President and all things Democratic.  That would be the ‘My Party, Right or Wrong’ strategy.

For myself?  It’s the reason, I no longer watch MSNBC’s 6 pm broadcast.

The You Tube video is revealing—Uygur’s astonishment at how underreported the crowd size in Oakland truly was.  But I also found some startling photographs that belie the MSM’s attempt to undercut the groundswell of support this movement is capturing.  It’s growing despite the naysayers and critics.  It’s growing despite the MSM’s attempt to edit and minimize. It’s growing against all odds.

The Tea Party, of course, wants everyone to go home and get a job.  Which a lot of these people would probably happily do if there were jobs to get, the sort that pay a living wage—that small complication of making enough money to feed yourself and your family, pay the rent, keep the lights on.   We were told yesterday morning that unemployment ticked down a tenth of a percentile.  That would make the ‘official’ unemployment number 9 instead of 9.1%.  And there have been reports coming out suddenly to tell the country that stories of poverty and inequality are vastly exaggerated, even though the Census Bureau’s numbers show 1 in 15 Americans now categorized as the ‘poorest of the poor,’ the biggest jump recorded in 35 years.  Btw, that would be 50% or less than the official poverty level, which translates to $5,570  for an individual; $11, 157 for a family of four.

Seems to be an awful lot of sputtering, squirming and spinning going on.

Surely, it’s mere coincidence.