TYT - Cop Who Pepper-Sprayed Protesters Awarded $38K

If You're Doing Nothing Wrong

Trey Smith

I am sure you've heard the refrain before. If you decry the growing police state in this nation, a friend or relative will say, "If you're doing nothing wrong -- you are not up to "no good" -- you have nothing to be afraid of." This sentiment informs us that all these restrictions of our basic civil rights are being instituted to get the "bad guys." Law abiding citizens may be inconvenienced a tad, but it's no reason to get your panties in a wad. It really won't impact your life much at all.

It sounds good, but more and more, it is turning out not to be true. Our government seems far more concerned with keeping tabs on and putting down law abiding Americans rather than with sinister foreign "bad guys." That's the conclusion Naomi Wolf comes to when she writes,

It was more sophisticated than we had imagined: new documents show that the violent crackdown on Occupy last fall – so mystifying at the time – was not just coordinated at the level of the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and local police. The crackdown, which involved, as you may recall, violent arrests, group disruption, canister missiles to the skulls of protesters, people held in handcuffs so tight they were injured, people held in bondage till they were forced to wet or soil themselves –was coordinated with the big banks themselves.

The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, in a groundbreaking scoop that should once more shame major US media outlets (why are nonprofits now some of the only entities in America left breaking major civil liberties news?), filed this request. The document – reproduced here in an easily searchable format – shows a terrifying network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional fusion center, and private-sector activity so completely merged into one another that the monstrous whole is, in fact, one entity: in some cases, bearing a single name, the Domestic Security Alliance Council. And it reveals this merged entity to have one centrally planned, locally executed mission. The documents, in short, show the cops and DHS working for and with banks to target, arrest, and politically disable peaceful American citizens.

According to that hallowed document -- the US Constitution -- Americans have the right of a) free speech, b) free assembly and c) peaceful protest against the government. If you engage in any or all of the above rights, you don't lose your status as a law abiding citizen. And yet, it is those law abiding citizens that the police state targeted for abuse!!

Even worse, this was not solely a government-run operation. No, the government worked hand-in-hand with Wall Street to limit and punish public dissent. When the government and wealthy oligarchy merge into one, we no longer call that a representative democracy; it's called fascism!

For all of those folks out there who believe that the erection of our police state is about the "bad guys," Wolf reveals the truth.

Why the huge push for counterterrorism "fusion centers", the DHS militarizing of police departments, and so on? It was never really about "the terrorists". It was not even about civil unrest. It was always about this moment, when vast crimes might be uncovered by citizens – it was always, that is to say, meant to be about you.

There Is a Season

Trey Smith

By most indications, the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement has fizzled. What began on September 17, 2011, in Zuccotti Park basically has lost most of its momentum and the encampments are a thing of the past. From my perspective, it's a darn shame because OWS had a much better chance of bringing about progressive change than voting this November for Tweedledee or Tweedledum!

While I'm certain that police brutality and the exercise in real democracy (where everyone got to have their say) played roles in the rather quick demise of OWS, I think the biggest factor is something that is routine and run-of-the-mill. In fact, it is so pervasive that I think many of the organizers of OWS simply forgot to factor in this most important variable: the weather.

OWS commenced only 3 days before Summer was set to turn to Autumn. Fall, like Spring, is a season of transition. It is the time in northern parts of the US when the daily high temperatures start to fall off week by week. In many of these locales, rain, sleet, snow and wind begin to make appearances. As October turns toward November and beyond, the overall climate is not that hospitable for organized outdoor activities.

In September and October, the activities in New York City and other northern locales were vibrant. Tens of thousands of people joined in the many marches and protests. Hundreds gathered at the nightly encampments. By November, however, the momentum began to ebb at about the same time as the weather became more challenging. By December, OWS was a mere remnant of its former self.

In many ways, OWS organizers boxed in the movement from the very outset. Knowing that winter was soon approaching, they invariably limited the amount of momentum which could have been built and sustained.

Imagine if these folks had factored in the climate. Instead of beginning as summer waned, what if they had kicked off their movement in mid March or April? This would have meant that September 17 would have represented the 6 month anniversary instead of the beginning. Six or seven months of mounting momentum might have been enough to sustain the movement through the winter.

Alas, we will never know if this might have made a substantive difference or not.

Who Throws the Most Punches?

Trey Smith

In the official narrative, the question always concerns whether anyone and everyone but the state should engage in violence. The question of whether the state should engage in violence, or whether state violence should be evaluated in terms of the same standards of reasonableness as violence by nonstate actors, never crosses the threshold of visibility. The legitimacy of violence by the state is never even articulated as an issue.

That’s a shame. The state is not a mystical entity, a sum greater than the human beings making it up. The state is simply a group of human beings cooperating for common purposes — purposes frequently at odds with those of other groups of people, like the majority of people in the same society. And violent actions by an association of individuals who call themselves “the state” have no more automatic legitimacy than violent actions by associations of individuals who call themselves “the Ku Klux Klan” or “al Qaeda.”

The violent actions of the state deserve to be evaluated using the same criteria by which we judge the morality of the violent actions of any other grouping of individuals. Alexander Berkman, in “The ABC of Anarchism,” argued that the death and destruction caused by the institutionalized violence of the state was many times greater than that caused by anarchists or other revolutionaries. Who do you think has thrown more bombs — anarchists, or government military forces?
~ from Should Occupy Use Violence? by Kevin Carson ~

There has been much handwringing as of late because some of the protesters in the Occupy Movement -- particularly in Oakland, CA -- have employed what some folks consider violent tactics. There have been incidents in which objects have been thrown at the police and property has been damaged and/or defaced. In my book, violence to property is still violence, but I do recognize that this definition is not shared by all concerned.

However, as Carson points out, possible violence committed by some protesters pales in comparison to the institutionalized violence of the state. Just in terms of the Occupy Movement itself, there is no way to compare a few projectiles tossed here and there with the widespread police brutality being utilized in city after city and MOST of it aimed at protesters committing NO form of violence whatsoever.

In some ways, I think it is wrong to condemn protesters for violent acts. I realize this must sound strange coming from an avowed pacifist like me, but when violence so permeates a society -- as it does ours -- it becomes part of the public consciousness.

Everyday we read or hear of drones murdering innocent civilians, the president ordering a hit on someone a secretive panel has determined is dangerous or the rattling of war sabers at some nation we have labeled as evil. Our federal government has instituted and trumpeted a policy of "shoot first and, maybe, ask questions later."

In many of the Taoist texts featured on this blog, we talk about how the king/ruler (for contemporary times, the national government) sets the tone for the nation. When the tone set is a violent one, it should surprise no one that some citizens utilize this strategy as well in their activities.

While I think that the use of violence in the Occupy Movement plays into the hands of the police state -- it provides them with the political cover to be ever more violent themselves -- it is consistent with the manner in which the government itself behaves.

Bad Apples

Trey Smith

From time to time, there are reports in the media about police officers who have been charged with a crime. When this occurs, the police chief or some other high ranking official comes before the media and refers to the officer as a "bad apple." We are told that we shouldn't judge the entire police force based on the questionable actions of one solitary individual. In most cases, this is a fair point.

So, why is it that the police themselves seem unwilling to utilize this rationale when it comes to protesters? Joshua Holland reports at Alternet that, faced with a handful of violent protesters in a sea of nearly 1,000 PEACEFUL protesters in Oakland yesterday, the Oakland PD employed violent tactics on the entire group!! There are reports of tear gas, flash grenades and bean bags being shot indiscriminately at the protesters.

There is no question that a few people in this large crowd threw objects at the police. Many of the peaceful protesters confronted the few less-than-peaceful ones and encouraged them to desist. But the police made no such efforts. Once a few objects were hurled, they used these acts as a convenient excuse to manhandle anyone they could get their hands on!

This type of strategy is being employed by police departments across the nation.

When Fiction and Reality Meet

Trey Smith

Over the past week, I have been reading the next dystopian novel on my list, Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury. The subtitle of the book is "The Temperature at Which Book Paper Catches Fire, and Burns."

Bradbury takes us into a future world in which books are not allowed. Each time some are discovered, firemen are sent to burn them up as well as the house or building they were found in!!

While I was reading Fahrenheit 451, the New York City Police was tearing down the Occupy encampment at Zuccotti Park. As part of their efforts, they destroyed most of the books in the free People's Library. Of over 3,000 books, less than 800 were returned in a readable condition.

With the continued economic woes gripping government budgets large and small, libraries -- which haven't been adequately funded in some time -- really are feeling the pinch. Some will have to shutter their doors and reduced hours and services are becoming par for the course.

Maybe Bradbury's tale isn't as fantastic as it once seemed. It would be a sad day indeed if Bradbury's fictional world becomes tomorrow's reality.

Silencing Oneself

Trey Smith

The intent and effect of such abuse is that it renders those guaranteed freedoms meaningless. If a population becomes bullied or intimidated out of exercising rights offered on paper, those rights effectively cease to exist. Every time the citizenry watches peaceful protesters getting pepper-sprayed — or hears that an Occupy protester suffered brain damage and almost died after being shot in the skull with a rubber bullet — many become increasingly fearful of participating in this citizen movement, and also become fearful in general of exercising their rights in a way that is bothersome or threatening to those in power. That’s a natural response, and it’s exactly what the climate of fear imposed by all abusive police state actions is intended to achieve: to coerce citizens to “decide” on their own to be passive and compliant — to refrain from exercising their rights — out of fear of what will happen if they don’t.
~ from The Roots of the UC-Davis Pepper-Spraying by Glenn Greenwald ~

One question I have heard expressed around my little town is: Why are the police around the country being so abusive to peaceful protesters? You can't seem to pickup newspaper, watch the local news or visit sites like YouTube and not see these images of the police spraying people like bugs or roughing them up.

In response to this question, I have tried to explain to my friends and neighbors what Greenwald has written here -- the police state is trying to convince people to silence themselves. That's what police aggression towards peaceful protesters has always been about whether you reference China, Russia, Egypt...or the good 'ol US of A.

Highhanded tactics are about scaring the citizenry. Scared citizens tend to be docile ones. Scare them enough -- think Nazi Germany -- and you can get them to go along with almost anything, no matter how barbaric it is.

While it MAY seem this strategy isn't working as intended this time around, no one can be sure. While people continue to come out to protest via the Occupy movement, it is difficult to know how many others have decided to stay home and away from state-sanctioned police abuse.

The Lesson Not Learned

Trey Smith

Just weeks after issuing a union-wide endorsement of Occupy Wall Street, the 2.1-million-member Service Employees International Union announced this morning it is also endorsing President Obama for reelection.

In an interview with Salon following a conference call announcing the endorsement, SEIU president Mary Kay Henry stressed the union will not try to enlist occupiers as ground troops for Obama’s reelection — but SEIU also plans to stay involved with the Occupy movement into 2012. SEIU, then under the leadership of Andy Stern, spent millions of dollars helping to elect Obama in 2008.

In the six weeks I’ve been covering the movement in New York, the vast majority of protesters I’ve encountered are fed up with two-party politics; feelings about Obama range from indifference to disappointment to deep resentment. Pro-Obama signs occasionally appear at Zuccotti Park, but they are exceedingly rare. I asked Henry if, given occupiers’ views about Obama, she has trouble reconciling SEIU’s support for Obama and Occupy.

“Not at all,” she said. “I think what Occupy Wall Street has done for us is [to] help define the problem, shine a light on the inequality. I think our obligation as SEIU is to make the case to our members and the broader public about how that problem gets solved.” One of those ways, Henry said, is getting involved in electoral politics by endorsing Obama.
~ from SEIU Balancing Act: Support Both Obama and Occupy by Justin Elliott ~

I am a big supporter of organized labor, but I'm not always enthralled with their leadership people. The big union bosses have a tendency -- just like in the case above -- of wanting their cake and eating it too!

If nothing else, this endorsement simply shows that union leadership is unable to wean itself from the tit of the Democratic Party! No matter how many times the Dems beat unions over the head with a 2 x 4, the union "brain trusts" jump right back up and say, "Hit our members again!"

As Elliot points out, the Occupy movement is not about partisan politics. The vast majority of protesters are equally upset at BOTH mainstream parties. Both have failed and keep failing the 99 percent. President Obama is just as guilty as his Republican counterparts.

So, what does it say about SEIU to support the protests while, at the same time, supporting one of the architects of the issues the people are protesting about?

Huainanzi - Entry 16

When society is orderly, you protect yourself with justice; when society is confused, you protect justice by yourself.
~ a passage from The Book of Leadership and Strategy by Thomas Cleary ~

Once again, it seems to me the Chinese Masters are talking about the Occupy movement!

What's the main beef of the people in the streets? The lack of fairness (justice) in our economic system. The rich elite aren't forced to play by the same rules the rest of us must play by. Even worse, they utilize those very rules to keep us subjugated.

When a society is administered more fairly -- no system is completely fair -- the people go about their daily routines. They know that, if something gets out of kilter, the society will work to iron out the discrepancies and they will have the faith that the solutions proffered will be more or less just.

When a society is not administered fairly in the least, a good number of folks regularly are thrown off their daily routines. They may lose their jobs, homes, health care, educational opportunities, retirement funds -- the ability to take care of their families. They come to understand that the cards are stacked against them and the ruling powers have no interest in trying equitably to iron out the discrepancies.

It is at this juncture that the masses lose faith and that is where we find ourselves today. When the majority comes to the realization that justice is missing, they must take the situation into their own hands and fight for justice in the streets.

To read the introduction to this ongoing series, go here.

What If They Scheduled a Riot and Nobody Came?

In our not-so-distant history, protest in the United States was handled by local law enforcement that treated demonstrations and marches as mere nuisance, mediating and directing as needed. Today, observing the interaction between Occupy movements and law enforcement suggests something different is afoot. Present Occupy protests are now being defined by a bewildering set of law enforcement strategies – and current practices display a worrying new trend.

While riot police are not necessarily an everyday feature at any given protest, the sheer frequency with which we are witnessing their presence on city streets throughout the United States is enough to give average citizens cause for concern; the excessive force being routinely deployed is alarming.
~ from Occupy and the Militarisation of Policing Protest by Ayesha Kazmi ~

It really has become a disquieting occurrence. On one side, we find a large (or not-so-large) crowd peaceably marching and chanting. On the other side, we see a phalanx of mainly men dressed as if headed out to Armageddon. This second group sports helmets with visors, body armor, shields, batons, and various sorts of weaponry. One side looks as if they are ready for Woodstock, while the other looks like they are preparing for World War III!

As I've noted before, this overkill in policing tactics -- which we have witnessed for nearly a decade -- is a not-so-veiled attempt by the state to goad the masses to commit random acts of violence. In some instances -- like in Oakland -- it has bore some fruit. Aggressiveness and brutality from one side tends to breed the same from the other. And this is precisely what the state wants.

It doesn't need to be wide scale retaliation either. If, despite all the goading, the main body of protesters in any given location refuses to take the bait, it only takes a small handful to achieve the desired result. If 99 individuals eschew a violent response and one solitary soul heaves a rock towards the police lines, that's the only pretense they need to brutalize the entire group.

We already know what the mainstream media will seize upon! Recently, in Oakland, there were thousands upon thousands of peaceful protesters, yet the mainstream media immediately become transfixed on the handful who threw rocks and bottles, broke windows and set fires. Hey, it's news, they chortled. We need stories that are interesting and mayhem sells!

Of course, the state cherishes the pictures of unruly mobs. Fires, broken windows and overturned police cars provides them with all the ammo they need to turn public support their way.

We need to restore order, they prattle.

These hordes are out of control, they screech.

Violent masses must be met with sanctified state violence, they declare.

We'll only misbehave for a short while, they promise, until we quell the insurrection.

Sadly, it's all a ruse. State misbehavior will become legitimized. It will become routine. It will become the expectation of the frightened masses.

Dystopia will become the new reality!

Huainanzi - Entry 15

When water is polluted, fish choke; when government is harsh, people rebel.
~ a passage from The Book of Leadership and Strategy by Thomas Cleary ~

I find it so interesting that many of these quotes from the Chinese Masters dovetail so well with what is occurring throughout the world in regards to the Occupy movement. From Athens to London to New York City and so many points in between, the harshness of rampant corruption and inequality is spurring more and more people into the streets.

Just like fish in a polluted stream, we of the 99% are choking. We are trying so hard to keep our heads above the waterline, but we are being buffeted about by the debris of corporate capitalism. It pins down our arms, so that we can't swim. Each time we try to kick, our legs collide with obstacles. Even trying to float is near too impossible because the debris weighs us down.

We crave a clear stream where we can each paddle at our own pace. We crave a river with an even and steady flow. We want to have the opportunity to be able to pull out of the water to picnic on the sun-filled beach.

But those are unreachable dreams for most of us these days.

To read the introduction to this ongoing series, go here.

It Will Happen

A lot is being made of the fact that some Occupy Oakland protesters threw bottles and other objects at the police. Folks on the Right are now comparing all protesters to a bunch of hoodlums, while those on the Left are beseeching protesters not to screw up the movement's peaceful message.

As regular readers know, I am an avowed pacifist. I believe that, regardless of the situation, nonviolence is the way to go. But I also know something else: Most Americans are NOT pacifists. Because of this fact, violence FROM the protesters is bound to occur.

In my mind, there are two factors to consider. First off, we live in a society that glorifies violence. Not only is it prevalent in our various modes of entertainment, but our national policies are predicated on it. We should not forget that 50 cents of every taxpayer dollar goes to prop up our behemoth military-industrial complex.

In recent years, our nation has adopted the policy of "shoot first and ask questions later." We kill thousands of people each year through bombs, missiles, bullets and drones.

So, it should surprise no one that a significant segment of our society views violence as a positive means to exact change. Some of those people are part of the various Occupy groups and, when appropriate situations arise, they will feel justified in meeting the force of the state with a force of their own.

The other factor at play is frustration and desperation. As the economy on Main Street continues to flounder, more people will join the protests in the streets. If the politicians remain unmoved and the police forces become ever more aggressive, some peaceful protesters will begin to strike back in utter exasperation.

Most people I know don't like being hit repeatedly and, at some point, many will feel enough is enough. Aggressive police tactics will push some people over the edge and riots will break out. In those instances, all bets are off.

It should go without saying that many police forces are trying to goad protesters to turn violent. The powers that be want images of violent protesters to flood the airwaves in the hope that this will convince the general public to withdraw their support for the Occupy groups that have sprung up all over the country and across the world.

Protests that turn violent will provide the state with the political cover to become even more violent themselves...to "restore public order."

I'd love to say that I hope that nonviolence wins out. I'd like to believe that most protesters realize that acts of violence on their part would create a no-win situation. But, I also try to be a realist and simply observing human nature tells me that, sooner or later, one group or another is going to respond to state-sanctioned force with force of their own.

From my standpoint, sadly, this occurrence is inevitable.

This Is Why

Why has the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement taken much of the world by storm? Because Wall Street and the financiers wield too much power! They control the flow of money -- to their own benefit, of course -- and they can choke off anyone at anytime. If you don't think so, take a look at the story below by Dan Gillmor.

Suppose you are the proprietor of an information service. Your customers buy what you sell using the major payment systems such as Visa, MasterCard, Western Union and PayPal. The information you provide is greatly upsetting to powerful people who would prefer to keep it a secret. You have been charged with no crime, much less convicted of one. But one day, you discover that all of these payment systems – quite obviously responding to pressure from the government but citing no actual legal authority – are refusing to accept money from your customers on your behalf.

This, sadly, is not a supposition. It is nearly the precise situation that WikiLeaks has encountered since late last year, stripping most of the revenue away and now, as reported this week, forcing the whistleblowing media operation to suspend all activity except fundraising in a struggle merely to survive.

If this was happening to any traditional media company, it would be a scandal, and the media in general would be screaming about the threat to free speech it represented. While the news media are covering the WikiLeaks situation, they are not offering serious support in ways that matter to an organisation with which they have much more in common than not.

The New York Times has often angered American politicians and bureaucrats in recent decades – and in fact, the Times's activities in ferreting out classified information differs not at all, in any practical sense (and probably in any legal way), from what WikiLeaks has done. Like other publications, the Times has reported on WikiLeaks' financial predicament. And as at others, the editorial page has not condemned the government and financial institution actions that have precipitated it.

You know, the issue is NOT about whether you support the work of WikiLeaks or not. It doesn't matter whether or not you're a fan of Julian Assange. No, the issue is that the financial elites can silence pretty much anyone they want to in the public sphere. They willfully control the flow of information and, if they don't like the information being spread, they can turn off the spigot.

This is why people have taken to the streets. They have decided to create their own news and spread their own information. The state -- that entity which is controlled by the elites -- is trying to thwart the effort, but, so far, the people are refusing to be silenced.

The National Religion

And we hate the rich? Come on. Success is the national religion, and almost everyone is a believer. Americans love winners. But that's just the problem. These guys on Wall Street are not winning – they're cheating. And as much as we love the self-made success story, we hate the cheater that much more.

We cheer for people who hit their own home runs in this country – not shortcut-chasing juicers like Bonds and McGwire, Blankfein and Dimon.

That's why it's so obnoxious when people say the protesters are just sore losers who are jealous of these smart guys in suits who beat them at the game of life. This isn't disappointment at having lost. It's anger because those other guys didn't really win. And people now want the score overturned.
~ from OWS's Beef: Wall Street Isn't Winning – It's Cheating by Matt Taibbi ~

As usual, Taibbi hits the nail smack on the head! Most of the people who make up the 99 percent do not begrudge the rich for being rich; what they DO begrudge is that many people have become rich, not by their own industry, but by handouts and gaming the system.

As Taibbi correctly notes, financial success is the national religion of the United States. As sad as I might think it is, most Americans embrace capitalism to their bosoms. They cheer on people who have a rags-to-riches storyline. They ogle at rich celebrities and get goosebumps when they might happen to rub shoulders with the creme de la creme.

Not surprisingly, a good deal of the working and middle class believe that they will one day climb to the highest rungs of society. Their ship just hasn't come in yet. (Unfortunately, too many of them don't understand that the ship they are waiting for sunk in the harbor!!)

So, this idea that the various occupiers hate money/wealth is ludicrous. They love it. They simply want a reasonably fair opportunity to earn some for themselves.

OWS Summed Up in One Paragraph

The past decade has witnessed the most severe crimes imaginable by political and financial elites: the construction of a worldwide torture regime, domestic spying perpetrated jointly by the government and the telecom industry without the warrants required by the criminal law, an aggressive war waged on another country that killed hundreds of thousands of people, massive financial fraud that came close to collapsing the world economy and which destroyed the economic security of tens of millions, and systematic foreclosure fraud that, by design, bombarded courts with fraudulent documents in order to seize homes without legal entitlement. These are not bad policies or mere immoral acts. They are plainly criminal, and yet – due to the precepts of elite immunity which were first explicitly embraced during Ford’s pardon of Nixon — none of those crimes has produced legal punishments.
~ from Book Release: With Liberty and Justice for Some by Glenn Greenwald ~

Yeh, that about sums it up!!

They Don't Give a Diddly Squat

Have you noticed that since the Occupy Wall Street movement got underway in earnest that the stock market has gone way up? Over the past 3 weeks, the Index Value has increased by over 1,000 points (though, at the time I'm writing this, the market is down today by around 100 points).

Not being an economist, I really don't understand much about the stock market...nor do I usually care. I am simply noting this happenstance because it would seem that what is happening out in the streets is being abjectly ignored by the folks at the stock exchange. They continue to play their games with numbers. Sort of like Nero fiddling, while Rome burns.

Hey, It Is Worth a Try

This morning I read an article on one of my favorite news blogs -- This Can't Be Happening -- about a new initiative that goes hand-in-hand with the Occupy Wall Street movement. It's called Occupy Government.

To be honest, I figured this new group was calling for government buildings and offices -- like the US Senate or White House -- to be occupied. I was wrong. Their plan is far more audacious! Rather than try to describe their objective myself, here is the explanation straight from their web page.

OccupyGovernment.org's goal is to help elect a pro-99% majority in Washington next year, by assisting honest challengers to every corporate-corrupted member of Congress. We are developing a free web-based platform for peaceful, grassroots political expression by citizens and candidates with the integrity not to be bribed by corporations.

We, the people, can take back our corrupt government if millions stand up and use our social networks to replace the multi-million dollar TV ad campaigns, financed by corporate bribes, that members of Congress in both parties rely on to get elected and re-elected.

Most Americans agree with Occupy Wall Street’s core demand that we must reverse the economic policies of a government controlled by corporate, billionaire and bankster donors. These policies have resulted in the largest redistribution of wealth upwards in modern history. Taxes paid by corporations and billionaires are at their lowest level ever, and corporate profits are at an all time high. But endless tax cuts and tax breaks are destroying jobs, not creating them. Let’s Occupy our corrupt government, now! Not by shutting it down, but by opening it up to the 99% of us that it has been stolen from.

OccupyGovernment.org believes that we, the 99%, need to become, and support, non-corporate candidates who will represent us in Washington. We are not pushing any party or personality. Instead, your Citizen Pledge on this page will encourage candidates who have been turned off by the corrupt, money-driven campaign system to run for office.

OccupyGovernment.org is the citizen's activist arm of BeYourGovernment.org, a new independent non-profit that has created a free system to encourage and enable candidates and citizens to run for Congress and share compelling political information, without ever taking a single corporate dime.

If we do not want a government run by a political class reliant on corporations for their multi-million dollar TV ad campaigns, then citizens must replace those ads by spreading information, and assisting, candidates who refuse corporate money.

We are the 99%, and we are occupying the government to replace it with one that serves us.

I'm not sure if this can work or not, but hey, it's worth a try!

Tonite on Countdown - Naomi Wolf

They R Us Too

As midnight approached in New York City's Washington Square Park on Saturday, 14 occupiers sat in the center of an empty fountain playing Woody Guthrie songs. "If you would like to remain in the park past midnight, you will be subject to arrest," a policeman had just broadcast through a bullhorn, sending thousands who'd come for a political rally fleeing. Backed by some 100 riot cops in face shields, an exhausted-looking community affairs officer moved in to try to talk reason. "We marched with you guys; we treated you with respect," he said, pointing out that some officers had been on duty since 3 a.m. "We understand your cause. We understand your voice. We understand what you are saying. But all we want is for you to vacate the park."

"This is political," said a man in black glasses, between drags on a cigarette.

"C'mon guys," the officer pleaded. "Why get arrested?"

The New York City Police Department has dealt with a heavy dose of criticism for the way that it has handled the Occupy Wall Street protests, with an unprovoked pepper spraying, questionably legal arrests, and a dressing down by a US Marine at Times Square all caught on videotape. But in the interactions with police that I have witnessed and the conversations I've had with officers, a more nuanced picture has emerged: one of overworked rank-and-file cops torn between following orders and sympathizing with the movement and its goals.
~ from What the NYPD Really Thinks of Occupy Wall Street by Josh Harkinson ~

As many people have pointed out again and again, the police are part of the 99 percent. We know it and THEY know it. But they find themselves in no man's land: While I bet the majority sympathize with the assembled thousands, they take their marching orders from the elites.

What would the average person do in such a position? Speaking your mind freely might well mean losing your job -- not a good strategy in this job market. If you were able to hold onto that job, you would still face some degree of repercussions from management and/or your fellow officers. So, you bite your tongue and nod when the Man tells you to.

So, there you are day after day, possibly privately wishing you could step across the line. While you struggle with your mixed allegiances, many of the protesters are hurling all sorts of invectives at you. Some may call you a Nazi! Others say you are a pig! Others scream you are a paid hitman for the powers that be.

It would take an incredible amount of internal courage to cross the line, to become one of the occupiers. In many ways, asking officers to do just that is asking too much. It would be tantamount to professional suicide. That said, one sign that this movement is really taking hold will come when, and if, some courageous souls take those steps.

Like the soldiers who laid down their weapons and refused to fire on those in Tahrir Square, police officers around this nation single-handedly could push this movement to the point of being a bona fide peaceful revolution by refusing aggressive orders or by crossing the line.

Time will tell.

The Headless Horseman

There is one aspect of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement that seems to spook mainstream politicos on both sides of the aisle. Many long-time progressive leaders from the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s echo this concern as well. A good deal of these folks are nervous because the movement has not appointed designated spokespeople to deal with the media and many continue to urge OWS to rectify this "problem."

My humble opinion is that the OWS movement is taking a very Taoist approach to how they operate. Rather than incorporating a slew of arbitrary procedures and protocols, the activists involved are allowing the movement to flow of its own accord. They are facilitating an organic process instead of a stilted one.

From my perspective, designating spokespeople itself creates a problem. By their very nature, spokespeople begin to exert a strong influence on the direction of any group. Since they are the ones who deliver the message, they often exert a stronger influence on what that message might be.

In addition, sometimes the manner in which a message is delivered includes part of the spokesperson's personal agenda. That's okay if personal agendas have, more or less, equal footing, but, in the eyes of the media, what the spokesperson says becomes the de facto message, even if it can be proven to be at odds with the group's message.

So, rather than criticizing OWS for their lack of official spokespeople, I applaud the move. OWS represents a diverse segment of the population and it would be next too impossible to encapsulate this diversity in two or three individuals. A time may come when enough ideas have coalesced into a specific set of demands and, if this happens, then designating spokespeople would seem prudent.

Until (or if) that time occurs, allow the movement to develop of its own accord.