Actions will call for accessible education and an end to shady practices

NEW YORK – Hundreds of students from across the city will unite Wednesday to protest the out-of-control cost of college education that has resulted in unprecedented levels of debt.

In honor of May Day, student groups from numerous major city-based colleges and universities also will stand in solidarity with workers from across the nation by vilifying exploitative employer and corporate practices at these institutions, while pledging support for the full legalization of all undocumented immigrants.

Students specifically will denounce the imposition of tuition at Cooper Union, which effectively has ended a century-long tradition of free schooling; the union busting and corporatization of education at Columbia University; tuition hikes and harmful administrative practices at Medgar Evers College; the unfair treatment of student workers at The New School; and the debt-driven 2031 expansion plan at New York University.

The protesters seek to shine a light on the increasingly privatized and inaccessible American education system that is often enabled by unskilled and unscrupulous administrators driven by self-interests.

After individual campus actions in the early afternoon, hundreds of city students will converge at 3 p.m. at Cooper Square park for a rally whose goal is to erect a long-term, citywide student movement. This will be followed by a May Day coalition action in Union Square. Afterward, students will gather at 9 p.m. in Washington Square Park for a “Dance Your Debt Away” party.

Please support my work with a contribution to www.wepay.com/donations/citizen-journalism
Follow me on twitter @StopMotionsolo
Watch and follow my stream at www.StopMotionsolo.tv
Like my fan page www.facebook.com/stopmotionsolo

Stay Informed. Get Involved. Be Active.

Remember to keep reading

As stated by Mayor Bloomberg during his recent State of the City address:

“The special interests and campaign donors have never had less power than they’ve had over the past 11 years.”

The truth behind this statement likely went unnoticed by many. To assert that special interests and campaign donors have never had less power than at any point in the past 11 years sounds nice. However, this is actually a clever use of language.

Speaking generally of the current national political climate it’s absurd to say that campaign donors have such little power. Speaking just in terms of New York City, this would mean that Mayor Bloomberg thinks banks, corporations, and real estate interests have power which is at its weakest in 11 years. This is just plain absurd. It makes more sense though if you think of this from a different perspective, namely Mayor Bloomberg’s.

To the Mayor the unions are viewed as the special interest groups. There is logic to this. According to thefreedictionary.com interest groups are defined as “a group of persons working on behalf of or strongly supporting a particular cause, such as an item of legislation, an industry, or a special segment of society.” Unions do represent a special segment of society. They represent workers, many of whom in New York City have been without contracts for a while now.

Which unions have been without contracts? According to an article posted by PSC-CUNY.org (Professional Staff Congress) in January 2013 “Every municipal employee in New York City is now working under an expired contract. It is the first time since New York City’s fiscal crisis in the 1970s that the City has had no current labor agreements with any of its 152 bargaining units.” (See source article)

To add to the lack of labor agreements throughout the city “Since the economic crash in 2008, the [Bloomberg] administration has pushed for a policy of austerity, and has held the line against wage increases…As public revenues fell in the wake of the crash, the City opposed efforts to balance the budget by raising taxes on the wealthiest New Yorkers. That left belt-tightening as the only alternative, and when the City opened bargaining with the largest City workers’ union, DC 37, last November, it offered three years with 0% annual raises, followed by two 2% raises, in a five-year deal.” (Same source article)

The problem exists amongst labor unions as well though. In order to have power at the bargaining table, it helps to be supported by other unions as well. In the recent school bus workers’ strike this inter-union solidarity was not present.

The strike from the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) was undoubtedly fought in earnest. It carried on for a month with daily pickets in front of the Department of Education (DOE) and climaxed with a 4 to 5 thousand person march from Cadman Plaza, Brooklyn to City Hall. The problem is other unions didn’t stand with the ATU that day, or on any other days in significant numbers.

Here is a short interview with a member of 99 Pickets by the DOE. In the interview he explains some of the issues behind the strike and also how Mayor Bloomberg’s charter schools played into it. The interviewee explains how one of Mayor Bloomberg’s reasons for not being sympathetic towards demands for Employee Protection Provisions (EPP) was due to budgetary concerns. This however is an illogical argument as the bus routes to take children to charter schools are described as “all over the place,” and “inefficient” by the interviewee.

What are the EPP though?

EPP are what Mayor Bloomberg threatened to cut from a new contract with the bus drivers which then sparked the strike. To elaborate more the demand to keep the EPP addresses two issues simultaneously: job security for the bus drivers but also child safety. The EPP demanded experienced bus drivers with appropriate training and certification. When a bus driver is responsible for 20 or so children (some of whom with special needs) on city streets one would hope that he/she is properly trained.

The EPP which the mayor was not sympathetic to dealt with issues of seniority-based hiring, training, health care, and benefits among other things.

The steps of the Department of Education in New York.

The next demonstration for the ATU school bus strike took place on February 10th and was populated by some 4,000 to 5,000 school bus drivers. See a clip of the crowd gathered in Cadman Plaza, Brooklyn here.

City Comptroller John Liu was present to show his support as well.

Comptroller John Liu

Following very few speeches the crowd began to make its way out of Cadman Plaza. Watch to see the size of the crowd.

The crowd leaving Cadman Plaza

The march waits in line en route to the Brooklyn Bridge.

A video showing another view of people waiting to leave Cadman Plaza.

The entrance used to access the Brooklyn Bridge was this stairwell.

The march over the Brooklyn Bridge

A police officer directs protesters to one side of bridge’s tower.

After crossing the bridge the march gathered for a rally outside City Hall. Here is some of the fun before the rally.

The school bus strike ended not long after this march. There was also an impression that the strikers had been somewhat successful. This however is not the case. The truth is the school bus strikers conceded in the end. For more information veteran TWU member Marty Goodman was able to shed some light on the situation from the perspective of a union member.

Mr. Goodman also felt that the ATU had been sold out from all sides. Politicians did not really engage the ATU, the leadership of the 32BJ did not back up the ATU, and other unions in general did not come to the support of the ATU. The unions instead made a vague promise stating they would “revisit the issue(s).” The common misconception here is a revisiting of the issues does not mean an endorsement of the demands made by the workers on strike.

You can read more from Mr. Goodman at: http://socialistaction.org/2013/03/ny-school-bus-strike-ends-in-defeat/

To “revisit the issue(s)” simply means to look over the demands again and there is no guarantee of any sympathy being shown towards them. For example, Mayor Bloomberg could revisit the issue(s) and he destroyed the EPP and sparked the strike. It’s also possible any re-visitation could bring out more concessions from the workers and a weakened EPP.

Did any politician or union leader come out and publicly state support for the EPP? Also, with regards to the unions it should be noted how they’ve expressed interest in fiscal responsibility. While fiscal responsibility is important; understand Mayor Bloomberg wanted fiscal responsibility too and look what he did‽

What is possibly the strongest validation to the idea that union power and solidarity are weak is the spectacle which could have been attained during the school bus strike. If all the unions were on the same page, didn’t let politics get in the way and understood the common attacks they were all facing; they could have shut down traffic in lower Manhattan easily. Doing this would have shown the power and support that unions could have if they only worked together. It could also have very easily helped the school bus strikers achieve their demands.

A perfect example of how strong unions can be if they work together is the current Fast Food Forward push for unions and higher pay. It is because of the help of outside groups like United NY and New York Communities for Change (NYCC) that the strikes have been as successful as they have. The Fast Food workers themselves are determined to get their $15 an hour and a recognized union. Groups like United NY and NYCC have been crucial to the workers’ organization since most people do not remain at Fast Food chains long enough to develop into organizers on their own. As a result they have been stuck with no union and just the $7.25 minimum wage.

The Fast Food workers march to their rally point.

See the march underway.

A worker addresses the rally with a sign reading “Yo Soy Un Hombre”

See his speech here.

See the next worker speak here.

Minister Kirsten John Voy

See Minister Voy’s speech here.

Here is a prayer from Rabbi Feinberg.

Unfortunately, the same unity was not shown for the school bus strikers; and effects of this lack of unity is very apparent for more than just the school bus strikers. As stated earlier, unless things have changed in the past few months, every municipal union in New York City is without a contract. According to Marty Goodman the TWU local-100 has not had a union since last January. Even with the new fare hikes recently imposed in New York the majority of that money is going to pay off the MTA’s debt to the banks. The workers are seeing little to nothing of the fare hike. Even the NYPD has been working without a contract since at least the start of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Another union effort that was only slightly successful was the Con Edison lockout back in July of 2012. In that case the unions were offered a contract which took away their health insurance and turned their pensions into 401(k)’s. In response to this offer the unions said “no” which led to the lockout. During one of the biggest rallies in Union Square it was announced that the workers would be given their healthcare. Then after 4 weeks of being locked out a deal was reached, brokered by Governor Cuomo, due to the possibility of an impending storm. The deal was somewhat successful for the current employees of Con Edison. Any new employees though would be hired without pensions.

Though it may be true that labor is stronger in New York than in other parts of the country this is not a good sign. The labor movement was responsible for many of the commonly recognized rights many of today’s workers benefit from. If not for the labor movement today’s workers would not have pensions, insurance, an 8-hour work day, weekends off, vacation days, sick days, workplace safety standards, job security and much more.

The labor movement was terrible for bosses and supervisors as they were forced to give in to the demands of organized workers thus cutting into business owners’ accumulations of wealth. It’s been said that labor in New York is waiting for Mayor Bloomberg to leave office before fighting for more, but at the same time, there is no guarantee the next mayor will be any better.

Please support my work with a contribution to www.wepay.com/donations/citizen-journalism
Follow me on twitter @StopMotionsolo
Watch and follow my stream at www.StopMotionsolo.tv
Like my fan page www.facebook.com/stopmotionsolo

Stay Informed. Get Involved. Be Active.

Remember to keep reading

Many people have found Facebook to be a great way to organize and spread ideas. It makes a lot of sense too; you have a network where there are over 700,000,000 profiles and the possibilities of who might see your posts are limitless! Another benefit is you get to meet new people from all over the world in cyberspace. You can learn new things and have discussions with people of opposing views. Facebook, twitter, and other social networks have really made the world a smaller place.

Actually, this is just the perception and the business strategy that’s promoted. The reality of how these sites work couldn’t be further from what’s perceived.

The truth is an algorithm makes our Facebook news feed very catered to our interests. Actually it’s too catered and we don’t even realize it. It’s so catered to our interests that it actually ends up providing us with a very personalized, virtual echo chamber. The way the Facebook algorithm works is by taking note of our interests giving us more of what we appear to like and less of what we aren’t as interested in. It’s a brilliant business strategy. It’s horrible for personal growth and overall societal progress.

Now the word algorithm may scare away all those who are timid of math. This is understandable. Math is hard. However, it’s always good when you have a video to help you out.

The video which best explains the problems with the algorithm that personalizes our internet is a TED Talk by Eli Pariser called “Filter Bubbles.” He begins the video showing the result of this algorithm on Facebook. He then continues to explain how it works through examples in Google searches, and the NetFlix queue.

In this short clip from the TED Talk the speaker discusses the differences between two people’s search results upon just doing a Google query for “Egypt.”

In the clip the speaker, Eli Pariser, explains how he asked some friends to Google: “Egypt” and to send him screenshots of the search results. The results were very different. Next Mr. Pariser compared the search results and explained how at the time the Egyptian Occupation of Tahrir Square was going on. I don’t think anyone has to search their memories long to remember just how much attention this protest was getting. Besides, you know something is big news when President Obama makes a public statement for Egyptian President Mubarak to “step down.”

Nevertheless the search results were drastically different for the two screenshots compared during this TED Talk. In both cases the search results rendered Wikipedia. Past that one friend’s search results rendered links very much related to activism, other general news sites and one link for tourism. The other friend’s search results rendered some links for general news, one for the CIA World Factbook but the overwhelming focus was on tourism.

Mr. Pariser continued to explain how The New York Times, The Huffington Post and The Washington Post have all been experimenting with personalization, and that more and more the web is being tailored to show us what it thinks we want to see based on our previous activity. The problem here is we might not see what we need to. He then quoted Eric Schmidt of Google who said “It will be very hard for people to watch or consume something that has not in some sense been tailored for them.”

Then the “filter bubble” came into the picture. Mr. Pariser explained how everyone has their own unique filter bubble and it is always the product of who you are and what you do. The problem lies in the fact that the user does not decide what goes into their filter bubble. More importantly, the user does not see what gets left out.

Next he explained how this related to the NetFlix queue and how some movies seem to rush to our doorstep and others take a very long time to arrive. In this case the NetFlix algorithm determines which movie is mailed to our houses by analyzing our choices in movies streamed. The example used in the TED talk is how we all want to be someone who has watched Rashomon, but at the moment, we want to watch Ace Ventura for the 4th time. The idea here is our personalized queues are most often chosen by our spur-of-the-moment viewing interests. While there is nothing wrong with a spur-of-the-moment viewing interest if the algorithm only looks at these choices to know what else to send us, it will assume we aren’t interested in much else. Anything intellectually stimulating could get the algorithm’s cold shoulder.

How does all of this relate to Facebook and organization?

It separates liberals, conservatives, democrats, libertarians, Tea Partiers, communists, Republicans, socialists, anarchists and more into their own isolated groups. Of course it makes sense for liberals to have more common ground and talk more with other liberals. The same goes for every other political persuasion. However, the theoretical benefit of the internet was to allow people with different perspectives to interact more with others of varied mindsets.

In order to have a functioning democracy all perspectives must be understood and respected. Though you might not agree with them it is still important to have discussions and to learn from those with opposing viewpoints. If people cannot have discussions with others of conflicting ideas all we will ever find is agreement or someone asking us to clarify a minute detail in our opinion. Communication and growth does require clarification of details but it also requires exposure to drastically different views if we want to learn anything. If people rely on something like Facebook to organize, they are ultimately allowing their organizational efforts to fall victim to a filter bubble which isolates differing perspectives into personalized echo chambers.

Say you are on Facebook and you share a meme created by… Americans against the Tea Party. Okay, the algorithm sees you’ve shared something, or clicked on a link which is more left-of-center. One or two shares like this probably won’t have a great effect. However, if over time you click links and share (or “like”) a lot of left-of-center memes the Facebook algorithm will learn your tastes and start feeding you more from people and groups who are left-of-center. In theory, after a while, the algorithm will have followed your behavior and will direct you to the point where you might end up seeing things that support radicalized communist and socialist theories, when you started off a moderate Democrat. By the same process a more conservative-leaning centrist could end up as a radicalized Republican seeing content supporting cuts in the social safety net. Granted some may choose only strictly moderate posts. In this case the strict moderates will end up grouped together.

There’s nothing wrong with having a viewpoint that’s left of center, right of center, or just centrist. There is something wrong though when those different groups can’t communicate and exchange ideas. Organizing around specific political interests is one thing. Not being able to even see and communicate with those of other political interests is a very different issue, and it’s something that severely hinders progress; even worse when you don’t realize you have been isolated into that group. It’s actually kind of ironic that an algorithm can make your interests your worst enemy.

Another side effect is how memes can stimulate conversation. You are not going to have a very diverse conversation on any meme if the only people who see it are those who agree with it.

For a quick illustration, the TED Talk began with an observation the speaker made about his Facebook page. The speaker admits to being a progressive, but enjoys hearing from conservatives as well. One day he realized the conservative voices on his Facebook page were gone… Watch.

So I’ve discussed why this algorithm is restricting access to opposing views. How might it affect organization?

If the algorithm sees your interests and gives you more of it, an event notification you’re only slightly interested in will show up far more rarely in your news feed, if at all. Even if you might’ve just wanted to stop by an event to see what it was about you probably won’t be able to rely on Facebook to know it’s happening. You’d have to rely on friends’ invites, and your events listing. However, most people don’t take their event invites seriously. So when the event actually happens, organizing via Facebook will just bring out the same faces over and over again. If your primary tool for organization is Facebook you’ll wonder why no one new is coming.

Obviously this algorithm is somewhat breakable in the case of a viral issue. Going viral though is a phenomenon that takes a lot of work, internet savvy, and it requires the topic to have some widespread cultural relevance at the time. Recently the protests for 16-year-old Kimani Gray were trending nationwide. Police brutality is also in the news a lot these days and that certainly helped to bring attention to what happened to Kimani Gray. When Occupy Wall Street got big the issue of economic inequality was on a lot of people’s minds. Gay Marriage and the legalization of marijuana also gets a lot of attention. What about smaller issues though like the Trans-Pacific Partnership; or the fact that Congress just signed the “Monsanto Protection Act,” which is actually just a rider/earmark (section 735) of defense appropriations bill HR 933; or what about New Hampshire’s recent vote to prohibit private prisons? These aren’t big issues and have a much smaller chance of going viral. As such they will likely be filtered out by the algorithm that effects everything from Google Searches, to social networks. This in turn makes us less informed users.

One way to combat this problem is to confuse the algorithm. Look into new things when you have little to no interest in them. Click on links you don’t care about. The effectiveness of this solution may be limited though. In the end we have to realize, while personalization may help us do a quick Google search under normal circumstances, it will inadvertently isolate us to a world of ourselves. The best solution, in the end, is to do outreach and organization in person, outdoors, in public areas, with flyers and information.

Please support my work with a contribution to www.wepay.com/donations/citizen-journalism
Follow me on twitter @StopMotionsolo
Watch and follow my stream at www.StopMotionsolo.tv
Like my fan page www.facebook.com/stopmotionsolo

Stay Informed. Get Involved. Be Active.

Remember to keep reading

On Wednesday March 6th, Rand Paul filibustered President Obama’s nomination of John Brennan for Director of the CIA.

He filibustered the nomination of John Brennan because of Brennan’s key role as an architect of the drone program. Specifically though it was to make a statement about President Obama’s potential overreach of office in granting himself the right to kill American citizens without due process.

Rand Paul began his 12 to 13-hour filibuster as follows:

“I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA. I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”

He said so in response to the following answer from Attorney General Eric Holder on inquiries into the President’s powers with regard to the usage of drones:

“‘It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the President could conceivably have no choice’ but to authorize strikes in the case of a second Pearl Harbor or 9/11 attack, in which case Holder would ‘examine the particular fact and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority.’” (See source article)

In carrying out this filibuster Rand Paul did two things at once; he built on the already growing discussion surrounding the use of drones, and he forced the President to give a clear answer on a vague position which was extremely unprincipled.

Soon after Press Secretary Jay Carney relayed the following answer from Eric Holder to clear up the confusion which created the filibustered 12-hour question:

“Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer is no.” (See source article)

This dispute concluded with a favorable response from the White House. However, I do believe the entire debate may have been somewhat short-sighted. Though it makes sense why Rand Paul did the filibuster it’s very unlikely he thought there was a high probability President Obama would actually start killing American citizens en mass, with drone strikes and hellfire missiles, without due process. He unfortunately did create a bit of hysteria over the internet as there were many memes which took the issue to the extreme.

The most positive outcome from this filibuster, and the frenzy surrounding, is we’ve established for ourselves; we don’t think the President should have the authority to kill American citizens without due process with drones. Good. What does need to be discussed more now is how we feel about these drone strikes being carried out in other countries. Paul didn’t address this issue very much and didn’t seem to disagree with the policy either during his filibuster. In fact he even seemed to say, in the case of domestic policy, after due process a drone killing of an American citizen might be justified. This is strange to say a drone strike on an American citizen on domestic soil is justified but at the same time, he had to sustain the filibuster somehow. It’s also unlikely he expected the President to bomb Jane Fonda, or to interrupt our lunch breaks at work with hellfire missiles; but he did mention these scenarios as possibilities.

Absurdities aside he did offer a few indirect criticisms of the drone policy on foreign soil. He referenced Eric Holder’s original response of how some “extreme circumstances” may justify the President’s authorization of a drone strike on a US citizen. Paul then discussed how, overseas, the drone strikes have not always been used for “extreme circumstances.” He finished this remark by wondering how the leniency in foreign policy might translate to domestic policy?

The President responded shortly after the filibuster that the drone strikes would not be used on American citizens without due process. However, as Rand Paul already alluded to the sometimes sketchy usage of drone strikes on foreign soil, let’s think about it…

About how many people had been killed by drone strikes as of February 2, 2013? According to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, about 4700. To compare sources on this “The figure cited by Graham matches the high end of a tally by the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism. It says the number killed in drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia is between 3,072 and 4,756.” (See source article)

So now we have a figure of about how many people have been killed since Feb 2. What about the number of drones strikes used in the first place? “The Washington-based New America Foundation says there have been 350 US drone strikes since 2004, most of them during Barack Obama’s presidency. And the foundation estimates the death toll at between 1,963 and 3,293, with 261 to 305 civilians killed.” Thus we also have the number of civilians killed by drone strikes. (Same source article)

While it seems the death toll varies depending on whether your source is a senator, the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, or the Washington-based New America Foundation; there seems to be a consensus that the number is roughly at least 2000 people. This means, based on what seems to be about the approximate minimum number of deaths from 2004 to the end of 2012 (for example) there have been 250 drone strikes every year out of a possible 365 days in which to carry out a single strike.

To get a better picture of these drone strikes let’s remember how the study by the New America Foundation said the majority of the strikes have been carried out during Barack Obama’s presidency. True, there is no actual figure given in this assessment but it is worth noting that the President took office in 2009. This means the original figure, which allowed for total people killed over a period of 8 years needs to be adjusted to 4 years. So, hypothetically speaking, if the approximate minimum number of people killed by drone strikes, 2000, (which is less than half the number the Senator mentioned, 4700) were carried out over a period of 4 years, this means over a 365-day year there were 500 people killed. Mind you, this figure of 500 is derived from a number less than half of the number mentioned by the Senator, which means the actual number of people killed each year by drone strikes ordered by President Obama needs to be considerably more to account for a majority of the potential 4700.

What about who the drone strikes have been used for…

One man, Anwar al-Awlaki, born in New Mexico was killed by a drone strike. He “became well known for his fiery anti-American sermons posted throughout the Internet.” Another man Samir Khan, “who’d lived in both New York and Charlotte, N.C., produced a magazine called ‘Inspire’ that became known for its extreme Jihadist views.” (See reference article) Both of these men had links to terrorist groups. Therefore, even though neither was given due process the case can theoretically be made that overseas drone killings of terrorists might have been justified for them if they were “up to no good” (no matter how unconstitutional).

Overseas drone strikes become sketchy though when you discuss people like Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. He was the victim of a drone strike as well. The only difference is he was 16 when he was killed in Yemen. The “Family of the Denver-born teenager say he had no ties to terrorist organizations and was unjustly targeted because of his father.” In December, Nassar al-Awlaki (Anwar’s father and Abdulrahman’s grandfather) told CNN, “In Anwar it was expected because he was under targeted killing, but how in the world they will go and kill Abdulrahman. Small boy, U.S. citizen from Denver, Colorado.”

“Nassar al-Awlaki said his grandson snuck out of their Yemen home one night, leaving a note for his mother saying he would return in a few days. The boy never returned, killed instead while eating at an outdoor restaurant.” Nassar also said “I took care of him, and suddenly after 2 year absence from his father, he decided to go to our government in Yemen to seek information from his father. That was the only reason he went, and he did not tell us.” (See source article)

The targets of these attacks have not always been so selective. “The CIA’s drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals, an investigation by the Bureau for the Sunday Times has revealed.”

“The findings are published just days after President Obama claimed that the drone campaign in Pakistan was a ‘targeted, focused effort’ that ‘has not caused a huge number of civilian casualties’….”

“A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. The tactics have been condemned by leading legal experts.”

The above quotes are from a Salon article from February 2, 2012. The article further states how “There have been 260 attacks by unmanned Predators or Reapers in Pakistan by Obama’s administration – averaging one every four days.” Keep in mind, the Al-Jazeera article about Senator Graham’s remark came out about 1 year later. In that article the number of drones strikes reported was 350.

Now is an appropriate time to discuss another potential impact of the United State’s drone program: international stability.

“The US policy of using aerial drones to carry out targeted killings presents a major challenge to the system of international law that has endured since the second world war, a United Nations investigator has said.” “Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions, told a conference in Geneva that President Obama’s attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, carried out by the CIA, would encourage other states to flout long-established human rights standards.”

“Some states, he added, ‘find targeted killings immensely attractive. Others may do so in future … Current targeting practices weaken the rule of law. Killings may be lawful in an armed conflict [such as Afghanistan] but many targeted killings take place far from areas where it’s recognized as being an armed conflict.’” “Heyns ridiculed the US suggestion that targeted UAV strikes on AL-Qaida or allied groups were a legitimate response to the 9/11 attacks. ‘It’s difficult to see how any killings carried out in 2012 can be justified as in response to [events] in 2001,’ he said. ‘Some states seem to want to invent new laws to justify new practices.’” (See source article)

Another potential impact of these drone strikes is the birth of more terrorist cells. Samiullah Khan, a field researcher from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism explained:

“In a war situation no one is allowed to attack the Red Cross. Rescuers are like that. You are not allowed to attack rescuers. You know, the number of Taliban is increasing in Waziristan day by day, because innocents and rescuers are being killed day by day.” (See source article)

Could the potential birth of new terrorist cells cause us to fear future possibilities and then support more drone killings? Yes. However when we realize that (at least in this case) the growth of new terrorist cells is because of the United States’ attacks on civilians in other countries, the more reasoned solution would be to stop the attacks in general. We should not give in to fear and attack more.

To be fair, even before Senator Paul’s filibuster drone strikes were a topic of conversation. All Senator Paul really did was make the topic more mainstream. However, there is a new report that suggests complications to this conversation. “With debate intensifying in the United States over the use of drone aircraft, the U.S. military said on Sunday that it had removed data about air strikes carried out by unmanned planes in Afghanistan from its monthly air power summaries.

U.S. Central Command, which oversees the Afghanistan war, said in a statement the data had been removed because it was “disproportionately focused” on the use of weapons by the remotely piloted aircraft as it was published only when strikes were carried out – which happened during only 3 percent of sorties. Most missions were for reconnaissance, it said.” (See source article)

True the focus of the discussions was on the usage of armed drones. However, even if the strikes were carried out during only 3 percent of the sorties this doesn’t mean information on drone strikes should be made less available overall. Besides, it seems appropriate that information about drone surveillance be made just as available as information about drone strikes. As drone strikes are invariably funded by taxpayer dollars, the taxpayers have a right to see how their government uses their money.

This pretty much covers the issues surrounding drone strikes and their controversial nature. There is however, another issue which seems to have been ignored by most in John Brennan’s nomination for director of the CIA. Brennan was not just a key architect in the drone program, he “has also been at the heart of two other high-profile national security controversies. One was the CIA’s torture program, which Brennan was aware of but did not object to during the Bush administration. The other is warrant-less wiretapping.” (See source article)

The last issue to address is Senator Rand Paul’s voting record. It should be made clear how, while this filibuster was very important to start a conversation on drone strikes, Sen. Paul’s record is not nearly as progressive as the resulting discussion. The twitter hashtag which went viral on the day of his filibuster read “#standwithrand.” I want to make it clear how while I “Stand With Rand” on the issue he filibustered, I do not stand with him on most other issues at all.

Please support my work with a contribution to www.wepay.com/donations/citizen-journalism
Follow me on twitter @StopMotionsolo
Watch and follow my stream at www.StopMotionsolo.tv
Like my fan page www.facebook.com/stopmotionsolo

Stay Informed. Get Involved. Be Active.

Remember to keep reading

NEW YORK, NY – March 6, 2013 – On Monday, feminists with National Women’s Liberation (NWL) received news from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in their lawsuit (Tummino et al. v. Hamburg) against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS) to remove all restrictions on over-the-counter access to the Morning-After Pill (MAP) (also known as Plan B One-Step™ or “emergency contraception”).

In an Order issued March 4, 2013, U.S. District Judge Edward Korman indicated that he “expect[s] to file an opinion in this case by the end of the month” and directed the FDA and HHS to respond to specific questions.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2005, uncovered evidence that the Bush Administration pressured FDA scientists to enact an age limit on the pill for political reasons. In December of 2011, the FDA finally
decided to eliminate the unnecessary age restriction, but in an unprecedented move, HHS blocked the change with President Obama’s support. NWL-Gainesville, Florida chapter organizer Stephanie Seguin said, “When it comes to the Morning-After Pill, President Obama betrayed his promise to support women’s reproductive health and base his decisions on science, not politics.”

NWL-New York chapter organizer Erin Mahoney said, “Restricting the Morning-After Pill to females ages 17 and older makes it physically inaccessible to everyone because it is kept ‘behind-the-counter’ at pharmacies. The Morning-After Pill is already available without a prescription in at least 63 other countries, including the United Kingdom, France, Denmark and Ghana. Why not here?”

“The restrictions on the Morning-After Pill are a sexist insult and lessen women and girls’ ability to control the course of our lives. The Morning-After Pill should be available to females of all ages, on
the shelf at any convenience store, just like aspirin or condoms,” stated Annie Tummino, a leader of the NWL-New York chapter and lead plaintiff in the Tummino v. Hamburg lawsuit.

“Any female old enough to get pregnant is old enough to decide that she doesn’t want to be pregnant,” said Brooke Eliazar-Macke, NWL-New York chapter chair. “We will not be divided by age restrictions.”

NWL has led the grassroots fight for unrestricted access to the Morning-After Pill in the United States. From sitting in at the FDA to filing a lawsuit against the agency, NWL members have been at the forefront of this struggle, winning a huge victory in 2006 when the FDA decided to eliminate the prescription requirement for women ages 18 and up, and another in the Tummino v. Hamburg case in 2009 when the judge ordered the FDA to also eliminate the prescription requirement for girls aged 17.

For more information, contact National Women’s Liberation through
the website at www.womensliberation.org

Please support my work with a contribution to www.wepay.com/donations/citizen-journalism
Follow me on twitter @StopMotionsolo
Watch and follow my stream at www.StopMotionsolo.tv
Like my fan page www.facebook.com/stopmotionsolo

Stay Informed. Get Involved. Be Active.

Remember to keep reading

Higher education is held in very high esteem in this country. Acceptance into any college is very often accompanied by a great deal of praise from one’s family and friends. The journey through college itself is usually a life-changing experience as well for most students. It brings about a development of character, a new set of responsibilities, a feeling of independence and it helps to further chart the course of one’s life after school; as it opens the door to higher income levels.

The decision of what schools to apply to is therefore a very serious one which few students take lightly. Applicants can spend months researching which schools offer the curriculum which best fits their interests. Sometimes the drive to attend a particular school can result in years of focus, preparation and the maintenance of high marks.

As the time spent preparing to apply to particular schools requires such devotion; rejection from a desired school can often break an applicant’s spirit. This is especially the case with early decision applicants.

What makes an early decision application different from a regular application is you can only apply to one school for early decision. As the student can only apply to one school, they are obviously showing a great deal more interest in this school as opposed to others they may apply to later. As they are applying at an earlier stage of the applications process it is common courtesy for the school to send a letter of acceptance or rejection when the applications process says it will. It is also a matter of principle for the school to do so in order to maintain its integrity in the eyes of the applicant.

In the case of the early applicants to Cooper Union for the fall semester, they weren’t even rejected. Instead they are just being held in limbo as they were told to wait for a response to their early decision application in late March. When did they expect to receive a response to their early decision application? At the beginning of February. (See source article.)

This is not the first time in recent history the Cooper Union Administration has ignored principle either. The school is about to vote on a decision as to whether or not it will begin charging tuition for new students. Why is tuition a loss of principle? The institution was founded on the principle of free education through admission based solely on merit.

The situation becomes even worse for the early decision applicants because deferment is the result of a dispute which they had no involvement in. A quorum of teachers from the School of Art, respecting school tradition of free merit-based eduction, refused to charge tuition as a means of generating revenue.

Taken from a statement from the Cooper Union:

“The art school prepared a plan, but a quorum of the school’s faculty, several days later, attached a post-script preventing the plan from being considered, saying the School of Art Faculty ‘opposes the very principle of generating revenue through tuition from academic programs,’ including summer school or graduate programs. That course is unsustainable.” (See source article)

The greatest irony in this is the early decision applicants are being deferred because the teachers of the Cooper Union Art School chose to uphold the founding principles of the school. President Jamshed Bharucha did ask the other two Schools of Architecture and Engineering to submit revenue generating plans as well, and the faculties of those two schools submitted revenue-generating plans as requested.

It’s important to note a very serious complaint the students have had with the Cooper Union Administration, and President Bharucha, is the lack of transparency which has been provided as to where school funding goes. A betrayal of school principles (in the creation of a tuition) may now be committed by the Administration while a lack of transparency is provided as to the reasons for why this betrayal needs to take place at all. A vote this month will determine whether or not a tuition is implemented which could end the Cooper Union’s historic tradition of free merit-based education.

The result of this battle is an unfair position for the applicants applying for early admission. They have been turned into collateral through an Administrative feud simply because they happened to apply for enrollment at the wrong time in Cooper Union’s history.

In response to these early decision deferrals a press conference was held in front of the Cooper Union’s foundation building on February 20th, and statements from deferred early decision applicants were read:

The opening statement of the press conference.

Cooper Student Victoria Sobel reads the opening statement.

A statement is read on behalf of the Art Student Council of Cooper Union.

A representative from the Art Student Council.

Owen Law reads a statement about his deferral.

Jillian Dolan reads a statement about her deferral.

Another statement is read. (The reader did not identify herself)

Diana Lovano, an art student, reads a statement on behalf of Annalee Holmes.

Pete Halafka reads a statement on behalf of Ben Admin.

Steven Mornick, a transfer student to the School of Art, reads a statement on behalf of Brianna Benson.

Camino Carena, a senior in the School of Art, reads a statement on behalf of Samantha Rosner.

Tyler Paige, a sophomore at the School of Art, reads a statement on behalf of Hanza Rahim.

Asher Monin, a sophomore in the School of Art, reads a statement on behalf of an early decision applicant from San Francisco, CA. (The applicant’s name is hard to hear.)

Rob Singleton, a sophomore at the School of Art, reads a statement on behalf of William Stewart.

Lemae lepkin, a graduate of the School of Art 2006, reads a statement on behalf of Haley Jung, from Singapore.

Sebastian Kiata, a sophomore at the School of Art, reads a statement on behalf of an applicant from Massachusetts.

Caroline Willard, a graduate of the School of Art 2006, reads a statement on behalf of an applicant from Illinois.

Following the press conference I gathered two interviews:

Here is the first: one of the speakers from earlier in the press conference, Camino Carena, elaborates on his experience and how early decision (and acceptance) changed his life radically.

Here is the second: an early decision transfer student gives her thoughts.

Please support my work with a contribution to www.wepay.com/donations/citizen-journalism
Follow me on twitter @StopMotionsolo
Watch and follow my stream at www.StopMotionsolo.tv
Like my fan page www.facebook.com/stopmotionsolo

Stay Informed. Get Involved. Be Active.

Remember to keep reading

On President’s Day, February 17, 50,000 people massed in Washington D.C. to rally and march against the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

The demonstration was called for by 350.org, an environmental organization led by Bill McKibben, an environmentalist, author, and journalist who has written extensively on the impacts of Global Warming.

What is the Keystone XL Pipeline?

The Keystone XL Pipeline is a proposed oil pipeline to be built by a corporation called TransCanada which would be used to transport Tar Sands oil from Alberta, Canada to refineries along the Gulf Coast. Tar Sands oil is known to be the dirtiest oil on the planet. It is also not like most other oil. Most oil can be pumped out of the ground, refined, and then shipped off for usage. Tar Sands oil is different because it is oil which cannot just be pumped from the ground. It first needs to be separated as it is only found inside another substance called Bitumen. This Bitumen is what will need to be transported through the pipeline. But this is complicated too as Bitumen will not flow through a pipe on its own. Rather it needs to be diluted with other chemicals first. It is only then that the Bitumen and diluting chemicals could be sent through the Keystone XL Pipeline to refineries along the Gulf Coast. (See reference article here).

The pipeline would be 1,702 miles long and would travel the height of the United States and over very sensitive environmental areas which include the “Ogallala Aquifer that supplies drinking water to 2 million Americans and is the primary source of groundwater for 20% of America’s agriculture production.” (See source article) “If the pipeline were to burst over 1,000 rivers would be adversely impacted.” (Same source article) But how often do spills occur? Well one of TransCanada’s existing pipelines has produced 12 spills in less than one year. TransCanada had predicted it would produce only one spill every seven years. (Same source article)

This could easily lead to an environmental disaster on its own. Now let’s think about the long-term. NASA’s own leading climate scientist, James Hansen, has said if all the carbon were released from the Alberta, Canada deposit it would mean “game over” for the fight against climate change. He also said the Keystone XL Pipeline itself would essentially be a fuse to the largest carbon bomb on the planet. (See source article)

All of these factors (plus issues of eminent domain abuse and the violation of Canadian treaties with First Nations Peoples) have sparked movements such as Idle No More in Canada, and the Tar Sands Blockade in America.

The main rally happened on Presidents Day, February 17th. There was however another action which led up to it. An action which included the arrest of nearly 50 environmental activists at the White House gate, including members of the Sierra Club who had historically upheld a policy of never getting arrested.

The President’s Day rally was quite a sight to see. As you watch this clip, and those that follow, remember: 50,000 people traveled to Washington D.C., in the United States of America, for the largest environmental rally in the country’s history. No one was at all deterred by the extremely cold weather which barely went above freezing that day.

The Washington Monument in back of the crowd.

A speaker at one point of the rally had a sense of humor as well. He told us to hug our neighbors as it was very likely members of the oil and gas industries were present at the demonstration.

Very often at rallies much of what you hear is generic language used to pump up a crowd which traveled quite a distance to stand in one place. At this rally however, the crowd heard from some very unique speakers.

Here is First Nations’ Chief Jackie Thomas, hailing from Northern British Columbia, Canada. For the first 15 seconds of the video you see a pan of the crowd present at the rally.

A panoramic of the crowd.

The next surprising speaker was not an activist, or a typical left-winger, or an environmentalist, or even a politician. It was Wall Street Billionaire investor Tom Steyer. He came with the message of understanding the economic reasons for building the pipeline, but at the same time with an understanding that the environmental impacts of the Tar Sands oil to be carried by the pipeline would far outweigh the pipeline’s economic benefits by a wide margin.

Next the rally heard from another First Nations speaker. This First Nations speaker also introduced a First Nations elder. (Note: I had to archive my footage so this speaker is heard over two segments.)

The first.

The second.

The presence of First Nations leaders was even more inspiring when put into context. Not only were these individuals at the demonstration. They were also held in very high esteem. To realize the manner in which they were regarded, when compared to how they’ve been historically treated, is quite remarkable in itself. Even in their voices you could hear the adversity which they have had to endure at the hands of settlers on their land looking for profit. Only now though were they really given a chance because only now has their struggle become even with the descendants of those who had conquered their ancestors’ land. As you watch the videos one of the First Nations’ speakers remarks on this very fact and about how she’d never seen the unity she was now seeing between indigenous, and non-indigenous people before in her life. It was beautiful, everyone listened with unwavering respect and the crowd cheered at the mention of Idle No More, the Canadian-based movement which four First Nations women began.

The march began soon after…

Here is some footage of marching and chanting.

After some time I realized the sidewalk next to the march was clear and I rushed over to it. Here is footage of the crowd as I walked alongside it.

There were also two groups (and it’s very likely there were many more) who were in song as they marched. Here is the first.

Here is the second.

While the first song may be unknown to some, the second song is instantly recognizable.

Here is a wide shot, and pan of the march.

Upon arriving at the front gate of the White House an interview was in progress. The interviewee was discussing President Obama’s political savvy and what might be going through his mind in his decision of whether or not to sign an executive order banning the pipeline.

Members of the crowd hold toy windmills.

A sign calling attention to the influence of the Koch Brothers on the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Actress, Rosario Dawson was one of the leaders of the march.

The end of the march was unique. It did not end with a speak-out or a chant. Rather it ended with a prayer circle led by indigenous people.

This concluded everything which took place that day at the march. The question which now needs addressing is: What took place that day away from the march?

President Obama went golfing with Tiger Woods, and oil executives. Read the report here.

It’s true the President is welcome to play golf with whomever he would like, and there is really no way to say for sure that the President’s golfing partners are determinant of his decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline. However when the President’s Inaugural and State Of The Union addresses both bring up the dangers of climate change, it seems in very poor taste to go golfing with some of the main culprits of the impending crisis; on the same day as the largest environmental rally in United States history marches outside your house.

Furthermore, the President’s stance on how to proceed with climate change seems even more confusing when you think about the contrasts of his State Of The Union speech. He said “his administration will “‘keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits’…the increased revenue from which would be funneled into a fund to finance research into clean energy technologies.” (See source article) I’m no expert but it seems contradictory to use oil revenue to fund clean energy. Especially when clean energy technology already exists, and other countries are far ahead of the United States in its development. Germany, for one.

News of the President’s golfing choices, and general skepticism has produced a very wide range of opinions on the effectiveness of the 350.org demonstration. Some have criticized it for not being radical enough, some have questioned why the civil disobedience which took place did not happen at the rally itself. These are legitimate questions and certainly ones to address when planning further actions. However, a number like 50,000 attendees marching in opposition to what has been described as “game over” for the fight against climate change, on a day which barely rose above 32 degrees, is certainly a sign that a potential movement could be in the works.

Another sympathetic argument which has surfaced has been the President’s need to negotiate with congress for a budget deal. In order to pass a budget deal he may need to allow this pipeline to go through. This is not a valid argument.

Yes, the political climate is horrific in Washington these days. Yes, President Obama has had to fold on many things to get anything passed at all. However, when one is discussing the future of the planet, politics become irrelevant and it is nothing more than a question of right and wrong. Especially when the decision would be made by Executive Order which does not require congressional approval. Furthermore, it’s not as though the Republican congress has been very open to negotiations anyway. Why should a campaign compromise on the Keystone XL Pipeline change their behavior?

This decision comes down to a question of future generations, primarily. President Obama may not be around to face the consequences of the Tar Sands oil being refined, but many people who are in their 30′s today and younger will experience these consequences in 20 or so years. So says NASA’s leading climate scientist James Hansen, who has been quoted earlier.

For a final thought here is
Retired Philadelphia Police Captain Ray Lewis explaining his thoughts which, I believe, are dead on.

Please support my work with a contribution to www.wepay.com/donations/citizen-journalism
Follow me on twitter @StopMotionsolo
Watch and follow my stream at www.StopMotionsolo.tv
Like my fan page www.facebook.com/stopmotionsolo

Stay Informed. Get Involved. Be Active.

Remember to keep reading

“When sleeping women wake, mountains move.” – Chinese Proverb

On V-Day, February 14, women in more than 200 countries around the world participated in flashmobs to bring attention to the crisis of abuse and violence against women and girls.

The event was called 1 Billion Rising and February 14th was the 15th anniversary of V-Day.

What is V-Day? It is a global activist movement to end violence against women and girls. It was founded by Eve Ensler. Who is Eve Ensler? She is a Tony Award winning Playwright, performer, and activist. As a playwright she authored The Vagina Monologues “which has been translated into over 48 languages and performed in over 140 countries, including sold-out runs at both Off-Broadway’s Westside Theater and on London’s West End (2002 Olivier Award nomination, Best Entertainment) and has been running for 11 years in Mexico City and Paris.” She has written many other plays as well.

Now one may ask the question: What does the figure “1 Billion” refer to?

1 Billion is the approximate number of women and girls in the world who have been subjected to violence.

Though V-Day has been around for 15 years the crisis of violence against women and girls is now more in the focus of the global conversation than ever before. This is, at least partially, due to the recent gang rape of a woman named Jyoti in India, which sparked a national Indian Movement against violence against women. As violence against women is not something which is just isolated to India the conversation spread around the world (likely due to the influences of social media and other global networks). For this reason, the 15th anniversary of V-Day was excellent timing for 1 Billion Rising.

(Note: The frequency of violence in India, or anywhere else in the world is not something which has just recently seen a sudden upward trend. The only aspect of this which has really grown suddenly is the global motivation to take a stand against the problem.)

There were two flashmobs which occurred in New York City as part of the day of rising. One took place in Washington Square park at around 3pm (which I attended). Another took place in Union Square Park at around 6pm.

The following is from the Washington Square Park flashmob…

After congregating by the fountain in the middle of the park the dancers went off to a nearby stage where they learned the choreography for the dance they were about to perform.

Here is video of women learning some of the steps.

A woman stands in the middle of a circle teaching the dance steps.

Another video of dance instruction.

Women in a circle learn the steps to the flashmob they are about to participate in.

Shortly after the dance instruction there was a break before group rehearsals.

During this break I asked a woman from Norway about why she was attending the flashmob. Here is her response.

Now for a short clip of the flashmob rehearsal.

Dancing.

After two rehearsals a woman addressed the crowd through mic-check and gave instructions on how the flashmob would proceed.

Instructions on when, where, and how the flashmob would proceed are given.

While waiting for the flashmob another participant explained her background and why she came to the park that day.

Another important showing of support was given by the men who chose to join in the cause that day.

Then the flashmob started…

Signs with statistics are displayed prior to the main dancing of the flashmob.

The dancing begins.

Once the flashmob finished there was a short break for conversation and chatting. Then, because the women had so much fun during the first performance…

They did it again.

At the end of the routines the women pointed their index fingers at the viewing audience.

Now the dancing was over and it was time for interviews and photo ops.

Here is an interview I conducted with a Bulgarian woman.

This concluded the Washington Square Park event.

The next demonstration I attended was in Times Square. It was done in solidarity with 1 Billion Rising but with different messaging. This event was called “We Will Not Be Silent.” Whereas the messaging of 1 Billion Rising dealt with the broader issue of all violence against women and girls, We Will Not Be Silent made the message somewhat more specific through the use of black and white signs.

For an explanation of why the demonstration was carried out in this manner see this video.

After relocating to another part of Times Square famous quotes from notable figures were read aloud (and mic-checked).

A woman reads quotes to the group.

More quotes are read.

When the quotes were completed a few women started chanting and dancing. They were having so much fun, and their attitudes fit in perfectly with the themes of the day.

The event to culminate the 1 Billion Rising day of action took place at the Hammerstein Ballroom on 34th street. To get there the We Will Not Be Silent group marched from Times Square to 34th street holding their signs in air along the way. Here is a clip.

The event at the Hammerstein Ballroom was very well organized.

As one entered, the welcoming act was performing.

The night began with a speech from one of the organizers and then the 1 Billion Rising anthem “Break The Chain” was performed.

As the night continued it was largely a celebration of a day gone well, and a chance for women (old and young) to come together and have a good time with one another. This feeling of community couldn’t have been more apparent than with this. I do not believe it was rehearsed but all of a sudden a group of possibly 50 women started dancing in unison to the music playing.

There were also a few celebrities who spoke at the event. The first, was actress, Glenn Close. In the clip she tells the audience about her communication with Eve Ensler (the creator of V-Day and The Vagina Monologues) and how she ended up performing the part called “Reclaiming Cunt” in the play.

After telling that story Glenn Close proceeded to read a poem dedicated to the women of India.

Another notable speaker who addressed the crowd that night was actress, Rosario Dawson.

It was a very inspiring day and though some criticisms have been raised about how it may not have been radical enough, or how it may have glossed over some critical issues to maintain a certain appeal, I thought the day did excel greatly in one simple aspect:

It brought women together (who may not have met otherwise) to find support from one another to strengthen a growing movement to seriously address the global crisis of violence against women and girls.

On a more personal note after hearing Break The Chain several times over the course of the day, and getting to watch women dance with empowerment to its beat, I’ve never been happier to have a song stuck in my head in my life.

To watch more videos of events across the globe see the One Billion Rising website.

Please support my work with a contribution to www.wepay.com/donations/citizen-journalism
Follow me on twitter @StopMotionsolo
Watch and follow my stream at www.StopMotionsolo.tv
Like my fan page www.facebook.com/stopmotionsolo

Stay Informed. Get Involved. Be Active.

Remember to keep reading

On Wednesday January 30, United New York marched with about 75 people from 55 W. 49 street (Rockefeller Center) to W. 44 street to attack corporate interests and compare the national debt clock with a specially-made clock showcasing tax evasion by the 1%.

United New York is a group “standing up for a vision of New York City where everyone, not just a privileged few, has the opportunity to thrive and build a secure, dignified life for themselves and their families.”

This march was not just against general corporate interests but specifically a strategy created by them entitled “Fix The Debt.” What is the supposed purpose of “Fix the Debt?” Well to curb the national deficit, of course. The problem is the solutions proposed in “Fix the Debt” are really just more solutions favoring austerity measures. It calls for cuts to Social Security benefits, among other things.

Truth be told, this is not something we haven’t heard before. For example, George W. Bush unsuccessfully tried to privatize Social Security. Now instead of an attempt to privatize Social Security, the idea is just to cut payments. The problem, if it’s not obvious already, is this deficit solution (as well as many other solutions from wealthy Americans) targets necessary public services. It then ignores the tax breaks which are manipulated out of a government which could work, should it not be so influenced by the money of those who hoard wealth to then use that wealth to acquire more tax breaks.

“The corporations supporting ‘Fix the Debt’ have shown that they would rather spend money lobbying Congress to cut vital services, than actually pay their fair share of taxes and create the jobs they receive federal subsidies to make,” said Cara Noel, Communications Director of UnitedNY. “Cuts to Social Security and Medicare would create real hardships for everyday Americans — the same ones who were called upon to bail out these banks and corporations during their times of financial hardship. We cannot allow these men and women, who have already been asked to shoulder so much of our country’s financial burden, to cut back any more than they’ve already done.”

To amplify the message of the march the Occupy Wall Street Puppet Guild was asked to join the demonstration to give some clever perspective. A debt clock displaying tax evasion was the request from the march organizers. It read $2.3 trillion dollars. The amount which tax breaks, loopholes, and tax havens have enabled corporations like Chase, Boeing, Bank of America, Delta Airlines, General Electric and more to avoid paying towards the debt. True, $2.3 trillion would still leave around $14 trillion of budgetary problems but this is not a dollar amount to ever be disregarded. Another more important aspect of this $2.3 trillion is its comparison to the amount which congress (and the White House) have already proposed cutting to alleviate the deficit. That figure is actually lower and rounds out to about $1.3 trillion.

Ben Master, one of the organizers of the march, commented how “The financiers and corporate executives who fund “Fix the Debt” drive our debt up everyday by evading taxes. If CEO’s like Jeffrey Immelt from GE really cared about the debt, they would stop using every technique under the sun to lower their tax bill. This fabricated debt crisis is simply masking the 1%’s vicious agenda to destroy our nation’s safety net and disempower working people. Working people and senior citizens refuse to pay for a mess that the wealthiest members of society created.”

Now for the action:

Here is a woman named Sylvia Williams speaking by Rockefeller Center. She is a retired worker.

Sylvia Williams

One very nice aspect of this action was the presence of a Spanish Language translator.

A man named Maurice spoke next.

Maurice

The next person called to address the crowd was Minister Nick Gordon.

Minister Nick Gordon

Next was a short hype speech before the march took off to the National Debt clock.

And we marched…

While on the march I had a chance to ask a member of the OWS Puppet Guild about their “Pay Your Taxes!” clock and what inspired its creation. This is what he had to say.

When we finally got to West 44 St. there were three speakers.

Here is the first…

The second speaker, Ben Masters…

The third…

This march focused on the lack of taxes paid by corporations. However, there are other ways to reduce the deficit as well. For example, the United States puts more into its defensive spending than double the cumulative spending of the next 26 countries. This strikes me as excessive. Deficit reduction could also be accomplished by increasing domestic spending and creating jobs for much needed infrastructure repair, and a better public education system. Getting rid of the country’s for-profit health insurance system would be a good idea too.

If you want a strong economy at home you need a population which can participate in the flow of commerce. Infrastructure repair would aide in the transportation of goods for commerce and create construction jobs; a better public education system would prepare people for the global market and for positions of higher income; a for-profit healthcare system cripples the people of a country who get sick against their will and have no insurance to cover the costs of care.

Do the wealthy participate in commerce? Yes, but due to their overall income, tax rebates, usage of tax havens, and loopholes they save a lot more of what they make when compared to the general population. This increases the severity of the debt-based economy as they barely contribute towards it and the burden is left to the public. A public who can’t effectively participate in commerce as many make only enough to survive while drowning in medical, student, or credit card debt. It’s a debt-based economy which is not sustainable as everyone will eventually need to pay their bills; including the government who needs an effective tax policy to generate any income for itself to spend on its people.

More information on the march can be found at the Flip The Debt website.

Please donate to www.wepay.com/donations/citizen-journalism to support my work.
Follow me on twitter @StopMotionsolo
Watch and follow my stream www.StopMotionsolo.tv
Like my fan page www.facebook.com/stopmotionsolo

Stay Informed. Get Involved. Be Active.

Remember to keep reading

On Monday, January 28, the Canadian-based movement Idle No More called for a global day of action for indigenous peoples to speak out about abuses to native lands.

Idle No More began with 4 women in Canada working to raise awareness to legislation known as “Bill C-45.” Putting it simply there are over 2 million rivers, lakes, and other waterways in Canada many of which were protected by federal law prior to C-45. After the passage of Bill C-45 the number of protected waterways in Canada was reduced to 82. Not 82,000 or 8,200, just 82. This bill also infringes on treaties which had been signed with the First Nations peoples of Canada (First Nations is the Canadian term equivalent to Native Americans). This legislation also removes many of the obstacles which would complicate the extraction of Tar Sands oil from Alberta, Canada. Tar Sands oil mind you, is the oil which the Keystone XL Pipeline would transport from Alberta, Canada to oil refineries in Texas. The oil would then be sold to the highest bidder on the global market.

Idle No More proceeded to spread like a virus across Canada after those first 4 women began doing teach-ins on the issues. It then found supporters worldwide as First Nations peoples across the globe understood the struggle for native lands and stood in solidarity with the cause.

Here is a video of the demonstration in Nuuk, Greenland.

Here is a video of Buffy Sainte-Marie in Winnipeg.

Here is a video from Edmonton.

The showings in New York were smaller but those present understood the importance of the day just as much.

Here are some photos from the Round Dance at Columbia University…

“Because this ‘crown’ can have neither my rights nor my land.”

A quote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

“One nation. One tribe. One fire.”

Here is a video of the Round Dance. (Excuse the video quality, it was raining and hailing that day).

The protester leading the Round Dance chant.

Once the chants concluded a protester approached the middle of the circle and further explained the importance of the day.

Afterward I conducted a dual interview with two Columbia Students of Native origin. During the interview they gave a lot of insight as to their origins and how their ancestors were forcibly moved from their land. They discussed what they knew of Bill C-45 as well. At about 3:30 I gave a short explanation about the Keystone XL Pipeline then I asked for their reactions to it.

Though they did not respond to the pipeline directly they did elaborate on other issues related to land abuses which the Keystone XL Pipeline would be very guilty of in Canada. One of the students discussed the Uranium mining going on in New Mexico as well and how much of this mining occurs on private land leases.

The companies engaging in this mining neglected to explain to the people living there what they would be doing and as a result the original inhabitants have not been compensated appropriately for the use of their land. To make matters worse the inhabitants can barely use the land at all after the mining.

Towards the start of the interview one of the students briefly remarked on the number of Columbia students present that day. She provided a very simple explanation at about the 4:50 mark and then expanded more:

“With the pipeline, the oil, mining… A lot of people don’t realize the effect it’s gonna have. It’s gonna have a long-term effect and it impacts natives directly. We don’t want money. We wanna, basically, to live on our land, we wanna understand our culture, we wanna speak our language.”

The other woman in the interview then said this:

“There’s a lot of scholars that talk about… when you take the land away from people, you take their lives away, you take their identity… With my tribe specifically so much was lost. We lost stories, we lost our language, because the thing was we were in a whole new environment and those no longer had a correlation.”

The next interview was with a teacher from Canada with First Nations origins. She gave an excellent breakdown of the day’s actions and the Idle No More movement itself.

“Idle No More is…one of the most significant indigenous political movements to unfold in North America. It is the first broad-based grassroots expression of disgust, or I would say deep critique, of a settler government. All governments of course are settler and act to preserve the imperatives of settlement…which is the continued dispossession of indigenous people from their land.

Idle No More is the first broad-based expression of discontent, critique, and productive anger with the government and love for land, that has unfolded across Canada and is moving into the states.

Its actions include the Round Dances, such as the one you saw, which are expressions of solidarity between indigenous people and non-indigenous people. They express also a care and an affection for the earth which is why we dance in a circle. And they also, when assembled in malls (as they have in Canada), they significantly disrupt, most significantly (in addition to bringing people together, and rallying) they disrupt the flow of capital. That is not the intention but that is the effect and I think it’s a positive one because it is the imperatives of capital that drive settlements, the ongoing settlement of our land.”

A group photo

This concluded the portion of the day at Columbia University.

The next part of the day began further downtown by the Consulate General of Canada. This consisted of a short Lakota prayer led by Ted Hall.

Following the Lakota prayer everyone proceeded to the United Nations to join a larger Idle No More demonstration. To get there, as we were already late… we took a bus.

Several demonstrators were already gathered, one of whom was an Iroquois woman. I asked her about the other demonstrations which had happened earlier on J28.

In the interview the woman mentions a demonstration which occurred at Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada. Watch a video of it here.

When asked about the significance of the United Nations she responded:

“It’s a platform for all nations throughout the world. And this is where it needs to…they need to change…not just here, not just in Canada, not just in the U.S. but all over the world and it’s a starting point for that change.”

I also did a quick interview with a woman named Nicky Sunshine. She is a comic but was present for the demonstration in full support. As she is a comic though, her interview is a little sillier than what would normally be expected.

Nicky Sunshine’s sign.

After waiting to gather the demonstration began. Here is a full video of the solidarity action.

To watch individual segments of the demonstration click through the below links:

The speak-outs.

An Iroquois woman speaks

Another protester speaks

The Round Dance.

The Round Dance

Ted Hall speaks

Ending the demonstration.

A group photo

Following this protest at the United Nations a teach-in was held at Columbia University where all who attended had a chance to learn about Idle No More. Here is a video of the webcast.

Please contribute to support my work at www.wepay.com/donations/citizen-journalism
Follow me on twitter @StopMotionsolo
Watch and follow my stream www.StopMotionsolo.tv
Like my fan page www.facebook.com/stopmotionsolo

Stay Informed. Get Involved. Be Active.

Remember to keep reading