Thoughts on Occupy Wall Street.

Last Saturday, I was arrested with approximately 700 other people as were were surrounded by New York City Police roughly mid-way across the car path of the Brooklyn Bridge. We were taking part in a march organized by Occupy Wall Street, which has been encamped in Zucotti Park for about three weeks now. I've been cautiously intrigued by the action since I'd seen it mentioned on some lefty website or another in early September. I had participated in the last six months or so in protests and rallies in the New York area organized by Uncut NYC, the Reverend Billy and various mainstream labor unions. I have to admit, my experiences with protest in the past have tended to be less than inspiring. The turnout was generally small. During the past spring I stood outside a Bank of America branch in mid-town chanting “B.O.A, Must Pay!” with a few dozen others. The bank and its patrons went about their business. After an hour or so, we left. No one in the press covered it as far as I know. When the occupation was in its first days the extremely sparse news coverage I found succeeded in convincing me that this was just another abortive attempt put forward by a noble but tiny minority. In the following weeks I have been happily proven wrong.

At this point, no one can deny that Occupy Wall St. has gained more attention, both from those who agree with it and those who despise it, than any protest action in recent American history. Many critics ask, “What's the point? What are they protesting?” Others, like Andrew Ross Sorkin and the entire staff of the New York Times engage in knee-jerk ad -hominem attacks, tarring the protesters as hippies, who of course would realize how utterly silly they were being if only they had to work like everyone else. Many on the left have essentially hidden behind these arguments, claiming not necessarily that they share the sentiment, but that they worry that if the movement doesn't seem serious and organized it won't be able to accomplish the good things it surely hopes to. At this point I won't be the first to make this argument, but I'm not bothered by the lack of a specific demand or narrower target. To pigeonhole the movement into this small bore thinking would be the death of it. The movement does have an open document online, with a set of demands, or what I think would be better described as a Shadow Platform, the platform of the 99%, the platform a genuine left political party might put forward were it not as hopelessly bought-and-paid-for as the current two “acceptable” parties are (I won't name them, I don't feel like gagging at the moment). To me though, simply embracing this “platform” and calling for its implementation would be to miss the point.

Before getting to what I find most promising about Occupy Wall St. please indulge me by allowing me to share some autobiographical information. I was born in November of 1979. A few months later Ronald Reagan was inaugurated. My adolescent and teenage years took place during the boom years of the 1990s when even as a high schooler I got really, really tired of hearing about rock-star CEOs and how America needed a President who “knew how to run a business.” I always found it funny that the most nationalistic, histrionic patriots were the ones comfortable equating their country with Kinkos or Ore Ida. The accepted, almost uncontested narrative in the media, the arts and society in general was, for the first twenty years of my life, that free markets are perfect, government is inept and inefficient and all the problems of the world would be solved if only some crafty entrepreneur could profit from solving them. The way for bands to be “edgy” was to claim that they were proud to have “sold-out” and that everyone was “just jealous of their success.” Being political made you tiresome. People didn't entertain the possibility that it was more than some retro, punk rock fad. It was after all, the End of History.

With the circus of the Bush administration in effect from 2000 on there were some encouraging rumblings. Of course, 9/11 was supposed to have restarted history, now with a monolithic Islamic threat to replace the discredited Communist one. During this time the Daily Show and Colbert Report became liberal pranksters, calling the media and political class out on their many hypocrisies and stupidities. It was reassuring to me to realize that enough other people saw the absurdity enough to laugh at it, an on a large enough scale for these programs to become resounding successes. Before the 04 elections, people who I'd never heard talk about politics began saying things like, “That guy's fucking crazy. Who the hell could vote for such an idiot.” Well, enough did that for the first time he (probably) actually won. Again, as the world financial system collapsed under the weight of the fraudulent instruments dreamed up by investment bankers to trade in the debt peonage they'd imposed on ninety percent of the population for thirty years it seemed like a corner had been turned. Newsweek even informed us that “We Are All Socialists Now.” Then came...The Tea Party.

What I am getting at, other than a little venting is that during my lifetime, the wealthy and powerful and the government they own have always, without any significant exception been able to buy, co-opt or discredit anything that even looked like it threatened them. Anyone in possession of even the most rudimentary bullshit detector should have seen that it wasn't a coincidence that the media whether supposedly “liberal” or “conservative” would never step out of a narrowly defined acceptability and that this “acceptability” wasn't based on what was acceptable to a majority of people, but to the people with the most economic weight to throw around. Any voice that spoke this truth during my lifetime has been relegated to the margins and ignored. Or, if gaining any prominence seemed to be neutralized in terms of inspiring any tangible action beyond a very small group of politically aware people. Even those who agreed with the dissenters were too comfortable or too disheartened to do any dissenting of their own.

Now, there is Occupy Wall Street. The Tea Party may have been for some an expression of genuine populist outrage, but it was soon distorted and corralled by the aforementioned elite into yet another hate-spewing know-nothing parade of assorted ugly Americans. So far, as someone who has participated in Occupy Wall St., I would say it has avoided a similar fate. If Occupy Wall street maintains its present character there is a good chance that it won't be used or absorbed by Obama 2012, the “Ron Paul Revolution” or for that matter, the Socialist Party USA (sorry guys). Occupy Wall Street is not yet fully formed, and the idea seems to that it can never be. The general consensus among its participants is in support of principles and policies that I think could only improve the state of things were they to be implemented, even on a piecemeal basis. (Reinstating Glass-Stegall, taxing Capital gains as income etc.) Many no doubt will fail to see how this matters if no politician who has a chance of winning office will adopt these policies. In reality, this is a triumph rather than a failure. The only way any politician of any persuasion will adopt a policy is if their corporate pay-masters tell them to. There is no significant exception to this rule If we start with support for a politician and follow with policy suggestions or the expectation that they'll do right by us, we will only be deceived and used. (See Clinton Administration 92-00/Obama Administration 08-12) We have to start with organization and a shift in consciousness, then develop policies and force whoever is in political office or the boardroom to accept that the people will no longer apathetically allow their will to be smugly ignored. (See Abolitionist/Civil Rights/ Labor/Women's Suffrage Movements).

What's inspiring to me about the movement so far is that it genuinely does seem to indicate a broad-based shift in the attitudes of many people in America. People seem to be beginning to understand that their problems are not caused by poor African-Americans on welfare, but by corporations on welfare. They may be realizing that what's really important is the empowerment and standard of living of the majority, not the one-in-a-million chance that they'll be the next filthy rich bastard who doesn't have to pay any taxes. Everyone who is inspired by the persistence of Occupy Wall Street and the many Occupations around the nation that it has inspired can take heart that they are not alone and that together they can only be ignored for so long. In trying to operate using consensus based decision making they are creating a model for how direct democracy might function if money wasn't the all-important factor it is today. In contrast to the times I've lived through so far, it seems that people just might finally be re-discovering the understanding of class and social power that are a necessary precursor the process of positive change described above.

When Andrew Ross Sorkin finally wrote his compulsory disdainful article about Occupy Wall Street, he framed it as a little research he was doing for an unnamed CEO acquaintance, who'd asked him if he should “fear this thing.” It sounds like he already does, he should, and the fact that he does has strengthened my dedication to doing whatever I can to make sure he and his ilk can't continue to flippantly oppress and abuse everyone they've pushed to the bottom with their greed.

Health Care Whimper

In following the 'health care reform debate' that's been raging in the halls of Congress over the past few months, it's occurred to me that, short of the lead-up to the Iraq War, there hasn't been an issue which has illustrated as starkly everything that is wrong and dysfunctional about American society and government. The stated aim of altering the health care system for the benefit of the majority of the nation's citizens has mutated into yet another gigantic package of corporate welfare, with just enough ineffective government dictates to give conservatives a straw-man to flog for decades to come.

The thing that has really annoyed me from day one is that people seem to think it appropriate to talk about reforming the “health care system”. This is odd when we don't have a health care system. We have a health care market. If you have enough money you can purchase some of the best health care in the world, if you don't you can go crawl in a gutter and die. (or go to an overcrowded emergency room, be billed thousands of dollars and not pay) Other advanced, developed nations have health care systems, wherein the society as a whole has decided that health care is a human right, as well as a pragmatic step in maintaining a healthy society, and figured out a way to provide it to everyone, free or at a reasonable cost. There are numerous examples of these health care systems. In Britain the government directly employs doctors, runs hospitals and purchases drugs (the dreaded 'Socialized Medicine'). In Canada, those functions are carried out by private entities, but the government provides comprehensive health insurance to all citizens (Something you might have heard about for a week or so before the insurance companies 'convinced' the politicians it was no good, Single Payer). In some continental European nations people are given tax rebates to pay for coverage from a selection of non-profit health insurance providers. All of these countries ranked higher on an overall health outcomes survey done by the United Nations in 2000 than the U.S, which came in 37th, right between Costa Rica and Slovenia. Well, maybe we don't have a health care system to reform, but thank goodness the populist Democratic Party is in control. They'll certainly get us a health care system.

Well, of course they'd like to, but if they can't get sixty votes, the Republicans might filibuster and all would be lost. So, in order to prevent a potential republican filibuster, the Democrats have used the tactic of preemptively caving to the most extreme demands of the Republicans before they even try to do anything constructive. It's funny, but the last president did a lot of things that the Democrats could have filibustered. They never did though. Of course the operative thing is that the health insurance companies (hereafter to be referred to as 'murderers') have lots of money to give to lobbyists, who give it to people like, Max Baucus and Joe Lieberman, even if they might be in a party that talks a bunch of commie nonsense during the election campaigns. So, before our health care system was ever really honestly discussed it has become pretty much a government demand that you buy insurance from the murderers, who've promised to cut costs a little at some point, or enroll in a tiny government program that's been designed to fail because it (if it doesn't get cut out of the bill completely) will have no bargaining power and will be the option of last resort for people who the murderers decide they can't cover.

Basically our government is controlled by a party of laissez fair capitalists to whom it's more important that the murderers be able to make huge profits than for the American people to be able to afford health care, and a party that claims to care about the latter, until they actually control the government and are up for their share of the murderers' thinly disguised bribery. Apparently, roughly half of the ordinary people in the country are so caught up in jerking off to a fantasy of Ronald Reagan tossing Ayn Rand's salad that they're afraid of such horrors as the government providing them with health care. Well, thanks guys. When this piece of shit legislation is passed and another thirty thousand or so Americans die for lack of medical coverage you can all give yourselves a hand for preserving the wonderful American health care system from socialist attack.

Obama Escalates/ Ends Afghan War Boo/Hooray

Just over eight years into the U.S. Involvement in Afghanistan, Barack Obama has finally made his mark on the conflict. In typical Obama style, he made a speech, explaining in calm measured tones why he is choosing a course of action half-assed enough to be completely ineffective yet shockingly offensive to all of the nice liberals who voted for him. I mean really...30,000 more troops. If you're against the war, that sure isn't a withdrawal, and if you want to stick it out until victory, it seems pretty wimpy. At least it's an effort though. And if you're one of those anti-war sissies, don't worry, he's going to pull them all out a few months after they get there, just in time for the next election. Forget the whole, ugly thing.

In fairness, it is a complex issue; and a situation where the stakes are none less than the deaths thousands. It would be understandable if one thought we'd already won in Afghanistan, having deposed the Taliban from its leadership role and overseen two elections, which were corrupt and all, but at least saw our guy beating our other guys. Unfortunately, we never did capture or kill Bin Laden, and the Taliban are still more popular than we'd like them to be, and still trying to kill our soldiers. It seems like a reasonable assumption that if we were to pull out now, Karzai's government might fall to the Taliban, and even if it didn't, it certainly isn't powerful enough to prevent unpleasant types from planning more attacks on America out in the sticks. In light of all this, after careful consideration, the Obama administration is going to take measured action and send an additional 30,000 troops, who will mostly be operating in the silly sounding, but very serious Pashtunistan. Greater emphasis will be placed on training more soldiers for the fledgling (read: “Completely useless, and sometimes hostile”) Afghan Army. Well, it isn't going to work.

We need up our troop levels to a solid 200,000. None of this post-Vietnam syndrome, war can be easy crap. I mean, we've been there for the better part of a decade and we've only killed roughly 20,000 people, with around a thousand American deaths. The Taliban must be laughing their asses off. If we want to put the fuckers in line we might as well go all out, with all our expensive technology I'm sure we can knock of a million and a half of them in no time. So where's the carpet bombing, god damn it? Drain the swamp! And quit worrying about civilian casualties. Hell, they're all Muslims right? Some of them might seem friendly enough now, but we run over one of their goats with a Humvee and they're having an Al Qaeda meeting in their back yard the next day. We should make indiscriminate use of chemical weapons, bulldoze their farmland and plant thousands and thousands of land mines in every godforsaken corner of the country. Half of the population should be made refugees. And look, if you want to accomplish big things like erasing the Taliban and Al Qaeda (and anyone who might sympathize with them) from existence you've got to be willing to make sacrifices. Let's resolve not to leave until our casualties have increased ten-fold or so.

Obama always said in the campaign that this was a necessary war, so why doesn't he act like it is. If he'd just get behind a good bloodbath, some real total war, the conservatives would finally respect him, and his liberal fans would only be a little more pissed off than they will be about the 30,000 man drop in the bucket he's planning now. Besides, they'll forget all about it by the next election, and what other party are they going to vote for anyway. The Green Party? They know they'd only be throwing their votes away. So come on, Obama, it's bipartisanship. It's your big thing. You do what the people who count want you to do and ignore all of the other poor schlubs. You didn't have any problem doing it when it came to health care reform. So why not with the Afghan War? Wouldn't it be nice to really win a damn war for a change?

Well, I'm sure I've convinced you. Unfortunately, I was only playing devil's advocate. Because even if we were cruel enough to do all that I've suggested, we would never succeed in determining what kind of place Afghanistan will be in the future. You see, all of the numbers I've suggested are straight from the casualty numbers and troop levels of the Soviet/ Afghan war. Pretty brutal stuff. If that's what it would take to win, I'm not even sure the Republicans would get behind it (oh, whom am I kidding? They would eat it up). The Soviets didn't try to make Afghanistan a Communist state with 90,000 troops on the ground. They went all out. And they still didn't prevail. Our friends, the freedom fighters of the Mujahadeen did, as we now know all too well.

Maybe it would be good idea to seriously consider how far we would be willing to go in order to make Afghanistan democratic and free of any type of holy warrior. Maybe if he did Obama wouldn't bother sending another 30,000 to die just to look tough to his critics. I wouldn't hold my breath though.