The Occupation at 2 months and 24 days

Last night Occupy Austin held a General Assembly at the Capitol. (We've been doing this for about a month now). It might have been the shortest GA in Occupy Austin history. It clocked in at just under 25 minutes. I know, pretty amazing huh! I think it's amazing though that we still came out and we still followed our process and we still are doing what we're doing.

Maybe this doesn't make much sense, but I think Occupy Austin is doing okay. I don't want to say there aren't things we need to improve (and many of them!) but I do want to say that we're doing pretty well.

Three months I had never even heard of Occupy Wall Street, Consensus Process or Guerilla Gardening. Now, I know what all of those things are. Two months ago I could not even make it through an entire GA before I thought it was 'too late' or this is 'too boring'. Now, I am part of the facilitation team and moderate GA's at least once a week. I have edited more Press releases and newsletters in the past two months than ever before in my life. We are making this Occupation a reality.

Reality is not necessarily pretty, but it is real. Our Occupation has much to improve on, but I think we need to start seeing that we're not doing too badly.

We're doing something that has never been done before. We're writing the new American History. We are creating the future that we want to live in right now.

I attended a 'Strategy and Tactics' meeting a few nights ago. This meeting made it clearer than ever before that the Occupy movement is not a political movement. We are not concerned with just making politics better. We are concerned with the whole society. We are trying to find a way to build a society that values people over money. We have lived for so long in a world where everything is based on monetary value. You pay for what you learn in school. If you have a job, you are valued based on how much you earn for that job. As a culture we say that the money we earn gives us value. That is why people have been spending more than they earn because they are trying to create the illusion of value with things. Yet, we all know, somewhere deep inside us, that our value does not lie in anything monetary. Our value lies in our humanity.

Last night I caught the very tail end of the women's meeting. We had an incident of domestic violence that caused many of us in the movement to realize just how much we need to educate and empower all people. If people are empowered than they will say something when they see something. Speaking up is valuing someone else's humanity.

We are learning to Occupy. We are learning to live.


Check out the Austin Chronicle Photo Spread on Occupy

What is 'endorsing'?

A few weeks ago a proposal came before the General Assembly of Occupy Austin. (I was on the facilitation team so I was not an active part of this discussion - but an observer). In my opinion the proposal was ill-formed and should not (and could not because it was not clear what was in fact being proposed) be consensed upon. Nevertheless, the General Assembly gathered that night consensed on the proposal.

It was, more or less:

"I need $125 dollars for some supplies for an action. We are either going to have this action in this city or in another city."

Although the supplies needed for the action were the same, the action itself would be different depending on the location. Furthermore, the legal ramifications of these actions would be completely different depending on which action was actually undertaken. During the discussion of the proposal it became clear that not only was the proposer asking for the funds to purchase the unspecified supplies she was also seeking Occupy Austin's endorsement of the action. This is where it becomes tricky. If she was only seeking funds and the same supplies were needed no matter which action was actually chosen then this could have been done. Seeking endorsement for two completely different actions with different outcomes should not be done in one proposal. (However there are questions about if simply giving money is a form of endorsing)

This proposal has been hashed out in many facilitator meetings as an example of what not to do. Yet, it still passed. If that had been the end of it that would have been, simply, a learning experience.

However, when the action took place eight occupiers were arrested, three of them from Austin. They are possibly facing felony charges. Since Occupy Austin endorsed this action at a previous GA we are facing a litany of legal and ethical questions. Does Occupy Austin owe those that were arrested bail and legal support? (Occupy Austin can, and does, bail anyone out who is arrested while engaging in an act of Civil Disobedience for the Occupy Movement.) The tactics that were used were beyond normal Civil Disobedience tactics. Where does Occupy Austin, as an organization, draw the line on what it can endorse? Does giving the money to support this action mean that we, as a movement, endorsed this particular instance of Civil Disobedience? This action was poorly planned and, in my opinion, hurt the reputation of the movement and it's relationship with Labor. What does it mean that Occupy Austin endorsed this? Did Occupy Austin endorse this act?

I know I'm ending with a lot of questions - but I guess I still haven't figured everything out in my own head yet. I'm putting this out here to get feedback and see if anyone else has any ideas/opinions/feelings about this.

Some time off and some time to reflect

This past week I've only been down to Occupy Austin a few times. I could only make it to one GA. Although, I really wanted to participate in other GA's previous commitments prevented me from doing so.

What is great about this is that Occupy Austin is still going strong. This movement is so much bigger than me. The Occupy movement is so much bigger than Austin. We have just gotten started. All of us that are involved in Occupy on a daily basis need to take some days off. We need to remember that as much as much each of us brings to this movement, we will not bring anything if we burn out.

I plan to be part of this movement for a long time. Whatever happens this movement will shape American history. Some of my friends at Church were saying on Sunday that the Occupy movement has restored their hope in this generation. We look to the 50's, 60's and 70's and think of the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam protests. This generation has never protested on such a large scale. We are finally standing up for our rights.

We are writing history right now. I am offered an opportunity that only comes once in a lifetime. I am part of the positive change that is sweeping this country. I am so honored that I can bring my voice to this movement - I am also deeply aware that this movement is so much bigger than my voice. It's not about me - but it is all about each of us individually coming together.

I am going to go back on Monday, refreshed and ready to keep on fighting the battle for justice. I'll leave you with one of the chants we said at Monday night's GA.

One - We are the people.
Two - We are united.
Three - This occupation has just gotten started. (repeat)

Problems in this country

Here is a Rick Perry campaign video:




I am disgusted. We have so many problems in this country. Number one is the way that money has corrupted our politicians so that they no longer represent the interest of the people. Gay people are not a threat. There is no 'war on religion' - unless it is a war on Islam.

I pray that this man is not our next President. God, help us!

Good job news?

Today many stories in the news were about the amazingly low rate of unemployment, 8.6%, I believe. What I find striking is that while they were saying the private sector gained 120,000 jobs the Government cut over 20,000 jobs. Overall employment is going up, but it looks to me like good, decent paying jobs with benefits (i.e. public sector jobs) are being cut and then they are being replaced by seasonal work that is paying lower wages without benefits. When I hear the term service sector employees I do not think high wages and benefits. How many of these jobs will be cut again in January?

Sure, more people have more jobs. But the real question is not how many people are employed. The real question should be whether or not those jobs can sustain the people that are doing them. When an employee loses a decent paying job with benefits and then is hired somewhere else with minimal wages and no benefits those two jobs are not equal. We are getting sidetracked by the sheer number of unemployed people or the number of jobs created that we are ignoring that fact that people are working so that they can have their lives and their livelihood.

Let's stop looking at facts and figures and instead focus on individual's ability to live.

Getting Arrested? For What?

On Thursday night five people got arrested at Occupy Austin. The fact that five people were arrested was covered on the local news station the next day.

If you watch that video you understand the importance of controlling the media. No one was talking about the 400 person march that happened Thursday afternoon. Instead the local news was talking about how five people had been arrested to protest power washing. Here's another Youtube video from Thursday night.





It's important that people get arrested for this movement. But, getting arrested is not the goal in and of itself. Civil Disobedience is used as a tool to make a concerted message. If people continue getting arrested at every opportunity than eventually the movement will lose some of it's strength. At Occupy Austin, right now, getting arrested is taking you out of the movement. The police, being very strategic, are charging people arrested with Criminal trespassing, which means they cannot return to City Hall. Therefore we have to think very seriously about when and why we are getting arrested.

I do support those that are choosing to get arrested, but I hope that if the future we can make these decisions as a movement instead of as individuals.

The declaration of independence.

Last night was a rally and march of the Occupy Austin movement. There were probably about 400 people altogether. We had a rally at the Capitol focusing on education and then marched down Congress Avenue to City Hall where we held the General Assembly. It was pretty amazing to march with all those people and see that we all want change. I am always so impressed at the amount of energy and happiness that comes from a protest. If you've never been to a protest you may not understand the euphoria that you get. Seeing all the other people with their signs and their chants that you're joining with is a feeling that cannot be replicated. I imagine it is something like that feeling you get at a large music festival.

The GA last night was inspiring. More people were there than I've ever seen before. Most of the people from the march stayed. What I really wanted to talk about was what happened after the march and before the GA began. There was about 15 minutes in which we were all huddled around just waiting for the GA facilitators to decide how exactly they wanted to run this meeting. We had a guy with a guitar and we sang some songs. Woody Guthrie's "This land is my land. This land is your land." We did a few chants. We did a few "mic checks." (If you're not familiar with the "mic check" let me explain. Whenever someone needs/wants to say something that everyone should hear she simply says "mic check". Then everyone repeats "mic check". Then she says what she needs to say in short 3-4 word increments. After each pause the words are repeated by everyone in the crowd. This is a very effective way for a largish crowd to hear one person. This one person becomes everyone).

One of these mic checks was a reading of part of the Declaration of Independence. The young man read (and everyone repeated) this part:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,^[74] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Declaration goes on to say:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I know these are long quotes - but bear with me, please.

What is happening at Occupy movements around the world is patriotic. It is in fact the same thing that happened in 1776 when the founding members of this country got together and said "We can't take this any more." I'm sure the British Crown would have loved it if they had asked permission for independence. I'm sure the British Crown would have been in favor of a petition. No, the founders of this country did not ask permission. They started a new government because it is the duty of the people being governed to stand up and fight back whenever the government stops doing its job. Its job is to help the people in securing their Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Every year there are more Americans that are living below the poverty line. Every year there are less Americans that have stable housing. Every year there are more Americans that are food insecure. It does not seem like our government it living up to it's end of the bargain. Therefore it is our duty, as patriotic Americans to stand up and make them take notice.

A feeling of hope

Tonight's GA felt different. I don't know exactly how, or why, but there was something in the air tonight. Perhaps it was the rain; perhaps it was the aftermath of the destruction of Zucotti Park; perhaps it was the mutual acknowledgment of a problem and that things have to change. Occupy Austin is not dying. We had about 100 people at the GA tonight. That feeling was in the discussions I participated in and overheard. People were thinking about what we can do and how we can do it.

We are starting to plan for the future and not just the future next week but the future in two months, the future in March, the future of this movement. Although we live in an age when we think that everything and anything should be able to happen instantly, societal change never has been, and never will be, an instantaenous event. No, societal change happens through slow but steady exerted pressure. We are just beginning to exert that pressure. We cannot get sidetracked or waylaid by the small stumbling blocks in the road. No, this movement is bigger and more important than a food table or a welcome table.

Right now we desparately need to craft a social contract. There are many of us who are occupying 24/7 and there are many of us who are only at City Hall for the GA's a few hours before or after. Each of us has decided how we are spending our time. Yet, we are all occupiers. We are all equally important and equally a part of this movement. Occupy Austin is trying to craft a document that reflects our shared desire to live together and respects our need to have respect and have a plan for when that respect and trust is violated. Right now there is no trust. Some Occupiers trust some others - but there is no trust among the group. In fact, there is a high level of distrust. Once this trust is created than we can begin to live out our social contract.

I am hopeful that we will be able to create and live a new social contract. This lifestyle is going to be something that carries this movement on as we make the changes we seek. Tonight's GA had the energy of a movement that is just beginning to thrive. I hope, and pray, that Austin will be a beacon of hope for the Occupy Movement. We will become a center of this worldwide movement; our occupation can be an example to other cities of what can happen through our lifestyle.

Disunity. How do we overcome divisions?

I went down to the General Assembly at Occupy Austin tonight. There is a lot of dis-unity going on in the movement.

A few weeks ago the police arrested 38 Occupiers and charged them with Criminal Trespassing at City Hall. This charge means that if they return to City Hall property they can and will be arrested again. This was a very strategic move on the part of the City. They wanted to prevent these people from participating in the movement. The Occupiers reaction was to move the GA just across the street from City Hall to a public park. This property is public property and all the Occupiers are allowed to be there. However, when this happened many of the people who camp out at City Hall stopped coming to the GA's. They wanted to stay with the food or stay with their stuff or were not willing to cross the street for whatever reason.

In reality, moving the GA did not create the division of those that have a place to a sleep at night and those that do sleep at the City Hall. Moving the GA has helped to exacerbate the situation.

Tonight the GA was out of control. There were about 40 people on the 'island' as it is affectionately referred to. There were about that many still in front of City Hall. The ones by City Hall even held their own GA. (reportedly, I did not actually see this happen). Most of the 'announcements' made were about the division that is becoming more palpable by the day. During the course of this GA I saw two people leave for good. This division is becoming something that threatens to destroy Occupy Austin.

There are those people that are living at City Hall. They are giving our movement a sense of credibility and visibility. People see Occupiers every day, all day, holding signs and chanting and reminding the City that Occupy Austin is not going away. The people living at City Hall are Occupying Austin.

There are those people that come after work or between class and work or before work or in between work and school and kids and volunteering and whatever it is that fills our time. Generally, these peopel are the majority in committees and in the working groups. These are the people that are facilitating the GA's and running the media group, the finance group, the info table and organizing the food. These are the people that are providing the structure of this Occupy Movement. (Obviously there are some people that are living at City Hall that are working to maintain the structure, but they are the vast minority).

I'm not sure what the solution is to this division. I have an idea that it starts with mutual respect for the role that both sides are playing. The second step is blending the two roles so that some of Occupiers that are living on site are playing a move active role in creating the structure of the movement. If things do not change within the next week (or two) this movement will die. We will just prove to all those people who think that change is impossible that they are right. We will prove to all those cynics that in fact democracy of the people is a failure and always will be.

I hope that we will not prove those things. I hope instead that this movement will learn and grow stronger by overcoming these struggles. The struggle here is not an ideological one. It is simply a practical one. We have physically divided ourselves and that has created an emotional and structural division. This Occupy movement needs to work on Unity and respect.

I hope, and pray, that this movement will find a way to move forward so that we can be a unified movement that makes a difference here in Austin and around the world.

Disclaimer: This blog is simply a reflection of my individual thoughts and ideas. I do not in any way represent the Occupy Movement or Occupy Austin specifically. If you want to know more please join us for a GA across from City Hall on Cesar Chavez between Lavaca and Guadelupe at 7 pm every night.

What is the purpose of the Food Table?

I didn't go to Occupy Austin two nights ago. Instead I watched some of the GA on the livestream (along with 55 others). I tuned in just in time to see the end of a very heated debate about the food table. (The same food table that many occupiers were arrested to defend over Halloween weekend).

I assume that there was some sort of incident between the people receiving the food and the people giving the food. (I missed this part). Apparently, someone proposed removing the food table for one week. I can see how some of the occupiers might see the food table as the problem. If you see it as a service that the occupiers are providing for the homeless, you could see it as superfluous, as a favor that occupiers are providing for others. It is something that can be taken away as a punishment when those that are eating do not respect those that are serving.

However, if you recognize that people are hungry because of the way the 1% has rigged our system than feeding people is the first step in changing that inequality. We are in solidarity with ALL of the 99%. Many of those are our homeless brothers and sisters. The food table is a symbol of our commitment to equality for all.

I do have a critique of the way Occupy Austin is serving the food. The food is being served at the official Occupation site, which is City Hall. However, the GA's are being held at a separate site to accommodate the 38 people that are no longer allowed on City Hall property due to Criminal Trespassing charges. The food is supposed to be served at 6:30. The food fairy often arrives over half an hour late. In effect the GA and dinner are at the same time. For many of us, myself included, this is not a problem. I do not eat the food the Occupation is providing anyway. For those that are depending on the food provided as their meals this is a serious problem. These Occupiers are, de facto, being forced to choose between food and the GA. Although the GA is important, if I were in their shoes I would choose food, too. Therefore certain people within the Occupy movement are being disenfranchised of their participation. I do not think this is malicious or intended to harm. The timing of the distribution is setting up a two tier system.

People in the GA talk about their commitment to all people, but are not looking at how to make that a reality in small, practical ways. Perhaps I will propose that the dinner time bet changed. I am going to talk to the food magnet to see why the food is being served so late and if there is anyway it can be served earlier.

The Food Table is an important, and symbolic, part of the Occupy movement. I'm ashamed that someone thought of taking it away as a 'punishment'. As if we were giving food to people because they deserve food. We are giving food because people are hungry. I am also ashamed that we have not yet addressed the ways that our choices have had these unintended consequences which silence the voice of many members of the movement.

Why I like the Occupy Movement (or how to piss off occupiers and Christians in one fell swoop)

Before I start this blog I want to make it absolutely clear that I am speaking only for myself. These ideas originated in my little grey cells and are representative only of my thoughts and ideas. I do not represent all Occupiers and I certainly don't represent all Christians.

I read this article a while ago that argued that Occupiers are not protesting at all. In fact, the Occupy movement is testing a new way of living. When people ask me about the movement I often say something to the same effect. The reason that these protesters have not made any demands is that they are not trying to correct the broken system. The Occupiers don't want to change one form of oppression for another equally damaging form. Instead the Occupiers are testing a new way of living. They are building, literally from the ground up, a new society with a new style of leadership and communication. They are making a new society right in the middle of the old one. They're testing a new way to live in this world that is still living in the old world.

If you've read my blog for very long you might know where I'm going with this. If you've talked to me much about my theology you might know where I'm going with this. (I honestly can't believe I didn't realize this until I woke up at 3 am this morning, unable to sleep).

In the Church we have this phrase the Kingdom of God (KoG for short). Too many people associate the KoG with this pie in the sky place that you go when you die. (This may be heresy, or my youth, but I'm not sure what happens we die. I do, however, believe 100% that Jesus came to preach about what happens here on Earth and how we treat one another in the here and now and he wasn't all that interested in an afterlife). The Kingdom of God is what Jesus talks about a lot. He says in the book of Mark: "The Kingdom of God is at hand" (1:15). In fact, "Many scholars, both conservative and critical, regard the kingdom of God as “the central theme” of Jesus’ public proclamation." (That came from this site) My understanding is that the Kingdom is already realized by the death and resurrection of Jesus, but also that it is not quite here yet. In fact, Christians are the ones that are supposed to bring about this new Kingdom.

This Kingdom is a new way of life. It is a way of living in which all people are treated with dignity and respect. The doorway to this kingdom lies in the way you treat those that are homeless, in jail, hungry, and without clothes. (Matthew 25:36-40). The KoG is supposed to be an experiment in a new way of living. This experiment is supposed to make people uncomfortable and perhaps even change lives. Jesus and all of his disciples were killed by the government. I don't think it's because they were trying to talk about what happened after you die. They were trying to change an exploitative system that rewarded the few by exploiting the masses. Sound familiar?

All of this being said. I don't think that Occupy movement is the Kingdom of God. I do think, however, that it is getting a lot closer than the Church has been in recent years. The injustice and oppression in our society has been crying out to God for Justice. The Church has been refusing to answer (I'm not condemning the many Christians working for justice - I am condemning those that in Jesus' name are actively supporting hate and working towards making the rich richer while the poor become poorer.) The Church is losing it's relevance because it has stopped experimenting in a new way of living that is risky and challenging and bringing about something like the Kingdom that Jesus talked about. Luckily for us, God is bigger than the Church and can (and does) use all people to bring about God's justice. The Occupy movement looks much more like the Church than many churches today.

Job Growth and Income Inequality are directly linked

Today I wanted to share a few images because of the power they project. Here is a chart from Slate.com's article on Inequality. (It is VERY long, but also worthwhile).

As you can see, the percentage of wealth that the top 10% of Americans (in 2008, anyone earning more than $109,000/year) has been going steadily up since the 1980's. (If you look at the top 1% the increase is even sharper). From the late 1930's through the end of the 1970's the wealth distribution in this country was actually improving (i.e. more people have more of a share of the wealth). Don't listen to people who tell you that income inequality has always been getting worse and that's "just the way it is.". Show them this graphic. Income inequality is something that our government policies create. Income distribution could be something that our government policies created - the government needs to the know that the people are not standing for this anymore. Our voices will be heard!

Here's the next image. It's a chart of the job growth by decade. The two following charts came from this article.

Interesting, huh? As wealth is distributed upward jobs are lost. The more wealth that is concentrated in the hands of the few the LESS jobs are created for the general American Public. (This is evidence directly opposed the trickle down theory of economics which argues, more or less, that if the wealthy have more money they will spend that money on creating jobs for EVERYONE. This is a main argument of the current Republican party and the Tea Party). Food for thought. Although this chart only goes back to 1940, you can see that the largest increase in jobs is exactly matched by the sharp drop in income inequality in the US. When the 90% (and really the 99%) have a larger share of the income more of them are employed.

As you can see, the more unequal income is the less jobs are created. At the beginning of this new decade what do we want for our future? Do we want more jobs or less jobs? Job creation does not happen when the rich have more money. We need to create policies that reward real income equality. Then we will see the job growth that is so desperately needed to get our country back on track.

Source for the charts on job growth.

The Great Inequality in Slate

Another relevant article in the Washington Post.

Disclaimer: I have recently joined the Occupy Austin Media Team. However, I am not a spokesperson for Occupy Austin. These thoughts and musing represent only my opinion.

What does it mean to be a leaderless movement?

I went to the Occupy Austin General Assembly again tonight. The main topic of discussion was how we present ourselves, relate to, and communicate with the City Office. After the arrest last Sunday morning there was a hastily planned meeting with Assistant City Manager and Chief of Police. The City is a hierarchical organization. They cannot understand and do not know how to deal with an organization that is rejecting traditional hierarchical patterns in favor of consensus building. The Occupy movements have no leader, have no spokesperson, have no one appointed to represent them in any official capacity. Choosing such people would be in fact going against the movement.

This topic came up tonight in a seemingly inauspicious proposal to formalize the group of people that met with the City Officials into an 'official committee'. At first, I thought this was a good idea. The GA is the governing body. They should approve any group that is going to be communicating with the City. It's logical, right? In a hierarchical society, yes. We, the GA, give them the power to represent us to the City. However, in a consensus built movement that rejects hierarchy we cannot give any group a special license. The only decision making body of the Occupy Austin movement is the GA. Everything must go through this messy and difficult process. If the City wants to meet with Occupy Austin, some people will go. They will talk to the City officials and report back to the GA. They can then bring what the GA said back to the City officials. The GA cannot approve a pre-selected group of people. Instead, these meetings need to be open so that the full diversity of the movement can be included in the meetings.

Perhaps this is overreacting. But perhaps not. Yet, there is hope here. I think that the future of the Occupy movements is strong. Come and join. Come and see what Democracy looks like. It's not pretty and it's not one day every four years. The Democracy that the Occupy movements are building is bigger and more inclusive and more time consuming that what we call democracy in this country. It is neither for sale nor does it settle for the lowest common denominator. Instead this Democracy is a true exchange of ideas. These ideas enrich us all so that we rise to fulfil our potential instead of being satisfied with the unacceptable status quo.

Also, relating to yesterday's post: Greece called off the referendum.

Democracy or Capitalism?

I recently read an article (here's a similar one in the NYT for my non-francophone friends) about the Greek Prime Minister's decision to give the people a referendum on the IMF reforms that are being imposed. He has decided to let democracy decide what will happen in Greece. The European leaders (and banks) are very scared that this referendum will end with Greece refusing the money (and the severe government austerity measures associated with the loans). Basically, if Greece does this they will be leaving the Euro zone - and so calling into question the viability of other countries (like Spain and Italy) staying in the Euro zone with their high GDP/Dept ratio.

This is a very serious situation. I do not mean to take it lightly. I don't know that this referendum is the right decision. I do think however, that this referendum is highlighting the clear difference between Capitalism and Democracy. When you have wealth (and therefore power) concentrated in the hands of the few only their interests are served. The people, in Greece, and everywhere are screaming out for real democracy and representation. In the US, we stand with Greece. We are against the austerity measures that our local, state and federal governments are imposing on us. Some government spending in out of control, but the more important side of the equation is the revenue side. Corporate taxation levels have fallen all around the world over the past 30 years. We no longer have the revenue to support the needs of the people. Instead of increasing this revenue by taxing large corporations and the very rich, governments all across the world are reducing services. Reducing services literally makes people go hungry, become homeless and die because of a lack of adequate health care. Increasing revenue will not kill companies. (It might in fact help them because the workers would benefit from the provisions of the government and therefore be a more productive work force.) Yet profit of multinational corporations has become the marker of a "good government" instead of how well the lowest in the society live.

We need to reclaim our government as a government by the people and for the people.

Update on Occupy Austin

In my last post I talked about the presence of the Austin Police Chief at an Occupy Austin General Assembly. That was Thursday night. On early Sunday morning 38 Austin Occupiers were arrested. The arrest was peaceful. I think the arrests have given this movement a sense of credibility and purpose. I am also starting to become more involved. We'll see how things go....

In this post I want to explore the idea of different types of inequality. I read this article in the NYT. Basically, the author says that the economic inequality is spouted by those that live in large cities and see the rich around them becoming even richer. He calls this 'Blue Inequality'. He then goes on to talk about the differences between those that have college degrees and those that have only a High School Diploma (or less). This inequality he calls 'Red Inequality'. This inequality is about the differences among the 99%. Those with a college degree earn, on average, 75% more than someone who does not have a college degree. Those with a college degree are more likely to get married and to not get divorced. Those with a college degree are much more likely to send their children to college, continuing this cycle. While those with only a high school diploma are more likely to have children out of wedlock and be obese. This author posits that we need to address these 'Red Inequalities' because they are more pressing than the 'Blue Inequality'.

I first read this article and was almost convinced. The difference in staggering. Yet, I felt that something was missing. It seemed too like misdirection. I posted the link on my Facebook page. A friend of mine put this response up:

I disagree - the distinction is not false, but..
1) the blue inequality is beyond individual - it needs to include the power of corporations-as-people.
2) the blue inequality (when corporations are accounted for) can be named as a substantial cause of red inequality: labor market is shaped by the 1%
3) there is a third problem Brooks ignores: half of US is flat out broke - the median wage is $11 an hour / $28k a year - and this problem can also (conveniently) be traced to the blue inequality: US has a revenue problem. Most of us are too poor to pay enough taxes to run this joint, and those who have the money (the 1%) pay too little.
Finally, 4) Fixing the blue inequality is the easiest fix, and likely the most effective. Fixing Red inequality is what has occupied us for so long, and that one is a b!tch to tame; especially with no public funds to tap, and no good jobs to channel these folks to.
So no, focus on "blue inequality" is not wrong, it is absolutely correct, even though it makes centrists and conservatives uneasy. (He wanted me to quote his tumblr since his FB page is only for friends).

I appreciate his sense. The article made it seem like these two inequalities are completely separate. Is it a coincidence that the top 1% have increased their share of the wealth disproportionately while creating people that pass poverty down from generation to generation. The rich need the impoverished to maintain their power. Talking about how important it is to address unequal education opportunities while cutting funding for public schools because of a lack of revenue is outrageous! Those that do not see how structural inequalities lead to individual inequality are blinded by the ideologies they hear that are supported by what they see around them. Structural inequality is very hard to see - and very hard to change - but if we address the 'Blue Inequality' I believe that we will be creating the possibility for changing the 'Red Inequality'. Addressing one does not mean foregoing the other.

Occupy Austin

I went to the Occupy Austin General Assembly tonight for the second time. The first time I left after about twenty minutes. I went because of a Facebook post saying that is was imperative to have a large number because the Chief of Police was going to speak. I rushed down (well as rushed as you can be on a CapMetro Bus) to find that the GA actually began much later than the advertised time. So I had some coffee with a good friend as we waited around.

I arrived shortly after the GA had officially begun. Tonight they used the 'human microphone' – a system in which everyone repeats after the speaker. (It is slightly disarming and yet creates intimacy. You say “Hello my name is Art” or “I'm here on behalf of Occupy San Antonio”. Using “I” statements that are actually about someone else somehow brings you into their world. But I digress....). After the general announcements were taken care of people were invited to present Proposals. They started with the Chief of Police. He spoke very briefly and reiterated the fact that the APD does not want to see a situation like Oakland or what happened a month or so ago in NYC. He in fact said that the APD is proud of 'their occupiers'. After he finished the man in front of me turned around and gave me a hug because, as he said, “that deserves a hug”. I felt a sense of joy that here in Austin the police are with us.

Apparently, my joy was not felt by all the protesters. After the Chief spoke he very quickly left – while his speech left a lasting impression. We continued to have a discussion because his very presence and speech may have violated the rules established in prior GA's. The discussion swirled around whether or not having the Chief of Police speak like that was remaining neutral. The Occupy Austin GA had decided, in one their first Assemblies, to remain neutral towards the police. However, at a later meeting they passed a resolution that all police communication had to happen at the General Assembly. Therefore there was some confusion about whether or not this was the time and place to have an officer speak.

The long (although only supposed to be five minutes) debate ended with the discussion leader saying that Occupy Austin was neutral towards the police which means “no positive communication and no negative communication and in fact means no cooperation at all. ”

One of the speakers said something that really hit home with me. The institution of the Police is there to prop up our government, which right now is for the 1% not the 99%. However, the police officers themselves are part of the 99%. We need to remember that we are not the 99% of people who agree with us and have jobs that fight the 1%. Many of us in the 99% are working, whether intentionally or unintentionally, with and for the 1%. The officers are not the problem, the problem can be the police. I hope, and pray, that Austin will maintain an open relationship with the individual officers, even if they are neutral towards the Police.

I don't believe that neutrality means having no cooperation. I believe that neutrality means giving all officers a chance to speak at the General Assembly. Giving them the same due that all other members of the 99% receive. No more and no less. In this long battle that we are waging it is important that we have the officers on our side. The Police will eventually side with the 1% - but if the officers are with the 99% who are the Police?

economy explained

I just saw this video. It is great. I just really wanted to share it with people.

I'm angry about politics.... so what else is new?

I listened to a 'debate' on NPR yesterday between two economists about the Congressional budget proposal that Paul Ryan made recently. It's very interesting because it clearly contrasts the difference between the conservative approach to government and the more progressive approach. The conservative approach believes, blindly that giving tax breaks to the rich will eventually get to the rest of us. However, there is no proof of this. In fact, in this interview, when the conservative economist is asked he simply reverts to his talking points. There is no proof, yet conservatives consistently take money from the poor and give it to the rich. If we want to talk about redistribution of wealth this is the redistribution of wealth that has been occurring in this country over the past 30 years. We are taking money from the poor and giving it to the wealthy.

Immediately after this interview, there was a story about how Wall Street is making more money than it has since 2000. Our government, state, federal and local are making tough decisions about who to lay off and which people's benefits to cut. These cuts will literally mean death for some people. People that are chronically ill or in need of medical treatment will not receive it. These cuts will literally cause people to become homeless and go hungry. These cuts are not about abstract numbers of 3 billion and 10 billion there. These cuts are about the people that I meet every day on the street or where I volunteer. Yet, while our government is making these tough decisions Wall Street is raking in more profits than ever. It makes me angry that the people in this nation are not crying out for more taxes.

When I'm making my personal budget and I do not have enough money there are two options. One, cut spending. Two, raise my income. If the government were an individual they are ignoring one half of the solution. Cutting spending might be necessary, however, personally, I would never cut my grandmother's housing, no matter how poor I became, first I would look for other sources of income. The Government however, would rather cut my grandmother's housing and food for my cousin and my health care before they even begin to think about the possibility of more revenue. At some point, more revenue needs to be on the table.

Furthermore, cutting money from poor people is going to hurt the economy. Poor people spend ALL their money. If the government gave poor people money in a stimulus that would help the economy and would encourage jobs. If businesses were doing more sales they would need to hire more staff to meet this need. Instead of having trickle down economics we need trickle up economics. Rich people don't spend all their money. They have savings and retirements and IRA's and 401K's and many other ways of keeping their money out of the economy. Poor people don't. They just spend to meet their basic needs. If the government really wants to keep the economy from completely tanking, they need to invest more money in the programs that help the poorest people. These cuts at all levels are going to make any kind of recovery impossible and perhaps turn what is already the worst economic crisis in 80 years into the worst economic crisis in American history.

Dilemma

My life here in Austin doesn't feel as exciting, or epic, as my life in Geneva, which is why I have not been posting nearly as much. However, I have a dilemma that I would like to share with all of my lovely readers. (I will not start this as a letter to the reader, although I am sorely tempted to do so).

I am part of the online community, Couchsurfing. In the Austin community we have a message board which is used to organize community events, sharing of vehicles and other objects and general discussions. It is an open forum where anyone that is a member of the Austin group can post and/or reply to posts.

I saw a post a few days ago entitled "Shooting 'Good Friday' in Austin - open casting this Friday." Intrigued, I opened the message. It was a satire of the Christian tradition around Jesus' death on 'Good Friday' as made into a music video with Mel Gibson directing. At first I just thought, this is an insensitive post, it doesn't really matter. However, the more I thought about it the more offended I became. I am not usually offended by people's religious beliefs. People can believe whatever they'd like and I encourage them to express those beliefs in a open, honest and respectful way. This post was simply there to mock deeply held beliefs. However, this post is not expressing any belief - it is instead simply mocking the traditions around Good Friday. I know that if someone posted a similarly mocking post about atheism, or any other religion, people would be greatly offended. I also understand that as the dominant religion and culture, Christianity needs to be more understanding of the backlash against it. Whenever religion is to be the subject of debate it should be done a careful and thoughtful and timely manner. This satire was none of those.

Yet I have decided not to post a response on the forum. I am offended, but I think that the best option is silence. Responding to the message on the forum would not create an open and honest discussion. The person who posted the message, in my opinion, is not in a state of mind to have a discussion at all. Furthermore, if I respond the whole message is bumped up to the top of the list, further encouraging others to read it. If I do not respond it will slowly trickle to the bottom and eventually off the front page and out of people's minds. I believe that I am making the right decision, but it is difficult to stand by in silence when something I believe is being mocked.

Thank you, reader, for reading about my dilemma.

A New Year

It is officially 2011. This past year flew by. I realized that I updated this blog half as much in 2010 as I did in 2009. Perhaps I did not have an incentive - perhaps I did not feel that my activities were as blog worthy. My life here in Austin is just as interesting, if not as seemingly important.

On Tuesday, where I volunteer, I led the devotional and based it on this passage.

n this passage Jesus is interrogated by Pharisee, Nicodemus, to see if he really is from God. His cryptic response says that to enter the Kingdom of God one must be born again. He then goes on to say that the Spirit of God blows where no one knows. I see Jesus restating the message I'm always seeing in the gospels. Jesus doesn't care for the structures of society - and that we don't know where we're going - but God loves us no matter our situation. We can see the first because Jesus is being trapped by this Pharisee, (the ones with power in the 'Church' of that day) but he does not fall for it. Instead he talks in enigmatic expressions and does not let the Pharisee hold his status above him. Jesus says you cannot come into the Kingdom unless you are a baby and powerless (born again). Then, when the Pharisee refuses to see this message Jesus points out that only God, the Spirit knows the future. We are trying to so hard here to create some semblance of control of our lives; of our surroundings; of our perceptions - but in reality we have no control. This is what Jesus is saying: God knows and God's spirit is with us, no matter where we find ourselves, no matter our station in society.

I really enjoy leading the devotional where I volunteer. I pray that my words can give God's hope to the women that I serve on Tuesdays.

When I started this post I meant it to be about the new year coming up, but perhaps it is fitting that I do not write about that because we do not know where the Spirit is blowing us.