American Politics, Progressive News, Human Rights, Civil Disobedience, Foreign Policy, Current Events, Cultural Activism, and Social Justice.
http://www.dustcircle.com | http://www.facebook.com/dissentingheretic | http://www.twitter.com/dustcirclenews
Showing posts with label bill of rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bill of rights. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 25

@dustcirclenews - HEADLINES: Resisting the Big Brother State, New Thought Police, Syria's Revolution, US Surveillance Drones Acknowledged, Excuse for War, Supreme Court Rulings, Military Presence in Africa, Bible-Thumper Politics, Edward Snowden, more.


Join our mailing list, and watch free video news at: http://www.dustcircle.com

Bradley Manning: Truth on trial? Featuring Exclusive Interview with Julian Assange

VIDEO --> http://therealnews.com/t2/component/hwdvideoshare/viewvideo/76482

Resisting the Big Brother state
http://socialistworker.org/2013/06/25/resisting-the-big-brother-state

American Government and Corporations Are at War With the American People
http://www.alternet.org/chomsky-nsa

The new thought police

http://machineslikeus.com/news/new-thought-police

Walmart Costs U.S. 1 Billion in Foodstamps for Workers Not to Starve to Death
http://therealnews.com/t2/component/hwdvideoshare/viewvideo/76448

Will the U.S. hijack Syria's revolution?http://socialistworker.org/2013/06/25/will-the-us-hijack-syrias-revolution

FBI Director Acknowledges Use Of Surveillance Drones In The US
http://www.countercurrents.org/london200613.htm

10 Problems With The Latest Excuse For War
http://www.countercurrents.org/swanson200613.htm

The National Security State and the Whistleblower
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-National-Security-Stat-by-Melvin-Goodman-130619-288.html

Google Challenges NSA Gag Order, Cites 1st Amendment
http://blogs.findlaw.com/technologist/2013/06/google-challenges-nsa-gag-order-cites-1st-amendment.html

4 Recent Supreme Court Rulings Show Which Way the Wind Is Blowing: Corporations Are Getting Whatever They Want
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/us-supreme-court-furthers-corporate-assault-america

How the U.S. Military Presence in Africa Could Spawn a New Era of Radical Terrorism
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/us-military-and-unraveling-africa

The Evil Lies of Crazy Bankers: 6 Former Employees Expose Inhuman Greed of BofA
http://www.alternet.org/economy/bank-americas-former-employees-expose-inhuman-greed

The Fascist State of America
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Fascist-State-of-Ameri-by-Glen-Barry-130625-853.html

There's a New Fascism on the Rise, and the NSA Leaks Show Us What It Looks Like
http://www.alternet.org/media/understanding-latest-leaks-understanding-rise-new-fascism

Are the Bible Thumpers Losing Their Grip on Our Politics?
http://www.alternet.org/belief/christian-right-0

How American Society Unravelled After Greedy Elites Robbed the Country Blind
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/how-american-society-unravelled

United States of Surveillance

The TRUTH About Whistleblowers Edward Snowden And Bradley Manning

Thursday, August 9

4 Reasons Atheists Have to Fight for Their Rights


comments_image 71 COMMENTS

Home

In the U.S., atheists have laws protecting them. But laws aren't always obeyed, or enforced -- and fighting for legal rights can have dire consequences.
 
Photo Credit: Bruce Amos/ Shutterstock.com
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

"You atheists are just taking on the mantle of victimhood. There are laws protecting you -- especially the First Amendment. Therefore, you're not really discriminated against. And it's ridiculous for you to claim that you are."
Atheist activists get this one a lot. When we speak out about ways that anti-atheist bigotry plays out, we're told that we're not really oppressed. We're told that, because we have legal protection, because anti-atheist discrimination is illegal, therefore we don't really have any problems, and we're just trying to gain unearned sympathy and win the victim Olympics. (I'd love to hear Bob Costas do the commentary for that!) It's a classic Catch-22: If we speak out about oppression and point to examples of it, we're accused of "playing the victim card," and the oppression becomes invisible. And if we don't speak out about oppression ... then the oppression once again becomes invisible.
If you've ever made this "discrimination against atheists is against the law" argument, I have some really bad news for you. You may want to sit down for this, it may come as a shock:
People sometimes break the law.
Theft is against the law -- but people sometimes steal. Bribery is against the law -- but people sometimes bribe other people. Arson is against the law -- but people sometimes set buildings on fire.
Anti-atheist discrimination is against the law; in the United States, anyway. But people still sometimes discriminate against atheists.
It's illegal for public schools to prevent students from viewing atheist Web sites, while allowing them to look at religious ones. But the San Antonio Independent School District did it anyway.
It's illegal to make atheists swear religious oaths when they testify in court. But the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Fort Myers did it anyway.
It's illegal for the U.S. military to spend money evangelizing to U.S. soldiers, todemand that U.S. soldiers attend chapel, or to order U.S. soldiers to take a"spiritual fitness" test and order them to visit evangelizing chaplains when they fail it. But the U.S. military did it anyway.
It's illegal for businesses to give church-goers discounts they don't give to non-believers. But the Fisherman's Quarters II restaurant in Asheville, N.C. did it anyway.
It's illegal to deny atheist organizations the right to advertise in venues where religious groups advertise regularly. But when American Atheists and the NEPA Freethought Society tried to place a bus ad in Pennsylvania that simply had the word, "atheists," with the names and URLs of the organizations in smaller type, the transit system rejected the ad because it was "too controversial."
It's illegal to deny atheist students in public high schools the right to organize clubs. But it happens all the time. Talk to Secular Student Alliance high school specialist JT Eberhard. He spends a ridiculous amount of his working day pushing high school administrations to stop throwing up illegal roadblocks to atheist students, and to let them have the clubs they're legally allowed to have.
And the list goes on, and on, and on.
Talk to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, or Americans United for Separation of Church and State, or the National Center for Science Education, or the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, or American Atheists. Ask them about the lawsuits they're filing every month -- heck, every week -- about public school prayersbible instruction in public schools, public schools' promotion of faith and religious activities as "developmental assets," government displays of the Ten Commandments and other religious texts, city council meetings and other government events being opened with prayers, religious creationism being taught in the public schools, or any of hundreds of similar incidents.
And then tell me -- or any other atheist -- that we don't experience discrimination.
Getting anti-discrimination laws and court rulings is hugely important for any marginalized group. But it's only a first step. After that, you typically have to play a decades-long game of Whack-A-Mole, in which violations of the law pop up in local venues all over the country, and have to be smacked down again, and again, and again. That's true of sex discrimination, racial discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination in states where that's illegal. To give just one example among zillions: It's illegal for banks to discriminate in lending practices on the basis of race... and yet Wells Fargo just settled a $175 million lawsuit overcharging higher fees and rates on housing loans to racial minorities. Not in 1946, not in 1969 -- in the last decade, in the years 2004 to 2009. It's illegal to do that. It's been illegal to do that for decades. They did it anyway. The mere existence of anti-discrimination laws is no guarantee that those laws will be obeyed.
So yes. Anti-atheist discrimination is illegal in the United States -- and it happens anyway. I know. I haz a sad. And I'm going to have to hit you with even more bad news:
Standing up for your legal rights sometimes has ugly consequences.
Ask Jessica Ahlquist. High school student and atheist Jessica Ahlquist fought a legal battle she never should have had to fight: the battle to get her public, taxpayer-paid high school to take down a prayer banner from the auditorium. From a purely legal perspective, this was an utterly non-controversial issue: decades of legal precedent clearly supported her position, and to anyone familiar with the law, the ruling in her favor was almost entirely unsurprising.
But as a result of filing this lawsuit, Ahlquist was bullied, ostracized and threatened with violence. She was called "evil" in public by her state representative, and was targeted with multiple threats of brutal violence, rape and death. And this wasn't just from hateful strangers trolling on the Internet -- it came from her own schoolmates and her own community. This wasn't in the Bible Belt -- it was in Rhode Island.
And Ahlquist is hardly alone. When atheist student Damon Fowler tried to stop his public high school from having an illegal prayer at his graduation, he was physically threatened, publicly demeaned by one of his teachers, pilloried and ostracized by his community, and kicked out of his home by his parents. When atheist student Skyler Curtis tried to publicize his group at his high school, his posters were torn down, the local newspaper ran a letter from a parent calling his atheism an "atrocity," and he received threats of violence. When atheist John Kieffer protested prayers at his local school board meeting, he was arrested.
Not everyone is able to fight these fights. Not everyone is able to risk hateful ostracism and violent threats from their community. It's hard enough for a 16-year-old high school student like Jessica Ahlquist to face down this kind of venomous hostility. It's even harder when you're trying to hold down a job and support your family, and you literally can't afford to alienate your bosses and co-workers and customers. Yes, the law is mostly on our side, and atheists and church-state separation advocates generally win these lawsuits. (Although not always -- more on that in a tic.) But it doesn't do much good to have the law on your side if fighting a legal battle is going to destroy your life.
And I have yet another piece of shocking news for you. I know, the terrible news just keeps on coming:
Sometimes laws aren't enforced.
To give just one appalling example: It is -- or it should be -- illegal to deny custody to atheist parents, purely and explicitly on the basis of their atheism. And yet this happens, again and again and again. It has happened in states including Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas. According to Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy, "In 2001, for instance, the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld an order giving a mother custody partly because she took the child to church more often than the father did, thus providing a better 'future religious example.' In 2000, it ordered a father to take the child to church each week, as a [lower] Mississippi court ordered... reasoning that 'it is certainly to the best interests of [the child] to receive regular and systematic spiritual training.'"
Try to imagine a judge in this country denying or limiting custody to parents, explicitly and specifically, because they were Jewish. Because they were Mormon. Because they were Baptist. And now, try to imagine a judge in this country denying or limiting custody to a parent, explicitly and specifically because she's an atheist. You don't have to imagine it. This is real. This happens.
It is illegal. Or it should be. But custody laws vary greatly from state to state -- and family court is something of a special case, where judges have far more leeway than they do in other courts. So this is a very, very difficult legal battle to fight. The laws against it exist -- but they are very difficult to enforce.
And finally, I have one last piece of earth-shattering news that will almost certainly shake your worldview to its foundations:
Not all bigotry is illegal.
The fact that atheists are the least-trusted group in America? Totally screwed-up -- and totally legal. The fact that atheists are the minority group Americans least want their children to marry? Totally screwed-up -- and totally legal. The fact that only 54 percent of Americans think atheists could share their vision of society?Totally screwed-up -- and totally legal. The fact that only 54 percent of Americans would vote for an atheist for president -- a lower number than any other group? Totally screwed-up -- and totally legal. People have the legal right to not vote for an atheist... just like they have the legal right to not vote for a woman, or an African American, or a Muslim, or a Jew. It's still discrimination. It's still screwed-up.
And it's still worth fighting.
Plus, of course, all of this is just in the United States, where we do have a Constitution that ostensibly gives us the legal right to not be religious. In much of the world, the situation for atheists is far worse. In much of the world, it is literally against the law to be an atheist, and to say so, and to say anything critical of religion. To give just one example of many: In Indonesia, atheist Alexander Aanwas beaten by a mob, arrested, convicted, and sentenced to over two years in prison -- for stating his atheism on Facebook. (There is currently a petition to the White House, asking President Obama to speak out about the Alexander Aan case and call on the Indonesian government to correct this gross violation of human rights.)
Is anti-atheist bigotry as bad as homophobia or racism, misogyny or transphobia? No. Almost certainly not. Not in the U.S., anyway. It's worse in some ways -- we consistently show up in polls as the least trusted group in America, and the least likely to be voted for -- but atheists don't seem to be subject to the same level of physical violence as gay or trans people, or the same level of economic oppression as women or people of color.
That's not the point. Here is the point.
If you were mugged, nobody would tell you, "Quit whining -- there are laws against mugging, you have legal protection, you don't have anything to complain about." The fact that there are laws against mugging did not stop you from getting mugged. It is reasonable for you to say something about it, and to express distress that it happened. And if muggings are happening a lot in your town or your country, it is reasonable to ask your community to pay attention, and to do something about it.
Atheists are getting mugged. Atheists are experiencing real, law-breaking discrimination. The fact that it's illegal does not always stop it from happening. It is reasonable for us to speak out about it. And it is reasonable for us to expect people to give a damn. It is reasonable to expect our friends, our families, our colleagues, our communities, our country, to pay attention -- and to do something about it.
Read more of Greta Christina at her blog.

Friday, June 22

Living in Fear Is Worse Than Losing Your Freedom


By Ai Weiwei, Guardian UK

 Ai Weiwei holds the government document informing him of the expiry of his bail term, in Beijing today. (photo: Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images)
 year ago tomorrow, I was released from more than two months of secret detention. Police told me today that they have lifted my bail conditions. I am happy that the year is up, but also feel sorry about it. I have no sense of why I lost my freedom and if you don't know how you lost something, how can you protect it?
"Wei" means "future" and also "uncertainty", and the future really is unknown. They have said I cannot leave China because they are still investigating cases against me – for pornographyexchanging foreign currency and bigamy. It is very, very strange. I am not a criminal. They grabbed something from me because they have power.
The 81 days of detention were a nightmare. I am not unique: this has happened to many people, and is still happening. It's an experience no one should share. They were extreme conditions, created by a system that thinks it is above the law, and has become a kind of monstrous machine. Everybody who has been through it loses their original hope or has it changed somehow.
There are so many moments when you feel desperate and hopeless and you feel that's the end of it. But still, the next morning, you wake up, you hear the birds singing and the wind blows. You have to ask yourself: can you afford to give up the fight for freedom of expression or human dignity? As an artist, this is an essential value that can never be given up.
I often ask myself if I am afraid of being detained again. My inner voice says I am not. I love freedom, like anybody; maybe more than most people. But it is such a tragedy if you live your life in fear. That's worse than actually losing your freedom.
What I gained from the experience is a much stronger sense of responsibility, and an understanding of what the problems are and how one can understand what's happening and remain a positive force. You have to see your own position from the other side. At the same time you have to maintain a passion for what you are doing. You have to have sensitivity and joy. If you don't have that, you will be like a fish on the beach, drying up on the sand.
My involvement in so-called political affairs started in 2008. After I designed the Olympic stadium I realised the Olympics was not going to bring real joy to society but propaganda. I stood up and criticised it. I'd already become active on the internet and every day I would see so many problems. I started to write about judicial procedures and we started to make documentaries, including one about the children who died in schools that collapsed in the Sichuan earthquake. I gained support among young people and people on the net and I think that made the government scared.
I started to ask: why can't they solve minor problems rather than have them blow up? Of course, no one is listening. You talk to the wall and the stones. Every time you try to correct something, or demand a clear answer, your situation becomes more miserable.
They destroyed my studio, they put me in secret detention and they fabricated a crime that put a 15m yuan tax bill on me. We are now suing the Beijing tax authorities for abuse of powers and ignoring procedures. We are using this opportunity to make them realise what's wrong and inform the public, even though we know the results won't be positive. They refused to give us our papers back or let our manager and accountant be witnesses at the trial on Wednesday, or let me attend court. They even made my friendLiu Xiaoyuan, a lawyer, disappear before the hearing.
Friends of mine say: "Weiwei, my father has been questioned, my mother has been questioned, my sister has been questioned because of you." I don't know these people. Why does the system make them suffer? Because it can't allow anybody to exercise their humanity and communicate or show support. But when your children are growing up and will never have a chance to have their voices heard, do you want to turn your face away and say OK, that's not my problem?
Reflect on Bo Xilai's caseChen Guangcheng's and mine. We are three very different examples: you can be a high party member or a humble fighter for rights or a recognised artist. The situations are completely different but we all have one thing in common: none of us have been dealt with through fair play, open trials and open discussion. China has not established the rule of law and if there is a power above the law there is no social justice. Everybody can be subjected to harm.
I'm just a citizen: my life is equal in value to any other. But I'm thankful that when I lost my freedom so many people shared feelings and put such touching effort into helping me. It gives me hope: Stupidity can win for a moment, but it can never really succeed because the nature of humans is to seek freedom. They can delay that freedom but they can't stop it.
• Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree

Wednesday, June 20

Police Brutality Recording The Police Is Dangerous, But Necessary!


 

Video

Enough is enough! It is time for all of us to take a stand and expose police brutality when we witness it. Even if the officers behavior is correct, and justifiable, we still encourage the recording of the police activities for the transparency and accountability that is desperately needed in many departments.

Posted June 20, 2012  --- This video was created as an example of the importance of filming the police. Video provides transparency, accountability, and an accurate account of incidents that occur. It is no secret that the United States has a serious problem with police abuse, brutality, and corruption. It is essential for civilians to document their encounters with police officers to ensure transparency, accountability, and safety to all of those involved.

 

Police departments have, for too long, tried to bully, intimidate, threaten, arrest, or otherwise harass law abiding citizens from recording the activities of law enforcement in public. Enough is enough! It is time for all of us to take a stand and expose police brutality when we witness it. Even if the officers behavior is correct, and justifiable, we still encourage the recording of the police activities for the transparency and accountability that is desperately needed in many departments.

If you see something, film something, the freedom of press begins with you!

If you feel the need to upload this video to your Youtubes, please contact us and we will make sure you acquire a high quality version of the film with our info. And please, add our links in the description, thanks

More information about the clips in order of appearance:
ORIGINAL FOOTAGE Suspect with Crowbar Shot Outside Carls Jr Monterey Park
http://youtu.be/bY5ioBvrYIg

New Footage of Oscar Grant Shooting (with sound)
http://youtu.be/S0P8TSP2YJU

Cops on Camera (multiple segments)
http://youtu.be/tE8Xom38Rd8

Citizen attacks Baltimore Police -- caught on tape
http://youtu.be/mFFsWF3FoLI

Houston Police BEATING Teen Suspect Chad Holley
http://youtu.be/Lvy976QKuS4

Police Brutality: NYPD Beat Man's Legs w/ Baton For Not Getting Up!
http://youtu.be/j5I_lwQyxNI

FREEDOM WATCH WITH JUDGE NAPOLITANO
http://youtu.be/GUHgagrnfIc

MSNBC on NYPD Police Brutality during Occupy Wall Street Lawrence O'Donnell with "The Last Word"
http://youtu.be/Zgr3DiqWYCI

Raw Video: Police Beating Caught on Tape
http://youtu.be/uHjpOsGYxMo

Paris Texas Police Officer Throws Teen on Car
http://youtu.be/4LSrBDhjJ58

Raw Video: Deputy Shown Kicking Teen Girl
http://youtu.be/ipb_PeXOdT4

#OWSwest #J20 #SFPD Attacks Innocent Protesters; Officer M. Ali #619 Breaks My Cam
http://youtu.be/oGju4u7yVRA

Raw Video: Ala. Officers Fired After Beating Man
http://youtu.be/uN41h0GEmys

Cop Punching Handcuffed Man Video Now Has Sound
http://youtu.be/D1KJcnNShW0

Surveillance video: Iraq War veteran beaten
http://youtu.be/D2IWFaI-poM

Sante Fe cop caught beating handcuffed teen; fired, rehired!
http://youtu.be/Q6MKuKJ9Kws

officer beating 66-year-old man suffering from dementia
http://youtu.be/2FAbUZd3zoM

Female Cop Tirelessly Beats Man with her Baton
http://youtu.be/X3JiilljhOQ

Police Brutality: Dog Walker w/ Camera Beaten By Cops!
http://youtu.be/wBlvSMd_D7w

ABC Reporter Arrested in Denver Taking Pictures of Senators
http://youtu.be/m7F49dUaZMw

Music titles used
In Order of appearance:
Two Steps From Hell - Lost In Asia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILaTOBfMsK0

Sirens Call - Epic Score
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NknmpdEEFI

Two Steps From Hell - Never Forget
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lsb8Week94

Two Steps From Hell - Lord of two lands
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f547ruwAgC8

These songs were altered to fit the films desired emotion, intesity, and climax
The rest is random ambient music.

Friday, June 1

The First Commandment and American Law

 
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide


So many Christians insist that the Ten Commandments are the basis for American law and/or government. But where and how is the First Commandment to be found in American law — in particular, in the Constitution which is the foundation for American law and government? Is there really any justification for claiming that American law owes anything whatsoever to the First Commandment?


Which First Commandment?


In popular culture and politics, the First Commandment is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," but identifying the First Commandment is a matter of some debate. For Jews, it's the words that come before those just quoted: "I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." Thus choosing "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" means choosing a Christian interpretation of Jewish scripture over any Jewish reading.

So if anyone claims that this commandment plays any role whatsoever in the foundation of American law, they will first have to explain which of the two possible commandments they mean. Then they will have to justify how and why American law should give such preference to Christianity or Judaism over the other.


What Does the First Commandment Mean?

The meaning and purpose of the First Commandment is debated more than it's wording. Focusing just on the familiar "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," Jews have traditionally read this literally and simply: don't worship any other gods and don't convert to any other religions. In the ancient world the presence of so many polytheistic systems created real temptations for worshipping other gods. In the modern world, there are many temptations to convert.

Christians have read the commandment more metaphorically. The Christian tradition has generally been to read the commandment as forbidding the worship of money, sex, power, beauty — in other words, a ban on allowing anything to distract one from God, which should be one's primary focus in life.

If this commandment is supposed to play any role in the foundation of American law, which interpretation are we supposed to believe is being expressed in the law? Does American law forbid having any gods before the Jewish god or does American law forbid worshipping money, fame, power, etc.? Does American law favor Christian or Jewish interpretations of what this text means?


The First Commandment and the Constitution

The foundation of American law and government is the Constitution. So if the First Commandment is part of the basis for American law, then it must be present in some fashion in the American Constitution — either explicitly or implicitly.

No one who reads the Constitution, though, will be able to find even a hint of the command "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Just the opposite is the case, in fact, because religious tests for public office are banned and religious liberty is guaranteed. Neither of those two provisions would make any sense in a nation where worship of one god in particular is promoted or favored, never mind mandated.

A civil society in which all religions are equal cannot very well take such an obvious and significant move that basically insists that one religion or religious tradition is True and all others are False. Individual believers may hold such a position, but it is certainly beyond the scope of government authority.


Attempts to Legislate the First Commandment


Although there is no evidence for this commandment in the Constitution, there have been many attempts to write it into other parts of American law. They have mostly been implicit expressions or endorsements of the First Commandment but they have nevertheless been clear in their intention: to tell people that belief in a particular God is favored, endorsed, and preferred.

Two of the most prominent examples of this are the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the use of "In God We Trust" as the National Motto. There are also innumerable smaller examples to be found across America: sectarian prayers at government meetings, sectarian prayers at school functions, declarations of a "Year of the Bible" and similar government acts.

So while we can't find any trace of the First Commandment in any of the foundations of American law or government, we do see lots of evidence of conservative Christians trying to inject the First Commandment into the body of American law. Unfortunately for them, that commandment doesn't really fit because it's contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the law — it endorses particular theistic and religious beliefs which is something that the American Constitution does not permit.

Thursday, May 31

The Price of Democracy


We pay a lot of money for health care in the United States, more per capita than anywhere else in the industrialized world. If you point out this inescapable fact to opponents of socialized medicine, they invariably respond that we get high-quality care in return. Exasperated, you might go further and say that spending nearly $8,000 a year per capita still leaves us with the 8th-lowest average life expectancy among OECD countries, that the Japanese spend $5,000 less per person per year and live longer. But rich foreigners flock to the United States for operations, your interlocutor insists, so clearly we get what we pay for. The uninsured, alas, would agree with this grim assessment – since they have little to no money, they get little to no care.
Americans also spend more per capita on the military than any other industrialized country (the United Arab Emirates, with a population of only 7 million people, is the only country with a higher rate). The Pentagon and its clients boast that all this money is well spent, that no country comes close to us in terms of quality or quantity of security. Critics, meanwhile, decry the waste, the cost overruns, the systems that work poorly (the F-35) or will never work (missile defense), and of course the enormous opportunity costs.
On health care and the military budget, no one can dispute that the United States spends exorbitantly. Whether we get our money’s worth is a matter of considerable debate.
But there is one arena in which the United States is a world-class spender where you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who would argue that we get world-class results for our money. I’m talking about our electoral system, which has produced a legislature that attracted a historic low of 10 percent public approval this year, an administration still beholden to Wall Street and the military industrial complex, and (indirectly) a Supreme Court that tilts  so far to the right that I’m surprised the building itself hasn’t fallen over.
The presidential candidates spent, for instance, over $1.3 billion on the 2008 campaign, a record. The election cycle in 2008 cost more than $5 billion, including congressional races and the primaries. We spent, in other words, about $17 per capita for our last big elections. Sound like a bargain?
Over the border, Canadians spent about $12 per capita for the last election. Australians spent about $7 per person in the 2010 parliamentary elections. Cambodians spent over $45 per person in their first democratic election in 1993, but had brought the cost down considerably to only $2 a person by 2003.
These per-capita figures run the risk of apple-orange comparisons, since countries have very different financing for elections. In the United States, as in Australia and the United Kingdom, private donors dominate. In Sweden and Mexico, on the other hand, public financing is the norm.
But the overall point holds: we spend lavishly on elections, much of it on campaign ads. Politics is not a game for the faint of wallet. Nearly half of our members of Congress are millionaires. These elected officials spend 30-70 percent of their time fundraising, and they are highly, shall we say, responsive when Big Money talks. Indeed, lobbying brings in one of the best returns on investment. In a recent This American Life episode, a tax professor estimated what one dollar of lobbying netted on the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, which provided tax breaks to multinational corporations repatriating their profits. Bernie Madoff offered 10-percent return on investment. These lobbyists got 22,000-percent return. The former went to jail, the latter went to the bank, and we the people were taken to the cleaners.
You’d think that the best political minds of our generation would be focused on how to reduce the hold that money has over our democracy. True, we’ve had various waves of campaign finance reform, culminating in the McCain-Feingold legislation of 2002. But the cost of campaigning continues to rise. It’s quite counterintuitive, then, that we recently changed the rules of the game so that we can pump even more hundreds of millions of dollars into politics.
Actually, “we” is a misnomer. As Jeffrey Toobin points out in The New Yorker, the decision to overturn campaign finance reform in the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision was largely the work of one man: Chief Justice John Roberts.
Article image
The Citizens United case should have been focused narrowly on one provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law that prohibited private funding of TV and radio ads about candidates within a certain period before elections. Citizens United produced a documentary slamming Hillary Clinton and planned to show it in the run-up to the 2008 elections. Blocked from broadcasting the documentary during that defined pre-election period, Citizens United took the case to court.
Roberts and his conservative cohort on the Court saw an opportunity to interpret the First Amendment on free speech in such a way to open the floodgates for political contributions. The Court determined in its 5-4 decision that corporations and individuals enjoyed equal rights to free speech and so corporate entities should not be restricted in their campaign contributions. The Bill of Rights doesn’t, of course, mention corporations at all. It talks about the “people,” about soldiers and “the accused,” about the federal government and the states. To argue that the First Amendment’s provision that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” applies to corporations making campaign contributions is as absurd as asserting that buying a nuclear weapon is protected by the Bill of Rights (I’m just waiting for the NRA to make this argument).
“The Roberts Court,” Toobin concludes, “will guarantee moneyed interests the freedom to raise and spend any amount, from any source, at any time, in order to win elections.”
As a result of the Citizens United decision, political campaigns don’t have to disclose the identity of their contributors.  “Citizens United created an environment in which it is perfectly legal for a shell non-profit corporation to engage in election-related spending on behalf of a hidden interest,” writes Lisa Rosenberg of the Sunlight Foundation. “And there is nothing to ensure that the hidden interest is not a foreign national, a foreign company or a foreign government.” U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies can already establish political action committees, and their contribution levels have been rising. Now, foreign entities have additional ways of illegally masking their influence on American politics.
It would be useful to have a watchdog within Congress who represented the public interest against the moneyed elite. But politicians are simply too busy trying to get reelected to scrutinize the money flow.
Imagine, however, if we had 535 William Proxmires in Washington. Proxmire was the legendary skinflint from Wisconsin. In its obituary for the senator when he died in 2005 at the age of 90, The Washington Times wrote that Proxmire “said most senators could get re-elected without spending a penny, but he didn’t take the chance — in his last election, he spent $145.10, down from the $178.75 he lavished on his previous bid. Much of it went for postage to return campaign contributions, which he did not accept. Proxmire preferred the cheapest kind of politicking: He would shake hands till his hands bled, then start again the next day with bandaged hands.”
The Citizens United decision ensures that any potential Proxmire will not have the remotest chance of getting elected – not on less than $200 in campaign funds.
Setting a Bad Example
China is rapidly expanding its economy and creating a new middle class to sustain this growth. Or, at least, that’s the story we’ve been reading in the U.S. press. But Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) contributor Nan Chen tells a different story, about a China whose growing inequality looks a lot like the 99-to-1 situation in the United States.
“Rather than a middle class of laborers in the manufacturing industry, China has seen disturbing levels of income inequality and the emergence of a new ‘elite’ class at the same time that the United States is experiencing similar shifts,” she writes in China’s Missing Middle Class. “This has implications not only for China’s growth, but also for U.S. exports that stand to benefit from a healthy Chinese middle class of consumers. Moreover, the growing wealth disparity in China suggests that China’s embrace of free-market economics and unfettered globalization may result in the same social ills seen in the United States.”
Asia, meanwhile, seems to be following our lead as well on military spending. Writes FPIF columnist Conn Hallinan in Asia’s Mad Arms Race, “The Philippines is spending almost $1 billion on new aircraft and radar, and recently held joint war games with the United States. South Korea has just successfully tested a long-range cruise missile. Washington is reviving ties with Indonesia’s brutal military because the island nation controls the strategic seaways through which pass most of the region’s trade and energy supplies. Australia is also re-orienting its defense to face China, and Australian Defense Minister Stephen Smith has urged ‘that India play the role it could and should as an emerging great power in the security and stability of the region.’”
Finally, FPIF contributor Anya Barry looks at how the Arab Spring has contributed to the immigration debate in Europe. “Much of the West voiced great support for the Arab Spring,” she writes inEurope’s Dilemma: Immigration and the Arab Spring. “However, the European Union in particular soon curbed its enthusiastic reaction when residents of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) began streaming into Europe after turmoil from the Arab Spring left many MENA civilians unable to remain in the region. Immigration from the Middle East and North Africa to the European Union surged over the past year, causing the leaders of many EU countries to speak out against the growing influx of Arab immigrants seeking refuge within their borders.”

Wednesday, May 16

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 4 (Bill of Rights)

About 2 years since I posted on the United States Constitution. About time I continue! For Amendments 1-3, click one of the relevant tags at the bottom of this post. Remember: I am NOT a lawyer. I simply post the Amendment from the U.S. Constitution, as well as definitions of less-common words from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Interpretation and pro-action is up to the individual and/or group. I claim no responsibility for what happens if you stick up for your American rights, nor if you don't.
- Steve

Monday, April 23

Making Our Arrests Count

How We Can Keep Civil Disobedience Meaningful

 
The question is not if we should practice civil disobedience, but how we can do it in ways that push the struggle forward in effective and healthy ways.

Protester arrested by NYPD. Via @NYCRevMedia on Twitter.
Photo Credit: @nycrevmedia on Twitter
 
 “The Tombs” is the less-than-endearing nickname for New York City’s Central Booking, the jail you get sent to if you are arrested in Manhattan and set to be arraigned before a judge. This spiraling dungeon below the courthouse at 100 Centre Street is about as ominous as it sounds. Above, the court itself is pristine and immaculate, adorned in mahogany and full of quiet, proper, well-dressed people. But all you have to do is open a door to the back of the courtroom to reveal an underground complex made up of filthy jail cells, violent correctional officers and hundreds of (mainly) poor people (mainly) of color, awaiting their arraignment for anywhere between 10 and 72 hours.

Everything about the Tombs is awful. It’s cold even when the weather is warm and summery outside. The lights maintain their piercing, head-splitting fluorescence even at night, and the bars jut out just so you can’t lean on them comfortably. You eat stale cheese sandwiches and drink milk, though dairy is probably the last thing you want during a 40-hour stay in a mass cell with one toilet. You are stripped of most things about you that make you human — your ability to manage your own affairs, to move around, to communicate with the outside world, to be productive, to identify yourself. And of course, as you sit there, you realize this is only the tip of the iceberg of the kind of repression the state is capable of, or the kind of violence it heaps on working class communities of color every day. All the while, you are still supposedly presumed innocent.

From occupying Liberty Square and marching in the streets without permits, to carrying out targeted acts of direct action against the banks that crashed the economy or the courts that auction off people’s homes, winding up in places like this has been an integral part of the Occupy Wall Street’s life since its birth. Yet we’re only at the very beginning of understanding our civil disobedience — the ways in which it grows but also shrinks the movement, the positive and negative impacts it has on the movement’s internal culture, and the challenging but ultimately vital role it plays in the struggle for liberation.

The whole world is watching

The mass arrests and pepper-spraying that took place in New York City on September 24 drastically changed the course of the movement. The NYPD dragged us kicking and screaming, in handcuffs, into the headlines. It won sympathy and solidarity from a lot of people who were — until then — watching from the sidelines, trying to decide if the movement was worth supporting, identifying with and joining. The arrests on the Brooklyn Bridge a week later did even more of that, catapulting the movement into the national and international arena. Those events dramatically inflated our numbers, deepened our resolve, and won us tremendous popular support. We were unstoppable. The whole world was watching. We were winning.

Many of us in the movement have gotten used to thinking that it’s always a good thing to appear in the paper getting arrested in large numbers, as long as we can practice nonviolence and come out of it looking innocent. But there’s another side to it. What if the politicians and bankers don’t actually care if we are in the news? What if the NYPD doesn’t care if the violence looks like it’s their fault or ours? Maybe to them it doesn’t matter whose fault it is, as long as what is being communicated is that anyone who sets foot in the streets with the Occupy movement has a good shot at ending up in the Tombs, or worse. In fact, they might be thinking that the more people who see those gruesome images on the cover of the Daily News, the better.

Getting arrested is difficult for anyone, but some of us are privileged enough to emerge from our 40 hours in the Tombs without much damage done, feeling even more die-hard, confident that we will be greeted and taken care of by fellow activists, friends and the National Lawyers’ Guild. But, of course, we all have different calculations to make –based on race, class, gender, sexual identity, educational background, access to systems of support, family obligations and other things — that put us in a better or worse position to take risks in the movement. Make no mistake about it: The people most affected by the injustices we fight have always been the backbone of any mass movement for social change. But the consequences aren’t the same for everyone, and people are most inclined to lay it on the line when the things at stake are real, critical and pressing. So while the images of activists being beaten and arrested might win sympathy, even solidarity, they might just as well prevent many people from actively participating.

On the one hand, it’s incredibly important to be drawing connections between Wall Street and the police, between capital and the state. When police drag indebted students out of a bank lobby they are occupying, or when a family is forcibly evicted from a foreclosed home so it can be handed over to a bank, it drives home the point that the state plays a very particular role in this economy, and vice versa. We need to unmask that, to show the system’s nakedness, its willingness to resort to violence to maintain order and profit. Civil disobedience is one way to shine a spotlight on the struggles people face under systems of oppression, the ways these systems are intertwined and the things ruling groups do in order to protect them.

We don’t always choose when we are arrested, and we don’t always have control over how it is depicted in the press, but we do have some power over what kinds of battles we choose to wage and how we choose to wage them. While the image of the police arresting protesters reveals some things, it can obscure others. Sometimes we contribute to this problem ourselves, for instance when we take the bait and narrow our focus to fights over public space or the right to protest in and of themselves. The interviews many activists give then become focused on the abuse they suffer from violent cops and no longer about the issues that brought us into the streets. People organize self-indulgent actions, such as the recent march that commemorated the mass arrests on the Brooklyn Bridge. In better moments, we respond to the violence used on us with a broader stand against police brutality as a whole, with an emphasis on its wildly disproportionate use on communities of color. But even these long, fiery marches in solidarity with victims of state violence eventually wind down and become, again, a tired standoff with the cops themselves.

A culture of arrest

For many people inside Occupy Wall Street, getting arrested has become a rite of passage.  In a lot of ways that’s very reasonable; getting arrested is an important educational experience for an activist to go through. When we are arrested, we learn to take one for the team in a disciplined way. We show solidarity toward people we don’t even know. We experience the interconnectedness of the state and the economy, race and class, patriarchy and violence. Most importantly, many of us — particularly those of us who are younger and have lived relatively privileged lives — learn about our place in the world. We learn to explain ourselves to people who come from different backgrounds from us, and we are reminded that we have much to learn from the life stories of the others. We learn to shut up about how bad the sandwiches are, because we will come out to an army of cheering friends bearing gifts of all kinds, while many others in the Tombs will come out alone and downtrodden, returning to their lives with a day’s less pay, while others won’t come out for months or years. These remind us why we’re in the struggle in the first place, and they’re all incredibly valuable lessons.

But the culture of arrest in the movement has troubling aspects to it as well. Although many people in the movement practice civil disobedience without any ego and at great personal risk, it still often contributes to a macho, largely hetero-normative dynamic that compels people to constantly ante up, to compete for street cred or to want a cool arrest picture to put on Facebook. What emerges is a more-radical-than-thou culture that unconsciously but visibly elevates those of us who carry out actions in the streets over those who maintain the office or work in the kitchen, giving more power and recognition in the movement to those willing to take a bust (or talk about it), while leaving largely unrecognized the work behind the scenes that makes all of it possible. It also compels people to take unnecessary risks, leading many young activists to rack up dangerous police records in very short periods of time, with the charges getting increasingly more serious. Let’s not forget that the more successful we are, the more of a threat we will be, and the more repression we will face — particularly those groups in the movement and in society who are most threatened as it is.

In many ways, the civil disobedience we practice with our arrests has left the realm of tactic or tool and has become an impulse, a band-aid, a knee-jerk reaction, a way to define oneself, something to cultivate for its own sake. But as problematic as that may be, still, it must continue to be an integral and critical part of any resistance movement. The question is not if we should practice civil disobedience, but how we can do it in ways that push the struggle forward in effective and healthy ways.

Know your enemies

Civil disobedience is a natural response to a world like ours; it means refusing to be a bystander to the apparent trajectory of the social order. We don’t think twice about the direct action of stopping traffic to protect a child who wandered into it unknowingly; we would practice civil disobedience any day in situations like that, never thinking of standing by or waiting for a majority vote. The same is true in our movement. We know this system is broken, we know it doesn’t have to be this way and we know there is an alternative. So we stop traffic. The question is not whether we should use civil disobedience as part of our movement’s arsenal — but how, for what and when.

Civil disobedience isn’t principally about the cops (unless it is about the cops, for instance, because they shot another black kid for being black), although it clarifies the role police play to protect the interests of the status quo. It’s not about public space in itself, although public space is one of many tools for building a movement that is capable of being both an alternative and a staging ground for a struggle. Getting arrested isn’t the only way to be radical or courageous, nor is it worthy of more praise than so much of the other work that takes place in the movement. It is not always a winning media strategy, and it does not always use our resources most effectively. It should not come at the cost of continuing to develop and popularize a variety of methods for struggle. It is not a good in itself.

Civil disobedience is a tool, one we employ to win real things and push the struggle forward, as part of a broader strategy to transform society. It should be thought-out and well-timed, carefully employed on a worthy target and led by those people who are most affected. We must practice it with vision and precision, and highlight the real issues that brought this movement to life. We should use it to stand directly in the way of the systems of oppression around us and those who govern them — to block their roads and their ports, to shut down their conferences and their conventions, to clog their banks and their governments, to take back our schools, our workplaces and our homes. We must use it wisely and intentionally, but fiercely and passionately. We must make business as usual simply and utterly impossible, prying open — bit by bit — space for the world we are creating.

Yotam Marom is an organizer, educator, musician, and writer. He is a member of the Organization for a Free Society, and can be reached at Yotam.marom@gmail.com
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...