About Me

Name: Curt Day
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Interfering With The Gospel

The article linked to below examines an attitude that can interfere with sharing the Gospel



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Boy Who Cried War With Iran

Sometimes, we see officials serve under two different Presidential administrations. For example, Robert Gates, was a Secretary of Defense under Presidents Bush and Obama.  But officials are not the only thing that can carry over from one administration to another, so can fears. And one of the most prominent fears that has served under both of these Presidents is an upcoming war with Iran.

The fear that an assault might occur started sometime around 2006. It was first expressed by those on the Left. Some very respectable writers, including John Pilger and Chris Hedges, predicted that then President Bush would attack Iran which would result in disastrous economic consequences. One person has remained very steadfast, until maybe recently, in saying that there was no imminent incursion. That was Noam Chomsky. But despite that and the fact that, while Bush was President, 5 top American military leaders had said they would resign if such an attack took place, the fears have persisted.

Now it is no longer those from the leery Left who are talking about war with Iran, world leaders have now weighed in. And the question seems to have changed from will we attack to when will we attack.

Critics who are certain that there will be military intervention make comparisons between the current build up to hostilities with Iran with what occurred with Iraq. There are the prewar sanctions suffered by each country, the hyperbole of charges regarding the possession of or quest for WMDs, and the unnecessary demonization of the countries' self-demonizing leaders. And yet, something appears to be different here because an attack on Iran has yet to occur. So the question becomes is bombing Iran still a possibility or are fears of war a distraction from a real wolf.

Despite the posturing, there is a very significant reason why there will be no bombing of Iranian facilities in the near future. That reason is because we're in an election year. Since the last election, the clear lesson for the incumbent party to remain in power is to avoid economic downturns. Since war with Iran would play havoc with the price of oil, there should be no war before the election.

But what about after the election? Isn't war with Iran just a matter of time? To address this concern, we would only have to ask if destroying Iranian nuclear facilities is both necessary and feasible, why haven't we done so already? Part of the reason for a delay could be that we were already involved in two wars and couldn't afford a third front. Thus we could reason that an attack on Iran could start any time now since we have "finished" military involvement with Iraq and Afghanistan is winding down. 

However,  we should note that there are differences between Iran and Iraq besides the last letter. First, Iran has a deterent. It isn't a military one, it is an economic one. Second, perhaps, just perhaps, we have learned from our wars against Afghanistan and Iraq that the use of brute force in the Middle East can cost too much. Finally, fighting a war against Iran would be far different from the wars we have been in engaged in because an invasion is not feasible and it is likely that we could not accomplish our objectives with an air war alone without paying too high of a cost.

So suppose that the talk of attacking Iran is just a ruse, is there at least one camouflaged wolf at work? Havaar (http://havaar.org/ ), a group of Iranian and international activists, claims that the current American and Israeli policies consisting of threats and sanctions do more harm than good. That is because the more foreign pressure that is put on Iran, the easier it is for the Iranian government to redirect accountability for their internal problems to the outside world. In addition, people who feel that their country is under attack can, in a spirit of national unity, become more tolerant of horrible regimes.

Now is there any reason why what is good for the target cannot also be good for those taking aim? We should remember that during last August was Arab Spring Israeli Style.  In what started as a few students protesting housing costs became a countrywide middle class protest against the costs of living and for economic justice. A few months later, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revived talks of attacking Iran.

And just as the Israeli protests were dying down, Occupy fever hit America. This fever was reduced with the attacks on the camps and the Winter weather. But around the same time that Israel's leader was talking up attacking Iran, President Obama made his own public statements on about striking Iran.

The combination of sanctions, which only hurts the Iranian people, and military threats constitute what we could call war-lite. It has some of the benefits of war such as justifying military expenditures to campaign contributors and diverting people's attention from their economic suffering to moving them to stand behind their inept leaders. At the same time, it lacks some of the significant costs of war such as the eventual loss of public support and confidence that actual wars can cause over time.

In the meantime,  the Neoliberalism's wolf population, which has already become a protected dominant species, benefits from the military expenditures and price speculation on oil which war-lite causes. Like the terrorists our government is fighting, they know no national boundaries and so they are not controlled by Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand." But devour they do and last year's Israeli protests along with the Occupy Movement in America were sounding the alarm at their sight. So perhaps, Obama and Netanyahu are using the sounds of the war machine preparation to drown out the siren the protesters are sounding. 

If there is no real intention of going to war with Iran over the development of the nuclear capabilities, which has currently been legal as a member of the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, identifying the beneficiaries of the posturing can tell us what we might have known already. That the positions taken here by both sides, the Iranians and the West, are there to benefit those with wealth and power which is the same group that has everything to gain should there be a war with Iran.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

When Squeezed, Is The Church "Wimpy, Wimpy, Wimpy"

An article dealing with how the Church responds to pressure both from individuals and the status quo can be found at the link below:

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who Will Rescue Us From Post 9-11 Thinking?

What is Post 9-11 thinking? What preceded it? Do inquiring minds really want to know?

Well, in case they do, we will start with pre 9-11 thinking. With pre 9-11 thinking, we treated terrorism like crime in that we didn't react to it until it occurred. And because we didn't pre-emptively act against terrorism, we didn't act against American citizens with today's surveillance. Thus, pre 9-11 thinking granted American citizens a few more rights and privacy than post 9-11 thinking did.  However, pure pre 9-11 thinking really didn't exist. For example, our government had acted pre-emptively to stop "millenium" terrorist attacks in 1999. Regardless of how the would-be  attacks were discovered, the Clinton Administration acted pre-emptively.

Then, tragically, the 9-11 atrocities occurred and we were asked to think in a new way, which was not really new to some in the Bush Administration or the rest of the country. The "new" way of thinking included more than just pre-emption, it meant that America could assume this dominating position over the rest of the world so that no rival would emerge. And a side benefit was that we would have more access to important resources and our products would have more access to markets around the world. 

This new 9-11 thinking was based on then President Bush's analysis of the attacks. He claimed we were attacked because those who want our destruction were jealous of our freedoms thus implying that future attacks were a fixed cost. But Chalmers Johnson and others pointed out that our foreign policies, including our history of covert actions,  gave more than adequate motivation to many groups, let alone Al-Qaida, for attacking us. In addition, interviews with Bin Laden pointed to policies like the Iraq sanctions, which caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, along with our unbalanced support for Israel in its brutal occupation and taking of Palestinian land as reasons for the attack.

But what stuck in the minds of the American people was the assertion that we were attacked because of our freedoms. It remained, despite our history, because it was based on how the American people wanted to think of themselves. It was also how the Bush Administration wanted Americans to think. That is because President Bush's response to the attacks included increased government power and authority and that would be a very hard sell if the attacks were due to the misuse of government power. 

So President Bush started to implement post 9-11 thinking that amounted to an intensification of past American hegemony along with warnings to any future would-be rivals for power and he insisted that the U.S. would own space. This intensification showed that we were giving pre 9-11 thinking steroids. We should also point out that Bush's post 9-11 thinking drew largely from the pre-911 thinking resources of a 1992 Paul Wolfowitz paper and the 2000 Project For The New American Century paper called Rebuilding America's Defenses. We could further summarize post 9-11 thinking by saying that America's use of power would increase while America's accountability would further decrease.

And as it so often happens with empires, the policies practiced against people abroad eventually find their way home. The increased surveillance and elimination of Habeas Corpus has been seen and raised by the "liberal" Obama Administration with an increase in the arrests of activists and his signing of the 2012 NDAA. In that document, our government could indefinitely detain us without pressing charges and a following trial by jury. The theme from Bush's first actions after 9-11 strike again. That theme is less government accountability but more power. This sounds like a lite-beer commercial for governments. 

What we find today is that this post 9-11 thinking is expanding at an alarming pace and it is bipartisan. The 2012 NDAA was not only signed by a Democratic President, it received substantial support from Democratic Congressmen along with their Republican counterparts. And the question we need to ask ourselves is if this government power trip continues, what will American life be like after the next 4 years? Does the movie Minority Report or the books 1984 and Brave New World give hints at our possible future?

So we come to the question posed in the title of this post. Who will rescue us from post 9-11 thinking? Who will stop the increase in power for and loss in accountability of our government? Historically speaking, there are only two solutions here, invasion by another country or resistance. My guess is that most people who favor change, favor the second option. And if we are the ones to stop this journey down the road to a more authoritarian society, we must readdress the reason why we were attacked on 9-11 and then reeducate. 

This is necessary because Bush's faulty analysis, since it soothes the ears of patriotic Americans, is the foundation for our government's continual quest for more. For if future attacks are more contingent on jealousy than the abuse of power, then our government will feel more entitled to infringe on our rights and privacy especially as technology continues to increase the power of the individual. And we can add that more Americans will feel obligated to accept this growing government intrusiveness. But if the 9-11 attacks were because of America's abusive use of power, then the obvious solution to reducing future attacks would be to reduce the power our government has and demand more accountability. We might quip that our government is currently reducing the chance of attack by reducing our freedoms, which, in turn, reduces the jealousy that that terrorists have.

The necessary readdressing and reeducation will not occur by books alone. Rather, it will occur by our conversations with friends and neighbors, with letters and articles sent to the newspapers, and with demanding that our educators and politicians acknowledge the facts. We must make the abuse of American power and its consequences one of the top ten issues people think and talk about. Only then will the call for power and less accountability not only fall on deaf ears, it will be played before a hostile audience.




 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Should Christians Support Gay Marriage?

The article providing one answer to this question can be found at the link below:



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

When Political Views Pits The Believer Against The Church

Below is an article that describes the struggles one Christian has in a Church that has different political views.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How Candidates Are Like Harlots

The 7th chapter of Proverbs is a tale of a foolish young man who goes out of his way to the house of a harlot and to his demise. Though the preliminary details can be a little scintillating, it is the point of seduction that is enlightening. In the second part of verse 21 it says that it was the harlot's "flattering lips" that seals the deal for the young man. It is then that the man becomes like an ox that is going to be butchered.

To make this story more relevant to Americans today, all we need to do is to substitute "American voter" for the young man and "political candidates," regardless of the political affiliation, for the harlot, and we have the story of any election year in America. For indeed, despite how both parties have constantly failed and betrayed us, the American voter still seeks either the Republican or the Democratic parties to be wooed. 

Do we know what kind of candidates we are seeking? Despite our denials, of course we do. After all, we are fools not idiots. We want to be seduced. We want to be told how we can get what we want by electing them. And most of all, we want to be flattered. Americans want to be told how special we are. For either by promised lifestyle, unleashed capabilities, or world leadership, we want to hear that we are the best. And so we become the ox that is about to be slaughtered for we vote for either the Republicans or the Democrats only to see the winners become more interested in someone else than us after the election. They spurn us for the man of the house, as in the story of Proverbs 7, who returns home after election day. Once he is home, the harlot no longer cares to meet with us, to "love" us.

To play the fool election after election takes determination and fortitude. And if there are any 2 characteristics that the American voter has demonstrated, it is determination and fortitude. And there is a reason why we strive so to persevere, we are seeking our own pleasure. Our self-inflicted amnesia equips us to be foolish enough to accept the courtship of the candidates from our two major parties. This amnesia, like our determination and fortitude, has a purpose. It allows us to believe delusions. These delusions are a drug that keeps us going until it wears off, until the new government makes its own set of character-flawed mistakes.

What keeps this drama playing election after election? Not enough of us have met the butcher. Some have already fallen by the wayside. They have lost jobs, homes, and health because of the greed of a few while others have lost their lives because of the misuse of our military. Most of us inflict ourselves with the dilemma of not changing until we have to, until it is too late. And this points to a not so flattering trait of Americans. They will leave their fellow Americans behind who have fallen. And they will do so while proudly waving the American flag.

Will we change in time for November 6th? For too many of us, we will ask that depends on what's in it for us. And that mentality makes us supporters of the two major parties again. We should note here that self-destruction will terminate all loops that appear to be infinite.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Occupy With The Gospel: An Open Letter To All Conservative Christians

The link below is to an article called Occupy With The Gospel. The article is about how Christians can show those in the Occupy Movement how to really occupy and speak to the Rich.

occupying with the gospel.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Voting For BarMitt RomBama

If we are not careful, we will be sucked into a vortex created by the media and our major political parties to a too up close view of the presidential candidates. Here, all we will see are two trains placed on the same track but pointed in opposite directions. But if we allow recent history to help us step back, we can use a wide angle lens. And that lens will allow us to see that the track these two trains travel on forms a circle. So though both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are doing their best to show how different they are, we should note that they are pretty much the same. For just as there are many similarities between Presidents Obama and Bush, and since candidate Romney is not separating himself from Bush, so President Obama and candidate Romney have too much in common.

What Presidents Bush and Obama share includes providing bailouts for the financial institutions, expanding the authority of the Federal government while shedding itself of accountability, increasing the size and use of the military, and employing a gang warfare mentality when supporting or opposing other governments. Certainly there are some differences between the two. Yet, even in the differences, the general direction of the two presidents are the same. That directions is a move towards the consolidation of power and wealth.

The bailouts provided by both President Obama's and President Bush's administration were, in essence, an encouragement to keep doing business as usual. Bailout money without corrective restrictions were provided by both administrations. The beginning of the collapse here would be the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 by the Republican controlled Congress. This Act prevented commercial banks from acting like investment banks. It was the high risk behavior practiced by our commercial banks that has caused a steady number of bank closures each year and greatly contributed to the housing bubble collapse of 2008.

When President Bush's Administration pushed through the Patriot Act of 2001, he received harsh criticism from both liberals and the left--there are significant differences here. And when watching Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911, we could see a creeping surveillance and authoritarianism being introduced by the Bush Administration. However valid the criticisms of the Patriot Act were, they are even more merited by Obama's 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that allows for the indefinite detainment of American citizens for the mere suspicion of supporting or being involved with terrorism. And even before the 2012 NDAA, American activists  homes were searched or people were convicted (see Holder vs Humanitarian Law Project) for merely talking to groups classified as terrorist groups by the State Department. The subject of the conversations was how to nonviolently pursue goals.

Despite President Obama's antiwar campaign rants, his record shows that he meets, if not exceeds, Bush's willingness to wage war. This should come as no surprise except to those who did not pay close enough attention to candidate Obama's rhetoric. Leftists, such as Paul Street and Noam Chomsky, were quick to note that candidate Obama's antiwar criticisms of President Bush were not based on principles. Rather, candidate Obama denounced the Iraq War for its inefficient use of America's military resources as well as it had proved ineffective in the War on Terror. The resulting conclusion was that a President Obama would be more than willing to engage in wars if, in his view, these problems could be overcome. President Obama has done all he can to show that conclusion to be true with his expansion of the Afghanistan War into Pakistan as well as his use of American forces in Libya. All this was despite the destabilizing effects that our attacks on Pakistan have had on the country and the ties that some Libyan rebels had with terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda. One is tempted to ask who is next on the Obama hit list.

Finally, we must mention President Obama's support for the Israeli government's brutal occupation against the Palestinians as practicing a gang warfare mentality. Despite criticisms to the contrary, President Obama has not wavered in providing essential American for Israel to continue to occupy and steal land from the Palestinians. One only needs to check Israeli peace activist Jeff Halper and the statistics he provides for how much land the Israeli government had already taken from the Palestinians as well as what kind of life the Israeli government forces the Palestinians to live(see Halper's book An Israeli In Palestine). The Israeli government has not been hindered by President Obama in any way, shape or form from continuing its occupation, attacks and theft. And with its dependence on the U.S. for aid, if Obama had been working against Israel, we would have seen the effects.

Mere support for the Israeli government does not a follower of gang warfare make. However, showing a legitimate concern for Israeli civilian victims of terrorism while not showing an equal concern for their Palestinian counterparts does.  A parallel can be drawn to the Obama Administration's concern for Syrian and Libyan victims of government suppression while remaining silent about the brutal tactics being used by the government of Bahrain on their protesters. Here, what makes government cruelty wrong in the eyes of the Obama Administration is not the morality of the acts themselves but the identity of those who practice them. The Obama Administration has remained relatively silent about Israel's brutal occupation and Bahrain's immoral use of force on their protesters while pretending to have a noble concern over the plight of civilians in Libya and Syria. Whether the Obama Administration will condemn or silently support a government's barbaric use of force on civilians depends on whether their government belongs to the same gang as the U.S. Such a practice shows one to be a supporter of gang warfare.

Actions speak louder than words. And despite the critical words that candidate Romney and the Republicans use on President Obama,  President's Obama's actions show that the two have a great deal in common. Some on the Left consider President Obama to be a President W II. In too many critical areas, the above supports that monicker. And since Romney has not distanced himself from President Bush, how different would a Romney presidency be from Obama's?

All of this points to the fact that we have no real choice for president if we are content to stay within the two party system. Some on the Left, including friends of mine, advocate that we boycott this year's presidential election. Such is a mistake because to those in power, the protesting non-vote is equal to the apathetic non-vote. Just as some groups only understand force, politicians only understand numbers. The only way to get politicians to listen to us is to vote for somebody else. For those on the Right, the Constitution Party already nominated Virgil Goode as its presidential nominee. Those who are not conservative can choose between Stewart Alexander, a socialist, or whomever the Green Party will nominate. If we want change, it can only begin with how we vote but it does not have to end there.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

3 Is The Magic Number

For too long, Americans have only been able to count to two. Many of us can remember when there were only two superpowers and you were either for freedom and America or you were one them commies. Our biggest sports rivalries consist of only two opponents: the Red Sox vs the evil empire; Michigan vs Ohio State; and Army vs Navy. And when we learned how to vote, most of the time we voted for candidates from only two parties. So for most of our lives, we have only learned to count to two and, with our current addiction to entertainment and the desire to live the simple life, it seemed to be a match made in Heaven.

But a not so funny thing happened to the world while Americans were being sponsored by the number two, it grew more complex. It isn't that the world was never complex; but we have now grown so vulnerable that we can no longer afford to be satisfied with such a small number line.

An example where our current number line is too small to be useful is in our upcoming presidential election. What if you are not an Obama supporter, does that mean you must vote for the Republican candidate? I hope not! And what if the Keystone Candidates from the Republican Party are  not your cup of tea? Must you be forced to vote for Obama? Again, I hope not! In either case, you just might end up voting against a candidate more than you are voting for one--that is if you can only count to the number 2. But once you recognize that there are numbers greater than two, there are other presidential candidates to consider. On the conservative side, you could vote for the candidate from either the Constitutional Party or the one from the Libertarian Party. And once you include those candidates, you find that you can now count to 4. The same applies to those non-conservatives where, instead of voting against one of the Keystone Candidates, you can vote for either Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate or Stewart Alexander, the Socialists candidate.  By considering these two options, you can join your exploratory conservative friends by learning how to count to 4.

But what if you are an independent voter? Traditionally speaking, independent voters flaunt their freedom by choosing from a pool of 2 candidates instead of 1.  That is independent voters in America have learned to become bipolar. Such voters often sing "Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, I'm free at last" when voting against the most reprehensible candidate. But how free are they? If only such voters could just free themselves from the two-party's Death Star's tractor beam, they could learn how to count to 6--that means voting for candidates from any of the previously mentioned political parties. And though compared to infinity, 6 is not that much greater than 2, it is still greater than 2 and you just might end up voting for someone because he or she might represent you rather than voting against a candidate.

Of course, opening ourselves to candidates from more than two parties is not a real challenge. But the following is. That is because the following requires that we admit that we can no longer employ boolean logic in a world filled with continuous values. The following consists of determining how should we solve a problem like Iran.

In the past, we have exhibited a bipolar mood disorder approach to dealing with other countries. If we liked a country, that means if they followed our orders and took care of our "national" ("national" here is code for "business") interests, we supported ("support" is code for "use") them.  But if we did not like a country, then all was fair in war. In our Cold War against the Soviet Union as fought in Afghanistan, we supported terrorist groups like the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. When opposing Iran in the 1980s, we supported Saddamn Hussein. When opposing Saddamn Hussein in the 1990s, we supported and employed sanctions that were responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. And because Israel is a friend, we have enabled them to act with impunity regardless of how brutal they are against the Palestinians. There are many more examples but we are not writing a book here.

And if you criticized the action we have taken, you are often treated as a sympathizer. How often have people accused activists who opposed the Iraq War as being in favor of Saddamn Hussein? Or how often have activists opposed the war in Afghanistan been charged with supporting Bin Laden? The list of similar accusations seems endless.

Just as 3rd party candidates provide an alternative, there is a solution to the Iranian situation. Instead of limiting oneself to supporting one of two corrupt regimes, one could support principles. This is the approach many activists from inside and outside
of Iran are advocating. That instead of being sucked into a gang mentality where right and wrong depends on who did what to whom, we apply the same set of rules to all governments involved. And in that way, one could be a political version of Mikey from the Life Cereal commercials--before eating Life Cereal, Mikey hated everything.

Judging all countries by the same set of rules is advocated by Noam Chomsky when he talks or writes about the principle of universality. But it is also implied by Augustine in the 4th chapter of the 4th book of his City Of God. One could paraphrase him as saying there that without justice, a nation is nothing more than a gang. And what stops us from fully appreciating that concept is the significance we feel by associating ourselves with either the corrupt Iranian government or the corrupt American government.

Furthermore, we could identify valid points made by each corrupt regime and, along with our dependence on principles and values, and find a hybrid solution that is both fair and long lasting. Such an approach is the only realistic chance we have at learning how to resolve our difference peacefully; but such an approach is vilified in all sorts of ways those who profit from a Black-White world view where they easily externalize evil by pointing to the greater evils done by the other side. Such people assume that there is a theory of moral relativity where the horrible atrocities committed by the other side automatically become the minimum standard of evil.

Three is the magic number in a world that has embraced greed and surrendered to dichotomous thinking. The question is will we call on this magic in time to save ourselves.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No Matter Who Is Nominated, America Will Lose This Election

While the MSM tries to fix our attention on which Republican will become Romney's running mate, America's future grows more and more ominous even without the Mayan calendar.And the blame for our demise will fully rest on the American voter.

By relying on a two-party system, we have guaranteed employment for two negligent and incompetent political parties. By limiting our votes for only these two parties, we find ourselves electing Republicans after the Democrats failed to recover from the Republicans' blunders or electing Democrats after the Republicans return the favor. Our excuse for not voting for third party candidates, which is why vote for candidates who cannot win, becomes an exercise in self-fulfilling prophesy.

The Republican Party is simply morally insane as it condemns civilians to death through war, if the civilians are foreign, or through austerity and reducing corporate accountability, if the civilians are domestic. What about the Democrats? They can no longer offer no real relief since they have super-glued themselves to Corporate America's teat. Thus we find ourselves with the choice of either describing Republicans as Democrats on steroids or Democrats as Republicans who have gone to finishing school.

Our wildcard are not those we can vote for. Occupy Wall Street (OWS) has done a wonderful job at pointing out the problem, greed, and proposing the solution, a participatory democracy . Considering it was our first year, we were effective in drawing attention to the problem. But such attention is a source of terror for the status quo. They prefer a bipolar population that only chooses between being apathetic or compliant. The question in this election year is whether the government will be used to either help marginalize OWS or suppress it. There are new legal tools recently put into place, such as the 2012 NDAA and HR 347, to increase the status quo's ability to squelch OWS should it regain its previous level of influence.

Because change is a spectator's sport for the American voter, expecting change has become waiting for Gidot. And for as long as that is the case, America will continue to plummet regardless of who wins this year's election.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Santorum Substitutes Faulty Values For Wisdom

Rick Santorum deserves credit for one thing; he is still in the race. When he announced his candidacy, it seemed like we were watching the 98lb freshman try out for the varsity football team. Who would have thought that, at this time in the campaign, Santorum would still have a chance to make the team let alone be picked captain? But Santorum is still in the race. And while we have heard "down goes Bachman' and "down goes Perry," we have yet to hear "down goes Santorum." But there is still hope.

Santorum is running on the r-card, the religion card, and thus is basing his candidacy around religion's strong suit: values. His campaign is aimed at the base of the Republican Party, conservative Christians. This base has a weakness; it uncontrollably swoons over anyone who promises to spread its values. And that is what Santorum is claiming he will do if elected. Santorum is promising to go Biblical with his policies implying that the "Christian" values he is proposing will, as we are promised every 4 years, bring America back.

Values are to many of my fellow conservative Christians what women's breasts are to the average American male; once they are flashed, minds go numb. This is what Santorum is counting on. He is counting on the fact that once he paints himself as the one who will advance their values, no more questions will be asked. And our biggest problem is the last part. Nobody asks if it is appropriate to force the values Santorum advocates on society. Nobody asks how he will implement the practice of these values by society. And last but not least, nobody asks what values are being ignored while we are implementing the values selected by Santorum.

What are the values that Santorum wants to either make a part or strengthen in America? They include supporting the following:

  1. Free markets and individual liberty
  2. Using America's moral authority
  3. Religious & Political Freedoms
Certainly, some of the above listed items have nothing to do with moral values while others are very legitimate moral issues in and of themselves. However, even when Santorum identifies a real value's issue, he is grossly inconsistent when applying them. So let's take a look at Santorum's values.

His first value of free markets and individual liberty is problematic for two reasons. Whereas Santorum's full statement regarding free markets is, "free markets that are rooted in excellence, hard work, and innovation," we end up with conflicting values as well. Free markets, to Santorum, means markets that are free from government control and regulations. This kind of view of free markets sees government as an alien entity that limits both an individual's attempt to succeed and build one's own treasure and that the rest of us who depend on that building of treasure to survive.

However, such a view of government  shows not only a faulty view of the purpose of government, it demonstrates how blind people with Santorum's convictions are to the vulnerability to and freedom from the harm and control we can experience from other individuals.

One purpose of a democratically elected government is to express the voice of the people as to how we are to live with each other. Thus government regulations are not only limits that we must comply with, they are expression of freedom that people as a whole have in defining how certain members in the community can treat other members. These limits range from how we treat the environment in which we all live to how we can treat employees to how we can treat the communities in which we reside to how we can treat customers. And though the actual regulations do not always live up to the purpose, to deny the purpose of regulations while attacking their existence of questionable ones is to take away a freedom from the people. We should note that regulations most often go awry when they favor certain businesses by unnecessarily requiring their services or when governmental officials seek power.

Santorum's view of free markets denies the purpose of government regulations and their relationship to democracy. As free markets have expanded, or  to be precise,  as they have been forced on other countries, there have been destructive results as well as a loss of freedom. Problems caused by forced free markets can best be seen in agriculture where such markets have put local farmers out of business which puts many of the people in a country at risk especially when food prices spike. This is what has occurred in Haiti while in India, free WTO free markets put Indian farmers so deep into debt that tens of thousands of them committed suicide. Meanwhile, out of work Mexican farmers found it necessary to illegally emigrate to the U.S.

Regulations that are currently being targeted by Santorum's campaign promises include those that control drilling for  natural gas and oil. What is being promised with the elimination of many of these regulations is an immediate spike in prosperity. But what is being brushed aside are the environmental consequences of increased drilling and consumption. What is also being lost if these regulations are eliminated is the freedom of the American people to control how energy companies interact with the environment we all share.

Regulations are not Santorum's only concern. He is very much concerned with how the world responds to our interventions. Santorum claims to be a realist in that he recognizes that there is evil in the world and that evil demands a response. And what angers Santorum to no end was Obama apologizing America's past actions during a Mid East visit. The conjunction of these two statement implies that the evil Santorum realistically acknowledges in the world is externalized; this evil only resides in others.

The problem with Santorum's position on evil revolves around the question of what about our history. What about the fact that our nation was built on the ethnic cleansing of its indigenous peoples? What about our nation's enslavement of Blacks both before the Civil War and after Reconstruction? In addition, the wars used to start and expand our empire and, according to William Blum, the over 30 attacks our country has conducted on either established democracies or democratic processes since WW II or the fact that America use to strongly support Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein should cast at least one doubt on Santorum's belief in its moral authority.

Santorum's view of moral authority presupposes not just America's moral superiority but America's moral perfection. That is what is implied by Santorum's anger over Obama's apology for past actions. Such views play well amongst hardcore Republican voters who are addicted to self-adulation, to those who rabidly believe in country first.

Santorum's view of America's moral authority play a major role in his view of America's role in the world. And with his view of America's moral superiority, we might look for religious reasons for these beliefs. One possible explanation for his views could be related to his religious views which have some disturbing parallels. One such parallel exists between the Pope's relationship to the Church, Santorum is a practicing Catholic, and Santorum's views of America's moral authority. That is it is possible that Santorum believes that America is to rule the world as the Pope rules the Roman Catholic Church. Santorum sees both as being infallible. and thus both wield, in Santorum's world, absolute moral authority.

Unfortunately for Santorum, a source of moral teaching strongly challenges Santorum's assumption of America's innocence and externalization of evil.The New Testament constantly tells us of the evil that exists in all of us. Jesus's parable on the two men praying (Luke 18:9ff), Paul's description of the sinfulness of people (Romans chapters 1-3 and chapter 7), and I John 1 tell all of us that we cannot afford to so see evil in others at the expense of ignoring what is in the mirror. The existence of sin does not just exist on an individual level, it exists in groups as well. And considering our history, there is plenty of evidence to doubt our nation's infallibility and thus our moral authority in the world.

Santorum's views of religious and political freedoms, though having some merit, are tied to his view of our nation's moral authority. Those whose religious and political views question our country's moral authority make those holding those views into suspects. Santorum says he accepts Muslims and respects their religious freedoms. But what respect does Santorum show to Palestinian Muslims and Christians who believe in their own equality?  What respect does Santorum show to Palestinians of all faiths who believe that they have a right to live and work on the land on which their families have lived in some cases for centuries?

At home, what respect will Santorum show to American Muslims and others who sympathize with the Palestinians who are sorely oppressed by Israel? What respect will Santorum show to those who oppose America's Mid East policies especially when he views those who oppose America's policies as evil? In addition, what respect will Santorum show to those who do not share his religious convictions on contraception? We might also ask what respect will Santorum show to homosexuals who wish to marry? Their belief in equal rights with heterosexuals go against the grain of Santorum's beliefs in what is right and wrong.

We have just seen where Santorum relies quite heavily on values to address the issues and solve the problems of the day. But he doesn't go beyond what can be inferred by his values to think beyond his values. He doesn't ask what other values are involved nor does he ask how can the values he believes in can best be promoted. In addition, he doesn't critically look at the values that he wants our country and the world to submit to. He doesn't understand how those who disagree with his values have legitimate concerns. But most importantly, Santorum wants to extend the authoritarian model he lives under as a practicing Catholic to public life in America and the world. This authoritarian approach shows that values and power override the need for critical thinking and wisdom.





Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (81) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Greed Kills

This Fall, we will be electing, from a self-limiting pool of 2 candidates, the President of the United States. We will either choose the Republican "Greed Gone Wild" candidate or the Democratic "We Do Greed Right" incumbent. The difference between them is that one, in the name of personal liberty, wishes to free greed from the shackles of guilt while the other wants to refine greed in order to make it more socially acceptable. What the two candidates will have in common is that both want to oversee a greed-driven economy. And less we pretend that we are not complicit here, for most of us, our vote will be determined by who we think will best help us obtain or maintain our Fantasy Island lifestyle. That lifestyle is rightly called a fantasy because the island we wish to live in is both severed from the real world and unsustainable. And our lifestyle can be rightly called an island because it is based on living in an isolated bubble rather than with the rest of the outside world.

Why do we tolerate a greed-driven economy with the baggage that it brings? It is because, as I am told by my fine fellow flaming fundamentalist friends who feverishly favor their own religious selfishness, greed is real. Greed is as much a part of man's nature as war--this is said with a disingenuous obliviousness to the connection between the two. So since greed is a fixed cost, we might as well try to harness it for mankind's good and our own pleasure. But what is missing from this shamelessly warm embrace of greed is a recognition of greed's inseparable companion: WAR. And war is, in an age of a technologically-driven inevitable proliferation of WMDs, a real threat to everyone's existence.

To get an idea of how central war has been to our country's existence, consider the Occupy Wall Street link on war lists most of our major conflicts--they did neglect to mention conflicts like the Korean War as well as other attacks such as the coups in Iran (1953), Guatamala (1954), and Chile (1973) as well as our terrorist war against Nicaragua during the 1980s. Historian, William Blum, has documented over 50 American interventions into other countries, since WWII, with the majority of those conflicts either interfering with a democratic process or overthrowing a democratically elected government. We can easily link our propensity to fight with greed in a couple of ways; war both provides profits for those American companies that provide goods and services that enable war and it can make the economic conditions in other lands more favorable to American companies.

Though statistics on our war years support the Biblical link between greed and fighting as described by chapter 4 of Jame's Epistle, one does not have to scapegoat war to show that greed kills. Just look up the statistics on how many Americans go without healthcare and a sufficient amount of food, or count the millions of Americans who were made homeless all because of the greed of some of our nation's financial institutions. Their avarice makes an early death inevitable for some of our fellow Americans. We should also note that today's greed will be causing tomorrow's shortages. Today's greed is causing the number of diminishing resources to increase. This can cause many to die early deaths as they either do without or they become victims of wars fought over resources.

However, greed can take away life in another way than through war and deprivation. That is right! Greed is a triple threat. Greed is giving us a world replete with a growing ecological problems. Placing a higher priority on immediate profits while ignoring the growing number of ecological problems is an artist who is painting a dark ominous future for ourselves and our loved ones. The dilemma we find ourselves in is that as we fight to  ensure that we have an "adequate" supply of fossil fuels, our use of these fuels is shortening our days on earth.

Certainly greed has enabled us to create colossal centers of wealth which many of us have enjoyed; but we have to ask ourselves whether greed is to our economy what a demon was to a fortune teller in Acts 16:6ff. In that story, some wealthy men exploited the possessed state of a woman because they could profit from her ability to see the future. Their sole concern was their wallet. They did not care at all for the source of their fortune. In our country, greed is producing great wealth for a number of people who, in turn, show no concern for those who incur the costs of their selfishness.

The second paragraph of The Declaration Of The Occupation Of New York City both identifies the problem with greed and gives the solution in one sentence. It says, "As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members" and " but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power." We should note here that greed doesn't mind the cooperation of a selected group of people, of those who help one hoard goods for themselves. That is not the kind of cooperation mentioned here. The cooperation called for here involves solidarity with as many people as possible..

The other part of the first sentence describe a current grim reality. Generally speaking, corporations, some of which operate as economic gangs, seek treasure regardless of what it costs others. Part of pursuing their pot of gold includes making impotent our democratic way of life. So one way by which we can give ourselves a fighting chance to survive is to restore that democratic process. To do that, we must insist that corporations must seek our consent to do anything that has any possible negative impact on our lives and that of our neighbors. And to do that, we must not only vote for those candidates who will stand against any corporate exploitation of our democratic system, a.k.a, certain third party candidates, we must constantly and publicly speak out to let our elected officials know.our demands--this is what the Occupy Movement is about.

Greed kills. And as it takes the lives of our neighbors and threatens our own, we can choose to join one of three groups. We can join those who embrace greed either partially or wholeheartedly, we can join the enablers of greed by remaining silent, or we join the resistance by working against greed and its effects.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (142) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

To Be Violent Or Not To Be Violent, That Is Not The Only Question

A heated debate is breaking out amongst occupiers on the left regarding violence. The question is whether the violence practiced by groups like Black Bloc helps or not. This issue came to a head just recently as journalist Chris Hedges wrote an article describing  Black Bloc and their tactics as being a cancer in the Occupy Movement. A member of Black Bloc responded with an open letter challenging Hedges' assertions.

Two things could be said about Hedges' comments on Black Bloc. First, he had a very legitimate concern about the effects that some of Black Bloc's tactics, in particular, their destruction of property and their willingness to physically confront the police, could have on the success of the Occupy Movement--we should note that the Occupy Movement's success is tied to its relationship with the mainstream. We are not saying that the Occupy Movement must become more like the mainstream. Rather, we should want the mainstream to become more like Occupy Movement. Currently, many in the mainstream share many of its concerns. However, not enough people from the mainstream are sold on the Occupy Movement's solution. That solution consists of practicing a more direct and participatory democracy,

Second, Hedges' assessment of Black Bloc was stated in all or nothing terms. He listed no common beliefs or concerns that Black Bloc has with those from the "organized" Left. For Hedges, Black Bloc is all bad news. This is unfortunate in two ways. First, his black-white assessment of Black Bloc vs those on "organized left" contained too many inaccuracies. Second, at least in my neck of the internet woods and probably elsewhere, his all or nothing description of Black Bloc triggered all or nothing retaliations. This hurts not just because of how Hedges' vast contributions could be so easily spurned but, more importantly, it could triggers and maintains a kind of thinking that would spell certain doom for many of our causes. Fortunately, the above cited open letter to Hedges from a member of Black Bloc did not respond in kind. Rather, that writer listed positive contributions to Occupy Wall Street(OWS) made by members of Black Bloc.

The real issue here is not about the dispute between Hedges and Black Bloc, it is about the use of violence in protests. But to be violent or not to be violent is not the only question. We first must ask what is violence. Our definition comes first because some apologists, and possibly participants, in Black Bloc insist that actions such as smashing windows is not violence. For these Black Bloc supporters, violence is not defined by the action but by the recipient. If the recipient is an inanimate object, especially if the object is owned by one's oppressors, then at least some Black Bloc defenders claim the action is not violent. This is as if dropping a bomb on a building is violence only if people in or around the building are injured or killed. Such a nuanced position shows a sensitivity and conscious awareness of the issue. It is almost an admission that attacking property is committing violence with the defense that such actions are insignificant unless people are hurt. In addition, some apologists for Black Bloc say that their actions, compared to the real violence exercised against protestors by the police, cannot be called violence.

Once we arrive at an acceptable definition of violence, we start another journey. This trip determines whether the current abstaining from violence exercised by most in the Occupy Movement should be for pragmatic or principled reasons. The author of the above cited open letter told of how Black Bloc participants did not see violence as an "appropriate tactic" to use at OWS. Such opposition to violence is situational and is based on the business criteria of efficiency and effectiveness. Hedges, and other Leftists including myself, maintain that the Occupy Movement here should lean more towards being unconditional because it is wrong. We should note here that the difference between the pragmatic and the principled positions here are sometimes fuzzy rather than absolute.  

To have principled objections against using violence is to say that I won't engage in violence regardless of the situation and what could be gained--something that is easier said than done. The reason for this refusal to employ violence is a recognition that one is obligated to others to refrain from attacking them. The principled perspective moves us to a consistent and reliable way of self-restraint. It is the kind of self-restraint that has practical benefits but is, first and foremost, practiced because of a nearly unconditional obligation or debt.

Some argue against having a principled approach because of what becomes of the people who hold to that kind of thinking. Michael Albert, from ZCommunications, wrote an article on the debate between Hedges and Black Bloc. He holds such a view. In his article,  those who oppose violence because of morals are in danger of becoming "fundamentalists," though what Albert really was referring was people who feel they are morally superior to others. We should note here that moralists have no monopoly on self-righteousness because we all support some set of morals.

Protestors who abstain from violence solely for pragmatic reasons should note that they are following Obama's example when he was running for President. During the 2008 campaign, Obama portrayed himself as the antiwar President as he criticized both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  But, as Noam Chomsky and others observed, Obama's objections to the wars were based on the business criteria of efficiency and effectiveness rather than on principles, Obama did not think that the wars were being properly prosecuted. Thus, despite his claims, Obama was a conditional war presidential candidate, rather than the antiwar candidate and his record confirms this. In the same way, some of my fellow OWS activists must be considered conditional pro-violence protestors.

At this point, we must point out an irony practiced by those who protest a violent status-quo using violence. That is they are not protesting the "violence inherent in the system"  as much as who has the right to be destructive. When my fellow protestors use violence to voice their views here, they are not objecting to the sport of violence but the roster choices that had been made. This raises the question of whether things would be different if they were running the system.

We might also want examine some of the reasons why those, who because of morals, opposed violence. People like Gandhi and Martin Luther King continually asked what do you gain if you win via violence. Regardless of who is involved, if a group uses violence to overthrow a system, is there not the same animosity that existed before that led to the rise against the system in the first place? In addition, Martin Luther King, amongst others, told us that a new paradigm is needed today when he said that our choice is between nonviolence or nonexistence. If we win using violence, we continue to proceed towards the precipice.

Thankfully, violence, for the most part, is not a tactic employed by those in the Occupy Movement. But since we all have dark sides that could move us to hurt others if pushed too far, we need to be grounded in all reasons, both practical and principled, for not employing violence. To maintain our current non-violent approach, we need to think deeply and consider all of the reasons why we must not strike out lest we are overcome by circumstances or frustration.

  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

There Still Be Drums In Zuccotti Park

Is there life after a violent eviction raid? The answer for Occupy Wall Street at Zuccotti Park is an emphatic YES! I went to Zuccotti Park on the first Saturday after the eviction and there was plenty of life. Activists from Maryland to Vermont and from as far away as the state of Washington were there to participate. The park was visited by an Italian filmmaker and it hosted a gay wedding. There were think tank discussion groups, a collection of speakers who talked about the world's food supply and a talk on free trade and food. There were people holding signs for those passing by to see as well as guitarists playing and singing inside. But most important is that the drum circle was still there.

Upon approaching the park, I got the impression that NYC and the owners of the park made every effort to make the park look like a prison. A perimeter consisting of double barricades surrounded the park except for 2 small entrances on opposite sides. There were plenty of police along with Zuccotti Park's own security guards some of who sympathized with us. The rules for entering the park went well beyond judicial orders. Guitarists were being told that they could bring their guitars in the park but not their guitar cases. Skateboarders were forbidden to bring in their skateboards because, as the police would tell these kids, times and circumstances have changed. And then came the confrontation with the police over the drums.

Two people brought enough drums and percussion instruments to allow for 4 people to join the drum circle. They began to play when a policeman came up to tell them that the owners of the park had forbidden drums from being brought in. I wondered if a dress code requiring a suit jack and tie would be the next. Then came the one drummer's response: "NO," the drummer replied. Actually, that was the Readers Digest version. For right before the police came, there was an announcement from the National Lawyers Guild that drums would be allowed. And so this drummer stuck to his guns. The conversation was loud enough to draw the attention of others. And as the police officer walked away, the size of the crowd listening to the drums tripled as a talented breakdancer moved to the music. Either the police didn't know what to do or they were bluffing with their orders. In either case, one of the most integral parts to the occupation, the drum circle, performed for the rest of the day to the delight of the activists who had attended.

But the shortened version of that one drummer's response to the police concealed the other issue of the day. This issue is physical abuse practiced by the police. While saying no to the police officer who challenged him, the drummer angrily complained that he had already been beaten up by the them. Later on, I ran into a young woman whose arm was in a sling. She had suffered a dislocated elbow because the police unnecessarily manhandled her to the ground earlier in the week. Others had been beaten by police either at the park during the eviction or during the November 17th protest. 

Of course, New York is not the only place to be if you want to experience police brutality. I read one report where a protester, who was already lying on the ground, was beaten and kicked by police officers and suffered a broken back. There was the baton beating of Cal Berkley students and the pepper spraying of UC Davis students. Of course this does not include the military Veteran who, while at Occupy Oakland, was struck in the head with some kind of police projectile and was placed in critical condition in the hospital. You can see other  examples of police abuse on Youtube.

And here is the second issue. Why are we tolerating physical abuse practiced by the police? Why don't we categorize their violence as being as abusive and criminal as other forms of abuse such as wife beating, child beating, or sexual abuse? Why do so many passively defer to the police's use of force on peaceful protesters?

The answer to these questions is unfortunate. The maintenance of abusive relationships requires three parties. Of course there is the abuser and the victim. Those who have mastered abuse know how to make the victim feel responsible and, thus, ashamed of being abused. But one more party must play their role here. That party is the enabler. Enablers either take an active or passive role in the abusive relationship.  And one of the concerns with the Penn State sex scandal was the role that enablers played in allowing abuse to continue. 

This is where the public comes in. Those who either witness or know about abuse but don't speak up are, by default, siding with the abuser. They are telling the abused that the suffering is their fault and if they had been good little boys and girls, they would not have been attacked. To such people, there is no such thing as a disproportionate response. A lawbreaker is a lawbreaker and, since order must be maintained at all costs, the police have the right, if not the obligation, to use any measure to stop the lawbreaker in his/her tracks. In essence, the enabling public is telling those who suffer abuse that it is their fault, so don't complain. The enabling public is thus attempting to shovel shame on to the victim rather than on to the abuser. 

The police, those who are practicing the abuse, have perfect excuses. First, they have been hardened by being exposed to inhumane violence practiced by some criminals. Some have lost some sensitivity to what it means to be human. But that is not their trump card. Their main excuse is that they are just following orders and, of course, everybody knows that orders must be carried out. Thus, it is obvious that if these same police officers would jump of the Brooklyn Bridge if so ordered.

Though following orders relieve the abusive officers from feeling guilty for for their actions, those in the military know that some orders are illegal and thus cannot be followed. In addition, the Nuremberg trials did not excuse German officers from committing far more serious forms of abuse because they were following orders. And though the abuse that the protesters have experienced pales in comparison to what the victims of the Nazis suffered through, the principle is the same. Just because one is ordered to do something wrong doesn't mean that those who follow such orders can maintain their innocence. 

We must hasten to say that most police officers are not abusive. In addition, being a police officer is a very tough job to do. But the difficulty of the job does not excuse officers for being abusive. And though most officers are not abusive, many of them are enablers of abuse.  They are enablers when they do not effectively speak out against the abuse. We should note that this lack of speaking effectively is what many fault Joe Paterno for doing after he was told about Sandusky's actions. 

As a result of either direct action or timidity in taking a stand, some can see their neighborhood's police force as a center for abuse. That is right, the people who were entrusted with the heavy responsibility of protecting the people are now seen, by too many, as the primary obstacle to peace in a neighborhood.  

This enabling of police abuse of citizens is simply a compounding of abuse. For the police are ultimately protecting those who financially abuse most of the 99%. They abuse us by paying for laws that create an abusive economic system. A system whose faults and oppression are partially listed in the Declaration of the Occupation of New York.

Police protection for those who economically abuse others has a historical precedent. The police often attacked laborers who demonstrated for rights in the early part of the labor movement. 

But something more must be said. The accepted abuse practiced by authority figures, whether those people come from the private or public sector, shows an authoritarian mentality that can lead to Fascism. The signs of Fascism can be found at this link: http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm. We will list some of those signs below as they apply to what is being reported by this article.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights 9. Corporate Power is Protected 10.  Labor Power is Suppressed 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws.  
So it is up to both the public and the police to curb the abuse practiced by some police officers. This is what the drummers at Zuccotti Park did by insisting on their right to drum over the police orders not to bring drums into the park.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (28) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive