In Fond Memory Of Simon Benson

 
The poor keep getting poorer, yet poverty still isn't a political issue except to Republicans who want to raise taxes on the least wealthy.

That famous bridge is called the "Benson Bridge"

Today I've been thinking a lot about philanthropist Simon Benson, and not just because I'm a waterfall lover. Benson is most famous today for having donated Multnomah Falls, Wahkeenah Falls, and the surrounding area to the Oregon government which, along with donations from other wealthy landowners, allowed the government to not only build Historic Highway 30 but make it an incredibly scenic drive, passing by Crown Point and seven waterfalls. He's also famous in Portland for the copper drinking fountains he erected around the downtown area so that everyone in the city could have water. He died in 1942. He was over 90.

In contrast: a couple days ago I came upon a 2005 memo from Citigroup detailing how the wealthy should approach the current political/economic world. The memo defined the US as a "plutonomy," which is characterized by a large and ever-expanding gap between the rich and the poor:

In a plutonomy there is no such animal as “the U.S. consumer” or “the UK
consumer”, or indeed the “Russian consumer”. There are rich consumers, few in
number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take.
There are the rest, the “non-rich”, the multitudinous many, but only accounting for
surprisingly small bites of the national pie.

 The rich, according to the memo, have no need for anyone who isn't rich. As the memo later goes on to point out, the wealthiest 1% accounted for almost the same household income as the poorest 60% in 2000; therefore there is no need for the wealthy to appeal to the "average American consumer" (largely regarding the consumption of stocks in this case, referred to as "toys for the wealthy having pricing power, and staying power"). The rich can simply stick to themselves and get richer together. But this doesn't mean the poor and middle class can simply create wealth among themselves:

In plutonomies the rich absorb a disproportionate chunk of the economy and have
a massive impact on reported aggregate numbers like savings rates, current
account deficits, consumption levels, etc. This imbalance in inequality
expresses itself in the standard scary “ global imbalances”. We worry less.

In other words, the rich get more than they're due, implying that the poor and middle class get less. In the memo's words, "At the heart of plutonomy, is income inequality. Societies that are willing to
tolerate/endorse income inequality, are willing to tolerate/endorse plutonomy." And where do the rich get their "disproportionate" funds?

Oh, but exploiting the lower classes isn't all that's on the mind of the wealthy. The not-wealthy represent the threat of backlash against this status quo because "Low-end developed market labor might not have much economic power, but it does have equal voting power with the rich." In other words, the major threat to the rich maintaining its hold on disproportionate resources is democracy, people exercising their political rights. Indeed, one thing the memo cites as feeding plutonomic culture is "capitalist friendly governments and tax regimes." The government supports the wealthy getting richer. Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine makes a similar point, that the neoliberal free-market economic reform the US saw first in the 1980's was not suited for democracies and only ruthless dictators (like Agusto Pinochet in Chile) would dare to enact economic reform so devastating to the population. In order to implement these reforms in a democracy, the democratic society needed to receive a "shock" that would cause the normal rules of democracy not to apply (Hurricane Katrina, for example, resulted in the near complete dismantling of New Orleans' public school system). in the 2005 Citigroup memo we see another example of how the disproportionately wealthy's biggest obstacle to attaining even more wealth is democracy.

Tellingly, the memo reads, "How do we make money from this [plutonomy] theme?" immediately after stating that "we have no view on whether plutonomies are good or bad, our analysis here is based on the facts, not what we want society to look like."And that's all that matters to these wealthy completely free-market capitalists, isn't it? It is barely thinkable to use this new perspective on the terrible imbalance in wealth to combat the evils of corporate greed. By concerning themselves solely with profiteering off plutonomy the authors of this memo are clearly expressing their "view on whether plutonomies are good or bad." Greed is good. It's more important to use our wealth to acquire more wealth than to benefit those less fortunate. It makes me sick.

There were between 30 and 50 of us protesting

Today the CEO of JP Morgan Chase (which will cease to be my bank in 2 days!) was giving a business talk here in Portland. Needless to say, Occupy Portland was there, and I hung out and shouted slogans with them for an hour or so. This time I wasn't playing journalist so I got to take some pictures. And while I was protesting there in Portland, former home of Simon Benson, I wondered, not for the first time, what someone like him, a self-made immigrant logger, would think of this protest. As part of the wealthy, would he identify with the 1%? Would he keep Multnomah Falls to himself, use the money that could have built the water fountains instead to buy profitable equities? Maybe if he were born in this culture of greed you'd see protesters carted away at the foot of the waterfall. I can't say for certain why Benson was so invested in the community, and I certainly can't say that all the wealthy in the world are money-grubbing exploitation artists. But for the large number that are, like the high-ups at Chase and Citigroup, there need to be serious regulations. 

The police were ready across the street. Everyone knew there were quite a few (some said 12, some said 30) riot police around the corner in the even of violence. Nothing got out of hand, though, and these horses and a few bike-riding officers were all that were needed.

There were lots of news reporters as well as police. I felt that the event got much more attention than it deserved from each party (I'm pretty sure I got on TV). We weren't even protesting very well. We couldn't coordinate our cheers so every time we tried to make noise it died out after a few seconds. I liked this woman, though. Her sign says "Move Your Money," and she would say so to people who walked by on the sidewalk.

The woman from the picture at the top of the post being interviewed.

What Occupy Wall Street Protesters Want

I've heard some complaints about the Occupy Wall Street movement, mostly that their demands aren't clear or that they aren't proposing any solutions. One person said that if the protesters really wanted to make a change they should vote for a political candidate who agrees with their positions - and then proposed that the Tea Party is the ideal party for your average Wall Street protester (I can't even read that whole article it's so wrong). Others say that the movement isn't diverse, and others still say that many of the campers are actually homeless who don't care about the cause and are only there for the free food and shelter.

All claims leveled by people who haven't made much of an effort to actually talk to the protesters, campers, and casual supporters of the movement, such as myself. At least, that's how I understood these claims that teeter between uninformed and offensive. On the other hand, I myself haven't spent much time in the camps at Occupy Portland; I went to the global day of protest and I've passed through the occupied park a handful of times, usually leaving after a half hour when nothing happened. So today, in order to stay honest with my beliefs, I went to Occupy Portland with the intention of talking to people from all sorts of different walks of life, and I tried to get a better understanding of how people deeply involved in the movement would answer the criticisms raised against them, especially in the wake of the increasing tension between protesters and the police. It turned out, surprise surprise, that the protesters were eager to share their thoughts and engage in meaningful discussion.

I will not be using anyone's name in this post.

First I talked to an Iranian immigrant who said the movement reminded him of the sixties. He didn't camp in the park, but he said he visited the occupation often and hoped that the movement continued. He had a camera around his neck and took pictures of the signs, like a good number of "Occupy Tourists" (like me!) walking through the park. He said that America is a different country because here the rich only get richer and the poor only get poorer, and that's why he supported the movement. He said it's a shame that nowadays people graduate college to find no jobs waiting for them.

Second I talked to a pair of Portland city workers from the Health and Human Services department. A white man and a black woman, they wore plain clothes and no badges identifying their job, which was to check the park for potential health hazards. When I asked if they'd found it healthy, they said, "It could be worse." Considering how many people have lived here for as long as they have, it could be much worse. I remembered all the people sneezing and coughing as I'd entered the camp - the cold of winter has arrived with November here in Portland. They said they talk to the protesters about cleaning up trash or washing dishes or taking days off from working in the kitchen when they're sick and so on. I asked if protesters would cooperate with the requests to which they responded that the city and the protesters have gotten along very well. They didn't spell out their opinions on the movement, but they seemed comfortable enough walking through the campsite, giving me the impression that they sympathized with the protesters as people even if their thoughts on the politics of it were more complicated.

Then I had a very brief conversation with a middle-aged man dressed in a business suit walking through the area. I asked him what he thought of it all, to which he said, "It's crazy," and walked off. He definitely gave the impression he didn't want to talk to me at all, and who could blame him? I was walking with my beat-up bike wearing pants with chain grease on them and a three-and-a-half-day-old beard. I'm sure I looked just like one of "them." It's too bad, even if it was expected. I can't say I learned much from him.

If I didn't take much away from my conversation with the business man, the next person I talked to did: a young white man who had been occupying Portland for well over a month, who would prove to be my longest conversation partner of the day. When I told him about my run-in with the business man he said his curtness was because he was afraid of the truth of Occupy's message. He said that we all learn as kids that greed and war is bad (his sign read "$5 trillion spent on war" with the "war" in blood red, as he made sure to point out) and people who are confronted with that guilty truth again as adults feel the need to get defensive. This got at the core of what Occupy Wall Street meant for this young man: this movement is delivering the truth. The goal of Occupy Wall Street is "outreach" - "education," in another word. When I asked him what he thought the movement aimed to do he answered it was to "educate everyone" about corporate greed. He deeply believes that if everyone in the bottom 99% economically in America was educated in this way then real change could occur, and Occupy Portland's role was to facilitate this educational outreach. How do we outreach? By protesting and letting the world know we're "pissed off." When I told him the suggestion I'd heard to vote for a proper candidate who supports the movement's views, he laughed. He said that people just go back and forth between Democrat and Republican because we're always fed up with whoever's in power. Many people in the Occupy movement, he says, don't vote at all because they see there's no point. Talking about third party candidates brought us to campaign finance laws and how they're structured to prevent anyone from attaining power without help from major corporations, so the Occupy movement will never have their desired candidate. I said that perhaps the movement is strong enough to produce its own candidates at the local level, which he felt was an optimistic view of what the movement could accomplish. We haven't reached enough people with the proper education to reach that stage yet.

When I asked him what he thought of the people who don't understand Occupy Wall Street's demands, he said, "That's bullshit! We have tons of demands!" Talking to him I could understand how a person could be confused. "Tons of demands" does not equal "ease of understanding said demands."

He had protested at Occupy Seattle, so I got an opportunity to hear how Occupy Portland is different from other movements. It seems that Portland's is much bigger as well as more representative of the community. This is partly because the community is deeply involved with Occupy Portland. While I was talking with the young man a restaurant down the street donated lunch; the young man got the last veggie sandwich and ate the pasta salad side off a pocket knife. In fact, later in the day a barbecue caterer donated ribs for lunch. The young man took justifiable pride in the donations that poured in. He said that people donate lunch every day - he works for Food Not Bombs and makes a lot of the food himself. He feels very at home in the community built by Occupy Portland. He said something very powerful about it, which I wish I knew word for word but instead have to paraphrase: it's very easy to be angry but do nothing, but at Occupy Portland it's easy to be angry and do something. Everyone takes care of each other there and together they facilitate an environment of civil action. Compared to isolated frustration, this community could turn anger into change and, ultimately, power. I asked if he thought people might leave when the weather gets too cold and rainy. He said no, but even if they were forced out by weather or law enforcement they'd be back again in the spring. I asked him what he thought about the snowstorm in New York and its effects on the protesters, but he hadn't heard of it. I thought it strange that someone so involved in the movement wouldn't be more aware of the father encampment in New York.

On the whole he reminded me of the typical left-wing activist I grew up with in Oakland and Berkeley, just as intolerant as the right-wingers we're taught to hate. The liberal bent really came out when talking about the police, which he believed to be oppressing the protesters whenever they get the chance and being unfair on the whole, even though everything I've read shows that the city and law enforcement are being more than reasonable to the protesters, even when the protesters have provoked them. When I pointed out that the police are only doing their jobs and they're taking pay cuts like the rest of the 99%, he couldn't agree more. He even estimated that there were "two or three or four" off-duty cops protesting with him. But he still feels the protesters should still resist, mostly because they're being forced into riot gear by the corporatist government trying to crack down on the protest, a stance both double-sided and stereotypical.


Then, after a couple of short conversations with other campers about switching to a local credit union, I came to the tent for 90.7 KBOO, a Portland-based radio station that broadcasts from Occupy Portland. The host had a black man in his 50's with him named King J or King Jay (the only name I'll use) who was an anti-violence advocate. He spoke about how long the wars have been going on and how the army needs to completely leave Iraq and Afghanistan at the very least - he was skeptical that Obama will stick to his word and withdraw completely from Iraq by January. He also spoke out against police brutality, especially in the Oakland cases, condemning the use of violence. But his most powerful message was about urging us to vote, which he said was the most important right we have:

If you're old enough to go to war you're old enough to vote. I know you can't wait to buy [alcohol]... but voting trumps it everything else... Especially for black people. Our people died so that we could vote. I know that if I didn't vote my great-grandfather would rise out the grave and beat me with an ugly stick. [slightly paraphrased]

  Yes, voting is a right that people throughout history, not just black but all sorts of people, have shed blood for. I wished the fatalistic young man could have heard King J. I didn't get to talk with him myself, but I did talk to his wife and a young ethnically ambiguous woman who was camping out. Both are very supportive of the movement as a way to advocate for peace.

Next I talked to a middle-aged couple who aren't camping out but come to the camp every day. The woman is an educator, and I didn't catch what the man's job is. While talking with them I met a tall black woman whose name I'm ashamed to have forgotten (Antoinette?) who works in Mayor Sam Adams's office, who comes to the camps every day to check for health hazards. "I'm a 99 percenter," she proudly proclaimed, "but I have to make sure everything's safe." I talked with the couple for a while about all sorts of things, ranging from the police brutality in Oakland to Latin American history to my being new to Portland. Only when I left did I realize I'd forgotten to ask the "journalistic" questions I'd set out to ask.

I then wandered to the veterans' tent, where I found the view that most conformed to my own. They were a jovial bunch who had seen most of the world when you combine their service; they weren't strung out on antidepressants as far as I could tell, but had instead turned their difficult experiences into passionate dissidence. One veteran put his demands succinctly: for the UN to make a resolution forcing all countries in the world to disarm. It would take that level of action, he said, to keep our kids from war. He knows it won't come true, but he's still asking for it. All five of them agree that the recent police brutality was horrible and that the protesters should avoid provoking the police - nonviolent protest is the only form of protest that should be practiced. They too dismissed the idea of simply voting in a candidate who agrees with the Occupy platform. Simply put, there is no candidate. There's always war, no matter who's president.

Finally, I asked a couple of police officers what they thought of the movement. They had no opinion, being on duty. I should have guessed, but you can't blame me for not trying.

Conclussion: I must say I was disappointed in the lack of clarity in the message. It seems that even within my small sample size in the camp I got a wide range of demands coming from the very personal experiences of the individuals demanding them. I've always felt the Occupy movement's demands could be summed up easily as "economic justice," but that's just my take. On the other hand, things still seemed to fit together. It probably had something to do with that community that the young man talked about. A community of people who are dedicated to big level change, so big that the US government is too small a venue for it. Because to defeat the barons of war and corporate greed we are going to need a unimaginably huge pool of resources.

Blame the poor?

Somehow the practice of blaming the poor has become rampant (although a slight increase in the tax on the wealthy and conservatives cry "class warfare"). The other day the newest Republican candidate to be polling well, Herman Cain, echoed this sentiment and received adulation. Here are the remarks, and they're worth the 53 seconds of your time it takes to watch.

Cheers are coming from Americans who, like me, don't have any idea what real poverty truly means.

This segment perfectly encapsulates why Cain shouldn't be a serious contender, namely that in his less-than-a-minute sound bite he makes a number of hypocritical assumptions. 

First, as I've mentioned before, blaming the poor for demanding basic human rights is ridiculous. Many people fall into a state of "not having" (not having savings, not having money, not having health insurance, etc.) due to circumstances completely out of their control. Asking people to blame themselves for their bad luck and circumstances that exhibit prejudice against the unemployed is like asking George W Bush to admit he came to power largely due to the family he was born in.


Secondly, Cain says people should blame themselves because (something like this) they should be blaming the White House instead of Wall Street. Funny, because many disgruntled protestors are already blaming Obama, and the left wing is increasingly abandoning him as we speak. (On the global day of protest I attended a speaker said flat-out that we can't rely on Democrats - not just Obama but the entire Democratic party - to make sure the poor get the rights and services they deserve.) Cain lists a few of the administration's failings, as if failed economic policies the economic bailout are all the fault of non-rich people without jobs. Is he saying the Wall Street protestors should blame themselves or should they direct their anger towards Washington? I'm confused. First, "Blame the poor," then "Blame yourself," then, "Blame Washington," then "Blame the unemployed?" And people complain that Occupy Wall Street has a confusing message. All I know for sure is not to blame stock traders and rich businessmen - like Cain. Sounds like, "Blame everyone but me!" to me. Fitting for the candidate who takes economic policy advice from SimCity.

Now, Cain thinks poor people should blame themselves for their state of "not having," and what they should be doing to change this state of "not having" is to blame Washington, as many are already doing. It's not hard to tell that his true message is that he intends to do absolutely nothing for the non-rich should he become president.

Please don't vote for him.

Before I sign off I have a slightly longer video to share with you, a trailer for a documentary about the degradation of women in social media and the systematic humiliation of powerful women in the public sphere. Basically, media controlled sexism. It's amazing and heart-breaking. Watch it here: https://fbcdn-video-a.akamaihd.net/cfs-ak-ash4/349008/529/2349117563337_30441.mp4?oh=7ecb6d97833359b3ecfc9469feac8306&oe=4EA22100&__gda__=1319248128_ac8c32e870bf2d0e7f2804271b26ca66

Photos From A Day Of Global Protest

As I said yesterday, I took part in a historic day of protests, all organized around the Occupy Wall Street idea; protests took place in 951 cities in 82 countries.

In Portland the protest was more of an anti-war protest hosted and co-organized by Occupy Portland. It's true that in the news there have been complaints that the Occupy Wall Street movement's demands are unclear and too numerous, although I believe that by protesting corporate greed and the corrupt mismanaging of money by the world's rich the movement is protesting a wide range of political issues, ranging from the lack of a fair tax code to the bailout of Wall Street to budget cuts for vital government services such as education to a reduction in military spending. In face value, it would seem the protest sign that reads, "Bring our troops home now!" and "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one!" don't belong at the same rally, and those who take Occupy Wall Street only at face value probably chalk this up to disorganization (and, sure, there are plenty of examples of how the movement is can be unjustly disorganized). However, as the speakers at yesterday's even did a good job at showing, our country's obsession with the military takes money that could be used for constructive purposes - national health care (yes, we can afford it!), education, welfare services and social security, and so on - is instead being worse than wasted. Wasting it would be bad enough, but even worse, the money is being used to destroy, destabilize, and murder. As one speaker put it yesterday, the military budget is about $750,000,000,000 every year," (that's just a bit over 2 billion dollars a day), "but the government tells us that they can't afford to pay for our teachers?" And, I might add, the wars aren't making us safer.

The connection to Occupy Wall Street seems pretty clear to me.

On the subject of anti-war sentiments: one speaker, from the non-profit Iraq Veterans Against War, holding a sign that said, "War sucks! Sadly, I know," barely able to address the crowd through the heavy medication, said something like this (I'm paraphrasing):

When you meet a soldier who's come home from Iraq, don't thank them for their service. That's about the worst thing you can do. That only makes them think about how they had to go through all that for an illegal war we didn't believe in. Don't thank them for their service. Welcome them home.

Upon finishing his speech, the crowd shouted, "Welcome home!"

It's been a long time since I've been to a protest, not since I was at Dolores Park in San Francisco protesting the start of the Iraq war. I haven't been one to demonstrate the need to, um, demonstrate. But I'm so glad to have been a part of this Occupy movement.

Enjoy some photos!

The communal sukkah at Occupy Portland

Occupy Portland has lived in this park for about a month now

Men in suits protesting corporate corruption. In between them is a sign supporting Ron Paul that says, "Truth is treason in an empire of lies. Ron Paul 2012." One very valuable message one of the rally's speakers hammered home is that the kind of political change we're demanding won't come from Democrats. The corruption of the wealthy isn't a purely Republican phenomenon. Greed isn't restricted to just one political party. I don't think Ron Paul is the man to combat this corruption, but I really appreciate how the movement is accepting of people no matter their political background. Any Democrat, Republican, or third party voter is welcome to protest with us!

People are greater than money. I like this sign a lot, but it got me thinking about the LGBTQ movement. Should transexuals be represented on that sign, or am I thinking too hard? Either way, when one political movement sweeps America others get pushed momentarily aside, as has happened for women's equality movements time and again throughout American history. I wonder if the same thing might happen now to members of the LGBTQ community. Though perhaps the movements won't clash because Occupy Wall Street isn't a civil rights movement and won't get in the way of the push for gay rights... I hope.

This purple-suit guy had the loudest voice! He made that sign on the spot.

The protest has always been family friendly

And kids are major participants!

Sign-making tent at Occupy Portland

A protestor sits atop the iconic Elk Statue to survey the gathered demonstrators

Protestors gathered in the heart of Occupy Portland

More Ron Paul supporters. I followed this group around for about 20 minutes (plus, it's not very hard to walk ahead when you're in the thick of a crowd like that), and a lot of people voiced enthusiastic support of their signs. I was afraid the stereotypical Portland hippie would scoff at them but it never happened, and the atmosphere only remained positive.

Might be a good idea. It's not like my Democratic vote is going to mean anything.

Classic war sign

A family of three protestors. The girl with the peace sign shouted, "What do we want?" - Peace! - "When do we want it?" - Now! - Her voice was so loud that everyone could hear her on the block, and she led us in chanting all by herself, her sister (with the "Books not bombs" sign) helping her out a little as we marched on.

Global Day Of Protest

Today I was a part of something huge, worldwide, even. Today the Occupy Wall Street movement spread 'round the world for a day filled with marches and protests in 951 cities in 82 countries - I took part in the Occupy Portland chapter, which was co-operated by a group of war protesters. The protests have been largely peaceful, though not in Italy, as I'm sure the conservative news will focus on (Fox News doesn't even have an article as I'm writing this).

I took many a picture and, while I'm not able to post them at the moment, I promise they'll be on the blog soon. I'd planned on writing more but the fatigue of hours of shouting is starting to wear on me so I'll save the juicy details for when I get the photos up. For now, check out the photos from Occupy Wall Street's website that show the worldwide pictures (and a live feed!) as well as the news coverage from my favorite news source, NPR. Also, while I've been having a tough time finding resources on Occupy Detroit, a city that should definitely be occupied and where a lot of my readers live, I did find this website of resources for you to chew on: http://www.occupydetroit.com/

Keep fighting the good fight!

First Photos From Occupy Portland

Here are the first of what should soon be a series of photos of my time occupying Portland:

Occupy!

Today I spent a small portion of my Yom Kippur fast occupying Portland (though as a part of fasting I had to take it easy pretty soon after helping the camping protesters). I also occupied Portland for a few minutes of the big march two days ago, ironically just minutes after I had finished a job interview and was dressed accordingly. I've got photos coming soon.

This "Occupy" movement is powerful and definitely worth participating in. It's accepting of whatever situation you come from so long as you are upset with the current economic greed and irresponsible corresponding policies of the government. There are protesters who are struggling to feed themselves every day as well as protesters like me who live comfortably but still feel the unfairness and for-profit mentality that leaves the working class shortchanged. One Fox News article claims that the movement is "99% white," although the photo they chose to headline the article shows a pretty diverse crowd:

But the whole point of the movement in my mind is that it represents everyone who's unhappy with the way things are going. It's not a racial grievance and it's not even a class grievance: it's a grievance about greed. The wealthy who are dismayed by the rampant greed and manipulation of many big corporations are part of the 99% as well. We don't have to feel that we directly are wronged by shameful capitalist practices - we belong even if we simply feel that they are shameful. So the movement reaches across racial and socioeconomic boundaries and unites people who feel that something needs to change.

And the movement IS diverse. It was the most diverse I've seen the fairly homogenous Portland yet.