[Musical intro]

I'm Paul Levinson, and welcome to Light On Light Through, episode 87, Occupy Wall Street Chronicles, Part 1.

Well, it's Thanksgiving Day in America, that's November 24th 2011.

And I thought this would be a good time to
share with you some of the 15 blog posts

that I've been writing about Occupy Wall Street since the end of September and up until a few days ago.

And because I expect Occupy Wall Street in the United States and all over the world to continue,

that's why I'm calling these chronicles Part One.

But to give you just a tiny bit of background:
it was back in February of this year 2011 that I first made the point

that the Arab Spring was really a fulfillment of Marshall McLuhan's idea that we are living in a global village.

McLuhan made that point back in 1962 in the Gutenberg Galaxy, but back then,

it was more of a prediction, a projection, a metaphor, than a description of an actual reality.

But it seemed clear to me, in the Arab spring,
that the use of mobile phones

and the various Facebook, Twitter and YouTube connections and apps

allowed people in Cairo and other places in the Middle East

to not only help organize their events out in the street,

but to send videos, YouTube videos of various things that were actually happening at these events,,

including some of the brutality of the government responses to these gatherings.

So, with that in mind, I wasn't surprised at all to see the same sort of thing begin

to happen here in the United States and elsewhere in the world.

Actualy, I was in Barcelona in May of this
year and I saw, out on the Rambla, demonstrators

- they called themselves then the May 15th
movement - and it was interesting to me,

because Spain is a democracy. Egypt was not, still is not as a matter of fact,

but it was much the same as the Arab Spring.

And so, I decided to take a careful look at
what was happening in the Occupy Wall Street movements

here, in the United States, when they began to emerge in September.

And what I am going to read to you are a series of 15 or so blog posts.

I'll mention the date that each of the post was first made, and then I'll read the post to you.

Each post has a headline, and that, I hope, will give you an idea of some of the perspectives

that apply to Occupy Wall Street, or at least, some of my perspectives.

So we'll begin.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011.

New York City Police disgraced themselves in brutal treatment of Wall Street protesters.

I've lived in New York City all of my life, and I've never been a big fan of our police.

As a teenager, I was roughed up by cops in their search for firecrackers.

I saw them point blank attack protesters in the Vietnam War era.

I 've heard first hand, from friends I believe, about NYPD double-standard treatment of African-Americans.

And their shooting to death of Amadou Diallo who was unarmed, and their sodomizing of Abner Louima

(two separate incidents), were beyond horrendous.

But the NYPD have reached a new low in mass,
continuing violation of human beings and human rights

in their response to the Occupy Wall
Street protesters.

These are not isolated cases of cops gone crazy.

The tear-gassing of people behind barricades, the throwing to the ground of protesters who have no weapons and pose no threat,

is a systematic, widespread attack on human decency, the First Amendment and its guarantee of peaceful assembly,

as well as on the bodies and spirits of protesters
expressing their non-violent opinion.

Police Commissioner Kelly, in New York City, justifiably takes pride in how well the NYPD have defended New Yorkers from terrorist attacks.

He should also take pride in, or at very least insist upon, the NYPD defending and protecting the rights of New Yorkers

and any one who visits our city to express his or her opinion.

Based on what has happened so far, Police Commissioner Kelly obviously does not.

Mayor Bloomberg should replace him with someone who can grasp the difference between a criminal and a peaceful protester,

between throwing a protester violently to the ground versus firmly escorting the protester off any unlawfully occupied premises.

Social media - or, what I call new new media - are empowering people not only in the Middle East, but all over the world, including here in America.

We have a right to express our critique of Wall Street and the sad pass in the economy

- the financial disaster - Wall Street moguls have brought us to.

Mayors would be wise to respect this and restrain out-of-control police, lest the voters boot them out of office in the next election.

And the Federal government would be wise to do something constructive,

and bring any police officer who violates the rights of protesters up on charges.

And mainstream news media - I'm talking to you, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC

- what is taking you so long to catch up with the sustained coverage

Keith Olbermann has been giving this spectacle of police misconduct on his Countdown show on Current TV?

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Advice to President Obama: Join Occupy Wall Street

Some well-meaning advice to President Obama -

Come down to Wall Street, grab a bull horn, and tell the Occupy Wall Street people

excersing their democratic rights that you're with them.

You have much more in common with students, workers, and people concerned about

the abuses of Wall Street bankers and kindred millionaires

than you do with that upper one-percent of the nation's earners.

You've said so yourself already, many times.

The rich and the Republicans who are their friends - that is friends of the 1% - are not your friends.

You won't get their votes anyway.

You won in 2008 because you got a majority of votes of the 99% of Americans who are not fabulously wealthy,

who do not make it difficult for so many to earn a living or support their families.

And when you come to New York, bring along a contingent of Secret Service,

FBI, or whatever it takes to keep New York's out of control police at bay.

Did you see those white-shirted NYPD commanders clubbing protestors on the news today?

President Obama, is this the America you want?

You have a chance now to reclaim the momentum, to go with the tide of the future, not the past.

Go for it. Go with the tide of direct democracy, not the regressive reins

which have tied up our government for so long, and are starving our people of their future.

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Occupy Wall Street, Direct Democracy, and Social Media:

A Thumbnail History of Media and Politics Since Ancient Athens

The role of social media in triggering and facilitating the now world-wide Occupy Wall Street protests

- the role of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google+, and kindred systems

in getting word out about Occupations, and documenting them for the world to see and join -

has been remarked upon so often as to almost seem a cliche.

But the link between social media and direct democracy is true and profound,

and is the current culmination of an evolution of media and political expression that began in ancient times.

Back in the city of Athens, in the time of Pericles,

direct democracy arose, in part because of the new literacy

that allowed citizens to be informed of public events and the views and actions of their leaders.

The words that these people read were handwritten,

which meant that anyone who wanted to write and be read could do so.

Writing and publishing were just as about as easy, in other words, as reading.

All of that changed dramatically with the invention of the printing press,

which had the wonderful result of spreading the written word to millions,

but the anti-democratic effect of greatly reducing the ratio of published writers to readers.

Millions of people became accustomed to reading words written by a handful of others.

Unsurprisingly, when democracy slowly re-emerged in the Renaissance and the Age of Reason,

it was not the direct democracy of Ancient Athens.

It was instead, a representative kind of democracy, in which elected officials made all the decisions,

and all the people could do was vote the representatives up or down.

This was almost exactly parallel to the transformation in information production and reception

brought about by the printing press, in which all the people could do is read

and agree or disagree with a book or manifesto or pamphlet.

The people in no way write or produce it,

unless they were in the less than one-percent of the population

fortunate to have a monarch's or a printer's (later a publisher's) favor.

This inequality of producer and consumer – of few producers and legion consumers -

was not only continued but exacerbated by the advent of broadcast media,

which reduced the number of producers (it was much harder to get your views on radio and television

than in newspapers, which at least has letters to the editor)

and while the number of prducers were being reduced, the number of consumers were being greatly increased,

because it was far easier to listen to the radio than even go out and buy a newspaper or have one delivered to your door.

People in representative democracies became better informed,

but the information was created by fewer and fewer people.

In some countries, such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany,

this inequality was masterfully mined to do away with democracy altogether.

The introduction of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube in the first decade of the 21st century

has shifted that ratio back to a more even distribution of producer and consumer

for the first time since the handwritten manuscript held sway so long ago in Ancient Athens.

These new media live online, but they were unlike other new media like Amazon and iTunes,

which still run for the most part like traditional publishing media, with few producers and many consumers.

In contrast, any one can Tweet, post a status on Facebook, upload a video to YouTube - any consumer can become a producer.

That's why I say these new social media are not just new but "new new media".

People in the streets, demanding freedom and justice in the Arab Spring,

and redress of economic grievances in the United States, Europe, and Asia,

are the healthy and long-overdue political expression of the revolution in social or new new media.

The Occupy movements are expressing a dissatisfaction with others making decisions for us

- with our elected representatives doing the bidding of banks rather than the people who elected them.

With means of expressing one's political views in almost everyone's pockets and hands,

the age of mass media and representative democracy may well be in irreversible decline,

replaced by the more equitable system of direct democracy in which the majority not only truly rules,

but in which everyone's views can get a public hearing, and everyone can vote at any and all times.

I talked about all of this a bit more and led a discussion

after the 7 o'clock screening of Tiffany Shlain's new movie Connected, which was at the Angelika Film Center

in New York City this Wednesday, October 19.

I also discussed many of these issues on Good Day Street Talk, on Fox New York 5,

on a panel discussion taped Thursday October 20. It was broadcast the Saturday of that week.

And on Light On Light Through, I'll have links to these videos.

That's LIGHTONLIGHTTHROUGHdotCom, lightonlightthrough.com.

Let's get on to the next post.

Friday, Oct 21, 2011

Obama Should Call in National Guard to Restrain the NYPD in Occupy Wall Street

Consider the following -

- Professor and author Cornel West was just hauled off in a police paddy wagon

up in an Occupy Harlem protest in Mew York City.

- Professor and author Naomi Wolf was led off in hand cuffs earlier this week

when she was walking on a street deemed off-limits - a public street - by the NYPD

- and a woman seeking to close her Citibank account as part of the Occupy Wall Street protest was arrested

President Obama finally announced the end of the US occupation of Iraq today.

Now he should send some of our National Guard to New York City to restrain our out-of-control NYPD,

because clearly Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly either can't or don't want to restrain the NYPD.

Earlier this week, we also saw the inspiring lecture that former Marine Shamar Thomas delivered to the NYPD

Quote: "you're supposed to protect us, not attack us," unquote, he said. There are videos of that all over the web.

(He was not arrested, by the way - Bloomberg still has a clever sense of public relations -

he doesn't want a video of the NYPD taking into custody a former Marine.

But professors and authors and other law-abiding citizens - well hey! They and we are apparently fair game to arrest on camera.)

It is becoming more clear, every day,

that what we most in New York City need protection from is our own police.

October 26, 2011

No Expiration Date on First Amendment

I'm in Brussels, Belgium, to give a Keynote Address about Marshall McLuhan tomorrow.

I've been enjoying the conference on the Philosophy of McLuhan,

as well as this wonderful city.

But I've been following with grave concern the police aggression

against Occupy protesters in Oakland, California, and Atlanta, Georgia.

And I wanted to offer

- to police everywhere in the United States - the following point, which is:

There's no limit in the First Amendment on the amount of time people can peaceably assemble

- no time after which the First Amendment doesn't apply.

An assemblage can be an hour, a day, a year.

So when right-wingers tell you, the Occupy protesters have made their point, they should go home,

and the police should make them do that, by force,

those right-wingers are only displaying their ignorance of the law.

And that's ok. People are entitled to be ignorant of the law. But police and law-enforcement are not.

And when police break the law, or based on ignorance of the law deprive citizens of their rights,

that is a serious form of crime.

It's a crime that we the taxpayers are paying for.

No person with a conservative philosophy, no American, should be OK, let alone happy about that.

I call upon police everywhere to respect the law. Don't follow an illegal order by your commander.

You know what the First Amendment says and doesn't say.

And I again urge Obama to considering calling in the National Guard to protect Americans

being forcibly deprived of their rights, just as Dwight David Eisenhower did bravely for people in the South

being deprived of their rights by local authorities in the 1950s.

Saturday, October 29 2011

Into the Mind of a Conservative Bully

Here’s an insight into the mind of a conservative bully

– or maybe a glimpse of an oft-used game plan favored by unprincipled conservatives in their debates,

online and otherwise, with the progressives at hand.

A Facebook quote “friend” unquote – I but that in quotes, because this guy is not really a friend, not even online let alone in person –

takes issue with one of my many comments decrying the out-of-control police attack

on peaceful Occupy demonstrators out in Oakland, California.

They got just what they deserved, he says, appropriate for anyone

who defies the authorities and breaks the law.

Well, that's interesting, I replied. So how is it that the Mayor of Oakland – Jean Quan – issued this statement

in the aftermath of the police vicious attack on the Occupy Oakland people:

And here is Jean Quan's statement:

"October 27th, 9pm -- I am deeply saddened about the outcome on Tuesday., Quan writes

It was not what anyone hoped for, ultimately it was my responsibility, and I apologize for what happened.

Today I, Mayor Quan, visited Scott Olsen [this is the former Marine who bravely served in Iraq,

shot in the head by the cops with a rubber bullet that landed him in hospital in critical condition]

But back to Quan's statement: "Today I visited Scott Olsen and his parents

because I was deeply concerned about his recovery.

And I hope we will keep them all in our prayers.

We have started an investigation into the use of force," Quan continues, "including tear gas, on Tuesday.

I cannot change the past, but I want to work with you to ensure that this remains peaceful moving forward."

That's the end of Mayor Quan's statement.

And what was the response of my “friend”, in quotes, quote friend unquote? The response was: nothing. Nada. Zilch.

After two reminders from me and three days. He’s disappeared from the argument,

slunk back into the shadows from which he first emerged.

How many times have you seen this hit-and-run behavior, or been treated to it yourself?

A conservative makes a point that’s flagrantly wrong;

someone calls him or her on it, and presents the fact;

the conservative exits right, with no further word.

The modus operandi of the conservative bully - I guess there may be some progressive bullies like this too

but truthfully, I haven't run into them -

So, as far as I know, this is the modus operandi of the conservative bully:

puncturing rational dialog, bringing down a discussion, whenever possible.

It would almost be funny, if it wasn’t so sad.

And it shows, if ever we needed a reason,

that comments emanating from these kinds of partisans are probably best ignored.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Bank of America Bends to Will of the People

Bank of America yesterday bowed to the will of its customers,

withdrawing its plan to charge 5 bucks a month for use of its precious debit cards.

I see this as being just one of many reversals of corporate rapaciousness and insensitivity

in the new world in which we live.

This is a world very different from the old one, which is still in the process of ending,

in which corporations dealt out whatever they pleased to consumers.

In that old world, now being set back on its hind quarters,

people mistreated by corporations had no one to complain to other than their families and friends,

and governments which did little or nothing, and the corporations did far less.

Now, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube - social media - allow people to instantly and effectively communicate

to millions about the bad treatment they are receiving from their banks and corporate monoliths.

Abused customers no longer have to wait for a mass medium - a TV or newspaper reporter -

to deign to give their grievance coverage.

The consumers can get their own coverage via YouTube videos and Tweets that cost nothing to produce

and can be seen and read everywhere, on any smart phone or old-fashioned laptop.

Bank of America isn't the first corporation to feel this cleansing power.

Netflix earlier reversed its new, regressive polices after a torrent online complaints.

Netflix learned that online media can be used for more than selling movies and TV shows.

Some big corporations think that by hiring a cool PR firm,

they can develop an effective presence in the realms of social media.

But such con jobs can be seen a mile away.

Other companies have learned that online presence

must be accompanied by real benefits to the consumer.

Panera Bread, for example, not only offers free wi-fi in its cafes,

but gives free refills for coffee and tea, and other perks to its loyal customers.

Contrast that to Bank of America's attempt to squeeze five more dollars out of its customers.

The resurgence of direct democracy ongoing in Occupy Wall Street all over the world

is now beginning to have tangible economic consequences.

This is very likely just the start of an economic revolution that will go hand-in-hand with the political.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Open Letter to Governor Jerry Brown

Dear Jerry -

We met several years ago, when the Department of Communication and Media Studies at Fordham University

- of which I was then Chair -

invited you to give one of our annual lectures about Marshall McLuhan.

You and I had the opportunity to have an excellent, wide-ranging talk about media and society, prior to your lecture.

I was already an admirer of your perceptive vision and understanding of our society.

I consider our conversation one of the best I've had with anyone.

I was, therefore, delighted with your re-entry into politics,

and cheered when you were again elected Governor of California,

even though I'm a New Yorker, through and through.

But with this in mind, I've been stunned to see what your police have doing in your state.

And I find your lack of public response incomprehensible.

What on Earth is going on with you and the state of California?

A former Marine - an Iraq War veteran - was shot point blank in the head by a rubber bullet,

landing him in the hospital in critical condition.

A person who dared to point a video camera at police in another protest

was shot at point blank range in the body with a rubber bullet.

Just last night, I saw a video on YouTube of your police beating students

who dared to stand up for their First Amendment rights at Berkeley.

What on Earth is going on in California, and why are you doing nothing about it?

As you must know, none of the Occupy protesters in these incidents were the least bit violent.

In some cases, a few raised their voices a little.

All of this is their right under the First Amendment, to "peaceably assemble".

I am surprised and deeply disturbed and saddened that you seem unwilling or unable

to use the power of your office to curb your police.

Do you think rubber bullets which send citizens to the hospital in critical condition

are a proper response to people who are assembling and raising their voices

in protest of the economic and other inequalities in this country?

Whether the police are local, or even security forces at a private institution,

this brutality is happening in your state, and, as Governor, it is your responsibility to stop that.

I know you were once in a seminary, and thought of joining the priesthood.

I was always glad that you brought that sensitivity,

that awareness of the human condition, to your important work in government.

Our nation, your state, stand at a crossroads now.

You can make s decisive difference in the outcome,

and help our nation continue on its path to a better democracy.

You can become a national leader on the side of the angels and the Constitution in this.

Please stop your out of control police, before lives are lost, and you miss your chance.

And I aigned this: -Paul Levinson, PhD Professor of Communication and Media Studies [Chair of Department, 2002-2008] Fordham University.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Lame CBS Broadcasts Only First Hour of Republican Foreign Policy Debate

So if you were watching the Republican Presidential debate on foreign policy on CBS last night,

you were treated to its ending after the first hour,

with an announcement that the remaining half hour would be available online.

Now, I'm all in favor of television being available online, but -

What about viewers who may not have been near their computers,

or would rather watch the debate on a screen a little larger than their smartphones?

I'm not a Republican, and I enjoy the jokes about Republicans not having a foreign policy

as much as any non-Republican,

but CBS's decision not to broadcast the entire 90-minute debate

strikes me as a profound disservice to our electoral process.

The truth is, Democrats, Independents, not only Republicans, were disadvantaged by CBS's decision.

It's good for anyone or any political persuasion to see what the person

who will likely face Barack Obama in the 2012 election thinks about major foreign policy issues.

As Walter Lippmann pointed out way back in the 1920s, democracy is a sham when voters are uninformed.

That's certainly not what William Paley thought when he took command of the fledgeling CBS radio network in the 1920s.

Coverage of all aspects of elections remained first and foremost in his network

when it added television to its roster in the 1940s.

I guess it's not surprising that CBS shows so little understanding

of current elections and what they require.

Like all the mass media, CBS has shown little understanding of Occupy Wall Street,

and the resurgence of direct democracy that it embodies.

CBS is an equal opportunity abuser of representative as well as direct democracy.

And what was so important that CBS had to cut short its debate coverage?

It was a rerun of NCIS - one of my favorite shows on television

- but I bet Gibbs, even Gibbs, would have given the president of CBS a head-slap on Saturday night if he could.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Mayor Bloomberg's Poor Understanding of the First Amendment

This is from Mayor Michael Bloomberg's statement about his clearing of Zuccotti Park

under cover of darkness early this morning -

Quote "No right is absolute and with every right comes responsibilities.

The First Amendment gives every New Yorker the right to speak out

– but it does not give anyone the right to sleep in a park or otherwise take it over to the exclusion of others

– nor does it permit anyone in our society to live outside the law. There is no ambiguity in the law here

– the First Amendment protects speech

– it does not protect the use of tents and sleeping bags to take over a public space." Unquote.

Well, here is where and why that is wrong -

1. The First Amendment reads, in full,

Quote:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." End quote - conclusion of the First Amendment.

Now, clearly, the right to, quote, "peaceaby to assemble," unquote, a right which is distinct from free speech,

is listed in the First Amendment as a separate right, co-equal with speech and press.

Bloomberg's statement unsurprisingly misses that.

2. The rights in the First Amendment are indeed absolute

- "no law" - that's a quote from the First Amendment - "no law" means just that, "no law".

A law about tents not allowed in parks would be precisely

the kind of law not allowed by the First Amendment, if it gets in the way of people peaceably assembling.

3. Although Bloomberg doesn't address this,

the 14th Amendment to our Constitution extends the restriction on Congress in the 1st Amendment

to all forms of local government in the United States.

New York City, Oakland, California, Portland, Oregon, all the cities which have been Occupied are no exception.

4. Bloomberg's contempt for the First Amendment is also obvious

in the way the clearing of Zuccotti Park was conducted -

with media deliberately prevented from covering that news.

In that very action, Bloomberg is also flagrantly violating the First Amendment,

in this case, the freedom of press provision of the First Amendment.

In sum, Mayor Bloomberg's expressed comprehension of the First Amendment is less

than I would expect from an introductory class of students at Fordham University where I teach.

I look forward to the courts setting this misguided and dangerous billionaire Mayor straight.

For Bloomberg's complete statement, see AlterNet.org, which is a very good site.

And I add this note on Nov 15, 2011: The first Judge to hear case just sided with Bloomberg,

ruling protesters have a right to speech but not to assemble in tents.

I expect this ruling to be overturned by higher courts.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Violation of First Amendment to Cover Up Violation of First Amendment

More on what happened yesterday at Zuccotti Park -

The muzzling of media coverage, which we now know, went as far as arresting and literally pushing around reporters,

amounts to a violation of the First Amendment (freedom of press)

to cover up a violation of the First Amendment (the right to peaceably assemble).

It's not surprising that Bloomberg missed this, as he appallingly indicated in his public statement

that he thinks for First Amendment protects only freedom of speech.

But, as I pointed out in my last blog post, the First Amendment also quite obviously protects

freedoms of press and peaceable assemblage

(for which, by the way, no expiration date or limitation of duration of assembly is given).

Further, since Oakland Mayor Quan admitted that the clearings of Occupy sites across the country

were coordinated in a conference call with 18 mayors,

there may be good evidence of a conspiracy, here in the United States,

among mayors and government officials, to violate the First Amendment.

I once again call upon the Federal government to finally do something

to stop this coordinated attack on American democracy.

How about the US Attorney General investigating what those mayors did?

How about charging them with conspiracy to undermine our Constitution?

Do we live in a nation of laws,

or a nation in which government officials and police can do whatever they choose?

Sunday, November 20, 2011

What OWS Has Shown Us about Bloomberg, Jerry Brown and Obama

About Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City:

Trampled on the First Amendment freedom of peaceable assembly rights

of Occupy Wall Street protesters in Zuccotti Park;

trampled on First Amendment freedom of press rights of all New Yorkers and Americans

by banning media from his forced eviction of Zuccotti Park protesters;

has supported police beating of protesters, roughing up of journalists, arrest of protesters and journalists;

conspired with 17 other mayors to launch nation-wide clearing of Occupy Wall Street sites in cities across America.

I would not vote for Michael Bloomberg if I lived in New York City (where I work);

I will never vote for him for any other offices;

I would like to see a Federal investigation into his Occupy Wall Street conduct.

About Governor Jerry Brown of California:

Has remained silent as police in cities and campuses in California have shot rubber bullets at protesters

(one point blank at the head on an Iraq War veteran that put him in the hospital in critical condition)

and also at people with camera phones, and who used pepper spray, wantonly, with no provocation, at UC-Davis,

and has remained silent as police beat students at Berkeley.

I once admired Jerry Brown's vision and had an impressive, hour-long conversation with him at Fordham University

when I was Chair of the Department of Communication and Media Studies several years ago.

I no longer admire him, to say the least, and unless he moves very quickly now

to protect the people in his state from police brutality

I will speak out against him if he runs for any office again.

About President Barack Obama of the United States:

He has also been silent about all of the above.

I voted for him in 2008, and I wrote and spoke out in his favor many times.

Just search for Paul Levinson and Barack Obama on Google,

and you'll see the dozens and dozens of blog posts.

President Obama's silence about the above attacks on Americans exercising their First Amendment rights

is making me begin to wonder if I will ever be able to vote for him again.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Jay Carney (and Obama) Have It All Wrong about Police and Occupy Wall Street

Did you catch this statement the other day from White House Press Secretary Jay Carney?

And this is a quote from an online source:

Speaking November 15 aboard Air Force One, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said:

quote: “The president’s position is that obviously every municipality

has to make its own decisions about how to handle these issues.” Unquote -

"these issues" being Occupy Wall Street"

Carney was seeking, in that statement, to debunk questions about

whether the Federal government is in some way coordinating

the police crackdowns on Occupy Wall Street protests across the country this past week.

(We already know that the Mayors of New York, Oakland, and 16 other American cities

coordinated their unconstitutional attacks on the protesters.)

But Carney's statement also says something quite important - crucial - that he likely did not intend to say.

And that is: allowing municipalities to make their own decisions regarding the protesters

is not an expression of innocence, but an admission of guilt, when what the cities are doing

is pepper-spraying the protesters, arresting and beating protesters as well as reporters,

and (in the case of New York City) deliberately shutting off the eviction of Zuccotti Park from press coverage.

The First Amendment guarantees citizens the right to peaceably assemble.

The First Amendment says:

quote: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble," Unquote.

and the Fourteenth Amendment extends that restriction to all levels of government, including municipalities.

So in leaving decisions about how to respond to Occupy Wall Street protests to municipalities,

the Obama administration is plainly shirking its responsibility to make sure

no local government violates the First Amendment rights of citizens -

by allowing them to be viciously attacked by police, pepper-sprayed

and by preventing the media from fully reporting these violations to the people.

Thank goodness that someone was there with a video app on a cellphone

and was able to show the world what those criminal police out at the UC-Davis were doing to the protesters.

The Obama's administration and its inability or not wanting to do anything about this is shameful

And Jay Carney's statement is not only shameful,

but an admission of an inability to govern by the Obama administration.

I hope President Obama and his advisers wake up to this disgrace and outrage before he's voted out of office.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Failure of Budget Super-Committee Shows Further Decay of Representative Democracy

The bipartisan bozos in Washington

- the super-committee tasked this summer with working out a new budget

by the day before Thanksgiving (that was yesterday -

I'm now saying, as I'm recording this podcast, but I wrote this blog on the 20th).

So, back on the 20th, just a few days to go, the bi-partisan bozos in Washington are reported

to be on the verge of announcing failure to reach agreement on a new budget.

This is after Congress and the President failed to reach agreement on a new budget this summer,

and instead created the super-committee to come up with a budget,

with a back-up of draconian cuts to major arteries of government,

ranging from the military to human services,

if a new budget was not agreed upon and approved by Congress.

Here is the upshot: at a time when our and the world's economy are in serious crisis

- at a time, in other words, in which government is more needed than ever -

our representative government in the United States is incapable of performing.

Part of it is their own fault.

The Senate is tied up because it has imposed upon itself a de facto requirement of 60 votes

to pass controversial legislation.

Constitutional scholar Lyle Denniston quotes Senator Jeff Merkley (Democrat from Oregon, not on the super-committee)

as noting that the Constitution, quote: "only specifies a, quote, 'supermajority', unquote, for a limited list of Senate actions.

Some of them are: ratification of treaties, conviction of a President in an impeachment trial,

overriding presidential vetoes, approving constitutional amendments ..."

End of Lyle Denniston's quote.

Nowhere does the Constitution say that 60 votes are required for difficult or controversial legislation

- indeed, I would argue that, the more pressing the need for some kind of legislation,

the more illogical and counterproductive it is to require 60 votes.

That's in addition to that requirement being extra-Constitutional.

But there is a deeper factor at work here,

one that goes beyond our elected representatives shooting themselves in their own feet.

Representative democracy may well be floundering because we finally have the means, in our digital age,

to govern ourselves, to discuss and vote upon pressing issues, directly.

If budgets were put to a direct majority up-or-down vote of the American people,

surely one would soon get 50% of the vote plus one.

Surely, in other words, a new budget would soon be adopted.

The digital revolution - social media, or what I call "new new media" -

have given us the means to do this.

Occupy Wall Street and the the Arab Spring are the leading expression of this.

Unsurprisingly, representative governments and dictatorships

are alike in opposing these developments.

But the tide of history is turning.

The representative governments and the dictatorships will both continue to decay,

and the people will emerge triumphant,

one hopes will less bloodshed overseas and less brutality in the United States,

than we've seen so far.

And that blog post from November 20th is the last one that I will present to you here

in Part 1 of the Occupy Wall Street Chronicles.

Obviously. events are still going on. I think we are in the most significant revolution in many ways

since in the United States, the American Revolution itself,

certainly since the protest against the Vietnam War in the 1960's.

And when you add into this the new media that I've been talking about,

media which the protesters can hold up in the face of police brutality,

and maybe not stop that brutality at that instant, because a cell phone can be beaten down by a club.

But if that cell phone can convey to the rest of the world what's going on,

for the first time in history, police can't get away with their brutal response to protesters.

This actually began with the beating of Rodney King, really the first time in our recent history,

that a police beating was seen by more people than those that happened to be there as it was happening.

So I'm optimistic indeed that the tide of history is beginning to turn.

In the meantime, those of you in America, I hope you enjoy your Thanksgiving

and those around the world, I hope you enjoy your Thursday.

And I'll be back here soon with additional thoughts on Occupy Wall Street.

Thanks for listening.

Hey, I'm back with you. I just came across this after I recorded the podcast.

It seems that on Wednesday, November 23, the NYPD has been ordered to let the press do its job.

And this obviously pertains directly to the NYPD - New York City cops -

not letting the media cover the story of the evacuation of Zuccotti Park.

This was reported in the New York Times.

So that's progress, that's good news.

As far as Mayor Bloomberg is concerned, however - he apparently ordered this change in police policy -

I still think he should be impeached.

We need a Mayor who gets the First Amendment right the first time.

A lot of damage was done when the police arrested and roughed up reporters.

But I'll have more to say about this and ongoing developments in Occupy Wall Street,

and how all this relates to Facebook, Twitter, and the resurgence of the direct democracy,

in my next podcast, in which I'll continue the Occupy Wall Street Chronicles.

I'm Paul Levinson. You can listen to this and any other episode on Light On Light Through anytime.

at LIGHTONLIGHTTHROUGHdotCom.

[woman] The Light On Light Through podcast.

[music]