Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Police attack on Occupy Wall Street and the importance of fighting back

Occupy Wall Street was trashed last night by the police. Van Gosse, a member of Historians against the War, was going to send a note about the OWS 5,000 book People's Library which is also set up to distribute books to the Occupy movements elsewhere. This is a symbol of the knowledge and decency of this open, democratic movement, and reveals Bloomberg and the 1% (or the ruling class as one sometimes says) as the barbaric enemies of education. It is not only the debt-slavery of jobless students who have believed the promises of the elite and the hopes of American opportunity but the fire and example of Occupy and education that are - and, of course, should be - frightening to Wall Street. The police, in their capacity not as individuals among the 99% but as a tool of the ruling class, trashed it (I imagine that even some of the police were sickened by those who became Bloomberg's thugs). Ydanis Rodriguez, a city councilman who was at the protest, was beaten and arrested.

The police pushed occupiers and others out of a four block area around the park (with violence and arrests), shut down the subways, operated as minions of a police state. I should underline: this is nearer Mubarak and the worst at Tahrir Square than it is to the rule of law.

Today, Bill McKibben wrote an important article on the victory of the mass civil disobedience movement against the "sure-thing" Keystone XL pipeline. Civil disobedience and the Occupy movement are powerful in a way that cannot be killed by the 1%, even with police actions like this one or the ones in Oakland and Berkeley and the ones in Denver over the weekend - see here (h/t Nicole Bekken). The protestors are mainly committed to mass nonviolent resistance (sometimes, the "diversity of tactics" argument permits misguided in this respect people to break windows and help the elite). But the massive police riots, fostered by seemingly civilized Mayors (such as Bloomberg who defended the Islamic center by standing up for freedom of conscience, even as now, a threatened billionaire, his principles and wits desert him), are here the overwhelming fact.

We should all act to support Occupy.

Update: the National Lawyers Guild has obtained an injunction for people to return to the park. Freedom of speech and assembly still has some purchase in overriding tyranny...

Dear fellow HAW members,

I was going to write a brief, upbeat report on the small contingent we took down to OWS on Saturday (8 in all, lots of trains and subways not running that day kept others away), and how inspiring it was to see the new well-organized library tent, and to talk to the People's Librarian, who welcomed our donations of Radical History Review and other books.

My plan was to announce a book drive, since the OWS People's Library distributes books to other Occupations around the country.

But all that is no longer viable, since Mayor Bloomberg shut down OWS at 1 AM, with the 5,000 volume People's Library reportedly thrown out by the NYPD along with everything else--that's what Time Inc.'s Newsfeed says.

I think we all knew that OWS was fragile in the material sense, and now New York's power elite, to use an old-fashioned term, has finessed it--for the moment! But over these past two months, it sparked something genuinely new and full of light and hope, and we can build on that.

La lutta continua, so let's continue on, no mourning, just organizing,

Van Gosse

Police Clear Out Occupy Wall Street Protests

Tue, 11/15/2011 - 6:42am —
Avi Zenilman
Matt Taylor

UPDATE: The National Lawyers Guild has obtained a court order allowing Occupy Wall Street protesters to return with tents to the park. The guild said the injunction prevents the city from enforcing park rules on Occupy Wall Street protesters.

MANHATTAN -- Hundreds of New York City police officers decked out in riot gear surrounded and then dismantled the core of the Occupy Wall Street protest early Tuesday morning, tearing down tents and arresting at least 75 people after they refused to leave. The surprise raid, which began at about 1 A.M. and was reportedly requested by the private owner of Zuccotti Park, spurred a massive outpouring of people -- a mix of supporters, curious observers, and media from around the world -- into the streets of downtown New York.

Hundreds of demonstrators dispersed in search of a new gathering spot (a march on Mayor Michael Bloomberg's City Hall was quickly aborted) while others stood by, shouting, as a backhoe, sanitation trucks, at least four dumptrucks, and trash compactors rumbled down Broadway and cleared the park. There were murmurs of regrouping at another downtown location as dawn approached, while one activist warned a television reporter that the movement was doubling down for Thursday's planned "day of rage," when protests have been planned across the country.

“Protesters can return after the park is cleared,” said the mayor’s office in a tweet delivered shortly after 1 A.M. However, sleeping bags and tents will no longer be allowed, effectively ending the ragged, utopian statement of a society that has been camping out in the square since September 17.

“Some have argued to allow the protestors to stay in the park indefinitely – others have suggested we just wait for winter and hope the cold weather drove the protestors away – but inaction was not an option," Bloomberg later said in a statement. "I could not wait for someone in the park to get killed or to injure another first responder before acting. Others have cautioned against action because enforcing our laws might be used by some protestors as a pretext for violence – but we must never be afraid to insist on compliance with our laws."

At around 2 A.M., police started knocking back the swarm of observers, many of whom were wielding cell-phone cameras. The officers marched in horizontal lines gripping their batons with two hands in order to break up the crowds. “Move the f--k up! Move the f--k up!” yelled one especially agitated police officer as he aggressively shoved his nightstick against the back of a National Memo reporter who was walking away from the scene.

Retreating demonstrators occasionally panicked as the cops tried to clear out a four block radius from the park. “EVERYBODY GET TO THE CHASE BANK,” screamed a demonstrator as a few members of the increasingly fragmented crowd were marched back across a street. The official Occupy Wall Street livestream was flooded with viewers and at least temporarily put out of commission by the raid.

The unexpected raid was accompanied by an attempted media blackout, as the police prohibited reporters (including those with press passes) from entering Zuccotti, closed the subways leading to downtown Manhattan, and even prevented news helicopters from flying in the airspace over the park.

Neither were politicians spared. Ydanis Rodriguez, a city council member representing New York City's 10th district visiting the park, was reportedly injured and arrested by the police.

The raid has thrown the signature protest defined by a sustained physical presence in a well-known public space into disarray, even as activists swore they would only be emboldened by the most strategic and aggressive effort yet by city authorities to crush the movement. Plans were already forming early Tuesday to reignite the protest at Foley Square, a nearby park and common site for targeted actions by "Occupy."

In recent weeks, despite the fact that specific policy demands never emerged, a growing strain of thought emerged on the left that the debate had already been won by shifting the national conversation from fiscal austerity to income inequality. Adbusters, the Canadian group that took a lead role in getting things started two months ago, issued a strategy memo just hours before the raid suggesting the camps might be in a position to declare victory and pack up before winter.

Camps throughout America have been coming up against increased hostility from police as the holidays approach and elected officials lose patience with a cause that operates outside the traditional political channels.

A video of the chaos at its peak early in the morning follows:

{the video would not reproduce but can be found at National Memo).

With research and reporting contributed by Peter Sterne

Tomgram: Bill McKibben, Puncturing the Pipeline
Posted by Bill McKibben at 8:07am, November 15, 2011.

What's the biggest story of the last several weeks? Rick Perry’s moment of silence, all 53 seconds' worth? The Penn State riots after revered coach JoePa went down in a child sex abuse scandal? The Kardashian wedding/divorce? The European debt crisis that could throw the world economy into a tailspin? The Cain sexual harassment charges? The trial of Michael Jackson’s doctor?

The answer should be none of the above, even though as a group they’ve dominated the October/November headlines. In fact, the piece of the week, month, and arguably year should have been one that slipped by so quietly, so off front-pages nationwide and out of news leads everywhere that you undoubtedly didn’t even notice. And yet it’s the story that could turn your life and that of your children and grandchildren inside out and upside down.

On the face of it, it wasn’t anything to shout about -- just more stats in a world drowning in numbers. These happen to have been put out by the U.S. Department of Energy and they reflected, as an Associated Press headline put it, the “biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases.” In other words, in 2010, humanity (with a special bow to China, the United States, and onrushing India) managed to pump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than at any time since the industrial revolution began -- 564 million more tons than in 2009, which represents an increase of 6%.

According to AP’s Seth Borenstein, that’s “higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago.” He’s talking about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, which is, if anything, considered "conservative" in its projections of future catastrophe by many climate scientists. Put another way, we’re talking more greenhouse gases than have entered the Earth’s atmosphere in tens of millions of years.

Consider as well the prediction offered by Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency: without an effective international agreement to staunch greenhouse gases within five years, the door will close on preventing a potentially disastrous rise in the planet’s temperature. You’re talking, that is, about the kind of freaky weather that will make October’s bizarre snowstorm in the Northeast look like a walk in the park. (That storm had all the signs of a climate-change-induced bit of extreme weather: New York City hadn’t recorded an October snowfall like it since the Civil War and it managed to hit the region in a period of ongoing warmth when the trees hadn’t yet had the decency to lose their leaves, producing a chaos of downed electrical wires.) And don’t get me started on what this would mean in terms of future planetary hot spells or sea-level rise.

Honestly, if we were sane, if the media had its head in the right place, this would have been screaming headlines. It would have put Rick Perry and Herman Cain and the Kardashians and Italy and Greece and Michael Jackson’s doctor in the shade.

The only good news -- and because it unsettled the politics of the 2012 election, it did garner a few headlines -- was that the movement Bill McKibben and 350.org spearheaded to turn back the tar-sands pipeline from Hades (or its earthly global-warming equivalent, which is Alberta, Canada) gained traction in our Occupy Wall Street moment. Think of it as a harbinger. Mark my words on this one: sooner or later, Americans are going to wake up to climate change, just as they have this year on the issue of inequality, and when they do, watch out. There will be political hell to pay. Tom

Obama’s Positive Flip and Romney’s Negative Flop
Is Global Warming an Election Issue After All?
By Bill McKibben

Conventional wisdom has it that the next election will be fought exclusively on the topic of jobs. But President Obama’s announcement last week that he would postpone a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline until after the 2012 election, which may effectively kill the project, makes it clear that other issues will weigh in -- and that, oddly enough, one of them might even be climate change.

The pipeline decision was a true upset. Everyone -- and I mean everyone who "knew" how these things work -- seemed certain that the president would approve it. The National Journal runs a weekly poll of “energy insiders” -- that is, all the key players in Washington. A month to the day before the Keystone XL postponement, this large cast of characters was “virtually unanimous” in guaranteeing that it would be approved by year’s end.

Transcanada Pipeline, the company that was going to build the 1,700-mile pipeline from the tar-sands fields of Alberta, Canada, through a sensitive Midwestern aquifer to the Gulf of Mexico, certainly agreed. After all, they’d already mowed the strip and prepositioned hundreds of millions of dollars worth of pipe, just waiting for the permit they thought they’d bought with millions in lobbying gifts and other maneuvers. Happily, activists across the country weren’t smart enough to know they’d been beaten, and so they staged the largest civil disobedience action in 35 years, not to mention ringing the White House with people, invading Obama campaign offices, and generally proving that they were willing to fight.

No permanent victory was won. Indeed, just yesterday Transcanada agreed to reroute the pipeline in Nebraska in an effort to speed up the review, though that appears not to change the schedule. Still, we're waiting for the White House to clarify that they will continue to fully take climate change into account in their evaluation. But even that won't be final. Obama could just wait for an election victory and then approve the pipeline -- as any Republican victor certainly would. Chances are, nonetheless, that the process has now gotten so messy that Transcanada’s pipeline will die of its own weight, in turn starving the tar-sands oil industry and giving a boost to the global environment. Of course, killing the pipeline will hardly solve the problem of global warming (though heavily exploiting those tar sands would, in NASA scientist James Hansen’s words, mean “game over for the climate.”)

In this line of work, where victories of any kind are few and far between, this was a real win. It began with indigenous activists, spread to Nebraska ranchers, and eventually turned into the biggest environmental flashpoint in many years. And it owed no small debt to the Occupy Wall Street protesters shamefully evicted from Zuccotti Park last night, who helped everyone understand the power of corporate money in our daily lives. That these forces prevailed shocked most pundits precisely because it’s common wisdom that they’re not the sort of voters who count, certainly not in a year of economic trouble.

In fact, the biggest reason the realists had no doubts the pipeline would get its permit, via a State Department review and a presidential thumbs-up of that border-crossing pipeline, was because of the well-known political potency of the jobs argument in bad economic times. Despite endless lazy reporting on the theme of jobs versus the environment, there were actually no net jobs to be had from the pipeline. It was always a weak argument, since the whole point of a pipeline is that, once it's built, no one needs to work there. In addition, as the one study not paid for by Transcanada made clear, the project would kill as many jobs as it would create.

The Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson finally demonstrated this late in the game with a fine report taking apart Transcanada’s job estimates. (The 20,000 jobs endlessly taken for granted assumed, among other stretches, that modern dance troupes would move to Nebraska, where part of the pipeline would be built, to entertain pipeline workers.) Still, the jobs trope remained, and you can be sure that the Chamber of Commerce will run 1,000 ads during the 2012 presidential campaign trying to hammer it home. And you can be sure the White House knew that, which was why it was such a tough call for them -- and why the pressure of a movement among people whose support matters to them made a difference.

Let’s assume the obvious then: that one part of their recent calculations that led to the postponement decision might just be the suspicion that they will actually win votes thanks to the global-warming question in the next election.

For one thing, global warming denial has seen its apogee. The concerted effort by the fossil-fuel industry to underwrite scientific revision met its match last month when a team headed by Berkeley skeptic and prominent physicist Richard Muller -- with funding from the Koch Brothers, of all people -- actually found that, what do you know, all the other teams of climate-change scientists were, um, right. The planet was indeed warming just as fast as they, and the insurance companies, and the melting ice had been insisting.

Still, scientific studies only reach a certain audience. Weird weather is a far more powerful messenger. It’s been hard to miss the record flooding along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, and across the Northeast; the record drought and fires across the Southwest; the record multi-billion dollar weather disasters across the country this year; the record pretty-much everything-you-don’t-want across the nation. Obama certainly noticed. He’s responsible for finding the cash every time some other state submerges.

As a result, after years of decline, the number of Americans who understand that the planet is indeed warming and that we’re to blame appears to be on the rise again. And ironically enough, one reason may be the spectacle of all the tea-partying GOP candidates for the presidency being forced to swear fealty to the notion that global warming is a hoax. Normal people find this odd: it’s one thing to promise Grover Norquist that you’ll never ever raise taxes; it’s another to promise that you’ll defeat chemistry and physics with the mighty power of the market.

Along these lines, Mitt Romney made an important unforced error last month. Earlier in the primaries, he and Jon Huntsman had been alone in the Republican field in being open to the idea that global warming might actually be real. Neither wanted to do anything about it, of course, but that stance itself was enough to mark them as realists. It was also a sign that Romney was thinking ahead to the election itself, and didn’t want to be pinned against this particular wall.

In late October, however, he evidently felt he had no choice but to pin himself to exactly that wall and so stated conclusively: “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet.” In other words, he not only flip-flopped to the side of climate denial, but did so less than six months after he had said no less definitively: “I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer… And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that.” Note as well that he did so, while all the evidence, even some recently funded by the deniers, pointed the other way.

If he becomes the Republican presidential candidate as expected, this may be the most powerful weathervane ad the White House will have in its arsenal. Even for people who don’t care about climate change, it makes him look like the spinally challenged fellow he seems to be. But it’s an ad that couldn’t be run if the president had okayed that pipeline.

Now that Obama has at least temporarily blocked Keystone XL, now that his team has promised to consider climate change as a factor in any final decision on the pipeline’s eventual fate, he can campaign on the issue. And in many ways, it may prove a surprise winner.

After all, only people who would never vote for him anyway deny global warming. It’s a redoubt for talk-show rightists. College kids, on the other hand, consistently rank it among the most important issues. And college kids, as Gerald Seib pointed out in the Wall Street Journal last week, are a key constituency for the president, who is expected to need something close to the two-thirds margin he won on campus in 2008 to win again in 2012.

Sure, those kids care about student loans, which threaten to take them under, and jobs, which are increasingly hard to come by, but the nature of young people is also to care about the world. In addition, independent voters, suburban moms -- these are the kinds of people who worry about the environment. Count on it: they’ll be key targets for Obama’s presidential campaign.

Given the economy, that campaign will have to make Mitt Romney look like something other than a middle-of-the-road businessman. If he’s a centrist, he probably wins. If he’s a flip-flopper with kooky tendencies, they’ve got a shot. And the kookiest thing he’s done yet is to deny climate science.

If I’m right, expect the White House to approve strong greenhouse gas regulations in the months ahead, and then talk explicitly about the threat of a warming world. In some ways it will still be a stretch. To put the matter politely, they’ve been far from perfect on the issue: the president didn’t bother to waste any of his vaunted “political capital” on a climate bill, and he’s opened huge swaths of territory to coal mining and offshore drilling.

But blocking the pipeline finally gave him some credibility here -- and it gave a lot more of the same to citizens' movements to change our world. Since a lot of folks suspect that the only way forward economically has something to do with a clean energy future, I’m guessing that the pipeline decision won’t be the only surprise. I bet Barack Obama talks on occasion about global warming next year, and I bet it helps him.

But don’t count on that, or on Keystone XL disappearing, and go home. If the pipeline story (so far) has one lesson, it’s this: you can’t expect anything to change if you don’t go out and change it yourself.

Bill McKibben is a founder of 350.org, a TomDispatch regular, and Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College. His most recent book is Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet.

Copyright 2011 Bill McKibben

No comments:

Post a Comment