Public Health and Safety: Black Friday Edition

Yesterday was Black Friday. We all know what that means: streams of shoppers mobbing department stores for the "best deals" of the holiday season. This is the mark when stores no longer operate in the red (as they do much of the year) and finally turn over into the black, meaning they begin to profit and see returns for their past year's investments. What it means for shoppers? It means the consumer gets a great deal on an item rarely of necessity and more often of simple want. But over the last few years, the consumer bargains for much more in waiting on line outside the store in the (sometimes) bitter cold. A disturbing trend of violence has marred the past 3 years of Black Friday shopping.

Reports this year, at least the ones so far garnering national attention, have included an incident where a woman in an affluent neighborhood pepper sprayed 20 people in an attempt to get an upper hand on the purchase of an electronic device at a Walmart, and a more serious incident near San Francisco where a family was robbed of their purchases at gunpoint shortly after leaving a store Thursday night. Luckily, the shooting was not fatal and the man remains in serious, but stable condition. There have been several reports of other violence throughout the country, including this display of sociopathic tendencies resulting in a near-riot over a $2 waffle maker. (I will spare you the video, unless you really want to see it. Frankly, this discourages me on so many levels.) As despicable as these stories are, they are not the first time we have heard of violence on Black Friday.

As some of you may recall, in 2008, a Walmart employee was killed at a Long Island store when the fevered hoard burst through the doors at 5am. The man, and several customers, were knocked to the floor. When the wildebeests had passed, the man was dead and several others were injured, including a 8-months pregnant woman. After this incident, stores began taking precautions to minimize the threat to employees that their "deals" bring to the store. But that has not stopped the string of violent accounts over the years between customers vying for that coveted XBox, video game, or friggin' waffle maker(!).

And why is this allowed? A relevant question, especially when gleaned through the lens of Occupy Wall Street. Well, partly there seems to be a contingent of the population that feels businesses have the right to sell such "door busters" if it brings customers into the store, regardless of potential damages and injuries. Then you have this essay, which tries to rationalize that it's the economy warranting such behavior, attempting to argue that if people weren't all so poor they wouldn't need to fight (or kill) one another over TVs and video games. The problem with this clearly unreasonable, in no way thought out piece is that TVs, video games, waffle makers, etc. are not necessities. They do not belong in every home. He attempts to pardon businesses and people from any moral sense because, "Hey, times are tough. It's okay to act like neaderthals." What has the base of our moral value system become? On one hand, we have people camping outside for days to shop for a "bargain" they can get any other time of the year (Shh, retailers do not want you to know that). They are willing to fight and possibly kill, whether intentionally or not, to procure a gift. This is all okay. On another hand, we have a group of protesters who camped out for weeks to stand up against the forces which put normally rational people in situations where they might kill for a Playstation, or a pair of shoes. This, however, is not.

So I ask again, a question I've been asking a lot over the last two weeks, what really constitutes a threat to public health and safety in this country? Clearly, in the pursuit of profit, public health and safety is being ignored. Then, when a group of protesters of Occupy Wall Street demands accountability over the motives and consequences of that profit-hunger they are the ones put in jail. America, you are fighting the wrong battles. You are shackled to a media-induced life of greed and materialism. You are pitted against one another, you fight, and are ready to kill one another for scraps, for the meatless bone thrown off by the gluttonous plutocracy.

Elitists Vs. The 1%

I was reading through Paul Krugman's piece today in the New York Times and was struck by a sudden realization. We hear quite a bit in the media about these "elitists" who are these privileged, upper class, intellectuals that have ruined the country in numerous, countless ways. Now, there are "Right Wing Elitists" such as former President George W. Bush. And then there are "Left Wing Elitists" such as our current president, Mr. Obama. But I believe there is a discordant variation of the way the media portrays these two "different" groups.

If you were to Google "Michelle Malkin elitist" you'd find a few links to her blog and the above image will come up. These blog entries chastise the President for his apparent hypocrisy of pointing out other elitists while trying to play himself off as an average American. And we hear all the time on Fox News of "liberal elites" who are subverting the country and have taken it over(!) already. Just refer back to Glenn Beck's satirical, conspiracy-theorist run on Fox for plenty of reference material. And these elitists must be stopped at all costs from further damaging the country.



What we have from the other side of the aisle is a fixation on the 1%, the wealthiest Americans who have siphoned money for the last 30 years from the middle and lower classes, who have bought elections, and silenced the press and freedom of speech. But these are the "job creators" and hence are sacrosanct in GOP rhetoric. And therein lies the hypocrisy of the Right's defense of the 1% in light of the Occupy Wall Street protests. The right cannot stand that a contingent of the population is protesting the abuses of the wealthy, but it is the wealthy 1% who are the "elitists" the right seems to believe have destroyed the fabric of America. They can't have it both ways. Either the elites are helping the country by creating jobs, or the elites are hurting it by fundamentally stripping away our freedoms and luring us into a socialist state. The GOP needs to come to this same realization: elitists are the 1%. The funny thing is: I tend to agree with the assessment that elites have thrusts this country into a tailspin of corruption and greed.

Robert Reich: Occupy Democracy

Reich has consistently supported the Occupy movement. It's safe to say he was one of the original "occupiers," at least in spirit. He's been calling for higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans, and the decrease in private money in our elections for a long time now. It's good to see him not only talking economics, but addressing the violations of freedom of speech and egregious police brutality on display in this country. I guess I'm not surprised that Fox News is defending the use of pepper spray on seated, unarmed, unthreatening college students, and that MSNBC is denouncing it. It'd be nice if our President had something to say about it though...

Public Health and Safety

As we reported last week, the Occupy Wall Street camp down at Zuccotti Park was raided in the early morning hours of Tuesday, November 15th. The occupiers were removed from the park, either obeying a city ordinance to clean the area, or disobeying the ordinance and removed forcibly by police. When the cleaning was done (tents, books, their personal belongings trashed or packed up and taken to a holding area where they could be picked up later), the occupiers were allowed to return, but no longer could bring tents or sleeping bags back into the park with them. The city, and notably Mayor Michael Bloomberg, rationalized their decision citing the encampments dangers to public health and safety. I wish the Mayor, and other city officials, were more concerned with risks to public health and safety in other areas of the city.

To Mayor Bloomberg's credit, I will say that his concern for public safety in this situation seems synchronous with some of his other social and political stances. He is a large voice in the Mayors Against Illegal Guns campaign, and generally believes lax gun laws in urban environments leads to higher rates of crime and homicide. Though Republican, Bloomberg is not a climate science denier. He believes global warming is a serious threat to people, our children, and our world. Couple these things with his reasoning to effectively shut down the Occupy Wall Street camp, and it's easy to draw the correlations of his concern for the safety of the public. However, it still was not right to trash constitutional rights of citizens.

But more importantly here, we must ask the Mayor, or any right-wing pundit who seems to have no problem reporting and parroting the Mayor's excuse for raiding the camp: why does this "threat" to public health and safety of the Occupy Wall Street camp bear any more danger to lower Manhattan than crime in other parts of the city? Why doesn't the Mayor send a military-style police force into Bed-Stuy, Chelsea, or Midtown to "clean" that part of the city? Why doesn't the Mayor send a military-trained police force into the subway system to clean the crumbling platforms, the filth-covered drainage gutters between the tracks, or the rust-streaked white tiling on the walls? Most importantly, why aren't the police invading the buildings down at Wall Street not to arrest and disperse Occupiers, but to raid the offices of commercial banks whose practices are a threat to the public health and safety of America, whose packaging of mortgages into derivatives collapsed the economy, who skirted and lobbied Washington to waterdown Dodd-Frank so they could build another economic bubble just to see it pop again, to get bailed out and to hemorrhage even more money from the poor and middle class? The people on Wall Street represent a clear and present danger to the public health and safety of New York City, Mr. Bloomberg. Just ask Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, since he told the Congressional panel investigating the causes of the financial meltdown that "crises" should be expected "every five to seven years." If you take into account that every crisis only serves to hurt the poor and middle class while the rich get more well-off, then it seems to me like these crises are planned and actually the financial sector hopes for them. They get the bailout. America gets the bill.

Occupation's Coming Anniversary

With November 17th looming -- the 2 month anniversary of Occupy Wall Street -- it seems that Mayor Bloomberg has taken a preemptive strike against the protesters to try to thwart their planned Day of Action. Last night at around 1am, the NYPD raided the camp at Zuccotti Park/Liberty Square after issuing an eviction notice to the occupiers in order for the city to clean the park. The caveat: once the occupiers left, they would not be able to return to the park with tents. Naturally, this was the Mayor's way of attempting to effectively end the protests. And as any one could have guessed, some protesters would refuse such an order. Reports are mixed right now, but it seems that anywhere from 70 to 200 people were arrested, including one New York City Councilman. There were also several journalists arrested, my brother's girlfriend included, who was detained after being kettled by police. But was this the right move on the Mayor's part? The movement had begun to dwindle, losing the eye of the media, and still without much cohesion. The movement looked stagnant, ready to dissolve away. From watching the local community boards in alliance with the protests, it seems that Bloomberg has only awakened the beast once again.

Already there has been legal push back from the National Lawyers Guild, who immediately sought a court order to allow the protesters back into the park, which was never an issue, but more importantly, that they would be allowed to bring their tents back with them. The NLG argues the protesters right to free speech and to peaceably assemble, as granted in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, were violated. (They have now been denied privilege to bring tents into the park.) But barring that, the Occupy movement isn't much concerned with the law. It's the "Law" that has for too long been used to benefit the richest people in this country and to silence the rest. Laws have lead to the widest gap in income inequality this country has ever seen. Laws have lead to the reduction of worker's rights in lieu of granting personhood to corporations. Laws have allowed countless individuals to be jailed for stealing food to feed their families, while corporate executives and CEOs get off scott-free, with maybe a bare minimum fine and often no admission of guilt for committing massive fraud, money-laundering, illegally foreclosing homes, and many other egregious white-collar crimes committed over the past decade.

And what has Bloomberg now proved by his -arguably- desperate attempts to silence and break-up the Occupy Wall Street camp at Zuccotti Park? Has he shown that indeed the Occupy movement has validity in what they are protesting, that the system is so corrupt even our right to freedom of speech and to peaceably assemble are no longer infallible? He has only provided the Occupiers with more "belly-fire" for civil disobedience. They will not be deterred by simply removing their tents. They will not be silenced.  Their voices grow louder. They will be more broad and more bold. They will use this to further their cause against the moneyed corruption that has overtaken our government, our way of life, and our very democracy.

More On Occupy Oakland

Mayor Jean Quan of Oakland's advisor resigned over her handling of the Occupy Oakland eviction.

Shifting of the Debate

Here's a great piece from The Huffington Post about the excess of government subsidies afforded to the rich in the country. Republican Senator Tom Coburn released a thorough, detailed list of many of the outlandish taxpayer-funded mechanisms that are afforded to millionaires in this country, everything from federal subsidies for preservation of their ranches and estates, to business entertainment deductions, to nearly $75 million in unemployment benefits. Coburn argues that "not everyone is in need of government handouts." I'd have to agree with him.

I'll be the first to say that when government is run efficiently, it can be the greatest ally to a society that the people have ever seen. But for too long government has not had the interests of its greatest number of constituents in mind, but rather has turned law to benefit more greatly a dwindling minority of the population: the rich. And it's really not hard to see why that might be. The most recent data shows that Congress is made up of about 46% of millionaires. And these elected officials are working tirelessly, it seems, to write law that benefits them, even if it might not be so great for the people who put them into office. In America as a whole, only 1% of the population is making over $1 million a year. So, wouldn't it be better to focus our policy-making on those people to balance the budget? That seems to be what Senator Coburn is looking to do. "The government's social safety net, which has long existed to help those who are down and help them get back up, is now being used as a hammock by some millionaires, some who are paying less taxes than some middle class families."

Government should never "pamper" people, as Coburn continues. It is there to act as a crutch, just like when a football player breaks his leg and is in need of a support staff to keep him off the leg so he can heal properly. That is what the social safety was put in place for. Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance: these are some of the most successful and popular government programs in history. But when you're a millionaire, why are you in need of these programs? Isn't the whole purpose of becoming a millionaire so that you can support yourself and your family without the need of government aid? Did Senator Coburn just totally debunk one of his parties most storied, staunch arguments to government interfering in people's lives? Kind of seems like he did here.

Sources of Crime

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/27250235

Occupy Oakland was closed down last night after the city issued eviction notices to the occupiers because a murder was committed nearby late last week. The police, and Mayor Quan, purport that the murder took place on or near Occupy Oakland's encampment. The ambiguity of this statement strikes me oddly, that they refuse to give an exact location to the public. Secondly, they contend the murder was a result of the occupiers, and that the encampment as a whole has become a source of crime in the city. Yet this statement too should be scrutinized. It is clear from eye-witness reports that the murder was in no way associated with the camp, and took place where groups of kids hang out after school. Maybe I'll post more videos from there, but the violence that I have seen in Oakland looked pretty similar to the violence that is seen from all over the country at Occupy camps: it's a violence induced by the men and women in uniform against the protestors exercising their 1st Amendment Rights.

Numerous incidences have been captured on film showing police brutality on men and women (pepper spraying, beatings with a baton or club). These egregious acts are in response to no threat of violence from the protestors, but from, what, annoyed policemen, bored policemen? The protestors are protesting the class warfare by the richest 1% of people in this country against the remainder of the population. They are protesting the Right-wing demonization of public workers, who happen to include the very men and women in uniform trying to close down the Occupy movements, and the reported "high life" public employees supposedly live. While the police work to close down the encampments, the 1% work to close down the policemen's pensions, their rights to bargain for better wages and safer working conditions, their health care. The police are working for the very people who do not want to pay for their protection, but want protection from people attempting to point out their crimes. Occupy Wall Street seeks justice and accountability to the widespread abuse, corruption, thievery, and subsequent scott-freedom they received due to lack of prosecution on behalf of the courts and government. And it is a government wholly paid for by the 1%, corrupt to its very core, to the highest office in this country. Why doesn't the government, or the courts (barring NY and California's Attorneys General from this generalization) want to shut down the sources of crime evident on Wall Street and the large financial institutions in this country? Who will start to hold these people accountable for the countless White-Collar Crimes that they have committed on behalf of capitalism and the free-market system? When will justice come?

Penn State's Students

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Jon Stewart sums up the absolutely appalling response to the Joe Paterno firing by students at Penn State this past week pretty clearly, and I think points to a much broader issue of cover-up, denial, lying, etc. by those in power, most often, men in power. He probably could have gone on about this story much longer in the opening segment of the show, but I think it's pretty clear, judging by how unfunny this clip is, how upset he is over the whole situation and chose to keep his response short. This is the kind of anger that should, and rightfully is, down on Occupy Wall Street. Joe Paterno was fired unceremoniously from his job for not taking stronger action against his Assistant Coach for molesting children. Wall Street criminals should be fired for what they have done to our world.

Oh Perry, Perry

Well, Rick Perry proved once again he can't handle the big stage. Perry has made multiple gaffes over the many, many, many Republican presidential debates, yet he still manages a front-runner status. In the debates, he has trouble maintaining focus, especially as the debates wind down. He's often been inarticulate when trying to put forth his policy agenda, and in criticizing his opponents viewpoints and policies as well. And then there was that awful, possibly inebriated, campaign speech he gave in New Hampshire in late October. It's been so bad the Perry camp has said that they will limit the number of presidential debates the Texas Governor will attend. That makes sense considering his abysmal track record thus far. Maybe they should have let the Governor skip Wednesday night's debate in Michigan.

I didn't watch the debate (reason #488 why I sometimes wish I had a TV), but from what I know, Perry was being mostly ignored throughout the night -- the media's usual way of telling a candidate they're taking them less seriously. Even with Perry being close to center (Herman Cain is the current front-runner, and was centered), the moderators were not allowing Perry much in the way of getting his answers out there. Maybe they were trying to limit the Governor's chances of a misstep? But Perry would not be denied. He jumped into the discussion when an opportunity arose for him to trumpet his reduce-the-government mentality. If he gets into office, he would cut three government agencies: Commerce, Education, and "um, uh, oops." He stumped himself on the third. It was cringe-worthy. As has been want for the candidates to do after these missteps, they attempt to laugh it off, or blame others. "I'm glad I had my boots on," Perry quipped to a round of reporters backstage, "because I really stepped in it tonight." Governor Perry might want to look into getting himself a full body suit. I think he's in way over his head.