• Around 15 people staged a sit-in at an RBS-owned insurance company in Glasgow to protest bankers’ bonuses.

• A swarm of between 50 and 100 AFL-CIO union workers crashed the Mortgage Bankers Association summit on the future of mortgage servicing in Washington, DC on Wednesday to protest the government’s bailout of the financial system.

• The US Airline Pilots Association picketed at the Charlotte Douglas International Airport on Tuesday to bring attention to what it sees as US Airways’ deliberate efforts to drag out contract negotiations and keep concessionary labor contracts in place long past their intended duration.

• Almost 500 backers of the college radio station KUSF poured into the University of San Francisco’s Presentation Theater on Tuesday to protest university President Stephen A. Privett’s decision to sell the station’s frequency and shift to an online-only format.

• About 150 people opposing “fracking” in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale deposits demonstrated at incoming Governor Tom Corbett’s inauguration ceremony on Tuesday, unfurling a banner which stated their position: “Stop the Drilling.”

• Eight protestors were arrested after angry workers staged a sit-in at a downtown Minneapolis Chipotle restaurant yesterday morning over the firing of hundreds of undocumented workers.

• Tunisian police today fired shots in the air to disperse hundreds of protesters demanding that ministers associated with the rule of ousted President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali quit the government.

Last week, Russia Today ran this interesting segment on the rise what some are calling “economic disobedience,” during these difficult times. As the Huffington Post explains:

With falling wages, cuts in benefits, and alarming public transportation fare hikes, New Yorkers are fighting back with their own brand of economic disobedience. The video below is about the People’s Transportation Program, an organization that is purchasing unlimited Metrocards and giving people free rides as a protest to the recent MTA fare increase ($104 for a monthly unlimited!).

To learn more about the People’s Transportation Program, check out this in-depth piece on the movement by our friends at the Indypendent. It appears that the group no longer has a website, but they did put out this YouTube video in 2009, which gives a brief explanation of their idea.

Sorry for the long hiatus from blogging. Since returning from Afghanistan I’ve been swamped with writing and speaking about the experience. Here are a few of the highlights:

Above is the video of a great event that I spoke at with Kathy Kelly and Mike Ferner, who were both on the delegation, at All Souls Unitarian Church in New York on January 7. If you have the time, it’s really worth watching.

Over the last week, I’ve been making the rounds on the media in my hometown of Peoria, Illinois. Here is a link to an hour-long radio interview I did on The New Movement with Roy Beckham on WAZU 90.7FM.

WMBD, the local CBS affiliate, also did a short segment on the evening news about my trip on Sunday. While the piece was well done overall, I have to say that they did attribute a couple positive lines to me about the US military helping rebuild the country and restructure the Afghan government that I clearly did not say, which is really sloppy, unethical journalism.

And finally, on Monday, an op-ed that I wrote on Afghanistan was published by OtherWords, which distributes opinion pieces to primarily small town papers around the country. That’s it for now! I will be blogging again in full swing next week once I get back to New York.

People power scored a major victory last week when Tunisians drove out US-backed dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali after a month-long nationwide pro-democracy uprising. Despite a heavy focus by Western media on scenes of rioting and looting, the uprising was largely nonviolent and unarmed. Not only does this challenge Western perceptions of the Arab world, but it also offers inspiration to Arabs suffering under similar oppression. As Issandr El Amrani wrote in the Guardian:

The elation felt across the Arab world over the Tunisian uprising is deep and palpable. It is not simply that, like most people, Arabs are pleased to see a long-repressed people finally have a shot at gaining their freedom. It is also that many recognise themselves in the Tunisian people and share their hopes, their fears, and also their guilt.

These emotions came to a head last month when the space to finally criticize rampant corruption, cronyism and unemployment was created by the tragic self-immolation of a young street vendor named Mohamed Bou’aziz. By causing physical harm to no one but himself, Bou’aziz managed to garner sympathy for the pro-democracy cause and create space for actual nonviolent resistance in a region more typically marred by suicide bombings.

To better understand the role and extent of nonviolence in the Tunisian uprising, I turned to Srdja Popovic, whose Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS) in Belgrade has worked with some Tunisian dissidents in recent years. He told Waging Nonviolence:

While the protests were initially spontaneous and likely without a grand strategic vision, there was a fair amount of tactical coordination involving the trade unions, influential bloggers and others in civil society, as well as extensive use of Facebook and other social media. The protests built gradually, starting with the suicide incident in the small city of Sidi Bouzid, then grew and moved to a few larger cities before, finally, throwing itself in front of governmental buildings in the capital. Using this “nonviolent blitzkrieg” and clever tactics such as “distract and dislocate”, protesters were able to match up against 100,000 armed forces, which was the approximate manpower of the government’s uniformed coercive pillars at the beginning of conflict.

The protesters also showed tremendous unity, a key element in most nonviolent struggles. The students and youth who were alone when they started protesting unemployment, were soon backed by the lawyers, and then labor unions. Teachers and more youngsters got involved as soon as the government made the mistake to close the schools. So, the policy of small victories was there, building toward the announced general strike last Friday. Although it never happened, it was a signal for president Ben Ali to make his last move: dissolve the government, call the army and lose the final game.

Having discussed this with some of our friends and experts, I think despite the limited violence we can certainly count Tunisia as a candidate for another “victorious” unarmed insurrection. How victorious it will be, however, depends on future events—most of all the forthcoming elections scheduled by transitional authorities.

On a certain level, however, Tunisians have already succeeded. As Popovic pointed out, they “faced down bullets and tear gas and overthrew a US-backed dictator” and did so without any third party involvement, due in large part to the instability of its neighbors and Western-ties to Ben Ali.

Read the rest of this article »

• Thousands of Israelis marched in Tel Aviv at the weekend in the biggest demonstration for years to protest a series of attacks on civil and human rights organizations and a rise in anti-Arab sentiment.

• 30 people gathered in front of Combined Systems International in Jamestown, Pennsylvania on Monday to protest the manufacturing of teargas used by the Israeli Defense Forces to maintain an illegal occupation and suppress popular nonviolent dissent.

• Dozens of students of the University of Puerto Rico and other activists were arrested today while participating in acts of civil disobedience at the main campus in Río Piedras against the imposition of a special tuition fee.

• A University of Colorado student paid his college tuition with 14,309 dollar bills and some change to protest rising tuition costs.

• Members of the World Starbucks Workers Union gathered at Union Square in New York City on Monday, where they sang, danced, chanted and held banners (Demand Union Made Lattes) outside stores before delivering letters to managers demanding input into schedules, better pay, better treatment and a monthly meeting with managers to air grievances.

We’ve covered a lot of book-related protests on this blog, from Kindle owners upset about the high price of ebooks to defenders of the Qu’ran staging public readings to counter the threat of burnings. We even launched our own campaign to reshelve George W. Bush’s memoir, after seeing the Brits do the same to Tony Blair. So I guess you could say the literary crowd is an active crowd. But this latest book-related protest may be the best I’ve seen yet. According to Boing Boing:

The library in Stony Stratford near Milton Keynes, England, urged its patrons to check out every book on the shelves as a way of proving to the local council that its collection and facilities provide a vital service to the community. Stony Stratford is one of many towns across the UK that are facing severe library closures as the Tory-LibDem coalition government recklessly slashes its transfer payments to local governments (while breaking their promise to rein in enormous bonuses at the banks, even the ones that are owned by the taxpayer).

The protest, which was organized on Facebook, managed to get all 16,000 volumes checked out in under 24 hours. The future of the library will not be known, however, until the council announces its budget on February 22.

In addition to being Martin Luther King Jr. Day, today also—and quite fittingly—marks the 50th anniversary of Dwight Eisenhower’s famous speech coining the term “military-industrial complex” and warning Americans of its consequences. The speech, which came at the very end of his two term presidency, is made all the more haunting by the fact that Eisenhower was a war hero, a celebrated five-star Army general who led the Allied invasion on D-Day. He knew the military from the inside better than anyone, and he believed in it. Yet, in the Cold War’s escalations, he could see the subtle danger of a society running on a permanent wartime economy—as the United States was then and continues to be today.

There’s an eloquent tribute over at NPR (hat tip to Liz). It suggests that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is a kindred spirit of Eisenhower’s—he has a portrait of the former president in his office—and, indeed, this month he announced the first cut to the military budget since the end of the Cold War. But, as SocialistWorker.org reminds us, this “cut” is actually just a smaller increase. The Washington Post reports, though, that the bipartisan political will seems to be forming in Congress to curtail our wasteful and dangerous military spending:

Gates said the cuts are a result of the “extreme fiscal duress” facing the country. But they are also an acknowledgment of a rapidly shifting political sentiment on Capitol Hill, where senior Democrats and Republicans alike have suggested in recent weeks that defense spending—which accounts for a fifth of the federal budget [or 54%, all told]—is no longer a sacred cow.

This is an opportunity that needs to be taken advantage of. As people at home are hurting financially, they’re going to be less and less willing to pay for disastrous wars abroad and needless new weapons. It’s time for our addiction to the military economy to stop; it’s time to finally hear President Eisenhower out.

On this Martin Luther King Jr. Day there is much discussion of what King would think of today’s current events—some even absurdly arguing that he might have supported the Afghanistan War. For such things to even be up for discussion is a sign that we (as a country) really don’t know that much about King. Perhaps his words have been too mangled and sanitized for us to see the true spiritualism behind the rhetoric. As a lesson, we should watch videos, such as the one above, which show King as a human in his own times, discussing the nature of his work and beliefs.

In this 1957 episode of an NBC interview show, King answers questions about the bus boycott and its relation to Christian morality, as well as Gandhian philosophy. The latter, which occurs around the seven-minute mark, is particularly interesting, as he dispels a common myth about Gandhi’s exception to nonviolence. He concludes: “Organized nonviolent resistance is the most powerful weapon that oppressed people can use in breaking loose from the bondage of oppression.”

A few weeks ago I asked whether or not the Tea Party is a nonviolent movement. I noted that the vast majority of the actions taken by those who support the Tea Party and helped the Republicans make such significant gains in Congress are consistent with nonviolence (rallies, speeches, voter turnout efforts, etc.). However, the attempted assassination of Representative Giffords, the killing of 6 others and the wounding of 19 in Tucson has led many on the left to spotlight the violent rhetoric of the Tea Party and the politicians and pundits associated with it, Sarah Palin being foremost among them.

The examples are numerous and stunning and there is evidence that right wing violence in general is on the rise. From the perspective of the left, it appears that Republican politicians are winking at nut cases. The memory of the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers and Dr. King has meant that almost everyone on the left I know has, at some point, seriously considered the possibility that President Obama will be assassinated and my conservative relatives have joked on Facebook about him meeting an untimely death.

Yet, I find the reaction to the Tucson shootings somewhat disingenuous and puzzling. No one is arguing or believes that the Tea Party movement is actually planning to mount an armed insurgency. It is certainly the case that of late the right has been more apt to use violent rhetoric. This is at least in part attributable to President Obama’s extraordinary legislative successes. That is, political victories tend to inspire anger and frustration in one’s political opponents, which we often express by talking violently. Let’s be honest: One would be hard pressed to find a committed liberal who at some point in George W. Bush’s presidency did not ponder how the country might be better if he were to die or be killed. In longer perspective, the left has been no less apt to use fiery rhetoric and, indeed, similarly blamed for inspiring assassinations.

President Obama’s speech in Tucson made a plea for elevating the national conversation. To his credit, the President opened up the possibility that we might use this moment to think about our core beliefs. But honesty about our own propensity for violence will be required to do so. The American double standard when it comes to condemning violence is so rich that it can perhaps only be understood in absurdist or comedic terms. The President upheld this double standard, arguing that some events are inexplicable and, quoting Job, that evil simply happens. His biblical reference underscores a core belief held by most Americans: an armed citizenry, a robust military and a punitive criminal justice system are the necessary and just buffers against inevitable evil.

The President also offered beautiful and touching remembrances of those who lost their lives and a moving call for us to live up to the vision of citizenship we teach 9-year olds such as Christina Taylor Green. But one wonders how he would have explained to her that he will return to the White House to approve drone strikes that kill people with equally inspiring and heart-rending stories. What Lauren Berlant calls “infantile citizenship” will not cut it in this case because citizenship means having a realistic understanding of the problems and possibilities of human life so that deliberation can take place. The President’s message in Tucson, asking us to reexamine our beliefs about violence, can be sharply contrasted with his Nobel lecture where he asked us to accept that evil requires us to respond to violence with violence. The President’s belief that being the most heavily armed country in the history of the world fosters peace and stability is much like the vision of citizenship embraced by 9-year girls and boys: sometimes you have to fight the bad guys.

Read the rest of this article »

On January 11, thirty-five New Yorkers gathered outside the offices of Point Lookout Capital Partners, a New York firm that facilitates investment in Combined Systems Inc. (CSI), to protest the company’s ongoing sale of tear gas to the Israeli army. The Israeli army’s use of the CSI tear gas has resulted in the deaths and injuries of numerous nonviolent protesters in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including the killing of Bil’in resident Jawaher Abu Rahmah earlier this month.

According to a press release from Adalah-NY, who organized the protest:

The New York protesters held signs with photos of Palestinians and international activists killed and severely wounded by Israeli tear gas canisters at protests, including Jawaher Abu Rahmah and her brother Bassem, who was killed when shot directly with a canister in April 2009, and Palestinian Khamis Abu Rahmah and Americans Tristan Anderson and Emily Henochowicz, all of whom were severely injured by Israeli tear gas canisters fired directly at them in 2009-2010. Protesters displayed photos of tear gas canisters manufactured by CSI, financed through Point Lookout Capital, and shot at protesters in the villages of Bil’in and Ni’ilin by the Israeli army.

Participants staged a re-enactment of protest marches held weekly in Bil’in, including a mock tear-gassing by an actor dressed as an Israeli soldier. The protesters then choked and collapsed motionless on the sidewalk outside the office of Point Lookout Capital. A protester dressed as a doctor then read the names of some of those killed and injured by tear gas in the West Bank.

Dave Lippman from Adalah-NY explained the connections between CSI, Point Lookout, and the Israeli military’s repression of nonviolent activists:

The Israeli military is using tear gas manufactured by CSI and financed through Point Lookout Capital as a weapon to crush the growing unarmed protest movement against Israel’s illegal confiscation of Palestinian land for Israeli settlements. We as US taxpayers are paying for some of the tear gas that Israel is shooting at Palestinian, Israeli and American protesters. The US government needs to stop providing this deadly aid, and CSI and Point Lookout need to end their complicity in Israel’s violent repression of legitimate protest.

Adalah-NY, in partnership with Codepink, the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, and Jewish Voice for Peace wrote a letter urging CSI to stop providing equipment and weapons which are used to kill and maim unarmed protesters in the West Bank. Following this open letter, an Adalah-NY action alert inspired 870 emails to CSI and the supporting firms Point Lookout Capital and the Carlyle Group. Additionally, a Codepink petition directed to the same companies has garnered 2,141 signatures.

Follow those links to express your displeasure with the Israeli military’s misuse of CSI’s tear gas, resulting in injury and death.

Why should you be displeased, even outraged? Because if you are a US taxpayer, you are paying for some of the tear gas that is used by the Israeli military against unarmed protesters. In 2007 and 2008, the US State Department provided $1.85 million worth of “tear gasses and riot control agents” as a piece of the $3 billion in military aid that the US pays annually to Israel. This lethal tear gas is then used on Palestinians, joined by international and Israeli supporters, who are peacefully lifting their voices to demand that their land be returned and that Israel and the international community recognize their inalienable rights.